| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
 |
|
On Nov 6, 10:02 pm, "stephan.nikolov" <baba_gi...@pri.abv.bg> wrote:
| Quote: | andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd131dde-f500-4ae0-ac67-0775c4f53f95@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 6:50 pm, "stephan.nikolov" <baba_gi...@pri.abv.bg> wrote:
Well, multinational entities are not unknown to this world. It is
inevitable, however, that such entities
sooner or later start policies of enhancing a certain type of culture in
order to preserve and strengthen the cohesion of society.
Inevitably the dominant culture develops conflict with the emerging
subcultures , etc., etc.
Yes, but some are more flexible and inclusive than others. For
example, some countries like the USA, Canada, India and Russia are
"mini-universes" in which there are a large number of separate
"identities" coexisting more-or-less harmoniously. And since we're
talking about the Ancient World, the Roman and Hellenistic periods saw
an enormous intermixing and cross-fertilization of cultures, along
with all the cultural bewilderment that went along with it. It's
nothing particularly new.
India - perhaps but no much harmony there, perhaps.
|
More harmony than one might think, and certainly more than one should
reasonably expect of the place, given the poverty, illiteracy and
extreme diversity.
| Quote: | USA - surely not. A look at the "americanized" Obama should
be the giding light here as well as the fact that over 90% of the Black
Americans voted for him.
|
That is exactly what I mean. A black man actually can be "American".
Could he be British? German? Chinese? Polish?
| Quote: | Canada - I do not know.
|
A country that is "browning" far faster than any other Western
country, including the USA. Comparatively little ethnic trouble, and
public displays of racism are taboo, even for the "lunatic fringe".
| Quote: | Russia - surely not.
|
In Russia, assimilation is much easier than elsewhere in Europe. You
can look like Genghis Khan or Saddam Hussein and still be a "Russian".
Look at Russia's history. Lenin was obviously at least partly Tartar,
Stalin looked like an Arab and spoke with a thick Georgian accent.
Pushkin was part Ethiopian. Even a converted Jew was totally accepted
as a Russian, even in the Imperial Period.
| Quote: |
Sure - Rome was what I had in mind when I wrote that a certain tyoe of
culturehad been enhanced
in order to preserve the cohesion of society.
Look at the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem
|
Look at the lengths to which the Romans had to be pushed before they
did it.
| Quote: |
A homogenized world, however, might emerge only after there are
established
contacts with allien civilization
- the definition "us" vs. "them" is inevitable.
Nothing is inevitable unless we want it to be or accept it as such.
Again, we all have a choice in the matter; every single human being
who has ever lived has had that choice.
Blah. There is no society in human history (that is the written history
period)
that has treated all cultural trends on equal footing.
|
I never said there was. But some societies are more inclusive than
others. Compare US society to that of Japan, and you will see that
many societies are certainly more exclusive. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 7, 3:23 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 5, 9:46 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)
Yes, but some are more flexible and inclusive than others. For
example, some countries like the USA, Canada, India and Russia are
"mini-universes" in which there are a large number of separate
"identities" coexisting more-or-less harmoniously.
Which planet are you on? Certainly none called Earth! India??? I
have just travelled there and for two weeks the approach to the
Pakistani border near Bikener was closed becasue of clashes between
these "harmoniously" coexisting "identities". Religious and ethnic
conflict in India is endemic.
|
I have been to India many times, and they close that border frequently
and without notice. And funny you should mention Bikaner. I celebrated
Dewali there in 1992, and in the home of a Muslim. I certainly wasn't
saying that India is all harmony and peace; rather I was saying that
it is nowhere near as "Balkanized" as other equally diverse places on
earth. I would say that the Balkans themselves are less diverse than
India, and yet the prevailing ethic in India is coexistence.
I also know all about the Hindu-Muslim trouble, the Hindu-Sikh stuff,
and the present campaign of terror against the Christians of Orissa.
That still doesn't alter the fact that nowhere else on earth will you
find such diversity, and yet in general, they are remarkably amicable
in their dealings with each other.
| Quote: | Russia? You are surely kidding, right? Heard of Chechnya?
|
Compare Russia to Germany or Turkey or Japan, and you will see that -
at least on a continuum - Russia leans heavily towards inclusion.
| Quote: |
USA? If there is a country in which one has to accept the
supranationality, this is the one. The emblems of nationalism are
everywhere. In the classroom, in every sports event etc,etc. There
is a strong central narrative to which all is subservient. It is now,
with the influx of Mexicans that this is breaking down and opening
fault lines. Welcome to ethnic strife the US way!
|
Look at their new President and tell me such a thing would be possible
in any European country. And I wasn't talking about patriotism. I was
referring to ethnic nationalism. You can be a Chinese- or Russian- or
Jewish-American. Can you be a Jewish Greek? You yourself said that the
Jews of Greece are not Greeks, if I recall.
| Quote: |
Canada? I do not know but I do not see much love between the French
and English speaking Canadians!!
|
When was the last time anyone was killed or had their jaw smashed over
it? Besides, the English-French thing is old hat, and will soon die
out. The increasing multiplicity of Canadian society will see to
that.
| Quote: |
And since we're
talking about the Ancient World, the Roman and Hellenistic periods saw
an enormous intermixing and cross-fertilization of cultures, along
with all the cultural bewilderment that went along with it. It's
nothing particularly new.
You are only stating this because you simply do not know the history.
|
Here we go again.
| Quote: | Let me give you a few examples: the Jewish rebellion, the violent
repression of the Druids in Gaul and Britain, the violent suppression
of Mauretania and, of course, the eradication of the CeltoIberians.
|
Yes, but in spite of all that, it was a multinational empire. After
the 1stC AD, it wasn't even "Roman" anymore.
| Quote: | Yes, the Greeks and Romans got well together (for most of the time)
because the Greeks decided to assume the supraidentity of
"Rhomaios" (a superset of a Roman and a Greek). It is interesting to
read Posidonius, one of the better advocates of this identity. But
many refused to subscribe to the notion of the Rhomaios in the East,
revolted a number of times (various rebellions in Egypt and Syria),
suppressed as many times as they revolted and so on. Especially after
the arrival of the Goths, Vandals, and other "barbarians", the ethnic
strife got to be intense and did not subside somewhat until the Empire
essentially eradicated the Germans from the Mediterranea.
|
Yes, but look at the assimilation of the Britons, the Gauls, the
Illyrians, etc. If you consciously chose to become "Roman", it didn't
matter if you looked like a Goth or an Arab. You became a Roman.
And again, I am not saying it was a model of harmony; rather it shows
that there are plenty of examples of viable multiethnic - even
amorphous - civilizations out there. We were originally on about Us
and Them. Who was Us in ancient Rome? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ADR
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 6, 10:04 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | Let me give you a few examples: the Jewish rebellion, the violent
repression of the Druids in Gaul and Britain, the violent suppression
of Mauretania and, of course, the eradication of the CeltoIberians.
Yes, but in spite of all that, it was a multinational empire. After
the 1stC AD, it wasn't even "Roman" anymore.
Yes, the Greeks and Romans got well together (for most of the time)
because the Greeks decided to assume the supraidentity of
"Rhomaios" (a superset of a Roman and a Greek). It is interesting to
read Posidonius, one of the better advocates of this identity. But
many refused to subscribe to the notion of the Rhomaios in the East,
revolted a number of times (various rebellions in Egypt and Syria),
suppressed as many times as they revolted and so on. Especially after
the arrival of the Goths, Vandals, and other "barbarians", the ethnic
strife got to be intense and did not subside somewhat until the Empire
essentially eradicated the Germans from the Mediterranea.
Yes, but look at the assimilation of the Britons, the Gauls, the
Illyrians, etc. If you consciously chose to become "Roman", it didn't
matter if you looked like a Goth or an Arab. You became a Roman.
|
Well, Andy, this is exactly what I was saying and you chose to
disregard. A supranational entity will always create a supranational
identity and you would be left in peace if you decide to embrace the
supranational identity. In the case of Sri Lanka, if only the Tamils
decide to embrace the Sri Lankan identity, the war would be over,
wouldn;t it? Yes, supranational entities have strong assimilatory
policies. In fact, the persecutions against the Christians was based
on the fact that the would not go along with the basic tenets of the
Roman identity. The Romans could not care at all about religion, but
they did care a lot about all elements of civic culture that created
the "orbis Romanus" and defined "Romanitas"; neither the Christians,
nor the Druids accepted the public face of Romanitas and was thus
persecuted. It is true that as long as you espoused the Roman
identity your skin color hardly mattered but is this the only
difference that is important to you? Rome would allow a substantial
variation in culture but would not countenance any departure from the
manifestation of Romanitas. In any case, any multiethnic entity that
allowed itself to break up along ethnic likes and dismantle a
supranational identity (the later Hapsburg empire is such an example)
it soon fell apart.
You use the term "Balkanization" as if it is a "dirty" word. Nothing
has happened in the Balkans that was any different than what happened
in central or eastern Europe. The demise of supranational entities
such as the Ottoman empire and later Yugoslavia gave rise to a number
of nation states. There is nothing here that is unique unless one
believes that, for some reason, it is expected for Balkan countries to
exist in supranational entities. If this is your belief, you must
have some good arguments for it. Let's see them.
Again, your silly comments simply underline your bias against Balkan
countries, a bias that has been generated not because of any knowledge
but rather through inaccurate press reporting and inaccurate analysis
in the mass media. For all intends and purposes, the separation of
the ethnic identities in Bosnia was no different and far less bloody
than the separation of India and Pakistan (in fact, there are many
similarities between these two cases). The Serbian attempt to hold on
to Kosovo was not any worse -and in fact, far less bloody- than the
Russian attempt to hold on to Chechnya. And as far as population
displacements go in Europe, nobody so far can beat the forceful
evacuation of 6 million Germans from Silesia (now in Poland) by the
victorious allies. In the annals of forced expulsions of populations,
this holds the top honors. And let's not forget that the western
powers empowered the Croats (with weapons and logistical assistance)
to expel 400 thousand Serbs from Krajina (an expulsion that they could
have easily stopped).
As Churchill remarked, the history is written by the victors. But you
do not have to buy it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 9, 5:59 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 6, 10:04 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip) |
| Quote: |
Yes, but look at the assimilation of the Britons, the Gauls, the
Illyrians, etc. If you consciously chose to become "Roman", it didn't
matter if you looked like a Goth or an Arab. You became a Roman.
Well, Andy, this is exactly what I was saying and you chose to
disregard. A supranational entity will always create a supranational
identity and you would be left in peace if you decide to embrace the
supranational identity.
|
I haven't disgregarded anything. What I said is that ethnic
nationalism isn't the law of nature. You seem to say this (correct me
if I am wrong), but there is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
| Quote: | In the case of Sri Lanka, if only the Tamils
decide to embrace the Sri Lankan identity, the war would be over,
wouldn;t it?
|
They actually already do. I am somewhat mystified when you make
statements like this, then say that I am in a discussion of which I am
uninformed. If the Sri Lankan gov't granted local autonomy in a
federal system, the war would be over. The overwhelming majority of
Tamils do not want to separate, and the LTTE is only as successful as
it is because of the intransigence of the Sinhalese majority.
| Quote: | Yes, supranational entities have strong assimilatory
policies. In fact, the persecutions against the Christians was based
on the fact that the would not go along with the basic tenets of the
Roman identity. The Romans could not care at all about religion, but
they did care a lot about all elements of civic culture that created
the "orbis Romanus" and defined "Romanitas"; neither the Christians,
nor the Druids accepted the public face of Romanitas and was thus
persecuted. It is true that as long as you espoused the Roman
identity your skin color hardly mattered but is this the only
difference that is important to you?
|
Nope. You could worship as you pleased, practice your own culture, and
speak your own language.
| Quote: | Rome would allow a substantial
variation in culture but would not countenance any departure from the
manifestation of Romanitas. In any case, any multiethnic entity that
allowed itself to break up along ethnic likes and dismantle a
supranational identity (the later Hapsburg empire is such an example)
it soon fell apart.
|
The Hapsburg Empire could have stayed together for another 50 years
through sheer force of arms. Russia and Germany would have helped it
to survive, and even the French and British had very little sympathy
for the national aspirations of its subject peoples. Remember "To Hell
With Servia" in 1914?
| Quote: |
You use the term "Balkanization" as if it is a "dirty" word.
|
No I don't. I use it in the way it is commonly employed, and defined
in dictionaries..
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=balkanize
| Quote: | Nothing
has happened in the Balkans that was any different than what happened
in central or eastern Europe. The demise of supranational entities
such as the Ottoman empire and later Yugoslavia gave rise to a number
of nation states. There is nothing here that is unique unless one
believes that, for some reason, it is expected for Balkan countries to
exist in supranational entities.
|
There's a tad more to it than that. Nationalism is one thing, but
visceral ethnic nationalism is quite another.
| Quote: | If this is your belief, you must
have some good arguments for it. Let's see them.
|
It's their belief (the Balkans) too. The Turkey, Croatia, and the R of
M want into the EU, and Greece already belongs, as does Bulgaria.
| Quote: |
Again, your silly comments simply underline your bias against Balkan
countries, a bias that has been generated not because of any knowledge
but rather through inaccurate press reporting and inaccurate analysis
in the mass media. For all intends and purposes, the separation of
the ethnic identities in Bosnia was no different and far less bloody
than the separation of India and Pakistan (in fact, there are many
similarities between these two cases).
|
I wholely disagree. There was horrible violence at Partition and a
million dead. A holocaust, really. But Tamils and Bengalis and
Marathis and a hundred other "peoples" still inhabit the same country.
A Punjabi has far less in common with a Keralite than a Serb has with
a Croat.
| Quote: | The Serbian attempt to hold on
to Kosovo was not any worse -and in fact, far less bloody- than the
Russian attempt to hold on to Chechnya. And as far as population
displacements go in Europe, nobody so far can beat the forceful
evacuation of 6 million Germans from Silesia (now in Poland) by the
victorious allies. In the annals of forced expulsions of populations,
this holds the top honors.
|
Just another of Stalin's many crimes.
| Quote: | And let's not forget that the western
powers empowered the Croats (with weapons and logistical assistance)
to expel 400 thousand Serbs from Krajina (an expulsion that they could
have easily stopped).
|
Yes, they could have. But it wasn't them who did the expelling. It is
simply too convenient to blame everything on the Americans (or the
British, as is the case here in Sri Lanka), but nobody forced people
to commit all those atrocities and ethnic cleansing. Again, the very
question "Who Is To Blame For This?" pretty much ensures that things
like this eternally reccur.
And you forgot the expulsions that took place between Greece and
Turkey after the Great War. State policy of ethnic cleansing.
| Quote: |
As Churchill remarked, the history is written by the victors. But you
do not have to buy it.
|
Well, that's not altogether true. In the Spanish Civil War, the losers
wrote all the history and their version is the accepted one. Same for
the extermination of the aboriginals in North America and Australasia.
In spite of Germany's obvious culpability in bringing about the Great
War (and the rapacity of what she planned to do if victorious) the
Allies are still condemned for Versailles.
But that's neither here nor there. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ADR
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 9, 3:03 am, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 9, 5:59 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 6, 10:04 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)
Yes, but look at the assimilation of the Britons, the Gauls, the
Illyrians, etc. If you consciously chose to become "Roman", it didn't
matter if you looked like a Goth or an Arab. You became a Roman.
Well, Andy, this is exactly what I was saying and you chose to
disregard. A supranational entity will always create a supranational
identity and you would be left in peace if you decide to embrace the
supranational identity.
I haven't disgregarded anything. What I said is that ethnic
nationalism isn't the law of nature. You seem to say this (correct me
if I am wrong), but there is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
In the case of Sri Lanka, if only the Tamils
decide to embrace the Sri Lankan identity, the war would be over,
wouldn;t it?
They actually already do. I am somewhat mystified when you make
statements like this, then say that I am in a discussion of which I am
uninformed. If the Sri Lankan gov't granted local autonomy in a
federal system, the war would be over. The overwhelming majority of
Tamils do not want to separate, and the LTTE is only as successful as
it is because of the intransigence of the Sinhalese majority.
Yes, supranational entities have strong assimilatory
policies. In fact, the persecutions against the Christians was based
on the fact that the would not go along with the basic tenets of the
Roman identity. The Romans could not care at all about religion, but
they did care a lot about all elements of civic culture that created
the "orbis Romanus" and defined "Romanitas"; neither the Christians,
nor the Druids accepted the public face of Romanitas and was thus
persecuted. It is true that as long as you espoused the Roman
identity your skin color hardly mattered but is this the only
difference that is important to you?
Nope. You could worship as you pleased, practice your own culture, and
speak your own language.
Rome would allow a substantial
variation in culture but would not countenance any departure from the
manifestation of Romanitas. In any case, any multiethnic entity that
allowed itself to break up along ethnic likes and dismantle a
supranational identity (the later Hapsburg empire is such an example)
it soon fell apart.
The Hapsburg Empire could have stayed together for another 50 years
through sheer force of arms. Russia and Germany would have helped it
to survive, and even the French and British had very little sympathy
for the national aspirations of its subject peoples. Remember "To Hell
With Servia" in 1914?
You use the term "Balkanization" as if it is a "dirty" word.
No I don't. I use it in the way it is commonly employed, and defined
in dictionaries..
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=balkanize
Nothing
has happened in the Balkans that was any different than what happened
in central or eastern Europe. The demise of supranational entities
such as the Ottoman empire and later Yugoslavia gave rise to a number
of nation states. There is nothing here that is unique unless one
believes that, for some reason, it is expected for Balkan countries to
exist in supranational entities.
There's a tad more to it than that. Nationalism is one thing, but
visceral ethnic nationalism is quite another.
If this is your belief, you must
have some good arguments for it. Let's see them.
It's their belief (the Balkans) too. The Turkey, Croatia, and the R of
M want into the EU, and Greece already belongs, as does Bulgaria.
Again, your silly comments simply underline your bias against Balkan
countries, a bias that has been generated not because of any knowledge
but rather through inaccurate press reporting and inaccurate analysis
in the mass media. For all intends and purposes, the separation of
the ethnic identities in Bosnia was no different and far less bloody
than the separation of India and Pakistan (in fact, there are many
similarities between these two cases).
I wholely disagree. There was horrible violence at Partition and a
million dead. A holocaust, really. But Tamils and Bengalis and
Marathis and a hundred other "peoples" still inhabit the same country.
A Punjabi has far less in common with a Keralite than a Serb has with
a Croat.
The Serbian attempt to hold on
to Kosovo was not any worse -and in fact, far less bloody- than the
Russian attempt to hold on to Chechnya. And as far as population
displacements go in Europe, nobody so far can beat the forceful
evacuation of 6 million Germans from Silesia (now in Poland) by the
victorious allies. In the annals of forced expulsions of populations,
this holds the top honors.
Just another of Stalin's many crimes.
And let's not forget that the western
powers empowered the Croats (with weapons and logistical assistance)
to expel 400 thousand Serbs from Krajina (an expulsion that they could
have easily stopped).
Yes, they could have. But it wasn't them who did the expelling. It is
simply too convenient to blame everything on the Americans (or the
British, as is the case here in Sri Lanka), but nobody forced people
to commit all those atrocities and ethnic cleansing. Again, the very
question "Who Is To Blame For This?" pretty much ensures that things
like this eternally reccur.
And you forgot the expulsions that took place between Greece and
Turkey after the Great War. State policy of ethnic cleansing.
As Churchill remarked, the history is written by the victors. But you
do not have to buy it.
Well, that's not altogether true. In the Spanish Civil War, the losers
wrote all the history and their version is the accepted one. Same for
the extermination of the aboriginals in North America and Australasia.
In spite of Germany's obvious culpability in bringing about the Great
War (and the rapacity of what she planned to do if victorious) the
Allies are still condemned for Versailles.
But that's neither here nor there.
|
Andy,
As usual, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too!! You either
have multiculturalism or you do not. My position is that there is no
such thing as multicultural entities with any degree of stability.
One of the true "multicultural entities" - which did not attempt to
define a dominant culture- was the Mongol empire of Gengis Khan but it
hardly lasted. Soon, it broke up to all its constituent parts.
Yes, the Hapsburg empire could have lasted another 50 years (unlikely)
but it was also doomed to failure. Thus, for the maintenance of any
successful superstate, the establishment of a dominant culture is a
necessity. And no sub-culture is allowed to exist if it conflicts and
does not amplify the dominant culture.
Thus, Rome. In Rome, subcultures different from the dominant (and
also territorially dominant) Grecoroman culture were allowed to exist
only insofar as they did not threaten the main culture and its civic
manifestations. The deification of emperors was a custom actually
adopted from the Greeks became a dominant expression of the civic
Grecoroman culture simply because worshipping the emperor and the gods
of Rome was a clear sign of embracing the dominant culture. Thus,
those who strongly objected to this were persecuted. In fact, the
later apologists who wrote against the Christians specifically
mentioned the abandonment of the worshipping of the Gods of Rome as
the reason for the decline of the empire (with some justification).
Now, we come to your position that nationalism in the Balkans is far
more virulent than anywhere else. How did you assess this? What kind
of proof do you have that shows that, for some reason, the Balkans are
far more nationalistic than any other part of the world? I think that
this is just all hooey!! We now live in the world in which the images
of war flash to your screen immediately along with poorly informed
commentary. In fact, the wars of "separation" in the Balkans were a
walk in the park when compared to the revolt in Chechnya, for
example. The Chenchens fought until almost everything was raised to
the ground and they committed horrendous acts of terrorism within
Russian soil (was the murder of dozens of chlidren in Russia by
Chechen separatists any less gruesome than anything that happened in
Yugoslavia?) And this is only one conflict that I can mention. The
Polish-Russian antagonism of the beginning of this century (very much
until now) resulted in far more incredible crimes than anything in the
Balkans.
You are also mistaken that the expulsion of Germans from Silesia was
another one of Stalin's crimes. It was actually carried out by the
Allied command and with the full agreement and cooperation of the
western allies well before the onset of cold war. So much about those
who throw stones while living in glass houses. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spirit of Truth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
"ADR" <aretzios@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca973337-a45f-4811-a360-d9c0e460b459@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 3:03 am, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 9, 5:59 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 6, 10:04 pm,
andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)
Yes, but look at the assimilation of the Britons, the Gauls, the
Illyrians, etc. If you consciously chose to become "Roman", it didn't
matter if you looked like a Goth or an Arab. You became a Roman.
Well, Andy, this is exactly what I was saying and you chose to
disregard. A supranational entity will always create a supranational
identity and you would be left in peace if you decide to embrace the
supranational identity.
I haven't disgregarded anything. What I said is that ethnic
nationalism isn't the law of nature. You seem to say this (correct me
if I am wrong), but there is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
In the case of Sri Lanka, if only the Tamils
decide to embrace the Sri Lankan identity, the war would be over,
wouldn;t it?
They actually already do. I am somewhat mystified when you make
statements like this, then say that I am in a discussion of which I am
uninformed. If the Sri Lankan gov't granted local autonomy in a
federal system, the war would be over. The overwhelming majority of
Tamils do not want to separate, and the LTTE is only as successful as
it is because of the intransigence of the Sinhalese majority.
Yes, supranational entities have strong assimilatory
policies. In fact, the persecutions against the Christians was based
on the fact that the would not go along with the basic tenets of the
Roman identity. The Romans could not care at all about religion, but
they did care a lot about all elements of civic culture that created
the "orbis Romanus" and defined "Romanitas"; neither the Christians,
nor the Druids accepted the public face of Romanitas and was thus
persecuted. It is true that as long as you espoused the Roman
identity your skin color hardly mattered but is this the only
difference that is important to you?
Nope. You could worship as you pleased, practice your own culture, and
speak your own language.
Rome would allow a substantial
variation in culture but would not countenance any departure from the
manifestation of Romanitas. In any case, any multiethnic entity that
allowed itself to break up along ethnic likes and dismantle a
supranational identity (the later Hapsburg empire is such an example)
it soon fell apart.
The Hapsburg Empire could have stayed together for another 50 years
through sheer force of arms. Russia and Germany would have helped it
to survive, and even the French and British had very little sympathy
for the national aspirations of its subject peoples. Remember "To Hell
With Servia" in 1914?
You use the term "Balkanization" as if it is a "dirty" word.
No I don't. I use it in the way it is commonly employed, and defined
in dictionaries..
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=balkanize
Nothing
has happened in the Balkans that was any different than what happened
in central or eastern Europe. The demise of supranational entities
such as the Ottoman empire and later Yugoslavia gave rise to a number
of nation states. There is nothing here that is unique unless one
believes that, for some reason, it is expected for Balkan countries to
exist in supranational entities.
There's a tad more to it than that. Nationalism is one thing, but
visceral ethnic nationalism is quite another.
If this is your belief, you must
have some good arguments for it. Let's see them.
It's their belief (the Balkans) too. The Turkey, Croatia, and the R of
M want into the EU, and Greece already belongs, as does Bulgaria.
Again, your silly comments simply underline your bias against Balkan
countries, a bias that has been generated not because of any knowledge
but rather through inaccurate press reporting and inaccurate analysis
in the mass media. For all intends and purposes, the separation of
the ethnic identities in Bosnia was no different and far less bloody
than the separation of India and Pakistan (in fact, there are many
similarities between these two cases).
I wholely disagree. There was horrible violence at Partition and a
million dead. A holocaust, really. But Tamils and Bengalis and
Marathis and a hundred other "peoples" still inhabit the same country.
A Punjabi has far less in common with a Keralite than a Serb has with
a Croat.
The Serbian attempt to hold on
to Kosovo was not any worse -and in fact, far less bloody- than the
Russian attempt to hold on to Chechnya. And as far as population
displacements go in Europe, nobody so far can beat the forceful
evacuation of 6 million Germans from Silesia (now in Poland) by the
victorious allies. In the annals of forced expulsions of populations,
this holds the top honors.
Just another of Stalin's many crimes.
And let's not forget that the western
powers empowered the Croats (with weapons and logistical assistance)
to expel 400 thousand Serbs from Krajina (an expulsion that they could
have easily stopped).
Yes, they could have. But it wasn't them who did the expelling. It is
simply too convenient to blame everything on the Americans (or the
British, as is the case here in Sri Lanka), but nobody forced people
to commit all those atrocities and ethnic cleansing. Again, the very
question "Who Is To Blame For This?" pretty much ensures that things
like this eternally reccur.
And you forgot the expulsions that took place between Greece and
Turkey after the Great War. State policy of ethnic cleansing.
As Churchill remarked, the history is written by the victors. But you
do not have to buy it.
Well, that's not altogether true. In the Spanish Civil War, the losers
wrote all the history and their version is the accepted one. Same for
the extermination of the aboriginals in North America and Australasia.
In spite of Germany's obvious culpability in bringing about the Great
War (and the rapacity of what she planned to do if victorious) the
Allies are still condemned for Versailles.
But that's neither here nor there.
|
Andy,
As usual, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too!! You either
have multiculturalism or you do not. My position is that there is no
such thing as multicultural entities with any degree of stability.
One of the true "multicultural entities" - which did not attempt to
define a dominant culture- was the Mongol empire of Gengis Khan but it
hardly lasted. Soon, it broke up to all its constituent parts.
Yes, the Hapsburg empire could have lasted another 50 years (unlikely)
but it was also doomed to failure. Thus, for the maintenance of any
successful superstate, the establishment of a dominant culture is a
necessity. And no sub-culture is allowed to exist if it conflicts and
does not amplify the dominant culture.
Thus, Rome. In Rome, subcultures different from the dominant (and
also territorially dominant) Grecoroman culture were allowed to exist
only insofar as they did not threaten the main culture and its civic
manifestations. The deification of emperors was a custom actually
adopted from the Greeks became a dominant expression of the civic
Grecoroman culture simply because worshipping the emperor and the gods
of Rome was a clear sign of embracing the dominant culture. Thus,
those who strongly objected to this were persecuted. In fact, the
later apologists who wrote against the Christians specifically
mentioned the abandonment of the worshipping of the Gods of Rome as
the reason for the decline of the empire (with some justification).
Now, we come to your position that nationalism in the Balkans is far
more virulent than anywhere else. How did you assess this? What kind
of proof do you have that shows that, for some reason, the Balkans are
far more nationalistic than any other part of the world? I think that
this is just all hooey!! We now live in the world in which the images
of war flash to your screen immediately along with poorly informed
commentary. In fact, the wars of "separation" in the Balkans were a
walk in the park when compared to the revolt in Chechnya, for
example. The Chenchens fought until almost everything was raised to
the ground and they committed horrendous acts of terrorism within
Russian soil (was the murder of dozens of chlidren in Russia by
Chechen separatists any less gruesome than anything that happened in
Yugoslavia?) And this is only one conflict that I can mention. The
Polish-Russian antagonism of the beginning of this century (very much
until now) resulted in far more incredible crimes than anything in the
Balkans.
You are also mistaken that the expulsion of Germans from Silesia was
another one of Stalin's crimes. It was actually carried out by the
Allied command and with the full agreement and cooperation of the
western allies well before the onset of cold war. So much about those
who throw stones while living in glass houses.
......................................................................................................
Why on earth do you expect him to know anything about history?
Spirit of Truth |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 11, 8:28 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: |
Andy,
As usual, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too!! You either
have multiculturalism or you do not.
|
Yes, but the choice isn't a stark one between multiculturalism and
monoculturalism (or "dominant-culturalism"). There are countless
variations in between, and that's where every society that has ever
existed lies. They differed only by degrees.
For example: my own country is Canada. There are 2 "dominant"
cultures, each one holding sway in different parts of the country.
Coexistent with this are a number of more-or-less indigenous
subcultures. By this I do not mean the aboriginals (although they add
to the mix, and their birthrate will see this trend increase); rather
I mean the variations in English and French societies. An Acadian
(Cajun) will take a swing at you if you call him a Quebecois, and
Newfoundlanders are so starkly different from other English-speakers
that non-Newfoundlanders often have a hard time understanding them.
They also have a unique culture, more Irish in flavour than Canadian.
Add to that the various ethnic communities. Every culture on earth is
fairly well- and visibly-established in Canada, and this too is an
accelerating trend.
But when was the last time you heard of a real race-riot in Canada?
When was the last civil war? There are tensions aplenty, but I cannot
imagine any circumstance in which violence - let alone organized mass
violence - could break out. Compared to most European countries,
Canada is fairly racism-free.
And I don't say this out of any sense of patriotism or pride; it is
simply how things are. And whether you and I like it, the cultural
uniqueness of the world's societies is vanishing. And again, the
choice is for us to accept it or not. The kind of world I imagine
taking place with the latter option doesn't appeal to me at all, thank
you.
| Quote: | My position is that there is no
such thing as multicultural entities with any degree of stability.
One of the true "multicultural entities" - which did not attempt to
define a dominant culture- was the Mongol empire of Gengis Khan but it
hardly lasted. Soon, it broke up to all its constituent parts.
|
India.
| Quote: |
Yes, the Hapsburg empire could have lasted another 50 years (unlikely)
but it was also doomed to failure. Thus, for the maintenance of any
successful superstate, the establishment of a dominant culture is a
necessity. And no sub-culture is allowed to exist if it conflicts and
does not amplify the dominant culture.
|
What was the dominant culture of the Hapsburg Empire? And what makes
you so sure it was doomed? Europe is feverishly bringing something
akin to it back into existence in the form of the EU.
| Quote: |
Thus, Rome. In Rome, subcultures different from the dominant (and
also territorially dominant) Grecoroman culture were allowed to exist
only insofar as they did not threaten the main culture and its civic
manifestations.
|
What was the main culture, then?
| Quote: | The deification of emperors was a custom actually
adopted from the Greeks became a dominant expression of the civic
Grecoroman culture simply because worshipping the emperor and the gods
of Rome was a clear sign of embracing the dominant culture.
|
No it wasn't. It was a sign of submissionn, nothing more.
| Quote: | Thus,
those who strongly objected to this were persecuted.
|
Yes, but not on religious grounds. It was purely political.
| Quote: | In fact, the
later apologists who wrote against the Christians specifically
mentioned the abandonment of the worshipping of the Gods of Rome as
the reason for the decline of the empire (with some justification).
|
I would disagree with that, but 2000 after the fact, nobody can agree
on the Fall of the Roman Empire.
| Quote: |
Now, we come to your position that nationalism in the Balkans is far
more virulent than anywhere else. How did you assess this?
|
Well, the events of the past 100 years have been pretty well-
documented. I also recently read (on ERIC's advice) Andre
Gerolymatos' "The Balkan Wars". I can't see how he can be accused of
being anti-hellenic or traitorous. Indeed, his pride in his heritage
is plain to see. But the conclusions he draws and the way he analyzes
things strikes all the right chords with me.
| Quote: | What kind
of proof do you have that shows that, for some reason, the Balkans are
far more nationalistic than any other part of the world? I think that
this is just all hooey!!
|
Fair enough. I guess you and I disagree on this one.
| Quote: | We now live in the world in which the images
of war flash to your screen immediately along with poorly informed
commentary.
|
What is "properly informed" commentary? In terms of this ng, it
inevitably means choosing sides and blaming somebody for everything
(or almost everything). I'm not saying that the media is faultless,
but there are too many stories out there to tell any of them properly.
For example: take 5 minutes and surf the net for news of the present
heavy fighting in the northwest of Sri Lanka. You'll have to look
pretty hard. Ask a Greek or a Serb or a Turk for his analysis of what
is going on here, just off the top of his head. I guarantee you he'll
probably have no picture of the complexity of the struggle, the scale
of the danger and tensions (in Colombo at least), and will almost
certainly dismiss the whole thing by blaming the British or the Sri
Lankan gov't or something like that.
Of course, the "outside world" doesn't know enough about the Balkans
to be able to form an accurate or coherent point of view. But the
"Balkanites" are equally guilty of this themselves, no?
| Quote: | In fact, the wars of "separation" in the Balkans were a
walk in the park when compared to the revolt in Chechnya, for
example. The Chenchens fought until almost everything was raised to
the ground and they committed horrendous acts of terrorism within
Russian soil (was the murder of dozens of chlidren in Russia by
Chechen separatists any less gruesome than anything that happened in
Yugoslavia?) And this is only one conflict that I can mention. The
Polish-Russian antagonism of the beginning of this century (very much
until now) resulted in far more incredible crimes than anything in the
Balkans.
|
I don't disagree. But this ng is about the Balkans, no? And ethnic
hatred is very much a part of the Balkan zeitgeist.
| Quote: |
You are also mistaken that the expulsion of Germans from Silesia was
another one of Stalin's crimes. It was actually carried out by the
Allied command and with the full agreement and cooperation of the
western allies well before the onset of cold war.
|
Who packed all the people on the trains? And for that matter, look at
what the Germans themselves were prepared to do had they won the war.
A crime is a crime, and ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing, but it
was all right there in Mein Kampf, all that stuff about lebensraum,
the helotization or elimination of the "Eastern" races, and the
transformation of Europe from the Nieman to the Urals into a giant
repository for victorious German settlers. And it wasn't just Hitler
and the Nazis. Spengler and Guenther and many others were proponents
of mad racialist theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_theory#Nordic_thought_in_Germany
| Quote: | So much about those
who throw stones while living in glass houses.
|
Who's throwing stones? And who's living in a glass house? We're back
to that silly you're-as-bad-as-me argument that results in nothing
more than perpetuation of the eternal conflict. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 11, 12:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: |
Why on earth do you expect him to know anything about history?
Spirit of Truth
|
Care to teach me something? I know, I know, the old dodge about me
being unteachable.
Sorry, but a personal attack is just that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spirit of Truth
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
<andytoole@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1aa10cc3-0219-4fd1-8da8-5ae06bfdf5c0@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 12:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: | Why on earth do you expect him to know anything about history?
Spirit of Truth
Care to teach me something? I know, I know, the old dodge about me |
being unteachable.
Sorry, but a personal attack is just that.
..........................................................................................................
Unfortunately, your posts show that you are indeed no better at history
than the Fyromian pseudo-historians.
Spirit of Truth |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On 12 Nov, 11:29, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | andyto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1aa10cc3-0219-4fd1-8da8-5ae06bfdf5c0@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 12:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
(snip)
Why on earth do you expect him to know anything about history?
Spirit of Truth
Care to teach me something? I know, I know, the old dodge about me
being unteachable.
Sorry, but a personal attack is just that.
..........................................................................................................
Unfortunately, your posts show that you are indeed no better at history
than the Fyromian pseudo-historians.
Spirit of Truth
|
And that is the Truth you seem to be the Spirit of? Just personal
attacks, completely devoid of any substance at all?
Well, nobody can force you to put forth a coherent argument, can they? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ADR
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On Nov 11, 1:19 am, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 11, 8:28 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
Andy,
As usual, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too!! You either
have multiculturalism or you do not.
Yes, but the choice isn't a stark one between multiculturalism and
monoculturalism (or "dominant-culturalism"). There are countless
variations in between, and that's where every society that has ever
existed lies. They differed only by degrees.
For example: my own country is Canada. There are 2 "dominant"
cultures, each one holding sway in different parts of the country.
Coexistent with this are a number of more-or-less indigenous
subcultures. By this I do not mean the aboriginals (although they add
to the mix, and their birthrate will see this trend increase); rather
I mean the variations in English and French societies. An Acadian
(Cajun) will take a swing at you if you call him a Quebecois, and
Newfoundlanders are so starkly different from other English-speakers
that non-Newfoundlanders often have a hard time understanding them.
They also have a unique culture, more Irish in flavour than Canadian.
Add to that the various ethnic communities. Every culture on earth is
fairly well- and visibly-established in Canada, and this too is an
accelerating trend.
But when was the last time you heard of a real race-riot in Canada?
When was the last civil war? There are tensions aplenty, but I cannot
imagine any circumstance in which violence - let alone organized mass
violence - could break out. Compared to most European countries,
Canada is fairly racism-free.
|
Oh, Mr. Superior Guy living in a Superior Country! How utter
bullshit!! Let's get to it. Canada is a result of conquest held
together by force for a lot of its history. And the only reason that
it stays together is that the status quo is preferrable to the people
than the resulting situation, whatever this may be and no particular
group was interested or powerful enough to force a solution. I saw
the same thing happening in Scotland. The only reason that it remains
part of the UK is because the separation is causing certain anxiety
regarding the resulting solution. But in ex-Yugoslavia, the breakup
was considered preferrable to the pre-existing condition by far. In
areas that had homogeneous populations, the breakup was relatively
easily and bloodless (Slovenia, Croatia). Areas with mixed
populations in which no particular group held the absolute majority
had a far more difficult time (Boznia). Then, there is also
history. Yugoslavia was an entity put together only in 1918 (as the
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) following the treaty of
Versailles. It was not a result of conquest, held together for
centuries under force of arms to create a certain "meta-stable"
population. Not only was in put together in 1918, but it came apart
in 1941 to '44, with the Germans creating competing sub-states. In
addition, the Yugoslav communist party decided to de-unify the country
and the only unifying philosophy remained the communist party. So,
with the dismissal of communism (and the death of Tito), there was
really nothing keeping these states together. If Boznia had a
homogeneous population, then its separation would have been as
bloodless as that of Slovevia. But this was not the case and the part
of the population that did not accept the partition revolted. I
wonder what would be happening in Canada if a certain group decides to
advance its agenda without forming a consensus.
| Quote: | And I don't say this out of any sense of patriotism or pride; it is
simply how things are. And whether you and I like it, the cultural
uniqueness of the world's societies is vanishing. And again, the
choice is for us to accept it or not. The kind of world I imagine
taking place with the latter option doesn't appeal to me at all, thank
you.
|
No, you are simply patronizing and in a stupid way. Societies that
look solid and peaceful can easily erupt into violence when
circumstances change.
| Quote: | My position is that there is no
such thing as multicultural entities with any degree of stability.
One of the true "multicultural entities" - which did not attempt to
define a dominant culture- was the Mongol empire of Gengis Khan but it
hardly lasted. Soon, it broke up to all its constituent parts.
India.
|
Having been to India, I would not call it a multicultural society.
There are some Muslims and some Christians, but the overwhelming
majority are Hindu (and its many variations
| Quote: | Yes, the Hapsburg empire could have lasted another 50 years (unlikely)
but it was also doomed to failure. Thus, for the maintenance of any
successful superstate, the establishment of a dominant culture is a
necessity. And no sub-culture is allowed to exist if it conflicts and
does not amplify the dominant culture.
What was the dominant culture of the Hapsburg Empire? And what makes
you so sure it was doomed? Europe is feverishly bringing something
akin to it back into existence in the form of the EU.
|
This was my point. There was no dominant culture. And if the EU
reproduces such an experiment, it would be only in a highly democratic
environment (and this is why the "constitution" has been defeated time
and time again). The EU is a fully different discussion and vast one
at that.
| Quote: | Thus, Rome. In Rome, subcultures different from the dominant (and
also territorially dominant) Grecoroman culture were allowed to exist
only insofar as they did not threaten the main culture and its civic
manifestations.
What was the main culture, then?
|
The Crecoroman. Any doubts on that?
| Quote: | The deification of emperors was a custom actually
adopted from the Greeks became a dominant expression of the civic
Grecoroman culture simply because worshipping the emperor and the gods
of Rome was a clear sign of embracing the dominant culture.
No it wasn't. It was a sign of submissionn, nothing more.
|
Not at all. In fact, there were a number of civic ceremonies, all of
which injected to the empire a dominant civic culture. If you to
expand on it, I would be happy to oblige.
| Quote: | In fact, the
later apologists who wrote against the Christians specifically
mentioned the abandonment of the worshipping of the Gods of Rome as
the reason for the decline of the empire (with some justification).
I would disagree with that, but 2000 after the fact, nobody can agree
on the Fall of the Roman Empire.
|
Who said anything about agreement. I am referring to persons writing
in the 5th century AD, attacking Christianity and blaming it for the
fall of the empire. As for the reason of the fall of the Roman
Empire, there is now a very firm agreement of what caused it.
| Quote: | Now, we come to your position that nationalism in the Balkans is far
more virulent than anywhere else. How did you assess this?
Well, the events of the past 100 years have been pretty well-
documented. I also recently read (on ERIC's advice) Andre
Gerolymatos' "The Balkan Wars". I can't see how he can be accused of
being anti-hellenic or traitorous. Indeed, his pride in his heritage
is plain to see. But the conclusions he draws and the way he analyzes
things strikes all the right chords with me.
|
Yes, we know a lot of details for the last 100 years. I have not read
the Gerolymatos book, but I can see why I would disagree profoundly
with it.
| Quote: | What kind
of proof do you have that shows that, for some reason, the Balkans are
far more nationalistic than any other part of the world? I think that
this is just all hooey!!
Fair enough. I guess you and I disagree on this one.
|
Yes
| Quote: | We now live in the world in which the images
of war flash to your screen immediately along with poorly informed
commentary.
What is "properly informed" commentary? In terms of this ng, it
inevitably means choosing sides and blaming somebody for everything
(or almost everything). I'm not saying that the media is faultless,
but there are too many stories out there to tell any of them properly.
For example: take 5 minutes and surf the net for news of the present
heavy fighting in the northwest of Sri Lanka. You'll have to look
pretty hard. Ask a Greek or a Serb or a Turk for his analysis of what
is going on here, just off the top of his head. I guarantee you he'll
probably have no picture of the complexity of the struggle, the scale
of the danger and tensions (in Colombo at least), and will almost
certainly dismiss the whole thing by blaming the British or the Sri
Lankan gov't or something like that.
|
I do not. I know what is happening. And what does it matter if
average people understand a civil strife in a far away place? In most
cases, it hardly makes (if ever) western news. But Boznia was on TV
daily with idiotic commentary to boot. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Istor the Macedonian
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
On 11 ÍïÝ, 11:20, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
.................................
| Quote: | Care to teach me something? I know, I know, the old dodge about me
being unteachable.
......................... |
First, get that you are malakas and your will make the first step to
understand world.
Second, there is no more multicultural country on earth regarding its
size, than Greece.
But this is not what English-World likes. They want us all coca-cola
boys. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
stephan.nikolov
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
<andytoole@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4ac1c33-3f64-4f8c-9622-01b3e6444d29@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
India - perhaps but no much harmony there, perhaps.
|
More harmony than one might think, and certainly more than one should
reasonably expect of the place, given the poverty, illiteracy and
extreme diversity.
Anastassios has this one answered well.
| Quote: | USA - surely not. A look at the "americanized" Obama should
be the giding light here as well as the fact that over 90% of the Black
Americans voted for him.
|
That is exactly what I mean. A black man actually can be "American".
| Quote: | Could he be British? German? Chinese? Polish?
|
Yet, the black vote for Obama is racial vote, is it not?
| Quote: | Canada - I do not know.
|
A country that is "browning" far faster than any other Western
country, including the USA. Comparatively little ethnic trouble, and
public displays of racism are taboo, even for the "lunatic fringe".
| Quote: | Russia - surely not.
|
In Russia, assimilation is much easier than elsewhere in Europe. You
can look like Genghis Khan or Saddam Hussein and still be a "Russian".
Look at Russia's history. Lenin was obviously at least partly Tartar,
Stalin looked like an Arab and spoke with a thick Georgian accent.
Pushkin was part Ethiopian. Even a converted Jew was totally accepted
| Quote: | as a Russian, even in the Imperial Period.
|
What a mess. Out of a sudden assimilation becomes a trend of
multiculturalism.....
And this is precisely what I was telling you: establishment of a dominant
cultural trend!
As for te Jews in tsarist Russia - you simply do not know what you are
talking about.
There was no more anti-semitic _state_ in Eurasia (that is both Europe and
Asia) in the 19th c.
than Romanov Russia. Reading Solzhenitsin's "200 years together " may
illuminate you.
The oigin of the very word "pogrom" should mean something for you.
| Quote: | Sure - Rome was what I had in mind when I wrote that a certain tyoe of
culturehad been enhanced
in order to preserve the cohesion of society.
Look at the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem
|
Look at the lengths to which the Romans had to be pushed before they
Whatever. Look at the lengths to which the jews had to be pushed!
The Romans never bothered to uderstand Judaism. Facing a theocratic
monotheistic culture was
something they could not cope with.
Same with the persecution of Christians. Have you heard of "dominus et
deus"?
| Quote: | A homogenized world, however, might emerge only after there are
established
contacts with allien civilization
- the definition "us" vs. "them" is inevitable.
Nothing is inevitable unless we want it to be or accept it as such.
Again, we all have a choice in the matter; every single human being
who has ever lived has had that choice.
Blah. There is no society in human history (that is the written history
period)
that has treated all cultural trends on equal footing.
|
I never said there was. But some societies are more inclusive than
others. Compare US society to that of Japan, and you will see that
| Quote: | many societies are certainly more exclusive.
|
Good. With this I can live. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
stephan.nikolov
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: Re: What Is History? |
|
|
<andytoole@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49501776-8148-483b-b2ed-d83f41d71642@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 5:59 am, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 6, 10:04 pm, andyto...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip) |
| Quote: |
Yes, but look at the assimilation of the Britons, the Gauls, the
Illyrians, etc. If you consciously chose to become "Roman", it didn't
matter if you looked like a Goth or an Arab. You became a Roman.
Well, Andy, this is exactly what I was saying and you chose to
disregard. A supranational entity will always create a supranational
identity and you would be left in peace if you decide to embrace the
supranational identity.
|
I haven't disgregarded anything. What I said is that ethnic
nationalism isn't the law of nature. You seem to say this (correct me
| Quote: | if I am wrong), but there is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
|
No, he is simply saying that cultural imperialism is the issue.
Nationalism is simply ne of its manifestations.
BTW, ethnic nationalism is quite misleading term.
| Quote: | In the case of Sri Lanka, if only the Tamils
decide to embrace the Sri Lankan identity, the war would be over,
wouldn;t it?
|
They actually already do. I am somewhat mystified when you make
statements like this, then say that I am in a discussion of which I am
uninformed. If the Sri Lankan gov't granted local autonomy in a
federal system, the war would be over. The overwhelming majority of
Tamils do not want to separate, and the LTTE is only as successful as
it is because of the intransigence of the Sinhalese majority.
| Quote: | Yes, supranational entities have strong assimilatory
policies. In fact, the persecutions against the Christians was based
on the fact that the would not go along with the basic tenets of the
Roman identity. The Romans could not care at all about religion, but
they did care a lot about all elements of civic culture that created
the "orbis Romanus" and defined "Romanitas"; neither the Christians,
nor the Druids accepted the public face of Romanitas and was thus
persecuted. It is true that as long as you espoused the Roman
identity your skin color hardly mattered but is this the only
difference that is important to you?
|
Nope. You could worship as you pleased, practice your own culture, and
speak your own language.
As I said: Dominus et Deus. How this comes in terms with Judaism and
Christianity?
How comes the statue of an Emperor in the temple of jerusalem fits in the
Jewish worship?
| |
