https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/ancient-skeletons-bury-popular-right-wing-talking-point/
sad backdrop to this story
It is, but the story itself is too politically motivated to be trusted and is highly dangerous. Right wing extremism feeds off the feeling that people have that their group , with which they self identify, is under threat, so articles that deny the existence of a grouping that peopke feel they belong too risks encouraging the very nationalism that the writers are trying to deny. A recent book on the phenomenon of Trump and Brexit voting postulated the the theory that the population could be split into Somewheres and Nowheres. Somewheres feeling the need for a defined licalised identity, Nowheres having a supranational allegiance. Very Henry II and Thomas Beckett?
Anyway what modern peopke mean when they describe themselves as Anglo Saxon is doubtless a constuct of modern attributes ( all nationalisms are) , but that does not mean that the inhabitants of England in the seventh to eleventh centuries did not have similar constructs that they identified with .
When Harold II went north to pacify the rebellious inhabitants of York and to exile his own brother he agreed to let the men of York live under Danish law. Its a moot point as to whether they thought of themselves as English in the sense of being under the king of England and Danish in law abd lijely language or as Anglo Danes...but they must have had some idea of what they were. Parsing people's genetic make up does not mean that they had no identities. I buy into the idea that identity is multilayered and voluntary in the sense that one can attempt to have multilayered identities at the same time and that ancient peoples likely did this as well, so someone might be Roman, Mithraist, member of sixth legion and Illyrian.
WithnAnglo Saxon its clearly a created identity, back in Bede's time they were likely already buying into English as a descriptor, along with Northumbrian etc. The 'Germanics' who came to England came in small groups, perhaps three ships a time, might already have mixed genetic heritage before crossing the sea, and the groups included Sueves, Heruls, Franks and of course adopting Britons as well as Saxons ( already a confederation, Angles and Jutes.
Quote from: aligern on April 12, 2018, 10:22:50 PM
It is, but the story itself is too politically motivated to be trusted and is highly dangerous. Right wing extremism feeds off the feeling that people have that their group , with which they self identify, is under threat, so articles that deny the existence of a grouping that peopke feel they belong too risks encouraging the very nationalism that the writers are trying to deny. A recent book on the phenomenon of Trump and Brexit voting postulated the the theory that the population could be split into Somewheres and Nowheres. Somewheres feeling the need for a defined licalised identity, Nowheres having a supranational allegiance. Very Henry II and Thomas Beckett?
Anyway what modern peopke mean when they describe themselves as Anglo Saxon is doubtless a constuct of modern attributes ( all nationalisms are) , but that does not mean that the inhabitants of England in the seventh to eleventh centuries did not have similar constructs that they identified with .
When Harold II went north to pacify the rebellious inhabitants of York and to exile his own brother he agreed to let the men of York live under Danish law. Its a moot point as to whether they thought of themselves as English in the sense of being under the king of England and Danish in law abd lijely language or as Anglo Danes...but they must have had some idea of what they were. Parsing people's genetic make up does not mean that they had no identities. I buy into the idea that identity is multilayered and voluntary in the sense that one can attempt to have multilayered identities at the same time and that ancient peoples likely did this as well, so someone might be Roman, Mithraist, member of sixth legion and Illyrian.
WithnAnglo Saxon its clearly a created identity, back in Bede's time they were likely already buying into English as a descriptor, along with Northumbrian etc. The 'Germanics' who came to England came in small groups, perhaps three ships a time, might already have mixed genetic heritage before crossing the sea, and the groups included Sueves, Heruls, Franks and of course adopting Britons as well as Saxons ( already a confederation, Angles and Jutes.
Very pertinent points. Articles written about this discussion are normally written by those who are players in the game. As an ancients wargamer the idea of historians having their own agenda isn't new to me :-)
Identity is a very interesting concept and to an extent people buy into one. I have close friends who have no difficulty in seeing themselves as Nigerians and British. They are perfectly happy to sign up to the classic British values, but bring with them Nigerian values such as the importance of family and community the need for families to support each other. Also a very wide view of family. When one had to go to the caterers to organise his daughter's wedding, he told them that somewhere between 200 and 600 would sit down at the wedding breakfast.
Basically he hadn't a clue because every Nigerian who vaguely knew the family and who happened to be passing through the UK or nearby would of course come to the wedding whether he invited them or not. (It's pretty much the same as the old village weddings we used to get in Rural areas here, where everybody turns up at the church service, and the village provided the catering with a bring and share meal in the village hall.) And of course only the English people invited actually RSVP'ed, all Nigerians 'knew' absolutely that the father of the bride would know that they would do everything possible to make the big day.
It's interesting to see how this works out in their lives, and perhaps because of the people they are, they have tried live up to the best of each identity
But yes, identity can be multilayered and also it can be a refuge for groups who feel put down
One persistent cultural factor across many races and places which makes DNA analysis highly questionable as a measure of culture or ethnicity is the habit of tracing descent and cultural identity via the male line irrespective of female ethnicity. This is most noticeable (because best catalogued) in Hebrew scriptural tradition, where until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah Hebrew men are marrying Canaanite, Syrian, Moabite and Midinaite women and the resultant children are usually considered fully-fledged Hebrews.
This kind of practice, applied to the Anglo-Saxon scene, would provide a high level of apparent Britonic ethnicity in Anglo-Saxon settlements as Saxon raiders took local wives and concubines, had children by them, and these children, raised as Saxons, moved further inland to conquer lands and seize wives of their own. The invaders would retain their cultural continuity and quite probably their outward appearance but their DNA would be seriously diluted, much to the confusion of later academics and scientists.
Roy and Jim both make excellent cultural points to which I happily subscribe.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 13, 2018, 09:49:12 AM
One persistent cultural factor across many races and places which makes DNA analysis highly questionable as a measure of culture or ethnicity is the habit of tracing descent and cultural identity via the male line irrespective of female ethnicity. This is most noticeable (because best catalogued) in Hebrew scriptural tradition, where until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah Hebrew men are marrying Canaanite, Syrian, Moabite and Midinaite women and the resultant children are usually considered fully-fledged Hebrews.
The old Testament can be read as a beautiful example of a people trying to maintain their identity and the tensions it creates.
So when (some of) the exiles return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, we have Ezra in chapter 9 saying "After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."
Yet in an earlier and more confident age we have the Book of Ruth, and Ruth herself, a Moabite, was admitted into the ancestors of no less a person that King David.
My guess is that confident, aggressive, domineering people don't worry too much about their cultural identity, it is what they will it to be.
It's those who feel themselves to be under attack and in some way disadvantaged who make a big thing of it.
How about that for a huge and wild generalisation 8)
And I think a by no means inaccurate one. :)
G K Chesterton has some interesting input on being Anglo-Saxon. He maintained that the British always took pride in being mongrels. Having a shipwrecked Spaniard from the Armada in the family tree was an especial cause for delight. The English people, like the language, is about as kaapie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Coloureds) as you can get.
He makes the point that what constituted the English identity were the institutions: the monarchy, aristocracy, class system, government, legal system, church and the particular social order they helped create. Get rid of those and 'English' becomes a meaningless word. My impression is that they are by-and-large gone anyway, hence the reaction that tries to reaffirm what they once stood for. Flogging a dead horse.
I've watched the social identity of Whites get wiped from the map twice, in Zimbabwe and South Africa. One gets over it.
I'm sure I don't need to remind us that we are in risky territory politically. One of the nice things about being here is we can chat about military history even when we know our politics is different. I'd like to keep it that way.
Going back to the original study, I like the idea of sampling ancient material to look at DNA make up at the time rather than now, but this one has a tiny sample size - even smaller than the Beaker one. Is it too early to call for a meta-study to collate these small sample surveys and see what that tells us?
Quote from: Erpingham on April 13, 2018, 05:57:00 PM
I'm sure I don't need to remind us that we are in risky territory politically. One of the nice things about being here is we can chat about military history even when we know our politics is different. I'd like to keep it that way.
Going back to the original study, I like the idea of sampling ancient material to look at DNA make up at the time rather than now, but this one has a tiny sample size - even smaller than the Beaker one. Is it too early to call for a meta-study to collate these small sample surveys and see what that tells us?
That's fine. I'm not really into politics myself. We gave that up here decades ago. One thing about the article that intrigues me is the idea that the English are a homogeneous race. That had been laughed out of court a long time ago (as Chesterton pointed out*). Is there a resurgence of the idea of Anglo-Saxon racial purity?
*I remember an article by him on the promoters of the Nordic race idea - the superior men of the North - which idea was rather compromised when the Germans took it up. He suggested they use a different term - Borealic - which could be shortened to 'Bores'.
no politics from my perspective but I did think it was an interesting piece and really wish people wouldnt use studies for political ends but thats the modern world which ironically seems worse in some respects than 1500 years ago
Justin's point about English identity being tied to institutions is an important one for understanding certain cultures, especially Romans, particularly in the Imperial period. Trying to map the Roman Empire through DNA studies alone would be enough to make strong men weep.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 13, 2018, 08:03:32 PM
Justin's point about English identity being tied to institutions is an important one for understanding certain cultures, especially Romans, particularly in the Imperial period. Trying to map the Roman Empire through DNA studies alone would be enough to make strong men weep.
exactly, the Romans didnt really care for DNA, they wanted loyalty to the Pax Romana!
I do worry that this misses the point for the nut jobs out there
Sane people talk about this and say things like the above.
Lunatics simply hear more proof of whatever stupidity they have latched on to.
And the fact that people who would be horrified to be associated with the lunatics are talking seriously about something the lunatics want to hear just reinforces the lunatics belief that everyone is with them
It's like mildly racist jokes. The point is not whether it is funny to not, "it's just a joke" is the after excuse to defuse the consequence.
The real point is so the racist can reinforce his belief by finding other people to laugh with him.
It is very hard to talk about this sort of biological nationalistic determinism nonsense without falling into the trap, and frankly, there is no gain worth the effort. Proceed with extreme caution.
I am hoping we shall not worry to much about political correctness here. What I would hope for is a sensible, thinking treatment of any given subject, and if this of necessity abrades a few present-day sacred cows, I am not too bothered.
we have to be careful and also conscientious about stuff like this but with clear filters in place we should be able to discuss meaningful information from a wider context of population dynamics
But weren't the last couple of weeks on this forum nice? I had hoped the situation might be permanent.
Quote from: RichT on April 13, 2018, 10:29:49 PM
But weren't the last couple of weeks on this forum nice? I had hoped the situation might be permanent.
that's very English, to talk about the weather when things are hotting up ;)
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 14, 2018, 08:07:09 AM
Quote from: RichT on April 13, 2018, 10:29:49 PM
But weren't the last couple of weeks on this forum nice? I had hoped the situation might be permanent.
that's very English, to talk about the weather when things are hotting up ;)
ahem...British
;D
Quote from: Holly on April 14, 2018, 08:14:44 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 14, 2018, 08:07:09 AM
Quote from: RichT on April 13, 2018, 10:29:49 PM
But weren't the last couple of weeks on this forum nice? I had hoped the situation might be permanent.
that's very English, to talk about the weather when things are hotting up ;)
ahem...British
;D
:P
;)
Personally, I find much more of interest in the social construction of ethnicity rather than the blood line approach, but genetics is such a massive scientific project at the moment, historical DNA studies are inevitable. It's a question of tip-toeing around the elephant in the room. It doesn't take much to stray into a stray into dodgy territory.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 14, 2018, 09:45:23 AM
Personally, I find much more of interest in the social construction of ethnicity rather than the blood line approach, but genetics is such a massive scientific project at the moment, historical DNA studies are inevitable. It's a question of tip-toeing around the elephant in the room. It doesn't take much to stray into a stray into dodgy territory.
This is normally found at the rear of the elephant and is one reason why so few people keep them in the room with them :-[
Especially if they sneeze.
Quote from: Mark G on April 14, 2018, 06:11:22 PM
Especially if they sneeze.
never stand behind a sneezing elephant
Amazing how we got here from an Anglo-Saxon sense of identity.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 14, 2018, 08:04:38 PM
Amazing how we got here from an Anglo-Saxon sense of identity.
You'd never find an Anglo Saxon standing behind a sneezing elephant! ;)
thread drift alert!
;D
I think Jim's got it back on track. ;)
Seriously, though, let us not bring political correctness into historical discussions. It just turns them into political discussions, which do not belong here.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 15, 2018, 09:50:44 AM
Seriously, though, let us not bring political correctness into historical discussions. It just turns them into political discussions, which do not belong here.
Which is of course a politically loaded statement in itself. Elephants, as Jim has said, produce health and safety issues. Lets hope they don't go mad either. :)
We won't keep all politics out of what we discuss, any more than we will keep out other beliefs. I think we do owe it to each other though to be self-aware and seek to discuss as objectively and rationally as we can. On that nicely value-laden plea, I think I'll leave it :)
Quote from: Erpingham on April 15, 2018, 10:07:30 AM
I think we do owe it to each other though to be self-aware and seek to discuss as objectively and rationally as we can. On that nicely value-laden plea, I think I'll leave it :)
Seconded.
We wouldn't want to be so politically correct as to end up accusing anyone of cultural racism- that would be awful.
If the cap fits ... ;)
But seriously, this should be a forum where members can look rationally at historical situations without having to worry about current political fashions.
Yes indeed Ian. The r word should be used most carefully, not bandied around. It has suffered fom meaning creep so that situations that are actually religious debate or cultural discussion are included in its sweep. There is a trend to this sort of inflation which is dangerous in that there are certain things that are firbidden territory......no sensible person would describe themselves a Nazi or a Fascist any more...its too toxic. Poor old Rhodes has now been anathematised , Colston is having his hall renamed. Stale , pale and male puts you beyond the pale. This has had real world consequences because research into the behaviours of ethnic, religious ir cultural groups is stymied.
Of course, this is a Society that deals in different cultures in conflict with one another so we constantly skate at the boundary of several isms. It is also a Society of decent, fair people and very often armies of very different culture and ethnicity find passionate advocates.
We should be careful not to allow the natural tendency of debate to adjectival inflation to end in terminology that no longer has any semblance of tight meaning.
Roy
You are probably not following the Xerxes thread Roy but Ian is referring to someone describing anyone who criticises Herodotus as "culturally racist". He is not being entirely serious, I believe.
I think we should back away from this subject carefully now, as the words Nazi, Fascist and Rhodes have been raised, all are political red rags and none of which are ancient history topics.
I am well aware of the Xerxes thread😉. Long ago and far away there was a debate in the pages of Slingshot about Herderism IIRC . It was very destructive, paricularly, if memory serves me, because there is a point at which pushing the idea that all truth is relative and largely a construct of how we see the world now interacting with the perception of the world of an Ancient source and that both are not wholly mapped to the actual truth just drives everyone mad. I am firmly of the opinion that the truth existed and is recoverable even if it is not recogniseable.
The Xerxes debate strikes at the heart of the problem if truth. Justin's original question just approached it from the durection of feasibility rather than did Xerxes have a million or three million men. Modern revisionists have made a very strong case that the army must have been much smaller. Few nowadays would suppirt the idea of a huge army. That opens up a debate about Herodotus, Greek historians in general and Ancient sources beyond that. There is a fragility in how we look at the sources and in part it reaches to the centre of the Society's mission. If we go around making army lists based upon statements in prinary sources , ut is crucial that those sources are believable. In the end it comes down to how we interpret the evidence and there we have another twist because we have motives fir interpreting the evidence . Patrick slipped a controversial point into the argument in that thread when he claimed that the standard Persian unit was 100 men frontage by 100 men deep. That ought to have consequences on the tabletop ?
There are many other arguable points such as did Franks throw their franciscas in massed battle, did Ostrogiths have hirse armour, did William's Normans throw javelins, did Harold!s Saxons have light infantry, did Companion cavalry break into hoplites frontally? were sarissae fought over or underarm? What we do not have is a methodology for final resolution, apart from the views of the last writer who eventually commits a decision to print!
As to the insult words we both agree that catcalling is not what we are here to do, but there us a point where some of these labels become part of the debate. Anyone for calling Herodotus the father of Orientalism?
Roy
Quote from: Erpingham on April 20, 2018, 09:54:49 AM
You are probably not following the Xerxes thread Roy but Ian is referring to someone describing anyone who criticises Herodotus as "culturally racist". He is not being entirely serious, I believe.
It was meant as a not entirely serious comment on the absurdity of complaining about political correctness whilst playing ancient Greek identity politics.
It's nice to see Godwin's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) in action once again. Though if it had been in the Xerxes thread, it might have provided a welcome reason to wind it up...
On a serious note, the 'cultural racism' remark was already close to invoking Godwin's Law and is the sort of thing that a bit of gentle moderation would help to eradicate, to keep things civil and ancient history related. IMHO this forum would benefit greatly from a proper moderator. Any chance of having one (or two)?
The meta discussions - what is history? what do we know? who are we? what's it all about? - I think are better left alone - or certainly not elaborated on in a thread about racism. I would just say that:
Quote
What we do not have is a methodology for final resolution, apart from the views of the last writer who eventually commits a decision to print!
is not true - we do have such a methodology, and it's called 'History'. True, it won't lead to 'final resolution', any more than Physics or Mathematics will lead to final resolution in their fields (or at least, not for the foreseeable future), but final resolution is not the aim - rather a steady, sometimes halting, progression toward a better approximation to the truth.
look at what i started...... :-[
Contra the Herderism debate, I think one area we can claim consensus is that objective truth exists. Our ability to know it is, of course, another matter. :)
I'm not sure we can entirely avoid meta-issues, as I've raised on the Xerxes thread, but certainly I don't want to discuss them within such an explosive environment either.
In my experience ancient wargamers are some of the least 'culturally racist' people I meet, most of them that have armies other than from their own culture and generally have some knowledge and sympathy for the ethnicities making up the army.
However, I can think of one exception which was chap I knew many many years ago. The guy had bought an Indian army as it had a lot of exciting and useful elements Chariots, Elephants, massed archers and what not. The problem was that he hated Indians, in fact he was a kind of equal opportunity racist and seemed to despise anyone who wasn't a White European. His solution was both simple and elegant, paint the Indians in Caucasian skin colours.
Quote from: Holly on April 20, 2018, 12:03:08 PM
look at what i started...... :-[
Putting "right-wing" in your thread title - what were you thinking? I mean, really!
But we seemed to have weathered it so, OK, you're excused. ;)
Personally, I have only one rule for a forum discussion. Never use the words "You are". Seems to work for me.
Actually I just said "you're". Sorry...
Richard, isn't it a bit hopeful to compare historical methodology with the sciences? If someone is willing to argue hard enough fir their point of view then they can usually makes maintain it because we just do not have good enough evidence to finally nail down an unwrguable conclusion. How many Giths at Adrianople? We don't know , the best guess is around 20,000, though that would offend against the logic that they were a large tribe and the Helvetii were a large tribe and Caesar gives them 368,000 people and 92,000 warriors ( a convenient multiple, but then Caesar did find the documents in the Helvetic camp and its only a councidence that has him outnumbered 4-1. ) Ammianus gives ipus a relationship to the Romans that might be helpful i.e. that Valens thought his Roman army substantially outnumbered the Goths and it turns out that he did not. But then someone could argue that Ammianus wanted to blacken the name of whoever was in charge of the Roman's scouting or oerhaps Ammianus was making a moral point that actually the Romans lost rather than that the Goths won. Incidentally there are those that choose to believe that the Goths flanking cavalry attack was not intentional, but merely an unplanned accident. Now Adrianople has been analysed and commented on fir decades and there can be no final agreement, because the interpretations cannot easily be ranked in order of probability and counter arguments rise like dragons teeth. Nor are we able to repeat the experinent and if one points to the earlier near repeat it just gets discounted.
The joy of our debates is that we can indulge ourselves with opinions because earlier historians have not been able to cone to conclusions so firm that they are unchallengeable, the frustration is that our own opinions cannot be buttressed with a certainty that would stifle the more outrageous arguments of our opponents.😏
Roy
The difficulty in appealing to a moderator is that we have an administrator already, and he actively participates in the most contentious threads.
In fact I doubt we could find a member prepared to read the pages and not participate, and also act as moderator.
Quote from: Mark G on April 20, 2018, 07:48:30 PM
The difficulty in appealing to a moderator is that we have an administrator already, and he actively participates in the most contentious threads.
In fact I doubt we could find a member prepared to read the pages and not participate, and also act as moderator.
Actually, Mark, all our officers have moderator capability, specifically to avoid moderation being in the hands of any single individual who might be tempted to use it in support of his opinions.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 19, 2018, 07:21:24 PM
If the cap fits ... ;)
But seriously, this should be a forum where members can look rationally at historical situations without having to worry about current political fashions.
Joking aside Patrick don't you owe an apology to those society members you accused of being racist?
I think we can acquit Patrick of that charge!
Rereading that section in the thread, the point made was that it is easy to ascribe more gullibility to ancient authors than they actually possessed, rather than try to determine if what they affirm might be more factual than it appears at first sight. I think there was something to the dolphin story since dolphins do actually behave the way Herodotus describes. The trouble is that Herodotus brings Apollo and Poseidon into the story, giving it a religious cast which, in the minds of many contemporaries, automatically disqualifies it. One needs to notice that neither Apollo nor Poseidon actually play any part in the account. The story is not really religious.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 20, 2018, 10:57:06 PM
I think we can acquit Patrick of that charge!
I disagree- accusations of racism are serious enough not to he used as a cheap debating point, particularly by an administrator.
Funnily enough, the comment was not even aimed at Ian, but the way he has adopted it suggests a guilty conscience. ;)
I wished (and still wish) to highlight the fact that our 21st century approach to history is very deficient because of our insistence on seeing everything in terms of our own present culture. Our supposed 'critical aproach' to history and historical sources in particular is in fact highly selective.
There are three targets which will be 'criticised' with the inevitability of sunrise:
1) Large numbers
2) Success when seriously outnumbered
3) Exceptional performance
The 'critical approach', however, will leap to embrace (without evaluation) any scrap or rumour in sources which fits a current fashionable viewpoint.
The underlying motive would appear to be a conviction that our own cultural merit is superior to that of any which have gone before, especially any at that distance in time.
So what would you call this phenomenon? And more importantly, what would you do about it?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 21, 2018, 07:48:14 AM
So what would you call this phenomenon?
Preferential trans-cultural deoxyribonucleism?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 21, 2018, 07:48:14 AM
Funnily enough, the comment was not even aimed at Ian, but the way he has adopted it suggests a guilty conscience. ;)
I wished (and still wish) to highlight the fact that our 21st century approach to history is very deficient because of our insistence on seeing everything in terms of our own present culture. Our supposed 'critical aproach' to history and historical sources in particular is in fact highly selective.
There are three targets which will be 'criticised' with the inevitability of sunrise:
1) Large numbers
2) Success when seriously outnumbered
3) Exceptional performance
The 'critical approach', however, will leap to embrace (without evaluation) any scrap or rumour in sources which fits a current fashionable viewpoint.
The underlying motive would appear to be a conviction that our own cultural merit is superior to that of any which have gone before, especially any at that distance in time.
So what would you call this phenomenon? And more importantly, what would you do about it?
'Current fashionable viewpoint', what do you mean by that? I would also ask members to consider that the use of 'political correctness' as a pejorative is itself a political statement.
Folks, I think we need to can this topic. No good can come of pursuing it. It's the kind of thing that can lead to serious animosity, and once such has been aroused it's very hard to get rid of. Discussions about interpretations of history are what we are here for, but we need to keep this an apolitical space as much as we can, otherwise, as has happened on so many internet forums in the past, it will poison the atmosphere and have potentially disastrous repercussions for the membership, and not just here but for the Society as a whole. None of us want people getting genuinely upset, none of us want to cause offence to others, and none of us want members leaving because of rash words, so please let's just back away from that precipice and keep this as the kind of place we want it to be.
Best,
Aaron
Quote from: Prufrock on April 21, 2018, 08:38:53 AM
Folks, I think we need to can this topic. No good can come of pursuing it. It's the kind of thing that can lead to serious animosity, and once such has been aroused it's very hard to get rid of. Discussions about interpretations of history are what we are here for, but we need to keep this an apolitical space as much as we can, otherwise, as has happened on so many internet forums in the past, it will poison the atmosphere and have potentially disastrous repercussions for the membership, and not just here but for the Society as a whole. None of us want people getting genuinely upset, none of us want to cause offence to others, and none of us want members leaving because of rash words, so please let's just back away from that precipice and keep this as the kind of place we want it to be.
Best,
Aaron
Fair enough Aaron. I think a middle ground approach to the issue raised here would be to consider whether the current academic approach to the primary sources is as objective as is commonly assumed, but perhaps without using triggering keywords, even if those keywords are used in a context that does not actually cause offence. We live in a world where IMHO society has become rather polarized - especially over language.
Seconded Aaron. It is hard to limit one's responses when others are talking politically. As I've already said, we can't avoid the meta-issues of "doing history" entirely but sloganising and attacks must guarded against if we are to enjoy an environment in which we can politely disagree with one another. Otherwise, we will degenerate to the level of a newspaper comments section.
Thanks for that edit Justin.
So can we say the R word should not be used please? too much baggage.
Also, try as we might there is no way that we can look at Ancient cultures except through modern eyes, though we can try very hard to make allowances for our modern points of view.
I think its fruitful to look at academic bias, though we have done that several times. Tony Blair once made the point that government has its own interests by which he meant that MP's, Congressmen, Lords and Senators, ministers and civil servants had interests in preserving their structures ( look at the heat generated by a propisal to cut the number of MPs in the UK). Academics have this too. There are both subtle and direct pressures to make new interpretations. Some are reflective of changes in Society, such as Rhodes moving from rogueish hero to villain , some to the need to stand out to get academic promotion, some to the desire of senior academics to have followers and some to the desire of followers to get places and perquisites in a manner the 17th century would have been proud of.
However, despite all those motives academics still mostly apply some critical apparatus to their work and that does include common sense! However, the problem with common sense is that one man's is not the same as anothers.
Us it common sense that the Persians did not need to have a million to conquer Greece only say 200,000 and thathat a unit of 100 by 100 on the battlefield is almost useless? or is it common sense that in the absence of a similarly valudated source we should take tge word of an ancient writer close in time to the event ?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 21, 2018, 07:48:14 AM
Funnily enough, the comment was not even aimed at Ian, but the way he has adopted it suggests a guilty conscience. ;)
The underlying motive would appear to be a conviction that our own cultural merit is superior to that of any which have gone before, especially any at that distance in time.
So what would you call this phenomenon? And more importantly, what would you do about it?
I am usually sympathetic to fringe theories and the eccentric individuals who promulgate them but this is going a little far; clearly the phenomenon you refer to does not fit any reasonable definition of racism. The Patrick definition of racism would include ancient critics of Herodotus such as Plutarch who criticises the esteemed historian with a conviction which in Watersonian terms can only based upon his temporal based superior cultural merit.
( Moderated by me! Roy)
Quote from: aligern on April 21, 2018, 09:21:05 AM
So can we say the R word should not be used please? too much baggage.
Precisely.
There may be a time to discuss whether our intellectual apparatus has advanced since ancient times but I feel now is not the time.
As Roy has said, we approach history from our own cultural and intellectual base and with a common knowledge base. I cannot say in all honesty that Galen is equivalent in understanding of human health to modern medics, for example. I don't believe malaria is caused by bad air. Even my quite conservative religious background accepts the critical study of its holy texts. As we have said elsewhere recently, its important to try to understand how people from the past think and what agendas they may have, rather than impose our own. But approaching our sources uncritically assuming that way brings an unbiased approach is unwise.
Roy's comment reminded me of this northern saying
"There's nowt common about common sense" .
Gentlemen, please.
Quote from: aligern on April 21, 2018, 09:21:05 AM
So can we say the R word should not be used please? too much baggage.
Also, try as we might there is no way that we can look at Ancient cultures except through modern eyes, though we can try very hard to make allowances for our modern points of view.
I think its fruitful to look at academic bias, though we have done that several times. Tony Blair once made the point that government has its own interests by which he meant that MP's, Congressmen, Lords and Senators, ministers and civil servants had interests in preserving their structures ( look at the heat generated by a propisal to cut the number of MPs in the UK). Academics have this too. There are both subtle and direct pressures to make new interpretations. Some are reflective of changes in Society, such as Rhodes moving from rogueish hero to villain , some to the need to stand out to get academic promotion, some to the desire of senior academics to have followers and some to the desire of followers to get places and perquisites in a manner the 17th century would have been proud of.
This works for me. For govt bias watch the first season of
Yes Minister. A brilliant satire.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 21, 2018, 09:55:02 AM
This works for me. For govt bias watch the first season of Yes Minister. A brilliant satire.
I'm afraid UK government has jumped the shark since then :)
This kind of topic can Be used by extreme nutters on both sides of the Fence that throw nuance out the window. Besides the current political, social and economic conflicts in West Europe are more linked to conflicting cultures, evolving cultures, devolving cultures etc than to Be retraced to mere ethnicities. Still i think iT unwise to debate the matter here on the basis of a political article. That is all I Will say about in the forum. I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
Quote from: Prufrock on April 21, 2018, 08:38:53 AM
Folks, I think we need to can this topic. No good can come of pursuing it. It's the kind of thing that can lead to serious animosity, and once such has been aroused it's very hard to get rid of. Discussions about interpretations of history are what we are here for, but we need to keep this an apolitical space as much as we can, otherwise, as has happened on so many internet forums in the past, it will poison the atmosphere and have potentially disastrous repercussions for the membership, and not just here but for the Society as a whole. None of us want people getting genuinely upset, none of us want to cause offence to others, and none of us want members leaving because of rash words, so please let's just back away from that precipice and keep this as the kind of place we want it to be.
Best,
Aaron
Seconded, and exactly what I meant when I suggested this forum would benefit from a moderator. The current administrators are not the people for this job for various obvious reasons. I had in mind one of the wiser heads - Anthony, Duncan, Aaron, if they were willing. Being a moderator wouldn't mean not taking part in the discussions, it would just mean keeping an eye out for dangerous waters, and warning or editing as required - this is already happening, as Duncan, Anthony and Aaron have each had to make such interventions in the past few days but they have had to take the form of requests to desist, or requests for an admin to edit. If they could step in and do the job themselves, so much better for everyone, and it would act as a disincentive to inappropriate behaviour in the first place.
Of course if they aren't willing, then the suggestion can go no further. But I thought it worth asking.
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
that's the one. Stick to techie details, go into great depth about tunic colours and the world will ignore you totally is too boring to be of interest 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 06:25:43 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
that's the one. Stick to techie details, go into great depth about tunic colours and the world will ignore you totally is too boring to be of interest 8)
keep it simple Jim :)
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
possibly Jaw Bones of Asses
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
possibly Jaw Bones of Asses
too obscure ;-)
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 07:02:48 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
possibly Jaw Bones of Asses
too obscure ;-)
Not to the admittedly ever diminishing host of Victor Mature fans ;)
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 07:14:22 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 07:02:48 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
possibly Jaw Bones of Asses
too obscure ;-)
Not to the admittedly ever diminishing host of Victor Mature fans ;)
Victor Mature! Now you are taking me back a few years (and Saturday morning films!) :)
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 07:14:22 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 07:02:48 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
I prefer to leave contemporary politics, misère and religion out of my hobby.
It's true, life is so much simpler when we just discuss people hitting each other with sharpened metal bars 8)
or pointy sticks :)
possibly Jaw Bones of Asses
too obscure ;-)
Not to the admittedly ever diminishing host of Victor Mature fans ;)
Victor Mature! Now you are taking me back a few years (and Saturday morning films!) :)
He also played Hannibal :o
Required viewing for budding historians :)
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 08:47:26 PM
Required viewing for budding historians :)
More so than the 300
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 08:47:26 PM
Required viewing for budding historians :)
More so than the 300
300 Spartans on the other hand..... (1962 film)
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 09:39:02 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 09:30:23 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 08:47:26 PM
Required viewing for budding historians :)
More so than the 300
300 Spartans on the other hand..... (1962 film)
I never saw the more recent one (The Rhino put me off)
I quite like both :)
its definitely an acquired taste but visually its stunning
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 08:47:26 PM
Required viewing for budding historians :)
More so than the 300
300 Spartans on the other hand..... (1962 film)
Possibly my inspiration to get into 'ancients'; I dread to think what someone inspired by the Frank Miller film would get into.
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 11:19:48 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 08:47:26 PM
Required viewing for budding historians :)
More so than the 300
300 Spartans on the other hand..... (1962 film)
Possibly my inspiration to get into 'ancients'; I dread to think what someone inspired by the Frank Miller film would get into.
er......good point ;D
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 11:19:48 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 08:47:26 PM
Required viewing for budding historians :)
More so than the 300
300 Spartans on the other hand..... (1962 film)
Possibly my inspiration to get into 'ancients'; I dread to think what someone inspired by the Frank Miller film would get into.
(https://i.imgur.com/PnOoNPr.jpg)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 22, 2018, 08:05:36 AM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 11:19:48 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2018, 09:22:56 PM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 21, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 21, 2018, 08:47:26 PM
Required viewing for budding historians :)
More so than the 300
300 Spartans on the other hand..... (1962 film)
Possibly my inspiration to get into 'ancients'; I dread to think what someone inspired by the Frank Miller film would get into.
(https://i.imgur.com/PnOoNPr.jpg)
That Xerxes has let himself go a bit
never trust someone with 4 toes :o
Quote from: Holly on April 22, 2018, 09:56:52 AM
never trust someone with 4 toes :o
Unless they are a guinea pig
Quote from: Holly on April 22, 2018, 10:00:22 AM
Quote from: Flaminpig0 on April 22, 2018, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: Holly on April 22, 2018, 09:56:52 AM
never trust someone with 4 toes :o
Unless they are a guinea pig
i still wouldnt trust a guines pig 8)
I cant imagine why.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J_Ztr4PcFTk/UO3M9-GLvPI/AAAAAAAADUs/x-oyT_IHtIM/s1600/food_of_gods_01.jpg)
Quote
its definitely an acquired taste but visually its stunning
I found it amusing and I imagine it is best seen late at night at a cinema with a slightly inebriated and partially stoned audience.On the other hand it is now the image that many people will have when you mention the Persian Empire; not really surprising that the Iranian government complained.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1598886,00.html (http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1598886,00.html)
;D
Quote
its definitely an acquired taste but visually its stunning
Someone wrote an alternative speech for Xerxes in 300 that they felt would improve the film https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/01/300-vs-iran-and-herodotus/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/01/300-vs-iran-and-herodotus/) it is a little gem
"I am now embarking on the conquest of Greece, a backward region populated by primitive polytheists who worship capricious amoral deities and practice absurd religious rites. But my ancestors and I, having already conquered many Ionian Greeks, respect Greek philosophers and indeed have many of them in our employ. We have established a multi-ethnic empire. In that empire, Greeks fill important roles from the Mediterranean to India.
"These Spartans confronting us at Thermopylae are cruel men who annually–for sport!– make war on the defenseless helots that live around them. They have nothing to tell us Persians—or the world in general—about 'freedom.'!"
Not bad ;)