Re: Just to make your mouth drip
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
Re: Just to make your mouth drip
"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:
Re: Just to make your mouth drip
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 ~:)
Re: Just to make your mouth drip
This thread is degenerating and going nowhere, locked.
