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

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That was my wider point, thanks for parroting it back to me as if it's some new revelation I've missed. America conquered new territory, and absorbed it, making it uniquely American with all the rights and privileges of such, which is closer to how other territorial Empires such as Rome functioned. Britain administered areas to gain control of their resources and markets under a Mercantile trade doctrine, but the interest wasn't in making them British.

You have yet to explain Canada, Australia and the American colonies. All of which the British displaced the local population. So you’re wrong. Britain was, in fact, expanding territory for the Empire. They were displacing local populations when they could.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm fairly sure you said that Atomic information was classified restricted. That certainly denotes a classification level.

No. It denotes a classification caveat.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You have yet to explain Canada, Australia and the American colonies. All of which the British displaced the local population. So you’re wrong. Britain was, in fact, expanding territory for the Empire. They were displacing local populations when they could.

I think the fact that the only argument you have is to ignore most of what I said, and shout "you're wrong" based on nothing other than your own purposeful ignorance of my statements, tells a rather different story to what you claim.

If you had bothered to read my statements, you'd have noticed how Australia, Canada, and America fit in well to them. In fact the explanation of all of those colonies is right there in what you quoted. You really can't blame me for your own unwillingness to discuss this honestly.

Perhaps you need it stated more simply. There is little difference between how the colonies in America, Canada and Australia were administered, to how India was. That is centrally from Britain. Canada wasn't Britain, it was a British Colony. California isn't an American Colony, it's part of America. You even parroted back that to me yourself in your last post. By claiming my point is wrong you're even arguing with yourself. Your desperation to disagree with me is truly astounding.

My point was never about displacing natives, it was with how the areas were administered, and how they were seen by the central authority. America saw new land as new territories for American's to settle in. Britain saw it's empire as a source of raw materials, and a market for it's goods. It's not even a controversial idea, it's widely acknowledged that Britain was a trading empire. America is a territorial empire, Britain was a colonial trading empire, clearly you're wrong on this.

Quote:
No. It denotes a classification caveat.

Not in the English language it doesn't. Saying something is classified restricted, means you are saying it is classified restricted. Either you used very poorly constructed English that said something you didn't mean (in which case it's not my fault for reading what was there, not what you meant but failed to convey), or you meant something that was wrong and can't admit it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think the fact that the only argument you have is to ignore most of what I said, and shout "you're wrong" based on nothing other than your own purposeful ignorance of my statements, tells a rather different story to what you claim.

Sounds to me like your splitting hairs and inventing definitions in order to suit some ethnocentric perspective. I think maybe you don’t want to believe that the British Empire was in fact an Empire because such a thing insults your feelings of Britishness. You want to pretend that nations that were conquered and ruled by the British weren’t really conquered and ruled. But in fact, they were, and they became part of the British Empire. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, New England, Newfoundland, South America were all conquered and became territorially part of the British Empire. The native population was displaced with English speaking peoples of British origin. You don’t have to accept it, but it remains a fact, nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not in the English language it doesn't. Saying something is classified restricted, means you are saying it is classified restricted. Either you used very poorly constructed English that said something you didn't mean (in which case it's not my fault for reading what was there, not what you meant but failed to convey), or you meant something that was wrong and can't admit it.

Actually, I read your post before you changed it. So I know that you read and understood what I said. I know that you understand what Secret/RD means. So give it a rest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Sounds to me like your splitting hairs and inventing definitions in order to suit some ethnocentric perspective. I think maybe you don’t want to believe that the British Empire was in fact an Empire because such a thing insults your feelings of Britishness. You want to pretend that nations that were conquered and ruled by the British weren’t really conquered and ruled. But in fact, they were, and they became part of the British Empire. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, New England, Newfoundland, South America were all conquered and became territorially part of the British Empire. The native population was displaced with English speaking peoples of British origin. You don’t have to accept it, but it remains a fact, nonetheless.

And it sounds to me that you're desperate to claim this weird ethnocentric charge, when even a cursory glance at my words reveals that at the very least I'm saying Britain was an Empire, and at the very least it was more exploitative than what I'm saying the US is. Perhaps your own US ethnocentrism and belief in exceptionalism is requiring you to dismiss what I say as the ravings of a British nationalist. I find if amusing that the man who complained so bitterly about "Gestapo debating tactics" at the beginning of the thread, would so completely rely on them now.

You claim that I want to pretend Britain never had an empire. It's a claim I'm shocked you'd think could be even begun to be taken seriously, since I've been clear through out that Britain did have an Empire. My only statements were that the Empires of Britain and America were of a different type, have/had a different organisation and goal, not that one was an Empire and one not. If anything my statements could only be construed (if read and dealt with honestly) as saying the exact opposite of what you claim. How anyone could read my statements that America and Britain are both Empires, but different types of empires, as saying Britain never had an empire, is beyond me. On the face of it it seems pretty retarded. I've been more than clear that Britain conquered, ruled and exploited, for you to claim that I've attempted to say otherwise, is either a gross lie, or proof that you have no desire to listen to a word posted on this forum if it appears in a post without your name above it.

Well, I have no wish to discuss anything further with someone who feels compelled to be this openly dishonest. It's mere trolling and intensely boring, so you win, the British and US empires are exactly the same. Britain incorporated it's colonies as states with full representation in parliament, or the US incorporated it's territories as colonies with no representation in government, however you want to see it, it's up to you. Happy?

Quote:
Actually, I read your post before you changed it. So I know that you read and understood what I said. I know that you understand what Secret/RD means. So give it a rest.

Yes I do. Which is why I think you know you were wrong, but can't admit it (which also explains why you want me to give it a rest).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes I do. Which is why I think you know you were wrong, but can't admit it.

I think we both know that's not true. What's the point in this? You know what I said, but you'll pretend like you didn't just so you can argue. Did your mother not love you enough? Don't take the hate out on me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think we both know that's not true. What's the point in this? You know what I said, but you'll pretend like you didn't just so you can argue. Did your mother not love you enough? Don't take the hate out on me.

Oh dear me, we are in a trollish mood today aren't we. You know what's funny? You even parroted back my statements to me, then you argued against what you said in your previous post, just so you could keep arguing.

Yes Finn, I know what you said, you said "Classified Restricted", which in English, means "Classified Restricted". This arguments getting so absurd it could almost be a Monty Python sketch.

If it makes you feel happy Finn, yes it's all about my hatred of you. That's why I had to make all sorts of crazy statements about your motives, and then brought your mother into the argument, clearly my hatred know no bounds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If it makes you feel happy Finn, yes it's all about my hatred of you. That's why I had to make all sorts of crazy statements about your motives, and then brought your mother into the argument, clearly my hatred know no bounds.

It’s okay to cry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
For most of European history, there was a caste system where a certainly ruling class was born with freedom and rights, while another working class was born with no freedom and no rights. This, like a lot of things, came from the Romans. Roman society was divided up into a ruling class (Patricians), euphemistically called the “fathers,” while everyone else were Plebeians (commoners). This was a purely artificial division based on presumed birthrights or genes. It had nothing to do with wealth, in fact, many patrician families were very poor (of course there social status meant they were never without a luxurious home and plenty of food). On the other side, the Plebeians weren’t always poor. There was a large diversity of wealth including everything from slaves to the fabulously wealthy robber barons, but they were never patricians.

Actually, the European "caste" system didn't develop straight from Roman structures. Germanic and Gallic tribes already had well established systems of hierarchic society, including slavery, aristocracy and kingship. The system that developed after the collapse of the Roman empire had many contributing factors, in particular the vast poverty, small populations and threat of violent attacks from virtually every direction, Normans and Vikings to the north, Hungarians to the east, Islamic armies to the South.

In an illiterate world of subsistence farming with a great need for protection, it did make a certain amount of sense. They just took it way too far, for way too long.

Incidentally, colonization/conquering (under the guise of missionary objectives) did play a large role then, too. It was all about extending their little "empires", which is really where they copied the Romans, trying to recreate Roman emperorship in terms of glamor and size. Charlemagne did it. Otto the Great did it. Hence their names. Empire = awesome, for a long time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Actually, the European "caste" system didn't develop straight from Roman structures. Germanic and Gallic tribes already had well established systems of hierarchic society, including slavery, aristocracy and kingship. The system that developed after the collapse of the Roman empire had many contributing factors, in particular the vast poverty, small populations and threat of violent attacks from virtually every direction, Normans and Vikings to the north, Hungarians to the east, Islamic armies to the South.

I don’t completely agree with that. Much of the Celtic world had a well established social order, but most of the Celtic world was eradicated and re-established as Roman society. The Germans did not have an organized social structure before direct contact with the Roman. The Germans had a primitive warrior society in which clans were led by prominent warriors. They didn’t divide society up into nobility or peasantry and they did not have a concept of freedom based on inalienable rights because they had no conception of law. For the Germans, freedom and rights were things that were earned by the strong. After significant contact with the Romans, Germans learned to establish a proto-feudal system based the Roman model of nobility and peasantry. This is a big part of why Germans in the 4th century were such a destabilizing factor for the Western Roman Empire, when before they had not been. The Germans learned to be a more effective society through the organization they gained from the Romans.

So while it may be true that by the time the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, German societies had already begun developing a feudal economy which would later define the European model of aristocracy, it’s not true that that social order developed independent of the Romans.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Incidentally, colonization/conquering (under the guise of missionary objectives) did play a large role then, too. It was all about extending their little "empires", which is really where they copied the Romans, trying to recreate Roman emperorship in terms of glamor and size. Charlemagne did it. Otto the Great did it. Hence their names. Empire = awesome, for a long time.

I agree with that. A great deal of Medieval European thought and politics centered on recreating the mythic “glory” of the Roman Empire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Germans did not have an organized social structure before direct contact with the Roman.

I disagree with that. It did not have the scale of Roman society, because it Germans were a group of many different nations (or tribes, if you will) who shared a language family and certain culture, but they did have a social structure and law, and such. And they did have kings.

Quote:
The Germans had a primitive warrior society in which clans were led by prominent warriors. They didn’t divide society up into nobility or peasantry

They did have ruling families, though, which seems to be pretty much the same thing as a "nobility".

Quote:
and they did not have a concept of freedom based on inalienable rights

Obviously not. Who did, then? I never said they did. But they did have a concept of freedom in terms of free men vs. slaves.

Quote:
because they had no conception of law.

To say they had no concept of law is a little simplistic. They weren't fur-clad savages roaming the forest.

Quote:
For the Germans, freedom and rights were things that were earned by the strong.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. In a way, this sentence can apply to almost any society, even our Western democratic society. Might makes right, in practice more often than we want it to be true. But your sentence completely discounts the binding nature of tradition, culture and laws that were not preserved due to the fact that they may not have been written down.

Quote:
After significant contact with the Romans, Germans learned to establish a proto-feudal system based the Roman model of nobility and peasantry. This is a big part of why Germans in the 4th century were such a destabilizing factor for the Western Roman Empire, when before they had not been. The Germans learned to be a more effective society through the organization they gained from the Romans.

I disagree that this was mainly due to learning from the Romans, especially since the Roman system of patricians representing plebeians did not have the same structure as the later feudal system. Necessity dictated that they organise better, both to defend against Romans and to migrate, due to climate changes. So while Roman influence played a role, it was not primarily a learning influence to teach Germanic tribes the concept of hierarchic social structure. They took their existing social structures and developed those.

Quote:

So while it may be true that by the time the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, German societies had already begun developing a feudal economy which would later define the European model of aristocracy, it’s not true that that social order developed independent of the Romans.

I'm starting to think that perhaps our main disagreement lies in the definition of social order. Do you consider social order to be tied to a a large govermental authority, a system of written-down laws, stretching homogenously over a significant amount of territory, and a significantly heterogenic life for different tiers of society?

Because, as I said, obviously Germanic tribes did not have a society of the same scale or cultural development as the Roman empire, but they did have a social structure, a social hierarchy including "nobility" and slavery, and they did have an inter-tribal
judicial system.

I'm not saying that Germanic tribes did not pick up some things from Roman society. German princes served in the Roman army, for one. But neither was German culture so "primitive" that they did not have a social structure of their own, nor did Roman influence extend so far that they would have served as a social role model, as opposed to an incentive for an intensification of existing structures.

Quote:

I agree with that. A great deal of Medieval European thought and politics centered on recreating the mythic “glory” of the Roman Empire.

And not just medieval. It would be hard to imagine Napoleon without the example of the Roman empire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:54 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.
You need to read posts more carefully.

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

Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:28 AM

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.

It was an exciting time...unless you were a king.

H

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.

I think it's more a question of Finn needing to stop trolling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And not just medieval. It would be hard to imagine Napoleon without the example of the Roman empire.

Or the current US Government. The Founding Fathers based their model on Rome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
They did have ruling families, though, which seems to be pretty much the same thing as a "nobility".

According to who? There were no ruling families that I know of.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To say they had no concept of law is a little simplistic. They weren't fur-clad savages roaming the forest.

That’s not far removed from the truth.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. In a way, this sentence can apply to almost any society, even our Western democratic society. Might makes right, in practice more often than we want it to be true. But your sentence completely discounts the binding nature of tradition, culture and laws that were not preserved due to the fact that they may not have been written down.

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. 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.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'm starting to think that perhaps our main disagreement lies in the definition of social order. Do you consider social order to be tied to a a large govermental authority, a system of written-down laws, stretching homogenously over a significant amount of territory, and a significantly heterogenic life for different tiers of society?

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. The Germanic nobility in the Pre-Roman Iron Age were defined by heroic qualities. You weren’t noble because of your birth, but rather because you were unchallenged.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.

Probably, but I think the desire to misunderstand me, goes much deeper then grammar or spelling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or maybe you need to write posts more carefully.
Probably, but I think the desire to misunderstand me, goes much deeper then grammar or spelling.

Ah yes... And here's you, assigning opinions and beliefs to others. Aren't you the one who cries the most about others doing that to you?

Speaking of a desire to misunderstand...

Quote:
Yeah, okay. Let me know when the anti-abortions nuts run a jetliner into a skyscraper or blow a 60 foot hole in a US Destroyer.

Hey, be sure and let me know next time Al Qaeda blows up an abortion clinic, okay?

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:03 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"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.

"... South America were all conquered and became territorially part of the British Empire."
Not so far as I know.
Now, when it comes to NORTH America, the Spanish were here first. The British also had stiff competition from the French. And the British, (I hope I don't have to remind you) didn't actually conquer ALL of North America - in the US portion it was just a sliver along the coast. When it came to conquering the rest of what would eventually be the US - that was due to the conquering efforts of the US itself.

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.

"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.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And I thought I was the only one having problems understanding Finn!

Finn: Is it possible that the problem is YOU? It seems like you don't understand your own points very well!

----------------------
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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:17 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I thought I was the only one having problems understanding Finn!

Finn: Is it possible that the problem is YOU? It seems like you don't understand your own points very well!

I think it has more to do with ideology than comprehension, IMHO.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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

Isn't this particular sig getting a little old?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah yes... And here's you, assigning opinions and beliefs to others. Aren't you the one who cries the most about others doing that to you?

I’m not assigning any opinion or belief to anyone.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hey, be sure and let me know next time Al Qaeda blows up an abortion clinic, okay?

I’ll be sure to do that. But Al Qaeda, like most Islamic terrorist groups, tends to go for far more bloodshed and destruction. The point here that you seem so unable to grasp is that blowing up an abortion clinic is not the same thing as blowing up two of the world’s largest skyscrapers. 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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Whoops! Misread someone's post. Carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:44 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Oral tradition doesn’t work so well for establishing who has the right to rule."

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana anyone ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Seems to me like the Jews existed with oral tradition for a long time before the Old Testament was ever written down too.

----------------------
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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Oral tradition doesn’t work so well for establishing who has the right to rule."

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana anyone ?

And…? Did you have a point to make?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Seems to me like the Jews existed with oral tradition for a long time before the Old Testament was ever written down too.

The Germans existed for a long time on oral tradition as well. Many cultures existed before written languages.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And…? Did you have a point to make?"

Epic batles, large armies, princes and kings and ruling families - all recounted under the oral traditions of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.

I suspect it was possible to have an inherited nobility class even without writing !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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?

----------------------
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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:50 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:51 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:53 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:56 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:07 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:21 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:14 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:06 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:24 AM

HERO

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

Well, that’s one way to show that you have no idea what the discussion is about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:03 AM

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

The US is not an empire in any way that would make comparisons between Rome sensible. The point was brought up when I used Rome as the model for the caste system of European aristocracy, and contrasted it with the modern concept of liberalism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
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!

I’ll be interested to see what you come up with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Actually both of those (the Mahabharata and the Ramayana) are written texts."

Written AFTER thousands of years of oral retelling. Just as, for example, the bible was written only after centuries, or more likely millenia, of verbal retelling.

(You don't REALLY think Adam and Even wrote their memoirs for posterity, do you ?)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
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!
I’ll be interested to see what you come up with.

I decided to go the easy way and use wikipedia first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples#Society
"A main element uniting Germanic societies is kingship, in origin a sacral institution combining the functions of military leader, high priest, lawmaker and judge. Germanic monarchy was elective, the king was elected by the free men from among elegible candidates of a family (OE cynn) tracing their ancestry to the tribe's divine or semi-divine founder.

In early Germanic society, the free men of property each ruled their own estate and were subject to the king directly, without any intermediate hierarchy as in later feudalism. Free men without landed property could swear fealty to a man of property who as their lord would then be responsible for their upkeep, including generous feasts and gifts. This system of sworn retainers was central to early Germanic society, and the loyalty of the retainer to his lord was taken to replace his family ties.

Early Germanic law reflects a hierarchy of worth within the society of free men, reflected in the differences in weregild. Among the Anglo-Saxons, a regular free man (a ceorl) had a weregild of 200 shillings (i.e. solidi or gold pieces), classified as a twyhyndeman "200-man" for this reason, while a nobleman commanded a fee of six times that amount (twelfhyndeman "1200-man"). Similarly, among the Alamanni the basic weregild for a free men was 200 shillings, and the amount could be doubled or trebled according to the man's rank. Unfree serfs did not command a weregild, and the recompense paid in the event of their death was merely for material damage, 15 shillings in the case of the Alamanni, increased to 40 or 50 if the victim had been a skilled artisan."

If that doesn't sound like the solid basis for later feudalism, I don't know what would.

"Traditional Germanic society is gradually replaced by the system of estates and feudalism characteristic of the High Middle Ages in both the Holy Roman Empire and Anglo-Norman England in the 11th to 12th centuries, to some extent under the influence of Roman law as an indirect result of Christianization, but also because political structures had grown too large for the flat hierarchy of a tribal society."

To some extent. That's all. Feudalism, based on the existing system of fealty, certainly wasn't modeled after Roman patrician/plebeian relations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

More than writing, the ONE thing necessary for a fixed hierarchy is agriculture, or some form of reliable surplus. Hierarchies are unproductive. The people at the top suck up resources rather than generate them. In order to keep them going year after year, generation after generation, you need a reliable source of support for them. Agriculture generally fills that role. I know of no other surplus source, though it seems possible there would be examples.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The US is not an empire in any way that would make comparisons between Rome sensible.

Sounds like the self-serving rhetoric of American ethnocentrism. You have yet to explain the annexation of the territories outside of the original thirteen colonies. The wars waged against the Native American's, Mexicans and Spanish. The genocide of the natives of the Philippines.

So you're wrong, America was and is, in fact, an expanding territorial Empire. The American's certainly displaced local populations when they could, i.e. reservations.

Sounds to me like you're splitting hairs and denying definitions in order to suit some imperial ethnocentric perspective. I think maybe you don't want to believe that the American Empire is in fact an Empire, because such a thing insults your feelings of Americanism. You want to pretend that nations that were conquered and ruled by the Americans weren't really conquered and ruled. But in fact they were and they became part of the American Empire. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, all states won through conquest (not counting the wars with the Natives). They were all conquered and became territorially part of the American Empire. You don't have to accept it, but it remains a fact nonetheless.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well, that’s one way to show that you have no idea what the discussion is about.

And that's another.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Actually both of those (the Mahabharata and the Ramayana) are written texts."

Written AFTER thousands of years of oral retelling. Just as, for example, the bible was written only after centuries, or more likely millenia, of verbal retelling.

(You don't REALLY think Adam and Even wrote their memoirs for posterity, do you ?)

So? You don’t actually think the story of Adam and Eve remained unchanged and unembellished over thousands of years of retelling, do you? A better example is Exodus though. I’m not sure the Israelis existed exactly at that time; they were the Hebrews back then, and t hey weren’t in bondage as much as they were an Egyptian ethnicity. Some warlike clan or federation of clans of Hebrews probably weren’t content to be part of the Egyptian working class and instead lived a semi-nomadic life, raiding and pillage nearby Punic settlements until they eventually invaded and conquered some region gaining political control. But a few hundreds years of oral tradition and Moses is leading the Children of Israel across the Red Sea out of Egyptian bondage to the Promised Land. Who knows what Moses would have accomplished had there been a few more centuries before some Jew put pen to papyrus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:13 PM