05-19-2006, 11:28 AM
I finally decided to read the "article" about roman myth that started this thread.
I found only one sentence worth pondering about: the claim that we owe more to barbarians than to romans in togas. In a way that is true but not naively because of straightforward contributions, but in more complex ways due to the flexibility and eagerness of the barbarians changed their ways and tried many in many cases to adopt some of the roman ones. In the best cases they gave new lymph and helped create a fertile hybrid culture. Instead where the "barbarians" were less eager to change their ways (longobards in italy) and lived a parallel and parasitic existence they did more damage than good.
I found the article suspect. Sorry if I offend anyone. It a-critically substitutes the roman myth with a new one, the myth of advanced and sophisticated Celts. Too many celtic maniacs prove to be ignorant of history and anthropology to attribute this celt-supremacy idea much status. Many of these people have actually read tonnes of Dan-Brown-like books about Celtic bla bla, about Merlins, Boudiceas, or similars and have the feeling they know more, and in particular know actually more about history. Many DaVinci-Code readers feel they know more about the history of christianity and even theology!
Well,... at least people read! Its modern society and culture. True but we should never forget that there is a huge market for these psuedo-historical myths. Hence there is a huge industry that creates psuedo-experts, psuedo-historians, psuedo-knowledge, that fuel the book, film, documentary industires, and flood articles in periodcals, webpages, newpapers. A real industry that creates an incredible amount of information but with very little sense of critique. Is it culture? Yes, it is our modern culture, but with a small c.
Jeff
p.s. The romans did destroy the celtic culture in northern italy, in spain, gaul and britain, but to claim or imply that the celts were equal and even superior in subtle ways to the roman-greek culture is more foolish than to make conventional claims of roman superiority. Different levels of foolishness. It is difficult and maybe ultimately foolish to claim to have an absolute way to compare cultures, but it is more foolish to say that comparisons cannot be made and really foolish to say that all cultures are equal. Different levels of foolishness.
The main reason it is fashionable today to avoid comparisons is that we rightfully shun away from the risk of justifying a culture destroying another. Inferior? Then it was right to wipe them out! No, that is illogical, a logical error. It is not as fool-proof as saying "Socrates is human, all humans are mortal, hence Socrates is mortal". We, in our culture, have acquired in history a fundamental notion that it is immoral for a culture to destroy another. Period. But to say that this is because all cultures are equivalent, and that one should not make comparisons is illogical too.
I found only one sentence worth pondering about: the claim that we owe more to barbarians than to romans in togas. In a way that is true but not naively because of straightforward contributions, but in more complex ways due to the flexibility and eagerness of the barbarians changed their ways and tried many in many cases to adopt some of the roman ones. In the best cases they gave new lymph and helped create a fertile hybrid culture. Instead where the "barbarians" were less eager to change their ways (longobards in italy) and lived a parallel and parasitic existence they did more damage than good.
I found the article suspect. Sorry if I offend anyone. It a-critically substitutes the roman myth with a new one, the myth of advanced and sophisticated Celts. Too many celtic maniacs prove to be ignorant of history and anthropology to attribute this celt-supremacy idea much status. Many of these people have actually read tonnes of Dan-Brown-like books about Celtic bla bla, about Merlins, Boudiceas, or similars and have the feeling they know more, and in particular know actually more about history. Many DaVinci-Code readers feel they know more about the history of christianity and even theology!
Well,... at least people read! Its modern society and culture. True but we should never forget that there is a huge market for these psuedo-historical myths. Hence there is a huge industry that creates psuedo-experts, psuedo-historians, psuedo-knowledge, that fuel the book, film, documentary industires, and flood articles in periodcals, webpages, newpapers. A real industry that creates an incredible amount of information but with very little sense of critique. Is it culture? Yes, it is our modern culture, but with a small c.
Jeff
p.s. The romans did destroy the celtic culture in northern italy, in spain, gaul and britain, but to claim or imply that the celts were equal and even superior in subtle ways to the roman-greek culture is more foolish than to make conventional claims of roman superiority. Different levels of foolishness. It is difficult and maybe ultimately foolish to claim to have an absolute way to compare cultures, but it is more foolish to say that comparisons cannot be made and really foolish to say that all cultures are equal. Different levels of foolishness.
The main reason it is fashionable today to avoid comparisons is that we rightfully shun away from the risk of justifying a culture destroying another. Inferior? Then it was right to wipe them out! No, that is illogical, a logical error. It is not as fool-proof as saying "Socrates is human, all humans are mortal, hence Socrates is mortal". We, in our culture, have acquired in history a fundamental notion that it is immoral for a culture to destroy another. Period. But to say that this is because all cultures are equivalent, and that one should not make comparisons is illogical too.
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
