450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 44 of 46

PREV PAGE 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NEXT PAGE

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:50 AM

Quote:
Finn wrote:

I’m not misinterpreting anything you’re saying, I’m simply pointing out that Christian fanatics are not comparable to Al Qaeda, a point you don’t seem able to refute.

I'm simply pointing out that both groups are religious fanatics who seem to find joy in killing those who would disagree with them, a point you are unable to refute.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN: I wonder, having come in later on this part of the thread, what your point is. Are you trying to say the Roman conquest of the Germanic tribes didn't "count" as empire-building because those tribe were so-called barbarians?

The Romans didn’t conquer the Germanic lands, but they did conquer other barbarian nations and I would certainly consider that to be empire building, so that’s not my point at all. The point is that the Germanic tribes developed a quasi-feudal economy and noble class between the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Early Post-Classical period, and that this development in Germanic society was a direct result of Roman influence. That’s my point.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm simply pointing out that both groups are religious fanatics who seem to find joy in killing those who would disagree with them, a point you are unable to refute.

Nor have I tried to refute it. Nonetheless however, it doesn’t draw equivalence between Christian fanaticism and Islamic fanaticism, which is far, far more destructive and bloodthirsty.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Epic batles, large armies, princes and kings and ruling families - all recounted under the oral traditions of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.

Actually both of those are written texts.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:53 AM

Quote:
That’s my point.

Um... okay. Was there a relationship between that point and the topic of whether the USA is an empire? I might have missed it.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Germans prior to the first century were a very primitive culture. They had no written language. There is no evidence that they had any nobility or feudal system of economy that I’m aware of prior to contact with the Romans. But if you know of a source that says otherwise, I’d like to see it.

Finn-

I'm going to have to get back to you on that. I have a big library at my disposal, but very limited time right now. Soon as I've compiled my "evidence", I'll be back here. Thanks you for your patience!

Note, though, that I never said that they had a feudal systen, pre-Romans. They didn't need to have it, then. What I am saying is that the feudal system developed far more from already existing social structures than it did from the model of the Roman patrician/plebeian concept.

But anyway, I'll be back ASAP.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If they could have they would have completely displaced every culture they encountered with a British one."
But, as colonial powers go, Britain was much better for the natives in South Africa than the Dutch - who called the natives kaffirs (which acquired the local meaning of 'cattle') and instituted apartheid.
I’m not sure the British had any more love for the local African population then the Dutch, but I’d agree that the British Empire was a more benevolent empire then most of those that came before it.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... South America were all conquered and became territorially part of the British Empire."
Not so far as I know.
Not as far as I know either. I think I meant to say South Africa, which the British did displace the native population and incorporate as a dominion in the Empire.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AgentRouka:
"To say they had no concept of law is a little simplistic. They weren't fur-clad savages roaming the forest."
Finn:
"That’s not far removed from the truth."
Even savages roaming the forest have governance.
True enough.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"They did not have rule of law. They did not have a written codex of law. There were no ruling families defined by law. The Germans prior to the first century were a very primitive culture. They had no written language.
Nobility requires a certain degree of accepted legal authority. You can’t have nobility in a society were you cannot define a certain family and its lineage, and you cannot do that without a written law and an accepted government to back that law up."
I'm not sure why you think a written codex and a written family record are necessary for rules, hierarchies, rulers, or ruling families. Oral tradition works nicely.
Oral tradition does work, but not nicely. To have a feudal system, you have to have some form of accepted law that defines the nobility. Oral tradition doesn’t work so well for establishing who has the right to rule. The Germans did have a ruling class that provided governance for the roaming savages, but the problem is how do you say that Ghunther’s family, for instance, should rule because they are noble, but Otto’s family is not. In a society based on oral tradition, it comes down to Ghunther’s word against Otto’s word. To decide who is right, Ghunther and Otto bludgeon each other until one of them concedes or dies. This is the way pre-Roman German aristocracy was defined. That’s not to mean that hereditary rule didn’t exist, but it only existed when it wasn’t challenged, since only by facing every challenge could a family continue to assert their oral tradition. The result is that Germans fought more between themselves then they did any sort of external threat. As the Germans had more interactions with the Romans, this began to change and by the third or forth century they were organizing themselves into federations of tribes united under a newly formed nobility of Germanic warrior educated by service to the Roman Auxilia.

You know, what you're describing here might as well be the entire early middle ages in Germany, pre-, during and post-Ottonian empire. Their legal system was largely founded on oral tradition and symbolic gestures involving religious authority.

They did not, in general, have a fixed written text giving them the rules.

They had started writing down marriage contracts, vassal contracts, memorial plaques etc. But even those were generally turned into symbolic objects. Swearing on the Bible? Take that concept and stretch it over every legal action.

It may have been an unstable social structure, depending on constant vigilance and characterised by constant squabbled over land and titles, but it was a complex social structure, and it goes by pretty much the same principles you described above.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think what Hero is referring to change in thought that occurred during the late 16th and early 17th century concerning the idea of freedom. The so called inalienable rights didn’t always exist

A series of political and social changes swept Europe in the 1800s, many inspired by the French revolution.

Political ideas like liberty, equality, democracy and socio-economic ideas like abolishonism, worker rights, and a politically and economically powerful middle class.
2009.

sounds a bit commie to me

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm simply pointing out that both groups are religious fanatics who seem to find joy in killing those who would disagree with them, a point you are unable to refute.
Nor have I tried to refute it. Nonetheless however, it doesn’t draw equivalence between Christian fanaticism and Islamic fanaticism, which is far, far more destructive and bloodthirsty.

Two Words. The. Crusades.

Hey, if you're willing to dig back a thousand years or more to prove how America isn't an empire, can't I do the same to show how Christian fundamentalists are bloodthirsty and destructive?

Just wanna make sure we're playing by the same rules.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

HERO

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Two Words. The. Crusades.

Christian fanatics are not so common today. Most of them are holed up in compounds with their dozens of underage "wives" waiting to burn themselves alive in the name of religeous freedom.

Not to many Christians taking the cross and running off to liberate the Holy Land these days.

But you can't swing a dead cat in the Middle East right now without some Islamic type trying to cut your head off or blow up your kid's schoolbus.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

PREV PAGE 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NEXT PAGE