# Name and age of your country



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

People seems to be a bit confused when it comes to the age of the country ( not the land/people/civilization... )

With all respect for Greece ( it has a long, exiting and proud culture ) but it until 1821AD is was a part of the Ottoman Empire - hence NOT a country...

In fact it first gained that status in 1829.....



India was part of the UK until 1947 and became a republic in 1950...


Using stoneage culture as a marker for a nation is not useable... especially not if it went on in what is now other countries - othervise we might as well claim the tool use by the early man in Africa as the forming of some nation :nuts: 



I'm not trying to play Forum Police or anything - but let's keep to reality here...

If you want to compare tribal/regional culture, then by all means make a thread for it - but it has nothing to do with modern day countries!


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

*Israel*

The name "Israel" is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, Genesis 32:28, where Jacob is renamed Israel after successfully wrestling with an angel of God.[11] The biblical nation fathered by Jacob was then called "The Children of Israel" or the "Israelites".


*2000 BC* born of anation days of Abraham,Issac,Jacob.

*1450 BC * exodus from Egypt ,lead by Moses

*1300 BC * Jashua and later the rule of the judgments

*1004 BC* the united kingdom of Israel , under king Saul ,king David,king Solomon,
the capital Jerusalem -"first house era"

*900 BC * split of the kingdom to two:
kingdom of Israel, kingdom of Judea

*732 BC * occupation of Israel by Assyria - exile of the 10 lost tribes

*587 BC * occupation of Judea by Babylon ,destruction of Jerusalem -first exile

*538 BC * return to the land of Israel -Syrus the great -building the "2nd house"

*332 BC * Alexander the great occupation -Hellenic period

*200 BC * independent Israelite Hashmonite kingdom

*70 AD * destruction of Jerusalem by Rome -the seconed exile

*1848 AD* "spring of nations" - first Hebrew Zionists wrote about ruturn to the land of Israel

*1948 AD* regain of independence of Israel ,capital Jerusalem, building the "3rd house".





*the word Israel written on rock
:Merneptah Stele - the Israel stele 1230 BC*












The Merneptah SteleThe Merneptah Stele (also known as the Israel Stele and the Victory Stele of Merneptah) is the reverse of a stele originally erected by the Ancient Egyptian king Thutmose III, but later inscribed by Merneptah. The stela was made to commemorate a victory in a campaign against the Labu and Meshwesh Libyans and their Sea People allies, but a short portion of the text is devoted to a campaign in the Levant. It is also widely known as the "Israel stele", as it is the only Egyptian document generally accepted as mentioning "Israel", thus becoming the first known documentation of Israel. It was discovered at Merneptah's mortuary temple at Thebes and now is in the collection of the Egyptian Museum at Cairo, though a copy of the stela was also found at Karnak. It stands some ten feet tall, and its text is mainly a prose report with a poetic finish, mirroring other Egyptian New Kingdom stelae of the time.

Because of the fact it mentions "Israel" and is the first known record of "Israel" in history, the stela has gained some notoriety. Many Egyptologists refer to it as the "Israel stele" because of this, though the title is an erroneous one, as the stela is clearly not about Israel at all. In fact, there is only one line about Israel – "Israel is wasted, bare of seed" – and very little about the region of Canaan as a whole, as Merneptah inserts just a single stanza to the Canaanite campaigns and multiple stanzas to his defeat of the Libyans.

*the word Israel written on rock
Mesha Stele 9th century BC*












The stele as photographed circa 1891The Mesha Stele (popularized in the 19th century as the "Moabite Stone") is a black basalt stone, bearing an inscription by the 9th century BC Moabite King Mesha, discovered in 1868. The inscription of 34 lines, the most extensive inscription ever recovered from ancient Palestine, was written in Hebrew-Phoenician characters. It was set up by Mesha, about 850 BC, as a record and memorial of his victories in his revolt against *Israel*, which he undertook after the death of his overlord, Ahab.

The stone is 124 cm high and 71 cm wide and deep, and rounded at the top. It was discovered at the ancient Dibon now Dhiban, Jordan, in August 1868, by Rev. F. A. Klein, a German missionary in Jerusalem. "The Arabs of the neighborhood, dreading the loss of such a talisman, broke the stone into pieces; but a squeeze had already been obtained by [Charles] Clermont-Ganneau, and most of the fragments were recovered and pieced together by him"[1]. A squeeze is a papier-mâché impression. The squeeze (which has never been published) and the reassembled stele (which has been published in many books and encyclopedias) are now in the Louvre Museum

Translation
I am Mesha, son of Kemosh[-yatti], the king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father was king over Moab

for thirty years, and I became king after my father. And I made this high-place for Kemosh in Qarcho

. . . because he has delivered me from all kings, and because he has made me look down on all my

enemies. *Omri was the king of Israel*, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Kemosh was angry with

his land. And his son reigned in his place; and he also said, "I will oppress Moab!" In my days he

said so. But I looked down on him and on his house, *and Israel has been defeated*; it has been

defeated forever! And Omri took possession of the whole land of Medaba, and he lived there in his

days and half the days of his son: forty years. But Kemosh restored it in my days. And I built Baal

Meon, and I built a water reservoir in it. And I built Qiryaten. And the men of Gad lived in the

land of Atarot from ancient times; *and the king of Israel built *Atarot for himself, and I fought

against the city and captured it. And I killed all the people of the city as a sacrifice for Kemosh

and for Moab. And I brought back the fire-hearth of his uncle from there; and I brought it before

the face of Kemosh in Qerioit, and I made the men of Sharon live there, as well as the men of

Maharit. And Kemosh said to me, *"Go, take Nebo from Israel." *And I went in the night and fought

against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven

thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it

to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I presented them

before the face of Kemosh. And the king of Israel had built Yahaz, and he stayed there throughout.......


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Mr_Denmark said:


> People seems to be a bit confused when it comes to the age of the country ( not the land/people/civilization... )
> 
> With all respect for Greece ( it has a long, exiting and proud culture ) but it until 1821AD is was a part of the Ottoman Empire - hence NOT a country...
> 
> ...


Yes, and Greece and India were united before that however...these countries existed, the same people, the same culture, its simply that the had a different name. Also, wasnt greece a country before 1821 and India a country before 1947? Of course, but under a different name. Thats like saying the Jews of Israel that inhabited it are not the same as those of today and that Israel only became a country when it was freed from England or that the Muscovites were different culturally from todays Russians while really they were simply the predecessors under a different name.

example India was united under the Mauryan Empire in the 4th century BC. and the name "Bharat" (used today in Hindi) came into use more often. The British only ruled the subcontinent (Pakistan and Bangladesh included) for a tiny amount of its history..


----------



## kuskus (Jun 19, 2006)

PeterGabriel said:


> and you people should talk about your country, not previous civilizations. You're hijacking the thread. :dunno:
> 
> by that idea:
> 
> ...


With the exception of the central portuguese, most of us has little to do with the lusitanians. The northern portuguese are related to the gallaecians. The lusitanian thing is a nationalist myth.


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

Mr_Denmark said:


> People seems to be a bit confused when it comes to the age of the country ( not the land/people/civilization... )
> 
> With all respect for Greece ( it has a long, exiting and proud culture ) but it until 1821AD is was a part of the Ottoman Empire - hence NOT a country...
> 
> ...


I think it's hard to answer the original question because the concept of a state is rather recent and some countries used to be empires before being reduced to their current form, some countries have been independent before being incorporated in empires before becoming indpendent again, etc. I think what ultimately matters is civilization.


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said what I meant in the meantime. Sorry.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Purple Dreams said:


> I think it's hard to answer the original question because the concept of a state is rather recent and some countries used to be empires before being reduced to their current form, some countries have been independent before being incorporated in empires before becoming indpendent again, etc.


That's not hard - every country have a date - if in doubt just Wiki it...


Some countries that exist now did exist in other forms in the past sure - but that is technically not the country that exists today, hence it should not be counted as the line has been broken...


If you want to have civilization ages fine - make a thread with it - this is about country ages... and if you lived in let's say Greece or India 200 years ago - you DIDN'T live in the country it is today - only the territory!




the Nigel Effect said:


> Yes, and Greece and India were united before that however...these countries existed, the same people, the same culture, its simply that the had a different name.


No, it simply was a different country!



the Nigel Effect said:


> Also, wasnt greece a country before 1821 and India a country before 1947?


 Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire and India the UK, so no they weren't countries, they were territories!




the Nigel Effect said:


> Thats like saying the Jews of Israel that inhabited it are not the same as those of today and that Israel only became a country when it was freed from England


And that is how it is.... current day Israel DID first become a country after WW2...

You don't see me claiming Denmark to be 5000+ years old because we lived as scattered groups and Kingdoms in Scandinavia back then... we didn't become a country before we had one leader - one nation!

Etnic groups does NOT equal a nation - just like territories in other countries doesn't either!


----------



## Redalinho (May 15, 2006)

Mr_Denmark said:


> *The Kingdom of Denmark *- United in 965AD ( making it *1042 *years old )
> 
> 
> The first Danes came down from the Scandinavian Peninsula to modern day Denmark right around 100AD pushing the Jutes down into Germany ( they later went to Britain )
> ...


Denmark is also the 3d oldest monarchy in the world and the Oldest monarchy with a modern democracy and constitution


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

China:
Chinese: Zhong Guo
Korean: Jung Guk
Japanese: Chu Goku
Vietamese: Trung Quốc
Bahasa Indonesian: Tiong Kok
French: Chine
German: China
Italian: Cina
Spanish:China
Russia:Kitan
Danish: Kina
Norwegian: Kina

Basically in asian languages China's names all come from Zhong Guo, which means middle kingdom. In latin based languages it is some varaitn of Cina, which is what Romans call the China,(possibly from its first Qin dynasty).In Russian and Russian influenced language it is known as Khitan or its variants, this is a tribe's name, this tribe established Kingdom of LIao in northern China in 9th-10th century,ironically this tribe is NOT Chinese. It was related to Mongols.


----------



## Redalinho (May 15, 2006)

In arabic we say Assin


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Yes...and the Dravidians who lived there were then displaced by the Aryans, as we all know, and they migrated to South India. The location was in Pakistan, but the civilization was the ancestors of South India's.


Typical AIT propaganda! Displaced how and by whom? No we don't know if "dravidians" migrated to south India since we have no evidence of Aryan attack on Indus civilization. Furthermore, genetic evidences rubbishe any notion of "aryan" genes. If there was an aryan "influence", it was strictly cultural and nothing more.


----------



## Gamma-Hamster (Dec 28, 2006)

Sen said:


> Russia:Kitan
> .


Kita*i*


----------



## UnitedPakistan (Jun 12, 2004)

PeterGabriel said:


> and you people should talk about your country, not previous civilizations. You're hijacking the thread. :dunno:
> 
> by that idea:
> 
> ...


I am discussing history! If I wanted to make a profile for Pakistan I would have done it by now.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

tytler said:


> Typical AIT propaganda! Displaced how and by whom? No we don't know if "dravidians" migrated to south India since we have no evidence of Aryan attack on Indus civilization. Furthermore, genetic evidences rubbishe any notion of "aryan" genes. If there was an aryan "influence", it was strictly cultural and nothing more.


Since we dont know, we can stick with the most proven and well-known theory, can't we? Or is that AIT propaganda as well? 

True, we dont know if Aryans invaded the Indus Valley civilization. We do know that these dravidians spoke a language closest to that of Old Tamil and unlike any Indo-Aryan language. We can piece together that the Dravidians migrated to South India by seeing their linguistic, racial and cultural links to the region when compared to North India and Pakistan. 

We can say that the Indus Valley civilization was the forefather of both India and Pakistan.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Mr_Denmark said:


> That's not hard - every country have a date - if in doubt just Wiki it...
> 
> 
> Some countries that exist now did exist in other forms in the past sure - but that is technically not the country that exists today, hence it should not be counted as the line has been broken...
> ...


You cannot compare the scattered groups of Danes to the Mauryan Empire (which, btw called the country Bharata), which united the subcontinent (India and Pakistan alike) under ONE RULER, or the Greek citystates, or the Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judah... the inquiry was AGE OF YOUR COUNTRY, not LATEST DATE OF INDEPENDANCE.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Since we dont know, we can stick with the most proven and well-known theory, can't we? Or is that AIT propaganda as well?
> 
> True, we dont know if Aryans invaded the Indus Valley civilization. We do know that these dravidians spoke a language closest to that of Old Tamil and unlike any Indo-Aryan language. We can piece together that the Dravidians migrated to South India by seeing their linguistic, racial and cultural links to the region when compared to North India and Pakistan.
> 
> We can say that the Indus Valley civilization was the forefather of both India and Pakistan.


Huh! AIT is a dead theory. May be you should keep up with time. Latest theory is called AMT (M for migration) and even that fails to explain the genetic evidences. So I really don't need to buy into some Nazi theory about some supposedly super race. As for as "Dravidians" go, Dravidian languages are found even in states like MP, Chattishgarh...so there really is no evidence to proof that "dravidians" migrated anywhere. As for as "race" goes, genetic evidence proofs that people from north and south come from same gene pool and even 5000 years ago, people from north looked just like today's counterparts.

So I am sorry I don't buy this Nazi propaganda created by likes of Max muller. Only real possibility is that "northern" culture was influenced by some outsiders who for the sake of argument we can call "aryans". But these aryans neither "displaced" anyone nor created any indo-aryan "race".


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

tytler said:


> Huh! AIT is a dead theory. May be you should keep up with time. Latest theory is called AMT (M for migration) and even that fails to explain the genetic evidences. So I really don't need to buy into some Nazi theory about some supposedly super race. As for as "Dravidians" go, Dravidian languages are found even in states like MP, Chattishgarh...so there really is no evidence to proof that "dravidians" migrated anywhere. As for as "race" goes, genetic evidence proofs that people from north and south come from gene pool and even 5000 years ago, people from north looked just like today's counterparts.
> 
> So I am sorry I don't buy this Nazi propaganda created by likes of Max muller. Only real possibility is that "northern" culture was influenced by some outsiders who for the sake of argument we can call "aryans". But these aryans neither "displace" anyone nor created any indo-aryan "race".


Stop throwing "Nazi" propaganda around - Im Dravidian myself...

Lets get back on topic.


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> You cannot compare the scattered groups of Danes to the Mauryan Empire (which, btw called the country Bharata), which united the subcontinent (India and Pakistan alike) under ONE RULER, or the Greek citystates, or the Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judah... the inquiry was AGE OF YOUR COUNTRY, not LATEST DATE OF INDEPENDANCE.


Again I agree.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Gamma-Hamster said:


> Kita*i*


Ok, thanks for the correction. The Wikipedia Russian page only has Cyrillic, and I really dont read Cyrillic. Either way it came from the ethnic group named Khitan (契丹 or Qi Dan in Chinese), that was active in Northern China during 9th and 10th century. It was related to Mongols but is now completely assimilated into Han Chinese.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Mr_Denmark said:


> People seems to be a bit confused when it comes to the age of the country ( not the land/people/civilization... )
> 
> With all respect for Greece ( it has a long, exiting and proud culture ) but it until 1821AD is was a part of the Ottoman Empire - hence NOT a country...
> 
> ...


forget it Mr_D. People from new countries are like that. they try to make it seem older, when in fact, they give the reverse impression. :dunno:


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Macau's promotional video





big differences: quality of life, tolerance, diversity, prosperity. You can't compare it to goa.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> I doubt everything you said, including your origins. All goas that I know, say they are Goans, not Indians. But again, it is obviously a personal perspective. in fact, I learned about the place with them!
> 
> remove that colour it is difficult to read, but obviously it is also useless to read it, you're are contradicting yourself and not base your opinion on facts. independentists are always a minority of the population, because people care about their lives, not about countries, I'm not talking about joining Portugal. Portugal wouldn't accept it, like it didn't accept for East Timor. Apharteid in Portuguese colonies :crazy: I'm a nationalist.:crazy2: My friend, your insults did not reached its aim. best regards.
> 
> Goa better than Macau :hilarious


Fine I change my font colour. Good for you, doubt my origins. Do you want me to specify? I am Nigel Sequeira, born in Mangalore to Goan parents, moved to Goa two days after birth, baptised as a Catholic at the Church of our lady of Miracles in Mampusa.

You know nothing of the conditions of Goa before and now. Goa is a prosperous state, and I am not trying to insult anybody. I did not say apartheid, I said discrimination in a form like that. The Portuguese always put themselves ahead of the Goan Indians. I have never been to Macau, and I doubt you have been to either Macau or Goa seeing to your ignorant comments. I would have to say that perhaps a Goan would know a bit more about Goa than a Portuguese nationalist...

I would have to say that I know more Goans than you, as all of my family is Goan, and I know hundreds of Goans back in Goa as well and the vast majority do not want secession and consider themselves far better off under India than independant.

How do you know Macau is better than Goa? Oh, is it because the superior Portuguese culture hasnt been touched by the dirty Indians? Damn those Indians, they should go back and answer your tech support calls or make your tshirts. Such ignorance! 

Keep your opinions confined to Portugal, pal.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> Macau's promotional video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, that reflects China's development compared to India's. China is a more prosperous nation than India at the moment, is it not? Think before posting.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Sen said:


> Did the Roman province of Hispania have independent government, legal system, and military?
> Were people living in the Roman province of Hispania genetically, culturally, or linguistically identical to today's Spaniards?
> Who was the ruler of Roman province of Hispania, did he call himself the King of Spain?
> If you answered yes to all above questions, then Roman province of Hispania should be considered the foundation of Spanish nation.


:eek2:
But the province had a single language (People's latin, which is more or less today's languages in the peninsula), governors, capitals, legions, everything. But *Portugal and Spain, like italy are children of Rome, just that.* IMO, France is less, it is like a bastard child. :lol:


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

PeterGabriel said:


> Macau's promotional video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Macau's propserity had nothing to do with Portugal.it is a result of the influx of Mainland and Hong Kong tourists and investment from big American casino companies.
Before the hand over Macau was a crime ridden place infamous for oganized crime, corruption, and high inflation. The Portugese colonial government dare not to do anything about it. After the hand over China sends in PLA to surpress the organized crime, and after 2 years they all disappeared.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

^^ Thanks for informing, I never knew. You're a gem, Sen!


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Yes, that reflects China's development compared to India's. China is a more prosperous nation than India at the moment, is it not? Think before posting.


Macau works under _a country two systems_, they govern their own lives and their own money, their prosperity is due to gambling and the richness of their land and peoples aka tourism.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Red Flag Over Macau
Many eyes are on China's re-absorption of Europe's last Asian colony. Not least the enclave's gangsters and, further afield, the people of Taiwan, who know Beijing considers this a dress rehearsal
By YULANDA CHUNG and CLARA GOMES


Ho plans to diversity the ailing economy Chris Stowers for Asiaweek
The contrast could not be more stark. In 1997, as Hong Kong prepared to return to the motherland, skeptics fretted that Beijing would impose its will on the British colony. Few such jitters have accompanied Macau's return to Chinese sovereignty. In fact, many of the enclave's 435,000 residents are only too happy to bid the Portuguese farewell and to welcome back the motherland. Unlike Hong Kong, which was booming when Beijing resumed sovereignty (though the Crisis quickly swamped it), Macau has been a basketcase for quite some time.

As the red flag of China goes up over the new special administrative region on Dec. 20, Beijing inherits an economy that will be lucky to grow 1% this year and is largely dependent on gambling and tourism, both in the doldrums, owing in part to a murderous turf war between rival gangs. Job one for Macau's new administration: restoring order to lure back gamblers and maybe even some more traditional investors. But it will need Beijing's assistance to do so. And China may be leery of overt involvement; it wants to show Taiwan - the ultimate prize, after all - that the "one-country, two-systems" formula implemented in Macau and Hong Kong equals real autonomy.

ALSO IN ASIAWEEK
Special Report: Macau
This handover is nothing like that other one in 1997

Superlatives
Macau is a lot more tha crime central. Honest

Next Up?
The transfer of power is big news in Taiwan

The Macanese
A proud but threatened community

Half-hearted administrators at the best of times, the Portuguese spent the last two years trying not to lose face as they prepared to relinquish Europe's first and last Asian colony. However, they did launch a campaign against organized crime. The result: the conviction of gangster Wan Kuok-koi, a.k.a. "Broken Tooth," who, in distinctly un-triad-like fashion, boasted publicly about his exploits, providing the meat of the prosecution case. The judge, Fernando Estrela, was flown in from Portugal - after a local judge resigned, presumably for fear of reprisals. Estrela presided in an unusally aggressive fashion, seemingly determined to get the proceedings done.

Koi got 15 years in a purpose-built facility. But some fear the trial set a bad precedent for post-handover jurisprudence. "Some of the fundamental principles of law, like the search for truth, were disregarded in a trial with a strong political component," says lawyer Ana Soares. "Every time the law is over-stepped, there will be a repercussion in the future." She notes that because Portugal waited too long to localize the civil service and judiciary, post-handover judges will be necessarily inexperienced.

Many Macau residents, however, don't care about the niceties of a fair trial, certainly where gangsters are concerned. They just want China to make the city safe for the tourists and for themselves. Much cheering greeted Beijing's decision to deploy troops in Macau. Yet as in Hong Kong, the People's Liberation Army has no jurisdiction over civilian criminal matters.

A more effective deterrent may be the notion that gangsters will be caught in Macau - and shot on the mainland. If Chinese police abduct alleged criminals, Macau cops may look the other way; they already ignore a lot as it is. Incoming Chief Executive Edmund Ho Hau-wah says he'll request help from mainland police if necessary. For his part, casino mogul Stanley Ho Hung-sun echoes the popular perception that Beijing is the only power the gangs respect. Ho expects things to be quieter from now on.

Which brings us to another quandary facing the new administration: what to do when Ho's gambling monopoly expires in 2001. Ho favors keeping things just the way they are, thank you very much. He says changing the status quo will increase organized crime, not subdue it. The casino magnate is hedging his bets, however, by investing elsewhere, including the Philippines.

It is easy to see why. Chief executive Ho (no relation) has vowed to impose more supervision over gambling and eventually to open the industry to competition. He plans to set up a special commission, comprising local and international experts, to determine what direction the casino industry should take. At the same time, Ho acknowledges the need to diversify the economy; currently gambling and tourism comprise 43% of GDP and contribute more than 50% of government revenue. Ho is vague on how he plans to shift away from gambling, beyond a stated desire to tie Macau more closely to the Pearl river delta and, like Hong Kong, become a trade funnel to the world.

Whatever policies Ho enacts in the coming months, nothing will be allowed to sully Macau's relationship with Beijing. Ho reckons the city has a major stake in convincing Taiwan that the one-country, two-systems formula works. Macau is unlikely to feature the controversies that have flared in post-handover Hong Kong, among them the government's decision to ask Beijing to effectively overrule a court decision allowing in mainland migrants.

Indeed, the mainland has played a relatively active role in Macau since 1975, when Portugal failed to convince Beijing to take the enclave back. In fact, mainland cadres who have moved to Macau in recent years, hold senior positions there. "We hire mainland experts to come in and consult on a range of issues," says Lidia da Luz, director of the civil service. "They usually occupy high-level posts, and some will stay to serve the SAR government."

Nor will there be much fuss over democracy, although eight directly elected legislators of 23 will increase to 12 of 29 in 2009. "The legislature is not politicized," says legislator Cheong Vai-kei. "We have largely arrived at a consensus before a bill reaches the floor." Ng Kuok-cheong is the only oppositionist. "When Ivote in the legislature," he says, "the result is always 20 versus one." Ng is pessimistic about the chances of local autonomy taking hold. "Just look at the community's response to the PLA marching into Macau," he says. "We welcome them to interfere when it should be our domestic matter."

Amnesty International has called on Ho to guarantee citizens "the right not to be extradited for political reasons or for crimes punishable with death," among other matters it says are not spelled out in Macau's mini constitution. In truth, Macau has been a backwater for so long it can probably do much as it likes without attracting international opprobrium or praise. As China continues to open up economically, Macau will be drawn inexorably into the motherland. Perhaps the most realistic voice on the enclave's future comes from Stanley Au Chong-kit, who lost out to Ho in the race to become chief executive. "My guess is that 20 to 30 years after the handover, one country, two systems will become just one country." Sounds like a good bet.

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/99/1224/sr.macau.main.html


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

before handover Macau's economy's growth rate is just under 1%
Now it's close to 40% GDP growth.
But of course it has something to do with Stanley Ho's monopoly expiration, so now Americans can also invest in Macau's casinos.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> Macau works under _a country two systems_, they govern their own lives and their own money, their prosperity is due to gambling and the richness of their land and peoples aka tourism.


No, Macau is prosperous through the good work done by the government of the PRC. I have done a bit of reading up and it seems it was a pit of corruption and crime before it was handed over.

Also, Goa was not invaded by India without justification, as you say. The Portuguese then-dictator Antonio Salazar did not hear Nehru (Indian PM) out in peaceful diplomacy for the state. he refused to listen to negotiation and Goa continued to deteriorate. It reached its prime under portugal in the 1600s, and then began to deteriorate after the Inquisitions. The UN decided that the people of Goa should determine their future after Indian independance and Salazar's refusal to cooperate, and the Goans then protested against portuguese rule and many were killed. The Goans raised the Indian flag in Goa and the Portuguese army killed these peaceful freedom protestors. Finally, India decided to intervene and took Goa, Daman and Diu from Portugal.


----------



## SerfCity (Mar 9, 2006)

Argentina, 192 years (since 1816)

Name: _República Argentina_ (Argentine Republic)
Previous names: _Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata_ (United Provinces of the River Plate) and _Confederación Argentina_ (Argentine Confederation)

Origin of the name:



> The word Argentina comes from the Latin Argentum, that means “silver”.
> The concept had been coined in a Venetian atlas of 1536 and afterwards Martín del Barco Centenera, member of the expedition by Ortíz de Zárate, published in 1602 a long poem about these lands under the title “La Argentina”. Such name was kept in the literature environment, but not at the beginnings of the Nation. The most frequent name given at that time was “Río de la Plata” (Silver River), of an undoubtedly semantic association, established in the previous century with the creation of the “Virreinato” (Viceroyalty) in 1776 and linked to the obligatory route of Potosí cargos towards Spain. After several decades of appearing, silences and alternations with other names, on October 8, 1860 in the city of Paraná, the then President Santiago Derqui ruled the denomination of República Argentina (Argentine Republic), by means of a decree, and afterwards Leiutenant Mitre used the name of President of the Argentine Republic , being established since that time.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Sen said:


> before handover Macau's economy's growth rate is just under 1%
> Now it's close to 40% GDP growth.
> But of course it has something to do with Stanley Ho's monopoly expiration, so now Americans can also invest in Macau's casinos.


40%  nevertheless a country life is not made out of GDP growth. they already had a developed lifestyle before the handover, not at the top, but good, 40%? they'll reach the top in a few years.

Yeah. I think Casinos should compete with one another. i would also want that to happen in here, it would be cool for my town's economy if Stanley Ho's monopoly expires, he is not doing much in here, and other casinos open up, but it is highly unprovable. And Europeans in general, and Portuguese in particular, don't go to much to casinos. Chinese people are really addicted and are counted in billions. Portugal's problem is the "take it easy, calm down" and "let it flow" culture. But no one does everything at any price, which I think is good, and how European countries work.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

The elderly love the casinos over here in Canada.


----------



## Insanedriver (Oct 18, 2006)

*Philippines*

According to wikipedia, Early filipinos existed in palawan about 50000 BC.

Independence from _spain_ (ruled for 333 years)- *June 12 1898*

Unfortunately... the americans came...

Independence from The _United states_ (ruled for almost 50 years) - *July 4, 1946*

So to summarize the whole thing, The republic of the Philippines is 108 years old


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Insanedriver said:


> *Philippines*
> 
> According to wikipedia, Early filipinos existed in palawan about 50000 BC.


so? :sly: Early Poveiros (people from my town) existed since 120 000 BC. So that doesn't even compare to a town


----------



## Insanedriver (Oct 18, 2006)

forgive my ignorance but...
what is poveiros :nuts:


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Insanedriver said:


> forgive my ignorance but...
> what is poveiros :nuts:


what is filipinos :nuts: just a portuguese town in Porto area, btw kay:


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Stifler said:


> Absolutely agree. Some people are mixing concepts and using subjetives parts of the history.
> 
> In the Spanish case, the official creation of the Spanish State was in 1714-1716, after the Secesion War. Some people could argue it was in 1515 when the kingdoms of Castille, Aragon and Navarre started to share the same kings, but I don't think so cause they still acted as independent territories.
> 
> According to the reasons some people told in this thread, we could talk about a Spanish nation in times of the Roman Empire (the Roman province of Hispania), but it is a no sense.


Well, back in those days, a state was the king. So, if a king controlled multiple territories, they were part of the state. So I think you could argue 1516.


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

1.5 million years old Israelis










150,000 years old burial site in Israel - the oldest site on planet earth











but only:
4,000 years old cognative ethnical Israelite identity

4,000 years old religion (+tradition,+holydays,+culture) still practice today
-how old is your religion?,tradition?

3,500 years old language (+written texts,+poetry,+alphabet) still used today
how old is your written language?


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

^This isn't a contest - and Israel as a country didn't exist back then...

Let's leave the civilization stuff and culture to a more fitting thread shall we?


----------



## dhuwman (Oct 6, 2005)

OK Since somebody already did the US, I'll do Korea

Korea (1948 - present)

Names:
Known by three names: Han, Choson, and Korea

South Korean (long): Dae Han Min Guk (literally Great Country of *Han* People)
South Korean (short): Han Guk or Nam Han (meaning South Han)
North Kroean (long): *Chosŏn* Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk (meaning People's Democratic Republic of Choson)
North Korean (short): Chosŏn
Japanese: Kankoku or Kita-Chosen
Chinese: Hánguó or Cháoxiǎn 
Vietnamese: Hàn Quốc or Triều Tiên 
Western: *Korea* (Germanic languages) or Corea (Romance languages) or Coree (French)


Independence: August 1945
Government of both Koreas were established in 1948


Name "Korea" was derived from Koryo (or Goryeo) (918 AD -1392 AD) 
The name "Koryo" was derived from Koguryo (37 BC - 668 AD)

Name "Han" was derived from ancient Confederacies of Samhan (meaning Three Han)of proto-three-kingdoms-period.

Name "Choson" was derived from Choson Dynasty (1392-1910) and further into Ancient Choson (2333 BC- 237 BC).


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

And in the case of Egypt for example, the geographical boundaries have remained roughly the same as have the people (with a influx of Arabs and other ethnic groups), but it's as if one civilization replaced another without much continuity- the religion, language, culture all changed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

jmancuso said:


> but the 'state of isreal' is only 59 years old. jewish civilization is old but the country that occupies that area is not.


yes the state of Israel is new
but the country/land and the ethnical people of Israel is old,
and as matter of civilization - ethnical characters , religion,language,culture we hold the oldest unchanged trditions on earth.

and also Greece is new it gain indepebdence only in 1821 ,but no one challange its rights or ethnic roots today.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Thats because Greek ethnic roots are clearly defined.
The same people have inhabited the same land using the same language for 5000 years.
The same people inhabit the land to this very day...most (over 90%) are descendants of the ancients who onced lived in the land.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

Sen said:


> Chinese script is the oldest written script still in use today.


Yep, and Greek is the oldest alphabetic script in use today. :cheers:


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

[Gioяgos];12572782 said:


> Yep, and Greek is the oldest alphabetic script in use today. :cheers:



in away Hebrew is the oldest language using alphabetic script till today 

we discussed that here at earlier posts


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

[Gioяgos];12572710 said:


> Thats because Greek ethnic roots are clearly defined.
> The same people have inhabited the same land using the same language for 5000 years.
> The same people inhabit the land to this very day...most (over 90%) are descendants of the ancients who onced lived in the land.



oh Kalimera my brad

yes great and ancient civilization, except the religion (and the attached culture).


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

In a way?
Do some research and you will find that Greek is the oldest alphabetic script in use today.


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

I am not a connoisseur but Hebrew it changed more during history that the Greek alphabet correct?


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

hebrewtext said:


> in away Hebrew is the oldest language using alphabetic script till today


the first alphabet from 11th/12th cen. BC was changed to anoter alphabet ,which evolved from the older one,during the 5th cen. BC.
so nothing contradict the quated sentence.

again :anyway the alphabet was born in and around the land of Israel, at the 17th cen. BC ,before the chinease one, and adapted by the Greeks at the 9th cen BC.


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

My country is ageless and timeless...


----------



## Insanedriver (Oct 18, 2006)

PeterGabriel said:


> what is filipinos :nuts:


:runaway: You're kidding me right?


----------



## Dan1987 (Mar 28, 2004)

As far as I know, the Kingdom of England has existed since 886CE, however between 1649-1653 and 1653-1660, England was a Commonwealth


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

hebrewtext said:


> oh Kalimera my brad
> 
> yes great and ancient civilization, except the religion (and the attached culture).


er...whats wrong with the "religion"?


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

or the 'attached culture' for that matter...which by the way is the start if western civilisation.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

[Gioяgos];12572782 said:


> Yep, and Greek is the oldest alphabetic script in use today. :cheers:


and the most beautiful kay:

BTW 

Greek 800 BC
Latin 700 BC
Hebrew 200 BC
Arabic 400
Cyrillic 940

Ancient greek religion is extremelly fascinating, I wish it still existed today.  the same goes for its culture. Modern greece is not the same thing, but at least they keep the alphabet and a variety of greek.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Purple Dreams said:


> And in the case of Egypt for example, the geographical boundaries have remained roughly the same as have the people (with a influx of Arabs and other ethnic groups), but it's as if one civilization replaced another without much continuity- the religion, language, culture all changed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


I dont consider Egypt to be a continuous culture, its original inhabitants have been displaced,language has been displaced, religion and culture are totally different, Modern egypt has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt.


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

^^ I too don't consider Egypt to be a continuous culture and agree that modern Egypt and ancient Egypt are totally different and don't have anything to do with one another. However, isn't the territory of the 2 entities roughly the same. And concerning the people- where were the original inhabitants displaced to? I thought the original inhabitants simply mixed with the Arabs and others who settled in the area but that they weren't displaced. I'm asking a question, not contradicting you.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> and the most beautiful kay:
> 
> BTW
> 
> ...


The most beautiful. Thats debatable and subjective.

Also ages of other languages:

Vedic Sanskrit (archaic form) 1700 BC - 600 BC
Sanskrit 550 BC
Tamil 200 BC
Kannada 600 AD
Malayalam 900 AD
Hindi 980 AD
Urdu approx. 1200 - 1300 AD


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

tytler said:


> er...whats wrong with the "religion"?


Greek religion/belives changed to a Hebrew kind one (with the attached traditions/culture to it).
well some 60-70% of the world pop. follow the Hebrew god and Jewish basics today.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

hebrewtext said:


> Greek religion/belives changed to a Hebrew kind one (with the attached traditions/culture to it).
> well some 60-70% of the world pop. follow the Hebrew god and Jewish basics today.


That is true, except Greece and Europe retained their culture, not influenced to the extent you say by Hebrew culture. They do however follow the Abrahamic monotheist religion of the Hebrews.

Also, it is debatable that 60% follow Hebrew religion as the Buddhist religion is prevalent in China (up to 77%) but many are not counted due to the state's atheism and are counted as secular or non religious. This would put it at 1.05 billion Buddhists in China alone and 1.45 billion Buddhists in Asia along with 1 billion Hindus and 330 million practicers of traditional Chinese religion, about 30 million Sikhs, 5 million Jains, 4 million Shinto, and 350 million who are non-religious. Im pretty sure that would be more than 40 % of the world.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Sen said:


> I dont consider Egypt to be a continuous culture, its original inhabitants have been displaced,language has been displaced, religion and culture are totally different, Modern egypt has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt.


It is not just your opinion. It's a fact.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

hebrewtext said:


> Greek religion/belives changed to a Hebrew kind one (with the attached traditions/culture to it).
> well some 60-70% of the world pop. follow the Hebrew god and Jewish basics today.



First of all it's only 55% and even then, lot of followers hardly follow religion even though they are "allegedly" Christian or Buddhist or ...anyway what was wrong with ancient Greek religion?


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Purple Dreams said:


> ^^ I too don't consider Egypt to be a continuous culture and agree that modern Egypt and ancient Egypt are totally different and don't have anything to do with one another. However, isn't the territory of the 2 entities roughly the same. And concerning the people- where were the original inhabitants displaced to? I thought the original inhabitants simply mixed with the Arabs and others who settled in the area but that they weren't displaced. I'm asking a question, not contradicting you.


there are some theories that many left to Iberia and rest of Africa. in fact, Isis was a popular goddess in Iberia. But the majority kept there i guess, what's amazing how they completely disappear, but it is an old civilization, it is gone for 2000 years. it is a long time. Who's fault was it? The Romans? The Christians? The Arabs?


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

tytler said:


> First of all it's only 55% and even then, lot of follow hardly follow religion even though they are "allegedly" Christian or Buddhist or ...anyway what was wrong with ancient Greek religion?


nothing wrong, ancient Greek religion was gorgeos :drool:


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> there are some theories that many left to Iberia and rest of Africa. in fact, Isis was a popular goddess in Iberia. But the majority kept there i guess, what's amazing how they completely disappear, but it is an old civilization, it is gone for 2000 years. it is a long time. Who's fault was it? The Romans? The Christians? The Arabs?


So it looks like although some left, most did in fact stay and that it's just their culture-language, religion, etc. that changed. Well, don't the Copts at least consider themselves the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians?


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

hebrewtext said:


> Greek religion/belives changed to a Hebrew kind one (with the attached traditions/culture to it).
> well some 60-70% of the world pop. follow the Hebrew god and Jewish basics today.


They do not follow Hebrew's God, they follow GOD.
Jesus was Jewish, God is not, get your facts straight.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Sen said:


> They do not follow Hebrew's God, they follow GOD.
> Jesus was Jewish, God is not, get your facts straight.


Er... I think he is right. Unless there is a proof about "THE GOD", it is Hebrew god in many flavors.

P.S: Isn't Jesus son of god/god himself? How can he be Jewish?


----------



## Arpels (Aug 9, 2004)

he have a Jewish motter, that meens he have Jewish blood :dunno:


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

tytler said:


> Er... I think he is right. Unless there is a proof about "THE GOD", it is Hebrew god in many flavors.
> 
> P.S: Isn't Jesus son of god/god himself? How can he be Jewish?


And Mary, so he was Jewish...and he underwent Brit Milah, so he was a jew.

But, GOD cannot be Jewish or Hebrew or any nationality, as that would be contradicting oneself. (if God is all encompassing and in the essence of everything, He cannot be a certain nationality rather than another)


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Well son of god (for many Lord himself) was Jewish than hebrewtext's claim has some merit. After all, he wasn't Christian, was he?


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

tytler said:


> Well son of god (for many Lord himself) was Jewish than hebrewtext's claim has some merit. After all, he wasn't Christian, was he?


No, Hebrewtext's claim was "Hebrew GOD", not Son of God...


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

I did a new thread about Age and oldest district of your city, check it out. Don't ruin it. The question is not when it was first inhabited or the Neanderthals that wandered in there. :lol:


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> I did a new thread about Age and oldest district of your city, check it out. Don't ruin it. The question is not when it was first inhabited or the Neanderthals that wandered in there. :lol:


Dont worry, that wasnt the question here either. And nobody interpreted that way.


----------



## nandoferuru (Jan 21, 2007)

Uruguay

Independence: August 25 1825.
181-Years-old.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Dont worry, that wasnt the question here either. And nobody interpreted that way.


It was originally to be the same has this, but I think pics from old districts are way nicer than the city's name origin.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

hebrewtext said:


> Greek religion/belives changed to a Hebrew kind one (with the attached traditions/culture to it).
> well some 60-70% of the world pop. follow the Hebrew god and Jewish basics today.


I don't follow the Hebrew interpretation of God, neither does 60-70% of the population of the world. Try about something on the order of 0.25% of the world's population.

I don't keep Kosher, I am not circumcised, nor do I believe that the Messiah did not already come (your people simply refused to listen as it lost its way with God, hence why your Great Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed decades after the Messiah passed through the Jewish land.:tongue2: )

Don't confuse roots in Judaism with actually BEING Judaism. Huge difference. If there wasn't one, then, how do you explain the millenia of persecution by Christians and Muslims of Jews?


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

people in here regard Jesus as god, in fact when I think of god, i think in Jesus.

BTW, budism is the nicest religion, if I had to choose the religion i wanted to be raised in, that would be budism.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

PeterGabriel said:


> people in here regard Jesus as god, in fact when I think of god, i think in Jesus.
> 
> BTW, budism is the nicest religion, if I had to choose the religion i wanted to be raised in, that would be budism.


Buddhism isn't a religion! There's no God in it.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

tytler said:


> Buddhism isn't a religion! There's no God in it.


I know  But it is a godless religion.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Petronius said:


> and in answer to this thread's title here's the compiled list of countries by date fo statehood:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_date_of_statehood
> 
> ...


This totally BS, many of those are legendary kingdoms not supported by historical evidence.

establishment occurred under the Altaic-Tungusic by Tangun in 2333 BC.

According to Koreans, Tangun was the son of the God and a female bear LOL.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Petronius said:


> most goans are a mixture of the original goans with the portuguese settlers. So they didn't have to go through nothing they are them


I don't know whether most Goans are "mixture" are not but they did go through "hell". May be this thread in not the right place to talk about Portuguese Inquisition in Goa. 

P.S: Seeing that Most Goans are hindus, I somehow doubt your "mix race" theory.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

PeterGabriel said:


> people in here regard Jesus as god.


No people in here doesn't...

Most people on this forus are educated and have no problem telling fiction from reality! :bash:


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Mr_Denmark said:


> No people in here doesn't...
> 
> Most people on this forus are educated and have no problem telling fiction from reality! :bash:


I think he meant his country.


----------



## JustHorace (Dec 17, 2005)

Insanedriver said:


> *Philippines*
> 
> According to wikipedia, Early filipinos existed in palawan about 50000 BC.
> 
> ...


and the Philippines was named after King Philip II of Spain.  It was discovered by those of the "Old World" back in 1521 through an expedition headed by Ferdinand Magellan (Fernando Magallanes in Filipino) for the Spanish crown.

Officially it is called the Republic of the Philippines (Republika ng Pilipinas in Filipino)

Spanish: Filipinas
French: Philippines
German: Philippinen

Independence is supposed to be July 4, 1946. However, the Phlippine government recognizes Philippine independence when it was declared in June 12, 1898 (just before los Americanos took over las islas)


----------



## kenny_in_blue (Jul 3, 2006)

eusebius said:


> Well, if MrD is to be so strict in this matter; Denmark was part of the Third Reich. Thus, Denmark only exists since 1945.


Dont go there...:lol:


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

eusebius said:


> Well, if MrD is to be so strict in this matter; Denmark was part of the Third Reich. Thus, Denmark only exists since 1945.


:dunno: ehm... occupied maybe? :dunno:


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

I know anyone can edit Wkipedia but here's what's written about Egypt:

The history of Egypt is the longest continuous history, as a unified state, of any country in the world. The Nile valley forms a natural geographic and economic unit, bounded to the east and west by deserts, to the north by the sea and to the south by the Cataracts of the Nile. The need to have a single authority to manage the waters of the Nile led to the creation of the world's first state in Egypt in about 3000 BC. Egypt's peculiar geography made it a difficult country to attack, which is why Pharaonic Egypt was for so long an independent and self-contained state.

Once Egypt did succumb to foreign rule, however, it proved unable to escape from it, and for 2,400 years Egypt was governed by foreigners: Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, French, and British. (The Hyksos were among the earliest foreign rulers of Egypt, but the ancient Egyptians regained control of their country after the Hykso period.)

When Gamal Abdel Nasser (President of Egypt) (1954–1970) remarked that he was the first native Egyptian to exercise sovereign power in the country since Pharaoh Nectanebo II, deposed by the Persians in 343 BC, he was only exaggerating slightly.

In this encyclopedia, Egyptian history has been divided into eight periods:

History of ancient Egypt: 3000 BC to 525 BC 
History of Egypt under Achaemenid Persian domination: 525 BC to 332 BC 
Ptolemaic Egypt: 332 BC to 30 BC 
Roman Egypt: 30 BC to AD 639 
History of Arab Egypt: 639 to 1517 
History of Ottoman Egypt: 1517 to 1805 
Egypt under Muhammad Ali and his successors: 1805 to 1882 
History of modern Egypt: since 1882


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

eusebius said:


> Well, if MrD is to be so strict in this matter; Denmark was part of the Third Reich. Thus, Denmark only exists since 1945.


We were part of the third reich now? :lol: 

Bro - if you would try researching it a little you will find that Denmark was semi-occupied by the German military..

Both the Danish King ( King Christian X ) the courts and the Goverment stayed in charge of Denmark... even parts of the military ( who later sank their ships when the Germans wanted to use them )

We even had free national elections doing the occupation (1943 )...


*So don't even start with that crap!* hno:


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

tytler said:


> I don't know whether most Goans are "mixture" are not but they did go through "hell". May be this thread in not the right place to talk about Portuguese Inquisition in Goa.
> 
> P.S: Seeing that Most Goans are hindus, I somehow doubt your "mix race" theory.


you must be joking! Portuguese inquisition ended many centiruies ago.. if you're gonna talk about medieval practices maybe we should go through all that many indians done to their own peoples as well. It's not like the portuguese were the only villains in history. Maybe we should look at what other europeans did in india as well... not to mention asians


And most goans have portuguese blood. SO what if they are Hindu. The Indian community in portugal is mostly hindu also


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Petronius said:


> you must be joking! Portuguese inquisition ended many centiruies ago.. if you're gonna talk about medieval practices maybe we should go through all that many indians done to their own peoples as well. It's not like the portuguese were the only villains in history. Maybe we should look at what other europeans did in india as well... not to mention asians
> 
> 
> And most goans have portuguese blood. SO what if they are Hindu. The Indian community in portugal is mostly hindu also




I don't want to get involve into this nonsense discussion but it's hard to imagine a "Hindu" being a "mix-blood" seeing how "religious" Portuguese were and how they tried to convert everyone to Christianity. Don't sweat it, it won't be long before Portugal will be forgotten from Goan history.

P.S: British occupied India for 150 years. Compared to Portuguese, they were nothing less than "angel".


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

tytler said:


> I don't want to get involve into this *nonsense* discussion


maybe I should point out here that I despise ad hominem argumentation.



> but it's hard to imagine a "Hindu" being a "mix-blood" seeing how "religious" Portuguese were and how they tried to convert everyone to Christianity.



another fallacy. I don't see your point. 
Portuguese policy to settle abroad was to promote interethnical marriages between autochtonous populations and portuguese settlers. Many portuguese adopted the ways of the locals. As I said most Indians in Portugal are Hindu. We even have a Goese in Parliament. 




> Don't sweat it, it won't be long before Portugal will be forgotten from Goan history.


you say this and then
talk about historical villainy?? listne to yourself.



> P.S: British occupied India for 150 years. Compared to Portuguese, they were nothing less than "angel".


who says this you? sources? Or are you the owner of the truth?


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Petronius said:


> another fallacy. I don't see your point.
> Portuguese policy to settle abroad was to promote interethnical marriages between autochtonous populations and portuguese settlers. Many portuguese adopted the ways of the locals. As I said most Indians in Portugal are Hindu. We even have a Goese in Parliament.


My point, slow-mind, is that Portuguese tried to wipe out every other religion from Goa. The reason most Indians in Portugal are Hindu because India is Hindu majority country. Most Indians in any country are Hindu. 




> who says this you? sources? Or are you the owner of the truth?


My source? Try reading Indian history! Don't delude yourself. Spain, Portugal..did their best to wipe out local religion, culture...unlike British. Again, try reading some history book.


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

^^ are you insulting me ?


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Petronius, are you the guy who claimed Portugues is the most popular foreign language to learn in China because of Macau and is growing in popularity in the world because of Angola?
Seriously I could never forget that guy, I laughed so hard. You resemble him very much, sir.


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

where this I took from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Goa#Portuguese_India

PORTUGUESE INDIA

In 1498, Vasco da Gama became the first European to set foot in India via a sea route. His successful mission led to other European powers seeking an alternate route to India as the traditional land routes were closed by the Turks. In 1510, the ruling Bijapur kings were defeated by the Portuguese admiral Afonso de Albuquerque, with the help of a local ally, Timoji (Timayya). The Portuguese set up a base in Goa in their quest to control the spice trade. The city was made capital of the Portuguese Vice-Kingdom in Asia, and the other Portuguese possessions in India, Malacca and other bases in Indonesia, East Timor, the Persian Gulf, Macau in China and trade bases in Japan were under the suzerainty of its Viceroy. By mid-16th century, the area under occupation had expanded to most of present day limits.

In 1757, the king of Portugal, D. José I, put his seal on a Royal decree passed by his prime minister, Marquês de Pombal, granting the rights of Portuguese citizenship and representation to all subjects in the Portuguese Indies (Goa, Damão and Diu). The enclaves of Goa, Damão, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli became collectively known as the Estado da Índia Portuguesa, and had representation in the Portuguese parliament.

As Portugal's first territorial possession in Asia, Goa was the base for Albuquerque's conquest of Malacca (1511) and Hormuz (1515). Albuquerque intended it to be a colony and a naval base, as distinct from the fortified factories established in certain Indian seaports. He encouraged his men to marry local women, and to settle in Goa as farmers, retail traders or artisans.

These married men soon became a privileged caste, and Goa acquired a large Eurasian population. Goa became the capital of the whole Portuguese empire in the East. It was granted the same civic privileges as Lisbon. Its senate or municipal chamber maintained direct communications with the king and paid a special representative to attend to its interests at court. In 1563 the governor even proposed to make Goa the seat of a parliament, in which all parts of the Portuguese east were to be represented; this was vetoed by the king.

In 1542 St. Francis Xavier mentions the architectural splendour of the city; but it reached the climax of its prosperity between 1575 and 1625. Travellers marvelled at Goa Dourada, or Golden Goa, and there was a Portuguese proverb, "He who has seen Goa need not see Lisbon."

Merchandise from all parts of the East was displayed in its bazaar, and separate streets were set aside for the sale of different classes of goods–Bahrain pearls and coral, Chinese porcelain and silk, Portuguese velvet and piece-goods, drugs and spices from the Malay Archipelago.

In the main street slaves were sold by auction. The houses of the rich were surrounded by gardens and palm groves; they were built of stone and painted red or white. Instead of glass, their balconied windows had thin polished oyster-shells set in lattice-work. The social life of Goa's rulers befitted the headquarters of the viceregal court, the army and navy, and the church; luxury and ostentation becoming a byword before the end of the 16th century.

Almost all manual labour was done by slaves; common soldiers assumed high-sounding titles, and it was even customary for the poor noblemen who congregated together in boarding-houses to subscribe for a few silken cloaks, a silken umbrella and a common man-servant, so that each could take his turn to promenade the streets, fashionably attired and with a proper escort.

There were huge gambling salons, licensed by the municipality, where determined players lodged for weeks together; and every form of vice, except drunkenness, was practised by both sexes, although European women were forced to lead a kind of zenana life of seclusion, and never ventured unveiled into the streets; they even attended church in their palanquins, so as to avoid observation.

Albuquerque and his successors left almost untouched the customs and constitutions of the thirty village communities on the island, only abolishing the rite of sati (widow-burning). A register of these customs (Foral de usos e costumes) was published in 1526, and is an historical document of much value; an abstract of it is given in R. S. Whiteway's Rise of the Portuguese Empire in India (London, 1898).

The appearance of the Dutch in Indian waters was followed by the gradual ruin of Goa. In 1603 and 1639 the city was blockaded by Dutch fleets, though never captured, and in 1635 it was ravaged by an epidemic.

Its trade was gradually monopolised by the Jesuits. Jean de Thévenot in 1666, Baldaeus in 1672, Fryer in 1675 describe its ever-increasing poverty and decay. In 1683 the Mughal army prevented it from capture by the Marathas, and in 1739 the whole territory was attacked by the marathas again, but could not be won because of the unexpected arrival of a new viceroy with a fleet. This continued until 1759, when a peace with the Marathas was concluded.

In the same year the viceroy transferred his residence from the vicinity of Goa city to New Goa (in Portuguese Nova Goa), today's Panaji, which became the official seat of government in 1843, effecting a move which had been discussed as early as 1684. Old Goa city's population fell steeply during the 18th century as Europeans moved to the new city.


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

Sen said:


> Petronius, are you the guy who claimed Portugues is the most popular foreign language to learn in China because of Macau and is growing in popularity in the world because of Angola?
> Seriously I could never forget that guy, I laughed so hard. You resemble him very much, sir.


I don't think anyone has ever made such claims..

AS to the point your trying to prove, it still is ad hominem argumentation. SO what if I claimed that. It does not invalidate any of my other assertions. I can even say that grass is pink. It still deosn't invalidate my previous points . Try and debate properly. I'm not a kid you know. If you want , try and unprove what I said by argumentation


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

anyways no one said POrtuguese India was nothing but marvels, but to claim that it was nothing but massacres is wrong either. In the meantime I will not accept being insulted upon.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Petronius said:


> ^^ are you insulting me you ****?


I dare not!

Interesting read on Portuguese Goa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa


_
In 1498, Vasco da Gama became the first European to set foot in India through a sea route, landing in Calicut (Kozhikode) in Kerala, followed by an arrival in what is now known as Old Goa. The Portuguese arrived with the intention of setting up a colony and seizing complete control of the spice trade from other European powers after traditional land routes to India were closed by the Ottoman Turks. Later, in 1510, Portuguese admiral Afonso de Albuquerque defeated the ruling Bijapur kings with the help of a local ally, Timayya, leading to the establishment of a permanent settlement in Velha Goa (or Old Goa). The Portuguese intended it to be a colony and a naval base, distinct from the fortified enclaves established elsewhere along India's coasts.
Ruins of Fort Aguada in north Goa; one of the defences that the Portuguese built during their reign.
Ruins of Fort Aguada in north Goa; one of the defences that the Portuguese built during their reign.
Chapora River boat
Chapora River boat

With the imposition of the Inquisition (1560–1812), many of the local residents were forcibly converted to Christianity by missionaries, threatened by punishment or confiscation of land, titles or property. Many converted, however retaining parts of their Hindu heritage. To escape the Inquisition and harassment, thousands fled the state, settling down in the neighbouring towns of Mangalore and Karwar in Karnataka. With the arrival of the other European powers in India in the 16th century, most Portuguese possessions were surrounded by the British and the Dutch. Portuguese possessions in India were a few enclaves along India's west coast, with Goa being the largest of these holdings.

An interesting development of the 18th century in Goa is the Conspiracy Of The Pintos in 1787 which was inspired by the French Revolution. This was the first ethnic rebellion against Portuguese rule in Goa. Goa soon became their most important possession in India, and was granted the same civic privileges as Lisbon. The Portuguese encouraged its citizens to marry local women, and to settle in Goa. However, among the local population (both Christian and Hindu) this was looked down upon. Progeny of these unions called the mestiço were favourably considered by the Portuguese rulers. Subsequently, a senate was created, which maintained direct communications with the king. In 1843 the capital was moved to Panjim from Velha Goa. By mid-18th century the area under occupation had expanded to most of Goa's present day state limits.

After India gained independence from the British in 1947, Portugal refused to accede to India's demand to relinquish their control of its exclave. Resolution 1541 by the United Nations General Assembly in 1960 noted that Goa was non-self-governing and essentially showed sympathy toward self determination. Finally, on December 12, 1961, the Indian army with 40,000 troops moved in. Fighting lasted for twenty-six hours before the Portuguese garrison surrendered. Goa, along with Daman and Diu (enclaves lying to the north of Maharashtra), was made into a centrally administered Union Territory. India's takeover of Goa is commemorated annually on the 19th of December (Liberation Day). The UN Security Council considered a resolution condemning the invasion which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Most nations later recognised India's action, and Portugal recognised it after its Carnation Revolution in 1974. On May 30, 1987, the Union Territory was split, and Goa was elevated as India's twenty-fifth state, with Daman and Diu remaining Union Territories.

India's takeover of Goa served as the model and precedent for Indonesia invading and annexing the former Portuguese colony of East Timor in 1974 - with the Indonesians expecting (very wrongly, as it turned out) that their act would be eventually accepted by the international community and the territory's own population, as India's act in Goa was._


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Someone did. I forgot his ID now but I haven't seem him around for sometime.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

DonQui said:


> Portugal did not become democratic until the 1970s.
> 
> :crazy:


you don't say!


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

we seem to be rewriting history in this thread!


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

tytler said:


> 1950. But then we aren't a nation since we don't have a single religion or language:lol:


yups. India is a federation (made up of states), I guess, it is a state, but not a nation.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

PeterGabriel said:


> yups. India is a federation (made up of states), I guess, it is a state, but not a nation.


Hardly! Countries like US/UK fits your description better.. Ultimately who cares. As I said it's not 2000 BC where a people "stick" with their tribe only (which seems to be common theme in Europe).


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

DonQui said:


> Portugal did not become democratic until the 1970s.
> 
> :crazy:


A military coup occurred in 1926, it was overthrown in 1974. You are confusing a country that exists for 1000 yrs with countries existing for a few decades. Everything happened in here. Ups and downs. Times of prosperity, times of dark ages.

And sure, Portugal came into existence in 1910, in its modern shape :hilarious So why can't india have 5000 yrs, if Portugal has 1000?


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

according to Donqui this document doesn't exist


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

funfact: our King John VI(read Joao Sexto in text) signed this document like he was iliterate  what a dumb signature....


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

tytler said:


> Hardly! Countries like US/UK fits your description better.. Ultimately who cares. As I said it's not 2000 BC where a people "stick" with their tribe only (which seems to be common theme in Europe).


nation is not a tribe. It is an area where people have many common things, the language (communication) is the most important, but not all. It is common in Europe, because Europe is very advanced, and the rest of the nations want to come out. It is a matter of democracy and respect for difference.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> OMG. LOL. Poor fellow control yourself, out of something to discuss?. The only troll in here is you.
> 
> I never said Donkey was Indian.
> 
> The rest of your post just confirmed it is useless to debate with you. The rest of the post was directed to you, I just forgot to put your nickname. Portugal became a democracy in 1910, you know nothing about nothing, not even India. :crazy2: :hilarious


:lol: its useless to debate with me? 

Also, my question of when Portugal became a democracy was not meant to be answered, it was answered *in the next sentence.* Perhaps when you can read come back to debate. Also, if I know nothing about nothing, doesnt that mean I know quite a bit? :lol:

Apparently you believe you know about the whole world. Keep your opinions confined to Portugal. Also, kindly prove how I know nothing about India, in a PM would be best, as you have flamed and spammed enough on this forum. 

Guys, who do you think should know more about how a Goan feels about Goa's position in India? a racist and disgruntled Portuguese teen going through puberty or an actual Goan?:lol:


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Quintana said:


> Salazar actually won the Greatest Portuguese competition recently. Some commie (another fan of freedom and democracy) came in second.


that was news in the rest of Europe? but the program was used by some lunatics (nationalists and communists), and the three first places were taken by people that shouldn't even be on the list (Salazar, a communist and a Jewish-supporter). They even hijacked people's mobile phones, messaging people to dial a number (when you dialled it, you we're voting for Salazar or the communist fellow). Following a survey made by a newspaper and even the programme, people choose the first king of Portugal as the greatest.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> A military coup occurred in 1926, it was overthrown in 1974. You are confusing a country that exists for 1000 yrs with countries existing for a few decades. Everything happened in here. Ups and downs. Times of prosperity, times of dark ages.
> 
> And sure, Portugal came into existence in 1910, in its modern shape :hilarious So why can't india have 5000 yrs, if Portugal has 1000?


Stop using India as an example, troll.

By your logic though, shouldnt Portugal have become a "nation" (in your definition of one) in 1974? Now lets not contradict ourselves here, Mr. Portugal!:lol:


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

PeterGabriel said:


> nation is not a tribe. It is an area where people have many common things, the language (communication) is the most important, but not all. It is common in Europe, because Europe is very advanced, and the rest of the nations want to come out. It is a matter of democracy and respect for difference.


So based on your tid-bit, a French colony could be part of France because they speak the same language! Yeh, yeh Europe is very very advanced and every single person wants to create a nation of his/her own. Of course "advanced" people do just that, create millions of nations! Somehow I didn't realize that in "states" like UK/USA...democracy was dying and it's only Europeans who respect such noble thoughts. Good luck with that and good luck with your fight for Goans. You might just save the precious Portuguese culture from those "good for nothing" Indians (Can I use the word Indians since India really does not exist nor does it's citizens).


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> nation is not a tribe. It is an area where people have many common things, the language (communication) is the most important, but not all. It is common in Europe, because Europe is very advanced, and the rest of the nations want to come out. It is a matter of democracy and respect for difference.


LMAO! Are you inferring that the indian nations were tribes? Eurocentrism to the max...

The world does not revolve and never has revolved around Europe, no matter how much you bitch about it. Also, Europe is very advanced? So you prove my earlier point. You view Europe as the sole civilization while the "barbarians" of other nations were what, backwards and insignificant? :lol:


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

jeez you read a lot of crazy things here since when the UK isn't Europe?


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Petronius said:


> funfact: our King John VI(read Joao Sexto in text) signed this document like he was iliterate  what a dumb signature....


LMAO...

Also, Petronius, none of my comments are directed towards you. You seem like a regular Portuguese, and dont take my comments as towards you. I specify now that they are towards PeterGabriel. I have nothing against anyone or any nation (unlike PeterGabriel and his anti- India fanaticism) and have actually lived most my life in Europe, so I am well versed in European culture. Never lived in Portugal, but visited there 4 times. Beautiful place...


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

^^ I believe you! I have nothing against India or Indians either! I even want to visit! maybe this year! I have to admit that I take much interest in POrtuguese Hostory that's why I got involved in this conversation! NO harm done I hope :banana:


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

Petronius said:


> ^^ I believe you! I have nothing against India or Indians either! I even want to visit! maybe this year! I have to admit that I take much interest in POrtuguese Hostory that's why I got involved in this conversation! NO harm done I hope :banana:


Every country downplays their colonial history, this is not something that should be proud of.
The only exception I know is Philipphhines, they seem to be proud of the fact that they were colonized by Spain.


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

^^ every country has its goods and bads.. All countries' countrymen exaggerate on the goods and hide the bads.. it's human nature


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

To Sen, the Nigel Effect, and tytler, you are encountering what I have found to be the case long ago: the Portuguese forum is a haven for virulent nationalism that has more in common with glorification of the nation above all (fascism) than it does with anything remotely more modern.

It is best to ignore these people, as they simply have an axe to grind with anyone that questions the glorious nation of Portugl.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Petronius said:


> ^^ every country has its goods and bads.. All countries' countrymen exaggerate on the goods and hide the bads.. it's human nature


Very true. however it is strange because if a group made up of a single ethnicity are talking they bring up the negatives while when they talk with other ethnicities the negatives tend to be hidden.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

No problem. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Purple Dreams (Jan 31, 2007)

DonQui said:


> What I love is that the same Portuguese fascists that get their panties wet thinking about the glories of their imperial conquests are the first to whine like little bitches about Spain and all the attempts it made to control its weaker neighbor.
> 
> How are the two any different?
> 
> ...


I think that in general people tend to denounce other countries' imperialism while being proud of their own country's imperialistic past. I guess it's human nature.


----------



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

Australia.....discovered lots of times but kept quiet till James Cook spotted Point Hicks..Now Victoria in 1770...he sailed on and landed at Botany Bay..just south of Sydney.....but Sydney wasn't there yet either. Aboriginals had been here already for quite a while but didn't write down details..dates etc..When Cook let it be known we were here Britain decided it was a good place to send anyone who had pinched a loaf of bread etc !!! So they set Sydney up...Melbourne followed by freedom of choice...It is a fairly dry and flat country and has a huge rock in the middle to hold it in place. We are all pretty happy and glad to be here and think it's quite good that most of the time everyone else in the world doesnt even know we are here. Promise you wont tell! Guess it's the same age as everywhere else........


----------



## Emirati_Girl (Apr 26, 2006)

UAE or United Arab Emirates ( 12 / December / 1971)

u can say it's about 36 years


----------



## tereresazo (Mar 22, 2007)

*Republica del Paraguay (Spanish)*

independent since May, 15th 1811 (197 years now) the first few months it was ruled by a triunvirate, then a Consul in 1813, and it was to become the first Republic of the South.

Argentines recognized our independence in 1852, Brazilians in 1844 (more than 30 years later!).


----------



## diz (Nov 1, 2005)

*Republic of the Philippines*

Independence from Spain: June 12, 1898
Independence from the U.S.: July 4, 1945

Celebrated Independence Day: June 12th

Spanish: Filipinas
Tagalog: Pilipinas
English: Philippines
Korean: 필리핀
Japanese: フィリピン
Afrikaans: Filippyne
Italian: Filippine
Chinese: 菲律賓


----------



## kenny_in_blue (Jul 3, 2006)

^ Swedish version Fillipinerna


----------

