Just to make your mouth drip

There are some quite extraordinary assertions about democracy, history and medicine here if I might say so..

First I’d like to say that although there is no dought about Ranika’s knowledge of the subject, it is IMHO a bit of a biased view, almost as bad as "those Greeks" who assert Greek monopoly in almost all things "civilized". :beam:

I personally believe that what the Greeks practiced 2500 years ago has almost nothing to do with what we call a democracy today, but its "common knowledge" that the birthplace of – a kind of- democracy is Greece, are we all mistaken or is there some new evidence that shows otherwise or is it that "others also" practiced it as well?

Despite the: "While many less-than-educated individuals will quickly denounce oral traditions as being inaccurate, any good historian of a culture that ever had a solid oral tradition can attest that they were very accurate at passing the same knowledge down for centuries" sounding almost like an advertisement for "you’ll find our products in all the good stores" lets just examine the validity of "oral history".
To have a History- the way "history" is defined here as "kept impeccable records of their history through tightly guarded oral traditions"- it requires first of all an AWARENESS of history, meaning that people setting out to preserve their cultural history-identity in some kind of record for future generations, and of course there is not any kind of evidence for that! Nor are we in any position to know how "impeccable" the records or how "tightly guarded" everything was, it’s just pure conjecture; especially considering that "The post-Christian Irish had pretty good recollection of the migrations of their ancestors, which were actually diluted by writing (their earlier writings are more accurate to our understanding than later writings)" how can one know the extent of any oral "dilution"?
"Traditional oral history" however was practiced in all "primitive" societies and it was "story telling" about the achievements of their chiefs-kings, who their ancestors were and where they came from along with various tribal and religious myths; not what kind of government they had and how it was selected and operated, nor can one claim that a "council of elders" is a Senate or that they practiced "democracy" because some other people had some kind of say. About those "trained mnemonicists" is not like they had a special school where they trained them; it was more likely passed from father to son or apprentice, as a means of entertainment and story telling as we can still see today in Australian Aborigines when they talk about the "Dream Time" to name just one.
Regarding the accuracy of "oral history" even if those people did indeed possessed exceptional memory there is still this; even in book hand-copying there are errors -accidental or intentional (like someone not agreeing 100% with what was originally written) -so what would’ve happened if some of those "mnemonicists" were either not up to scratch or simply just wanted to tell the story slightly different "passing the same knowledge down for centuries"? And let’s don’t forget about "poetic license"!! ~;)

About medicine… assertions about brain surgery in primitive societies are IMHO just silly. What would be easier to accept; that a partially healed square-round-triangle hole in the head suggests brain surgery by people who had not even a rudimental idea about anatomy –let alone brain function- while their medicinal skills were not even "necessarily as complex as Hellenic medicine" or that some people simply survived horrible accidents? What was the surgery performed FOR, to alleviate blood pressure from the skull-brain or to let "evil spirits" out… or is it one and the same? As for "this kind of knowledge would be passed down the same way as history" I doubt that very much, druids-shamans-medicine-men/women-doctors-healers they all had their own clique in every "primitive" society, it was an "esoteric" knowledge that passed between them and their chosen few and not trusted to some "mnemonic specialist" to pass it on.

A few years ago a friend was telling me –laughingly- that once when something was wrong with his computer someone suggested it might be hardware problem, so he opened the computer case to have a look; and in his own words: "I felt really stupid because I had no idea of even what I was looking at!!" So much for brain surgery!

EUROPA BARBARORUM was partly set up to show that "barbarians" were much more "civilized" than what most people –including myself- believed them to be, but whether one speaks about Greeks, Romans or "Barbarians" one needs not go to extremes to "prove" or "make" a point, since in a lot of instances in History it’s a matter of "I say pota-e-to you say potato".. ~D

O_Stratigos :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O_Stratigos

EUROPA BARBARORUM was partly set up to show that "barbarians" were much more "civilized" than what most people –including myself- believed them to be...

---

In my opinion, that is not what EB is trying to do.

Trying to prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized" then what was shown in vanilla, would be assuming the being "civilized" is a good thing. This judgement of valour is what EB, trying to correctly portraying cultures other than the "main inspirations of western modern civilization", wants to avoid. ~:)

I hope I made my point clear, I didn't want to sound harsh. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O_Stratigos

I personally believe that what the Greeks practiced 2500 years ago has almost nothing to do with what we call a democracy today, but its "common knowledge" that the birthplace of – a kind of- democracy is Greece, are we all mistaken or is there some new evidence that shows otherwise or is it that "others also" practiced it as well?

---

You're saying it is the birthplace of "a kind of democracy", and saying that what we have now is totally different.

So in other words, you are saying that WE (modern western civilization) are not the bastion of democracy, and that Greece isn't the birthplace of democracy (since you agree that it was merely some kind of it).
I have to say that I totally agree with both these points.
~:)
k

Just a quick point on berserkers...

The Viking "berserkers" are fairly poorly attested in the historical record, appearing more often in literature, where a number of varying descriptions of them exist:

1) In a lot of later sagas the word simply refers to a robber or other troublemaker, often a pagan.

2) The classic "berserker" that everyone thinks of would fly into a frenzy, sometimes involuntarily. This would begin with a fit of trembling, followed by the face swelling and becoming red, the teeth chattering, and then the berserker flying into an uncontrollable rage in which they would attack all and sundry, even trees and rocks if there were no people around. Afterwards they would be tired and listless for serveral days.

3) The sagas that seem to preserve some genuine early tradition actually protray berserkers somewhat differently. They tend to be an elite group of warriors retained as bodyguards by kings. Their chief attricute seems to be that they acted like animals, wore no armour, but were invulnerable to cutting or piercing weapons. They are also frequently referred to as Odin's Men, or Ulfhednar (Wolf Coats). This would suggest some kind of cult that was perceived as protecting themselves in battle with some sort of battle magic, rather than a frenzied mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marinakis

im part French so im sure i have a little Gallic/celtic blood in me.

---

Pfft!! What?! Dont make me laugh man! :laugh4: You are more german than celtic, but maybe you come from Bretain (dont know if i writed good, i meant Armorica).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dago

Pfft!! What?! Dont make me laugh man! :laugh4: You are more german than celtic, but maybe you come from Bretain (dont know if i writed good, i meant Armorica).

---

then you might be an ancester (sp?) of Asterix or obelix!!
do you live in a small village near the coast? ~;)

O_Stratigos, the oral histories can't be any worse than the stuff the Greeks and Romans wrote. Some might be true. Most of it is just really made up or exaggerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dago

Pfft!! What?! Dont make me laugh man! :laugh4: You are more german than celtic, but maybe you come from Bretain (dont know if i writed good, i meant Armorica).

---

Oh so you know for sure that i am german, just because im part modern day french?

Ok first of all i said im sure i have a LITTLE celtic in me. I never said im part french so that must mean im celtic... Im French so im sure atleast 50%+ of my french side is from the Frankish Tribe, but im also part Helvetii, that i do know. Beyond that im sure some Celts had sex with some of my ancestors. Please dont act like you know me or my family history.

I know exactly where my famly comes from, on both sides, back to the byzantine days on my fathers side and way back on my mothers. Dont judge me please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

O_Stratigos, the oral histories can't be any worse than the stuff the Greeks and Romans wrote. Some might be true. Most of it is just really made up or exaggerated.

---

Actually I think it doesn't make a lot of difference. To me what counts most is the perspective of the historian interpreting that documentation. Be that oral or writen.

I'm amazed that you (at your age) already have this kind of impression about history (I sure didn't). School is usually pretty ortodox about it. With it's cientific view and ONE TRUE HISTORY agenda. ~:)

k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marinakis

Oh so you know for sure that i am german, just because im part modern day french?

Ok first of all i said im sure i have a LITTLE celtic in me. I never said im part french so that must mean im celtic... Im French so im sure atleast 50%+ of my french side is from the Frankish Tribe, but im also part Helvetii, that i do know. Beyond that im sure some Celts had sex with some of my ancestors. Please dont act like you know me or my family history.

I know exactly where my famly comes from, on both sides, back to the byzantine days on my fathers side and way back on my mothers. Dont judge me please.

---

Ok, ok, if you say so. I just think that the majority of french have nothing to do with celts though there are exceptions, like you. So i`m sorry if i offended you, will you forgive me? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O_Stratigos

EUROPA BARBARORUM was partly set up to show that "barbarians" were much more "civilized" than what most people –including myself- believed them to be,

---

Not at all. This was never one of EB's goals.

It may be a side benefit, because EB accepts all sources as long as they are shown to be reliable, rather than just canon. However, it requires an opening of the mind to understand that other than the canon sources are acceptable, given a demonstrated equivalent level of historicity.

It may be appropriate to toss out a group of sources because they don't meet someone's arbitrary standards as to what is acceptable. However, when they are shown to be reliable through extensive corroboration, we in EB accept then regardless if they fall under the traditional umbrella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O_Stratigos

About medicine… assertions about brain surgery in primitive societies are IMHO just silly.

---

But we're not talking about primitive societies. That you would call them that makes the rest of your argument understandable. However, when you come to understand that Celtic society was not primitive, then perhaps you will come to understand the Celts better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marinakis

few things, firstly im not saying the greek nessacerly invented all of the listed above, but they were extreamly important in advancing the works of other peoples. Secondly im just talking about the western world, not so much assyria, sumeria, Babylonia etc. If we are talking about the most important cultures to mankind as a whole i would say Babylonia, Egypt, and Assyria.

P.S. When i say the greeks contributed Comedy and Tragedy im referring to plays, not just normal every day stuff. If your just referring to warfare then I point you to Alexander the great, Seleukos I Nikator, Pyrrhus, and the early Spartans. There wa not a shortage of brilliant and powerful Greeks when it came to war. I, however, dont judge a culture on their ability to wage war.

---

Look, my point is that catch-all statements such as "barbarians are uncivilized", "barbarian armies are undisciplined", or "Greeks and Romans were better that barbarians" simply are never going to be made by a competent historian. For one thing, trying to group all the peoples of Northern Europe under one culture which quite frankly the image of which is likely to have been skewed by the Romans, is not possible. That would be like saying that all the peoples of the Middle-East were grouped under one culture. Some Celtic tribes were more militarily disciplined that others, some Celtic tribes were, dare I say it, more advanced than others, but there are NO sweeping generalizations in real history. One cannot say "Celts were worse than Greeks and Romans 'cos they painted themselves blue and yelled at people". That's not on, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dago

Ok, ok, if you say so. I just think that the majority of french have nothing to do with celts though there are exceptions, like you. So i`m sorry if i offended you, will you forgive me? ~;)

---

~:) no hard feelings ~D

i hate being French so swing away. Modern Frenchmen give Frances rich history a bad name. However, i will never ignore a part of my heritage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marinakis

~:) i hate being French so swing away. Modern Frenchmen give Frances rich history a bad name. However, i will never ignore a part of my heritage.

---

Would you please stop political allusions.

yes instead of all this make us mouth drip again ~;) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Berserker states are fairly well attested in numerous cultures. The Irish rastriagh would pray for hours and put themselves into a kind of trance where they would begin to babble incoherently; the whole time their body would toss and shake violently (both pagan and Christian Irish believed they were being possessed by spirits that protected Ireland), ending with the person speaking very loud and very clearly, but everything they said was gibberish. They would eventually get so swift to put themself into a trance (which is an actual state of mind; it's essentially what the brain goes through while asleep, but in this state one can keep themself awake and moving, though certain nerve reactions are slowed down, though, often, one can confine those slowed reactions, once experienced, to things like pain, allowing one to ignore pain briefly; however, one would still probably lack a bit of control) they could do it right before a fight, and would fight in a trance-like state. It was called a 'calm rage' because of the seeming absolute calm of the individual coupled with their intensity in a fight (they would do things like rip people's fingers off, tear out eyes, pull out/crush throats, etc., without having drawn their weapons first; they got pretty sadistic). King Brian Boru's brother Wolf was a rastriagh (Wolf also was the one who killed Brian Boru's killer). The problem with it was that a really experienced rastriagh, if he wasn't careful, could accidentally slip into this state, and essentially freak out; rarely would he hurt anyone, except himself, though. It was scary, but it was a psychological state.

That's one kind of 'berserker'. The Irish used to say vikings did something similar, but not quite the same. Much more movement, and very loud. Lots of shouting. It was probably the same basic method; given that it's said they could slip into a berserk at any time, it seems likely it was purely a pyschological state, somewhat akin to a self-induced madness. The mind can only be subjected to certain rigors so many times before it snaps.

---

god, thats scary...imagining a man with a somewhat Bored face..looks like's he's bene zapping his tv for a day..a slightly dumb grin on his mouth..
a man, looking like this http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people...eranClancy.jpg
and he's trying to tear of your head...

Give me the loud, screaming, shouting berserker any day..at least you know he's giving effort..

god thats scary..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Would you please stop political allusions.

---

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marinakis

Yeah thats true, but really in every way,other then the name "Eastern ROMAN Empire", the Byzantine Empire, as its now known, was greek. Spoke greek, Worshiped Greek othadox, Capital City was in Greece, the Capital city itself is of greek origin, Greek emporers, etc etc.

So yeah your right, but i just see eastern empire as being greek not not as carrying on someone else's legacy.

---

Someone needs to learn about the Byzantine Empire, methinks. Capital City was in Thrace, it was of Roman origin (founded by a native Latin speaker), and had Greek, Latin, and Armenian Emperors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marinakis

I would give the vast majority of credit to the Arabs for perserving and carrying on the Greeks legacy.

---

This, likewise, is silly. The Byzantines, Italians, Irish, and many others played a role in this. Even the Slavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perplexed

To Marinakis, a reply:


Democracy:
True, but was it a boon or was it a curse? *points meaningfully at stupid apes being elected by the ignorant masses for high government posts* Most of the public votes in the Greek democracies were crooked anyway, controlled by the aristocracy.


Philosophy:
Practiced by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.


The Marathon, the Olympic Games:
Sports and war-games were common in all cultures, not the least of which were the Celts


Alexander the Great:
Alexander the Great was one person, a single Greek, we're talking about the bigger picture here.


Comedy:
The concept of comedy has existed and will in all cultures as long as humans can speak to each other.


Geometry:
Originally used by the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, etc. up to 2,000 years before the Greeks were even using script.


Public Jury:
A form of public council was used in Icelandic culture for one, the "All-Thing", and I am certain that similar practices were observed in other Celtic and Germanic societies.


The Hippocratic Oath:
I have to admit that (to my knowledge that is) medical expertise was greatly advanced in the Mediterranean, more so than in Northern Europe.


Hellenistic Architecture:
Again, the Greeks were very good architects, I must admit.


History:
Oh come on, many cultures recorded events before the Greeks did, even if Herodotus was considered "the Father of History". Have you read Herodotus by the way? More of a fairy-tale approach than actual historical fact.


Tragedy:
I'm pretty sure that the concept of tragedy is present in all humankind, not just in the Greeks.


I'm not just talking about warfare, my good man. ~;)

---

Democracy: You hit the nail on the head. Democracy, at its root, is brutal power of the people. As Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Philosophy: Sorry, must disagree. The Greeks do deserve the credit for Philosophy. The Pre-Socratics were the first ones to begin looking at the world in a logical, deductive manner.

Games: Games were used in all cultures, including many pre-Greek ones.

Geometry was invented by Egyptians. Give credit where it's due. ~;)

Public Jury comes straight from Scandanavian and Germanic tradition. It has nothing to do with Greek tradition. It is mildly influenced by Roman Civil Law, but is mainly a Common Law tradition that stems from Germanic legal thinking.

Architecture: if the Greeks hadn't learned from the Egyptians and pre-hellenic anatolian cultures, they'd still be building mud huts.

Tragedy as a form of expression was only codified by Greeks.

Keep note please that I am the Hellenic faction coordinator for EB, and nobody enjoys Hellenic culture more than I do. I even teach Ancient Greek right now!

Let me be more clear on exactly what contributions the Greeks had on the world, i was too general in my previous post.

Heres a clear list of 10


1. First to take the Scientific approach to medicine by actually studying the diseases, not just treating the symptoms! (See Hippocrates)

2. Worlds first Democracy.(Trial by Jury)

3. Invented the basic rules of Geometry along with other mathematics. (Euclid, Geometry Text of the Elements)

4. Produced and wrote the first dramas. (Euripides & Sophocles)

5. First to use the art of philosophy. (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)

6. They created amazing literature and poetry that we still read today. (Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, Sappho for love poems)

7. They recorded the first histories. (Herodotus of Halicarnassus)

8. Studied and classified or grouped different kinds of plants.

9. Gave us the Olympic Games.

10. They crafted beautiful buildings and sculptures. Along with Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns

Look, we're not saying the Greeks didn't contribute to western society, that they made some major innovations and that Alexander wasn't a great guy .... nor are we claiming the barbarians were the centre of the civilised universe that made the Greeco-Romans look like girlie toga wearing wanna-bes.

We / EB are just saying that if one wants to really appreciate this part of our ancient past, one needs to take a more holistic approach to research and realise the great diversity of peoples, cultures and practices …and that all these didn't exist in isolation. They all borrowed, stole or were otherwise influenced each other. Any student of material culture / the archaeological record would be fully aware of this aspect of our human history. It is this very interconnection that helps us understand huge parts of history where no one bothered to document events ... from Briton, Iberia, and Greece all the way to China and the Pacific. It's the regional diversity and influential changes that help us date many major events. Whether one looks at the cultural ‘democratic’ practice of equality and the ‘group vote’ within proto Celtic Indo-European Urnfield Tribes in the 7th and 8th C BC or the documented practice of Demos kratein using pebbles by Athens at the end of the 6th C BC, nothing existed in isolation.

Further, just to stress the point.. as Perplexed so aptly stated, one shouldn’t make generalisations unless you have all / most of the facts. Else one could, for example, take the Spartans in isolation and claim all Greeks were zenophobic, cenophobic, kakorrhaphiophobic, mastigophobic, cacophobic, catagelophobic, bibliophobic, zeusophobic, brontophobiac, eleutherophobic, epistemophobic, eurotophobic, etc etc

"Trying to prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized"

The words "barbarians" and "civilized" in quotes are used for lack of better words to convey our understanding -or at least mine- today of the differences betweens these peoples. In the FAQ section, khelvan wrote "Roman historians typically portrayed the barbarians they hated as being much less sophisticated than they actually were." Maybe I should’ve used "sophisticated" instead of "civilized". Also please note that "show" is not the same as "prove"..

"would be assuming the being "civilized" is a good thing."

That’s entirely up to you.. although I believe if one suggests that you are not civilized you might take exception to it… ~;) :balloon2:

"This judgement of valour is what EB, trying to correctly portraying cultures other than the "main inspirations of western modern civilization", wants to avoid."

I know this is just your opinion like you said, but I don’t really understand what you are trying to say particularly about "judgment of valour".. ~:confused:

"So in other words, you are saying that WE (modern western civilization) are not the bastion of democracy"
Sorry, but I have no idea of what are you talking about.. ~:eek:

"and that Greece isn't the birthplace of democracy (since you agree that it was merely some kind of it)"

Umm.. who do I actually"agree" with… never mind.. let me just put it this way: Ford Model T is a car, Porsche 911 is a car; is Porsche 911 a Ford Model T? (hints: progress, evolution, custom, locality etc) ~:cheers:

"I have to say that I totally agree with both these points."
I have to say thank you… I think.. ~D

"O_Stratigos, the oral histories can't be any worse than the stuff the Greeks and Romans wrote. Some might be true. Most of it is just really made up or exaggerated."

I totally agree with you, and please understand that I am not saying that oral histories are "children’s stories" and-or are totally unreliable, rather that the big difference is that you can’t change a written (original) story but you can never be sure about an oral one. What conclusions one derives from any of them can be of course totally arbitrary.

"To me what counts most is the perspective of the historian interpreting that documentation."

Different historians could have different perspectives; I hope you are not saying that if you agree with one’s perspective you’ll go along with it regardless of evidence to the contrary, just because for you "what counts more is the perspective"? There should be a lot of other considerations to be taken in to account surely.

"School is usually pretty ortodox about it. With it's cientific view and ONE TRUE HISTORY agenda."

I completely agree with this, today’s truth might be tomorrow’s great archeological discovery to the contrary.

"It may be appropriate to toss out a group of sources because they don't meet someone's arbitrary standards as to what is acceptable. However, when they are shown to be reliable through extensive corroboration, we in EB accept then regardless if they fall under the traditional umbrella."

What that means I believe is that you are employing a different set of "arbitrary standards" in this case EB’s, which is of course quiet acceptable because if one is to write a book on morality for example, one will have to use one’s own morality standards etc and that is a matter of perspective.. ~:)

"But we're not talking about primitive societies. That you would call them that makes the rest of your argument understandable. However, when you come to understand that Celtic society was not primitive, then perhaps you will come to understand the Celts better."

I am afraid I totally disagree with you on this one; when we talk about BC(E) societies+brain surgery this combination is mutually exclusive (as bad as "a concise Greek" or "Army Intelligence" ~D ) and whether Celtic, Greek or whatever we are BEYOND just "primitive" here.. we might as well be in the Neanderthal age for any difference that it makes..
Let’s say that a warrior had a swollen head from a blow and someone suggested "let’s open a hole to let the blood out" -assuming that they new/thought that blood pressure was what caused the swelling- they open a hole, blood comes out and the guy survived! That hole only needed to be very small and probably healed completely but that is not what "brain surgery" is about, anymore than by Democritus saying that matter is made up of atoms (small "things" that CANNOT be divided) would make him a nuclear physicist that could have actually built a nuclear bomb and that we should give him credit for such. Also "could perform brain surgeries, due to the pattern of scars on the skulls of certain dead" suggests different kinds of "surgeries" and my question remains; what on Earth could they possibly be looking for?

"Let me be more clear on exactly what contributions the Greeks had on the world, i was too general in my previous post."

I believe you left out the single most important contribution that helped shape western civilization and the only one that no one can claim “shares” in as with most of the others; the vowels.

"We / EB are just saying that if one wants to really appreciate this part of our ancient past, one needs to take a more holistic approach to research and realise the great diversity of peoples, cultures and practices …and that all these didn't exist in isolation… take the Spartans in isolation and claim all Greeks were zenophobic, cenophobic, kakorrhaphiophobic, mastigophobic, cacophobic, catagelophobic, bibliophobic, zeusophobic, brontophobiac, eleutherophobic, epistemophobic, eurotophobic, etc etc"

Very well put indeed!! I believe that what applies in philosophical, moral, judicial etc issues could well apply in history; that points of view don’t come just in black or white but in infinite shades of gray.

O_Stratigos :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O_Stratigos

"Trying to prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized"

The words "barbarians" and "civilized" in quotes are used for lack of better words to convey our understanding -or at least mine- today of the differences betweens these peoples. In the FAQ section, khelvan wrote "Roman historians typically portrayed the barbarians they hated as being much less sophisticated than they actually were." Maybe I should’ve used "sophisticated" instead of "civilized". Also please note that "show" is not the same as "prove"..

"would be assuming the being "civilized" is a good thing."

That’s entirely up to you.. although I believe if one suggests that you are not civilized you might take exception to it… ~;) :balloon2:

---

Well, the point that I was trying to make with that sentence still stands. I understand the use of "barbarians" and "civilized", but that wasn't what I was questioning.

As I said...
Making a mod to show/prove that "barbarians" were more "civilized" than what was portraited in vanilla. Would be assuming that being "civilized" is a good thing. "Civilized" is a modern concept often used as the uppermost level of a progressive scale of humanity.
Showing that barbarians were "civilized" would be putting them on this same scale, and thus assuming that this unique road to "civilization" is real.

The point that I think EB is making is showing that there is no one road to civilization. Showing all these different cultures without "judgement of valour".
I might be totally off, but I think this expression exists in english too. Anyway what I mean with it is that, by not preassuming that being civilized is good, and being barbarian is not, EB is capable of looking back and portrait these cultures without submitting them to being inferior.

Of course, this is all my opinion. I'm an antropologist and I have a very relativist view of "modern science" and "progress".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O_Stratigos

"So in other words, you are saying that WE (modern western civilization) are not the bastion of democracy"
Sorry, but I have no idea of what are you talking about.. ~:eek:

"and that Greece isn't the birthplace of democracy (since you agree that it was merely some kind of it)"

Umm.. who do I actually"agree" with… never mind.. let me just put it this way: Ford Model T is a car, Porsche 911 is a car; is Porsche 911 a Ford Model T? (hints: progress, evolution, custom, locality etc) ~:cheers:

---

Your sentence was:
"but its "common knowledge" that the birthplace of – a kind of- democracy is Greece"

That's why I said, "since you agree that it is the bithplace of merely some kind of democracy".

But never mind that wasn't really important. ~;)

kayapó

ps. Hope my english sounds better this time ~:)

This thread is degenerating and going nowhere, locked.