An ethnocentric person views all other cultures through the lense of his/her own culture.
I thought it was English, But my sister thinks it is Scoth/Irish
Homo Habilis more or less means humans with tools, 'Homo' in latin standing for man or human in this case and 'habilis' comes from the latin words for handy and adept. You could say that homo habilis means handy human, adept human, or basically a human with tools.
Haz. Abu Hurera (RAA) has said that Prophet Mohammed SAS told that I treat man in such a manner as he may expect from me, when he remembers me, I will be with him. Thus if he remembers in his heart, then I also remembers him in my heart and if he speaks about me in the congregation, then I will remember him in the congregation of angels, if he pays an inch of attention then I will give attention to an extent of hand. If he moves ahead one hand and I will attract by two hands. If he comes towards me on foot then I will run towards him. (Sahi Buqari).
There wasn't much in American culture the Soviets didn't find subversive - they pretty much felt our entire society was just one big mess, just as much as we felt about Communism (and still do).However, if you look at the basic principles of Communism and Marxist ideology, and what itself feels as subversive in their own culture, you can apply that to what they thought about us. Knowing that, you can look at what would be a threat to a society in which everything is about the State and not the people.Our Political System - A Republic is based on the foundation that government is accountable to the people. In Communism, everything is the State - period. The problem with that is that those in power always want to do whatever it takes to keep it - not much different than our system, but the biggest difference is that if we don't like our politicians we can get rid of them by voting. Not so in a Communist State.Religion - Freedom of Religion in America is one of the biggest rights we as Americans have. In the Soviet Union, religion was outlawed - the USSR was an atheist state. Religious groups were viewed by the Soviets as a threat to state power, and any threat to state power was not allowed at all.Labor Unions - Same thing - organized groups are threat to state power, as the Solidarity movement in Poland showed. It was that labor union that was the beginning of the end of the USSR and its eastern-bloc allies.American Press/Media (radio, tv, etc.) - In America, Freedom of the Press and the right to Free Speech are at the top of the Constitutional Amendments, and for good reason - it's much harder for people to get away with anything in an open society. All media in the Soviet Union was state controlled, modeled much the same way as the Nazis controlled their press / media for propaganda purposes. Nikita Kruschev named the Soviet state-controlled media as one of the USSR's greatest weapons. In such a society, any freedom of speech, once again, would be a threat to the State. The Soviet gulags (prisons) were full of writers and journalists who had the guts to say what they wanted, against State policy.Capitalism - The biggest threat to the Soviet Union (and the biggest difference between our 2 societies) was our market system, based on individual profit. Communism is about everyone working to provide for everyone else. Sounds good, except the problem with that is that not everyone works as hard as the next guy. Would YOU like to work your a$$ off at a job, only to have the fruits of your labor given to others that didn't work as hard (or not at all?). In the end, it was our market system that helped force the collapse of the Soviet Union - Communism could not produce goods with the type of quality and technology that we took for granted back then. No one wants to buy junk, and about the only things the Soviets ever made that were any good were military in nature.Pretty much anything having to do with individual freedoms and expression of free thinking and free will was subversive in the Soviet mindset, because Communism is about the entire State, and what the State thinks and tells its people to think. Thinking anything other than what you were told to think was subversive.
Let's start with two fundamental assertions in your question and correct them first.1. Race is defined as: "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same [genetic] stock." This means that Arabs, Moors, Italians, Germans, Chinese, Japaneses, Vietnamese, Swahili, Zulu, Irish, Jewish, and so on are races. Color is not cause to be a race; and is not a race. There is no such thing as a "white race", scientifically or historically.2. White-skinned and/or light-skinned people were classified first and the phrase "Caucasian" came along later.With those misconceptions corrected, we can look at how the use of both terms started. Neil Irvin Painter is an associate History professor at Princeton University. This is what he has to say about "white" people, "Caucasians" and racism (in part.) It is a lovely and simple answer to your question:"Yeah, there are two ways of talking about it. One is just to notice that there are some people who are kind of light skinned and other people who are kind of brownish and other people who are kind of darkish. Since there wasn't a lot of motion around from one's town or one's village [skin color] didn't come up very much. So, somebody like Herodotus for instance, who did travel, he could say that the Scythians, who made quivers out of the skinned arms of the people they vanquished, that such a man's skin is very showy and white. It was clear that people were light skinned, but to make it into something called a race or a variety, and then to endow that with certain characteristics, racial temperament for instance, that that's an invention of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.When we think of science, science is a truth that is true--no matter what, no matter when and for all time-- and science as the kind of gospel truth replaces the gospel, which was religion. Carolus Linnaeus, (in the 1700s) is the father of taxonomy, that is of categorizing things and so that science of categorizing things comes out of the eighteenth century, comes out of the Enlightenment and counts up everything and gives it a name, including people.Race hadn't been invented yet. The big differences were religious--on the one hand the Catholics and Protestants, on the other hand Christians, Jews and Muslims. Religion was the big defining factor before race. In fact, our own world religion still plays a very important part in a way that race does. You can say that somebody has a particular religion and then that conjures up all sorts of other ideas about what is in that person, how that person thinks, how that person goes through his or her everyday life, what it means to be a man or women, so there is a lot that we pack into these categories."
nobody is important it depend on us what we think and do if we do any thing special everybody thinks that we are special but we are not its inside us which has done in our mind and we do that........thanks
Technincally this is just an opinion. Everybody thinks differently and has their own preferences
conceited means: one who thinks they are better than everybody else; one who thinks highly of him/herself. concealed means: to hide something.
Everybody thinks differently. Some people think Canada is better and some think the U.S.A is better. Each country has good and bad sides. It all depends on what your opinion of a better country is.
He's a hedgehog.
Everybody thinks it is lucky
i don't think it has only changed their culture but their entire race! everybody thinks it was the white kid's fault! and it wasn't! i just think it was wrong in the first place to assume that the white kid had put the neuce on the tree!
Good thinks
The same way everybody thinks, by using their brain.
MATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everybody thinks its writing but that's so easy!
That's your opinion everybody thinks different
Well not yet, but everybody thinks it is Bianca Vallar ! What do you think?