tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7760541779426203978..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Ron Unz on the Evolution of Amy ChuaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15157712398823721742013-03-13T01:10:18.488-07:002013-03-13T01:10:18.488-07:00You are missing an essential point: the English ne...You are missing an essential point: the English never had primogeniture in inheritance. The British aristocracy and gentry, which comprised only a small fraction of the population (especially the aristocracy, since they transmitted the title only to their eldest son, unlike their continental counterparts), practiced primogeniture, but the inheritance practices of yeomen or "middling sorts" were much more flexible. Among this class advantaging the eldest son was perhaps most common, but neither did they exclude younger sons from inheriting, neither was the eldest son always the favoured heir -ultimogeniture, for example, was common among peasants in some regions-. Simply write "Birth Order" and "Pre industrial England" in Google and you'll see that, for most english people, birth order didn't really matter much during the pre-industrial era. This was mostly because the English traditional -and modern- family had neolocal residence upon marriage, so parents didn't see the need to leave most or all to a single child. Under "stem" family systems, however, they privileged the son or child who remained at home, caring for them in their old age. But few european societies with this family type had primogeniture as their predominant inheritance custom: rich landowners -mostly aristocrats- usually favoured the eldest son as above mentioned (from 1500 to 1800, this habit became practically universal among the european aristocracy), but customs among the common people varied greatly. In fact, I doubt you could find a single european society/culture in the "Ethnographic Atlas" or some other cross-cultural source whose prevailing custom of inheritance was traditionally primogeniture, I mean, a society where most people (who are peasants, not nobles) practiced it or at least held it as an ideal or aspiration (because of course the eldest son might not be able to inherit, might prefer to leave home, or simply there may be no son to inherit). You will find that for the vast majority of european families male primogeniture was never even an ideal/custom/whatever you may call it.Pensamientoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18437737438206387123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-64451911115927108872013-03-13T01:07:43.166-07:002013-03-13T01:07:43.166-07:00You are missing an essential point: the English ne...You are missing an essential point: the English never had primogeniture in inheritance. The British aristocracy and gentry, which comprised only a small fraction of the population (especially the aristocracy, since they transmitted the title only to their eldest son, unlike their continental counterparts), practiced primogeniture, but the inheritance practices of yeomen or "middling sorts" were much more flexible. Among this class advantaging the eldest son was perhaps most common, but neither did they exclude younger sons from inheriting, neither was the eldest son always the favoured heir -ultimogeniture, for example, was common among peasants in some regions-. Simply write "Birth Order" and "Pre industrial England" in Google and you'll see that, for most english people, birth order didn't really matter much during the pre-industrial era. This was mostly because the English traditional -and modern- family had neolocal residence upon marriage, so parents didn't see the need to leave most or all to a single child. Under "stem" family systems, however, they privileged the son or child who remained at home, caring for them in their old age. But few european societies with this family type had primogeniture as their predominant inheritance custom: rich landowners -mostly aristocrats- usually favoured the eldest son as above mentioned (from 1500 to 1800, this habit became practically universal among the european aristocracy), but customs among the common people varied greatly. In fact, I doubt you could find a single european society/culture in the "Ethnographic Atlas" or some other cross-cultural source whose prevailing custom of inheritance was traditionally primogeniture, I mean, a society where most people (who are peasants, not nobles) practiced it or at least held it as an ideal or aspiration (because of course the eldest son might not be able to inherit, might prefer to leave home, or simply there may be no son to inherit). You will find that for the vast majority of european families male primogeniture was never even an ideal and that English patterns of inheritance were indeed very flexible.Pensamientoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18437737438206387123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6673545679682313992011-02-28T00:08:39.389-08:002011-02-28T00:08:39.389-08:00You dummy, because of polygamy rich Chinese landow...You dummy, because of polygamy rich Chinese landowners had <i>a lot more sons</i>, so even if they did it primogeniture-style there would still be vastly more number of sons who would suffer massive downward mobility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86932824231869357692011-02-27T18:34:00.946-08:002011-02-27T18:34:00.946-08:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjRVBsL-Rhs
Wonder...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjRVBsL-Rhs<br /><br />Wonderful American piano music from the 19th century. <br /><br />Comp: George William Warren.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60540860120192482022011-02-23T18:28:37.839-08:002011-02-23T18:28:37.839-08:00"Maybe this is why Jews want white people to ..."Maybe this is why Jews want white people to look to India as the good future-past and China as the evil future-past. The past history of China is one of homogeneity and unity. 'racist and evil'. <br />The past history of India is one of diversity and disunity. Easier for an alien elite to gain control of the latter than of the former. So, the past of India is to be the future of America. And if whites mix more with non-whites--especially blacks and Hispanics--, their IQ will go down, which means mixed populations of the future will be even more easier to manipulate and control by the Jewish elite. Jews will mix too but from high IQ whites and Asians, thus enriching Jewish genes even more."<br /><br /><br />Good points!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34892261056558998352011-02-23T13:29:23.069-08:002011-02-23T13:29:23.069-08:00Chuable but hard to swallow.Chuable but hard to swallow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71748868776031658792011-02-23T00:25:55.123-08:002011-02-23T00:25:55.123-08:00It is in their intellectual qualities that the Man...<i>It is in their intellectual qualities that the Manchus are most discriminated from the Chinese. They have a greater mental force, a larger understanding, are less servilely imitative, have stronger sentiments, and more emotion than the Chinese proper. To this we must add that energy in civil life and courage in war by which the Manchus are distinguished. There can be no doubt of the vigor of the race. Their career, as we have observed above, demonstrates, in the face of all theory and preconception, the aggressiveness, persistency, and we must believe, the intellectual superiority of the Manchu race.</i> (Ridpath's universal history, 1897)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45782370105973810072011-02-22T04:31:32.330-08:002011-02-22T04:31:32.330-08:00You hear alot about how wonderfully bright East As...You hear alot about how wonderfully bright East Asians are, how polite and organized, etc. From my travels in China, though (which frankly, IS East Asia as it holds probably 80+% of East Asians), I came away with a different picture. China is a crude place, with no shortage of superstitious, rude people who try to cheat each other at every turn. It is also the only place in the world where I have had a thief actually try to grab my luggage to try and walk away with it at a train terminal (twice on the same trip). I think alot of our views of East Asians are based upon seeing the cream of the crop which have the wherewithal to make it here, and not the 95+% back home who don't.Lewisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76117184873577135982011-02-22T02:38:36.936-08:002011-02-22T02:38:36.936-08:00"The West considered rote-learning important?..."The West considered rote-learning important? Sure, it's true, but that probably wasn't all of it. I suspect Aristotle and Socrates' influence made it quite a bit more than that - not only did they know about the importance of analysis, they had more or less formalized how to go about doing it."<br /><br /> You really don't know much about Western intellectual history. Socrates' influence in Western Europe was negligible for most of the common era because Plato's works were largely lost to Latin Christendom. <br /><br /> The influence of Aristotelian thought upon Western Europe during the Middle Ages was if anything, baneful, and largely decried by almost all early modern thinkers. It led to the sterile casuistry of Middle Ages scholasticism. The start of modern empirical science basically consists of proving Aristotelian thought and Aristotle's assertions to be incorect. And his syllogisms must rank amongst the most grossly overrated things in the history of human thought. <br /><br /> "Could that explain the differences in development? The lack of a formal thinking system? How that led to Chinese leaders not adopting the 'latest and bestest' to get a leg up on their competitors, and providing incentives for such? I've been trying to figure it out."<br /><br /> Who knows. The laboratory of human history is too small. If you look at the eurasian continent in the 12th century, you would bet that Song China - with the Neo-Confucians going on about the importance of reason (li) and need to investigate the nature of things (ke wu) would be the first to develop empirical science. We of course know they never did - Neo-Confucian also degenerated into empty sophistries by the Ming. <br /><br /> Instead, it was Latin Christendom - whose aristocratic warriors were considered so uncouth and barbaric by Muslims during the Crusades - that was the first to develop empirical science. <br /><br />Gary WongGary Wongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39686915254208817742011-02-22T00:14:56.952-08:002011-02-22T00:14:56.952-08:00Library membership is free for me. Time, however, ...Library membership is free for me. Time, however, is not, especially on comment threads that will get closed soon. So I just go off with whatever I can remember. Which is, as you confirmed, accurate enough. Without going into details, details.<br /><br />The West considered rote-learning important? Sure, it's true, but that probably wasn't all of it. I suspect Aristotle and Socrates' influence made it quite a bit more than that - not only did they know about the importance of analysis, they had more or less formalized how to go about doing it.<br /><br />Was there Chinese equivalents to the ancient Greeks to formalize logic? Off the top of my head, I think the Mohists were the closest. I (and most people) only knew about them because a movie a few years back had a Mohist as the protaganist - Andy Lau's A Battle of Wits. As a school of thought, the Mohists were eliminated very early on, and bare fragments of their texts remain.<br /><br />Could that explain the differences in development? The lack of a formal thinking system? How that led to Chinese leaders not adopting the 'latest and bestest' to get a leg up on their competitors, and providing incentives for such? I've been trying to figure it out.The Wobbly Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301556031735052090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8666443406250530302011-02-21T22:35:18.276-08:002011-02-21T22:35:18.276-08:00"On imperial exams, I'm not sure. But fro..."On imperial exams, I'm not sure. But from various folk stories I've heard, I think it had more to do with mass regurgitation than any real analysis or thinking. Studying consisted of poring over books and frantically trying to memorise everything, and to be able to quote from past scholarly works in an instant. The current perception of memory-intensive Asian education was probably seeded from this: it was what Asians understood as 'education'."<br /><br /> Guys who visit this website are just ridiculous at times - first they'll concede "I don't know about this", and then instead of, for example, conducting some cursory internet research, or even better, going to a library to find a book on a thoroughly-researched topic, just engage in idle and invariably erroneous speculation. Folk tales and anecdotes do not comprise sound evidentiary materials. <br /><br /> The examination system varied from dynasty to dynasty, if not century to century. Much of it was mass regurgitation - it required the memorization of classical texts amounting to a total of half a million characters - part of the reason why the Chinese expressed such keen interest in the memory palaces used by the Jesuits. <br /><br /> There were usually , however, also questions on policy which did required acute reasoning and analysis. The composition of essays was also a key area of assessment - the "ba gu wen" which prevailed from the Ming Dynasty onwards, and was considered to haave a stultifying effect upon prose style. <br /><br /> The examination system was frequently subjected to criticism and censure throughout its history - one of the biggest disputes of the Northern Song Dynasty was over the subject matter of the examination, and whether or not they were at all useful for future civil servants. Neo-Confucian philosophers tended to be critical of the examination system - ironic given how it is considered an intrinsically Confucian institution - because they believed it encouraged learning for the sole purpose of self-aggrandisement and status. <br /><br />"The current perception of memory-intensive Asian education was probably seeded from this: it was what Asians understood as 'education'."<br /><br /> Rote-learning was the common perception of a standard education anywhere prior to the modern era, and otiose curricula were part and parcel of traditional European education. You think you need Latin and Greek to read many thinkers who have made a significant contribution to the world since the Renaissance?<br /><br />Wobblyguy - it's really not that difficult or expensive to obtain membership with a decent library. <br /><br />Gary Wong.Gary Wongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35719362257378279392011-02-21T20:28:46.251-08:002011-02-21T20:28:46.251-08:00In terms of conflict, China's history was repl...In terms of conflict, China's history was replete with them.<br /><br />The classic novel 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms' had as its starting line: "What is long united will divide, and what is long divided will unite" - depicting China's history as a continuous cycle that's ongoing even in the 20th century.<br /><br />Add to that minor rebellions even in the midst of stable dynasties, and I don't think the conflict factor matters much in why China could not achieve much compared to the West. It's probably culture. Why competing military leaders in Chinese history wouldn't want some new-fangled technology that can help them win? I have no idea.<br /><br />Regarding the assimilation of Manchus, I can testify that it did happen, at least to those Manchus in China, not their fellow tribesmen off in Northern China. My brother-in-law is just one such descendent.<br /><br />On imperial exams, I'm not sure. But from various folk stories I've heard, I think it had more to do with mass regurgitation than any real analysis or thinking. Studying consisted of poring over books and frantically trying to memorise everything, and to be able to quote from past scholarly works in an instant. The current perception of memory-intensive Asian education was probably seeded from this: it was what Asians understood as 'education'.<br /><br />That said, there was still a selection mode for IQ: the language itself. Chinese (as the written form, and in various dialects in the spoken form) is extremely hard to master. To be successful in life requires one to be good at it to be able to communicate. As since it's a difficult language, only those with higher IQs would be able to use it effectively. So they are more successful, and get to marry, and so on.<br /><br />One last point: IIRC, even in Southeast China, there are more than ten dialect groups, with different spoken words for the same written words. And they are not always happy with one another! Hokkiens vs teochews was a recurring event in Singapore's colonial past.The Wobbly Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301556031735052090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9620906871872067172011-02-21T20:15:54.949-08:002011-02-21T20:15:54.949-08:00India and Brazil are probably the two most miscege...India and Brazil are probably the two most miscegenated countries on the planet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36024445211811498342011-02-21T18:47:05.029-08:002011-02-21T18:47:05.029-08:00Professor Flynn put the mean Asian-American (Chine...Professor Flynn put the mean Asian-American (Chinese/Japanese) IQ at 98.5, against a white Amerian mean of 100. It seems that the Asian peasant's rice farming life was highly selective for industriousness, but may have been comparatively slightly less selective for cognitive ability. Perhaps because farming might be slightly less IQ elastic than other occupations. The English, and maybe other Europeans, benefited from being dispersed across a wide range of occupations with slightly higher IQ and much higher creativity elasticity, but then may not have had to work as hard. <br /><br />Flynn also found that the Asians had a strong visuospatial component, consistent with other studies. I don't think farming would've selected for this, so maybe there's something in the complexity of the written language that produced these strong visual skills in Asians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83234060972820066972011-02-21T18:33:26.506-08:002011-02-21T18:33:26.506-08:00For a long time, Europe was assaulted by Mongols, ...For a long time, Europe was assaulted by Mongols, Turkish Ottomans, and Muslim slave pirates. Spain even came under the rule of the North African Muslim Moors.<br /><br />You are incorrect if you insist that Europe has been spared invasion of alien outsiders. India has been invaded quite a few times too. <br /><br />Outside invasion and terror have been inflicted on many different nations. China isn't that unique in having been invaded and terrorized. It's more unique in the stability of its civilization for centuries at a time. <br /><br />I also don't agree that outside invaders are more traumatic for the population. The Taipings were just as bad as the Mongols.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8690656718521537842011-02-21T18:22:51.330-08:002011-02-21T18:22:51.330-08:00The 100 IQ estimate for the Chinese was given by l...The 100 IQ estimate for the Chinese was given by looking at urban samples in Shanghai and Beijing, which are two of the most prosperous cities and were populated under a national policy that pushes the peasant underclass out of the major urban zones. At the time of the testing, per capita incomes in these cities were 3x the national average, despite the economically constraining effects of Communism. The Indian sample, from which 81 IQ was derived, was more representatitive of the general population, which is severely malnourished. <br /><br />100 IQ for China seems plausible, but 81 is too low for India. To assess the potential of India, I'd examine the values for Sikhs in the UK, who primarily of agrarian rural background. <br /><br />It'd be interesting to see if there are caste differences in Indian IQ - and if there are regional differences (SE and urban areas v.s. rural areas and the north) in China.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75029415118393962462011-02-21T18:17:04.851-08:002011-02-21T18:17:04.851-08:00Brahmins are not mostly "Aryan." Phenot...Brahmins are not mostly "Aryan." Phenotypically they resemble the rest of India's population.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71260633722237114242011-02-21T18:15:38.388-08:002011-02-21T18:15:38.388-08:00Xuan, Asia as a whole seems pretty all-in on the r...Xuan, Asia as a whole seems pretty all-in on the race-mixing thing. Okay, you've got 1.3 billion Han. Other than that, and a few places like Japan and Korea, the whole place is race-mixing central. Almost makes "Latin America" look homogeneous.<br /><br />Which makes people who are all gung-ho about white-yellow mixing, like it's something so fresh and new, wave of the future, etc., look even more stupid.<br /><br />How many hundreds of millions of white-yellow hybrids are there, already? Are there a billion? More? Should we count mestizos?<br /><br />White-yellow mixing is as old as dirt. Not much to come of it, either.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81739119892942560652011-02-21T15:10:51.569-08:002011-02-21T15:10:51.569-08:00"In China, it was common for successful farme..."In China, it was common for successful farmers and merchants to establish academies to educate their children for the imperial exams. Acing the exam and obtaining a position in the imperial bureaucracy was a ticket to wealth, prestige, and power. "<br /><br />I wonder what exactly was on the exams, who made them, and who graded them. Perhaps it was more like an AP exam than the SAT. <br /><br />Also, I suspect that the Chinese exam system down through the millennium wasn't exactly objective or anonymous -- although it probably was a good screen against dimwits and dyslectics. In the end, success probably hinged on whether some member of the civil servant or noble class was willing to give you a good character reference. So getting into the Chinese civil service was more like getting into West Point than Harvard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-49564096300177964962011-02-21T15:01:10.115-08:002011-02-21T15:01:10.115-08:00...Europe experienced more wars and invasions than...<i>...Europe experienced more wars and invasions than China ever did.</i><br /><br />I believe we were talking about conquest. There's a difference between war, invasion, and conquest. Wars and invasions don't necessarily suppress the native culture; conquest does.<br /><br />Western Europe was conquered by barbarians between roughly 400 and 600 AD, and, yes, it took a long time to recover. Later barbarians like the Vikings and Magyars invaded but only conquered some outlying regions. Western Christendom managed to stand its ground, unlike Eastern Christendom and all the old-world civilizations besides Japan. <br /><br />Western Christendom was battered, but the others were submerged. It's not a subtle distinction.<br /><br />CennbeorcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83833287180276494612011-02-21T13:36:58.772-08:002011-02-21T13:36:58.772-08:00The average IQ of India, however, is 81, while the...The average IQ of India, however, is 81, while the average IQ of China is 100. Different genes. India is a place of widespread miscegenation. It is the Brazil of Asia. While the Brahmin in the north may have more Aryan blood, most everyone else is a mix.<br /><br />Bhasin (2006), in the study Genetics of Castes and Tribes of India: Indian Population Milieu:<br /><br />"India has been peopled by human groups carrying a diversity of genes and cultural traits. We have almost all the primary ethnic strains Proto-Australoid, Mediterranean, Mongoloid, Negrito and a number of composite strains. It is homeland of over 4000 Mendelian populations, of which 3700 endogamous groups are structured in the Hindu caste system as ‘jatis’.<br /><br />"In short, the older view that north Indians are mainly Caucasoid whereas southern Indians are mainly Australoid is incorrect. Indians, both from the north and the south, seem to be a racially admixed population with each individual genotype exhibiting membership in multiple gene clusters, albeit in varying degrees in terms of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid admixture ratios. South Asian populations consist of an indigenous Australoid base combined with both Caucasoid and Mongoloid racial elements; Indo-Caucasoid (Indo-Aryan speakers and Coon’s hybrid Mediterranean strain) peoples tend to be concentrated in the east and west of India, Indo-Mongoloid (Tibeto-Burman speakers) seem to be concentrated in the north eastern region of the country, and Proto-Australoid/Indo-Dravidian peoples (Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian language speakers) are mostly found in the south, with peoples of full Australoid or “Negrito” origin located on the archipelagos (e.g. the Great Andamanese and Jarawa) surrounding the southern tip of the subcontinent. <br /><br />"To repeat, most of the major Indian populations are so racially admixed that they exhibit membership in multiple gene clusters and are therefore homogeneous genetically on a subcontinental level."Xuannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5678360556166548722011-02-21T11:42:33.421-08:002011-02-21T11:42:33.421-08:00The comparison of the various invasions of England...<i>The comparison of the various invasions of England with China's experience is not particularly relevant.</i> <br /><br /><br />It's not relevant because the proper comparison is with <i>Europe</i>. Of course that comparison makes your argument look ever worse - Europe experienced more wars and invasions than China ever did.<br /><br />As has already been pointed out to you, England is analogous to Japan, not to China.Severnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68512318357852358332011-02-21T10:59:36.249-08:002011-02-21T10:59:36.249-08:00How did poorer married victorian women have fewer ...How did poorer married victorian women have fewer children? I'm pretty sure that there wasn't much in the way of birth control, so was there widespread abortion? Or did the famed victorian prudishness extend to the marital bed?<br /><br />Coitus interruptus, the rhythm method, abstinence."<br /><br />They also used sponges--various women of society mention using them in the 1830s, but they may have been used earlier. Condoms of a type were used. And a friend of mine who lived in France in the mid-20th century, said French women knew from way back, that douching with COLD water killed sperm. A woman who had a large family was said to be one who did not "wash." <br />Also, drinking gin and sitting in a bath (can't remember whether it was supposed to b cold or hot, but I think very hot) would cause a miscarriage. A well to do British couple of the 1840s, I think of the aristocratic class, were chagrined to find themselves expecting a fourth or fifth time. The lady wife put her husband's mind at rest by assuring him in correpsondance, that the "bath and gin" had worked. Both were overjoyed. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who ever have been born, would not have been if their parents could have chosen.victorian revisionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33632358351088503272011-02-21T09:58:52.502-08:002011-02-21T09:58:52.502-08:00"In China, the rice paddy farmers of the sout..."In China, the rice paddy farmers of the southeastern coast had the most rigorous working conditions in the country. Maybe not surprisingly, in China today, the southeasterners are well regarded for their work ethic. So much so that in many Chinese-American restaurants, employers often post advertisements that specify northern Chinese (ie outside the southeast) need not apply."<br /><br />This could be Southeasterners speak the same dialect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4830603986533639972011-02-21T09:34:13.871-08:002011-02-21T09:34:13.871-08:00Conquest by outsiders has enduring and lasting neg...<i>Conquest by outsiders has enduring and lasting negative impacts on their host societies and moreso when the conquerors values are so divergent from the conquered. The Mongol invasions scarred the Chinese people with an enduring conservatism and fear of the future that the Anglos having stood forever victorious and isolated by seas and oceans have never had to face.</i><br /><br />This is a point I've made several times, here and elsewhere. <br /><br />Except for Western Christendom and Japan, every major old-world civilization was overrun by steppe nomads (or their close descendants) between 1000 and 1500 AD, sometimes more than once.<br /><br />Eastern Christendom: Turks, Mongols<br /><br />Islam: Turks, Mongols<br /><br />Hinduism: Mughals<br /><br />China: Mongols, Manchus.<br /><br />Famously (as Malcolm points out) the England hasn't been overrun by anyone since 1066, and even then the conquerers weren't so different culturally. They may have suppressed the Anglo-Saxon elite and its high culture, but at least they were European Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com