Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is Eurocentric - it is a view born out of the Ivory tower mentality of the 17th and 18th century - the concept of European superioty, the pinnicle repsresnted by the Classical Cultures.Early Rome had a mass of beings in its pantheon prior to the influx of Greek culture. These beings lacked mtyhology of themselves, they are, it is believed, considered spirits that populated everyday objects. There were ones who represented storms and forests. There was Camenae who represented wells. Cardea who represented door hinges. Potina who represented drinks for children of all things.
Scholars consider these beings quite in line with animist beliefs - the concepts of spirits empowering the physical world. And when the Greek gods came these Roman gods remained. Roman religion wasn't truly animist at their height, but it had descended from it.
And to consider the religious culture of the Australian aboriginals as primitive is very disappointing, and once again shows that romanticised image of the nature of the "Great Civilisations" religions:
"Tosh and poppycock the glorious Roman's wouldn't have worshipped a rock."
If anything it shows your ignorance of the significance of animism. Worshipping a spirit that represents something is no the same as worshiping the thing it represents. Many pantheistic cultures have at least minor links to ancient animist religions. Including the Egyptians. The first Christians to encounter the Egyptians wrote their religion of as simple minded idol worship - they believed the Egyptians worshipped little statues kept in the dark. The totally failed to understand that the cult icon and the god istelf was not the same thing. The first people to encounter the aboriginals thought their religion simple and foolish as they did not record their mythology and as a result missed an amazingly complex belief system and understanding of the land and cosmos.
Saying "Simply worshipping a rock" is comparable to what those people did hundreds of years ago.
If a group of people are primitive, then they are in fact primitve. There's nothing "centric" about it.
About the Australian Aborigines; name a major technological invention or scientific feat that they did.
By the way, the Ainus literally worship rocks.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
that's bullshit, ey. The ancient Egyptians knocked it out in 30 years; it sure as hell wouldn't take modern people 400 years!
fine, get me ten thousand hebrews and i'll get the job done
(that's a joke. the pyramids were built by compensated Egyptian farmers during the off seasons.)
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
fine, get me ten thousand hebrews and i'll get the job done(that's a joke. the pyramids were built by compensated Egyptian farmers during the off seasons.)
Originally posted by Nellinator
I've never heard that. Also, there are many theories that the great pyramids were actually built over an extremely long time and that there construction was claimed by later pharoahs. I see a lot of validity in these claims.
No, there are not many theories. Read anything by the head of the supreme council of egyptian antiquities, Dr Zahi Hawass. There are well provided for burial sites on the giza plateau that prove as much.
But, then again you also believe that the bible is the infallible word of god. Don't argue for my side, it makes us look stupid.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If a group of people are primitive, then they are in fact primitve. There's nothing "centric" about it.About the Australian Aborigines; name a major technological invention or scientific feat that they did.
By the way, the Ainus literally worship rocks.
Actually it is Eurocentric - scholars in these days are judging cultures less on comparison to the classic three and more on their own merits. They have realised that it is erroneous to declare a group barbarian simply because they didn't use sewers or a group primitive because they didn't invent things.
And you are playing right into an increasingly outdated view. The Australian aboriginals had a complex cultural history, oral tradition, artistic, sea faring and broad agricultural practices and the like. They are primitive compared to the English who discovered them - but it is not right they should be declared uncultured.
Because you see - a culture doesn't need to have made a major scientific discovery to be considered possessing complex culture. It would be good to see a day when words like "primitive" and "barbarian" were completely left behind and anthropological dating used to define - stone age, hunter gatherer etc.
The Egyptians didn't even get access to the wheel until another culture brought it to them - yet that culture isn't give the "advanced cultural" tag like the Egyptians even though they introduced many things to the Egyptian world.
Compared to the East Europe during the Middle Ages far inferior to them in most fields, and after the crusades assimilated many Eastern technologies and the like. Yet it isn't right to call them primitive.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, there are not many theories. Read anything by the head of the supreme council of egyptian antiquities, Dr Zahi Hawass. There are well provided for burial sites on the giza plateau that prove as much.But, then again you also believe that the bible is the infallible word of god. Don't argue for my side, it makes us look stupid.
Should not agree with you if you are right then?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Should not agree with you if you are right then?
Not if this is representative of your opinion of legitimate:
Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, there are many theories that the great pyramids were actually built over an extremely long time and that there construction was claimed by later pharoahs. I see a lot of validity in these claims.