Originally posted by 753
This depends only on which language group you're looking at to evaluate the degree of influence.
This was in response to the idea that Roman influence on the English language was a larger part of their culture than violence.
My initial reaction was to state that Lil and I probably have very different interpretations of what a culture is, but then even using her interpretation (as I understand it) the Roman influence, on the English language, is overshadowed by many other cultures, in a way that their violence is not.
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably be hard pressed to find a civilization that benefited mankind as a whole that didn't conquer and subjugate others.The Romans didn't really invent much themselves, what they did was improve on known technologies which they came into through conquest. This conquest also spread knowledge and connected cultures; that aspect is a positive.
I would tend to agree with this, but I don't define culture by what historical rellics are still around that are attributable to a people. I sort of look at it in terms of what ordinary people believed, how they interacted with eachother, and how their culture influenced the decisions they and their society made. For instance, that the Brits invented roads in their bogs doesn't make "roads" part of British culture.
Like, I think shovelling snow is a bigger part of Canadian culture than Celiene Dion or hell, even Mordecai Richler.
hence:
"And, while Rome did have many periods with different laws, the brutality of the police, the acceptance of violence as a form of penance or retribution, violence, not just in terms of the Collesium and killing criminals, but the mentally/physically handicapped, pitting exotic animals against eachother, building structures which can host mock naval battles, hell, even the circus maximus, all of these things show an inherent acceptance of violence in society.
That these "games" were used to appease other, more direct social complaints of the lower classes, also speaks volumes. People were willing to give up complaints of lack of food because they were given murder as entertainment. Or because the roman legionaires would butcher them and their loved ones. I think both options lend some weight to my point."
However, it is important to note that some cultures, like the Bablonians (in at least one instance) had an incredible amount of influence even without military conquest. I forget the city, but one of the most important to Babel and the ancient world, had no discernable defensive structures, though was situated close to other groups. This city maintained supremecy through means other than military, ie, soft power.
Originally posted by inimalist
so now items of a culture include things that don't exist? There are no televised executions in America. That would be like saying the desire for wealth and food in Ethopia indicate that their society has an abundance of those things...less glib, I think you are taking my point a little too literally. There is always going to be war and violence in all societies, and by no means are the Romans the most violent that human civilization has ever seen.
And, while Rome did have many periods with different laws, the brutality of the police, the acceptance of violence as a form of penance or retribution, violence, not just in terms of the Collesium and killing criminals, but the mentally/physically handicapped, pitting exotic animals against eachother, building structures which can host mock naval battles, hell, even the circus maximus, all of these things show an inherent acceptance of violence in society.
That these "games" were used to appease other, more direct social complaints of the lower classes, also speaks volumes. People were willing to give up complaints of lack of food because they were given murder as entertainment. Or because the roman legionaires would butcher them and their loved ones. I think both options lend some weight to my point.
Not at all - your example of Ethiopia is frankly ridiculous. The wish to watch violence and humiliation hasn't died out, it's just that Romans accommodated their viewers such. Reality TV in which people are humiliated, ridiculed and psychologically pushed to the limits is still very much alive and well and extremely popular.
American and Western NATO conquest, terrorism sponsorship, government overthrowing and murders are equivalent if not worse than that of Romans.
But America is not culturally defined by their conquest, and neither is Britain, which has at one point covered more half a globe - Sun had never set upon British Empire at one point, yet British culture isn't defined by bloodthirsty.
It is just absolutely ridiculous to define Roman civilization, of which Western one has sprung up, as bloodthirsty.
The very fact that majority of words you're speaking and writing are of Latin as are the letters, the law you're using in your court rooms and the fact that half of world's countries see themselves as a 'republic' coupled with the very word Government are of the Romans and their time, is hardly negligible.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not at all - your example of Ethiopia is frankly ridiculous. The wish to watch violence and humiliation hasn't died out, it's just that Romans accommodated their viewers such. Reality TV in which people are humiliated, ridiculed and psychologically pushed to the limits is still very much alive and well and extremely popular.American and Western NATO conquest, terrorism sponsorship, government overthrowing and murders are equivalent if not worse than that of Romans.
But America is not culturally defined by their conquest, and neither is Britain, which has at one point covered more half a globe - Sun had never set upon British Empire at one point, yet British culture isn't defined by bloodthirsty.It is just absolutely ridiculous to define Roman civilization, of which Western one has sprung up, as bloodthirsty.
The very fact that majority of words you're speaking and writing are of Latin as are the letters, the law you're using in your court rooms and the fact that half of world's countries see themselves as a 'republic' coupled with the very word Government are of the Romans and their time, is hardly negligible.
Originally posted by inimalist
but I don't define culture by what historical rellics are still around that are attributable to a people. I sort of look at it in terms of what ordinary people believed, how they interacted with eachother, and how their culture influenced the decisions they and their society made. For instance, that the Brits invented roads in their bogs doesn't make "roads" part of British culture.Like, I think shovelling snow is a bigger part of Canadian culture than Celiene Dion or hell, even Mordecai Richler.
we each define culture in such a way that, to the other person, our arguments seem very silly.
EDIT: ask the Indians if the British Empire had a warrior culture
I think the AJE perspective on this is interesting. Blindingly obvious, yes, but I think its telling that it doesn't seem to get brought up much.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201091112152289695.html
Afghans protest against Koran burning for third day.
KABUL (Reuters) – Demonstrators took to Afghanistan's streets for a third day on Sunday to protest against a U.S. preacher's plan to burn copies of the Koran even though he has since withdrawn the threat.
Chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Christians", demonstrators clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar province, south of the capital Kabul.
"The governor must give us an assurance that the church is not going to burn the Koran, otherwise we will attack foreign troop bases in our thousands," protester Mohammad Yahya said.
reports of some injuries after rock-throwing and stick-wielding protesters clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar's Baraki Barak district.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_muslims_afghanistan
And i'm sure they were burning the u.s. flag too. something we, i might add, take as much pride in as they do the koran. but we'll still have to be nice about it. ghey. just as ghey as jones is for chickening out.
Nuke Mecca!
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Afghans protest against Koran burning for third day.KABUL (Reuters) – Demonstrators took to Afghanistan's streets for a third day on Sunday to protest against a U.S. preacher's plan to burn copies of the Koran even though he has since withdrawn the threat.
Chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Christians", demonstrators clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar province, south of the capital Kabul.
"The governor must give us an assurance that the church is not going to burn the Koran, otherwise we will attack foreign troop bases in our thousands," protester Mohammad Yahya said.
reports of some injuries after rock-throwing and stick-wielding protesters clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar's Baraki Barak district.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_muslims_afghanistan
And i'm sure they were burning the u.s. flag too. something we, i might add, take as much pride in as they do the koran. but we'll still have to be nice about it. ghey. just as ghey as jones is for chickening out.
Nuke Mecca!
And i'm sure they were burning the u.s. flag too. something we, i might add, take as much pride in as they do the koran. but we'll still have to be nice about it. ghey. just as ghey as jones is for chickening out.
Nuke Mecca!
Blame the media for that, but those overractors are just as idiotic as that Pastor in Florida.
Flag burning isn't illegal in the US, so why should the US react to it if Afghans do it?
Besides killing thousands and thousands of Muslims (and others) that have no capability let alone intention of harming the US/Americans and serving as a rallying point for US hatred, what exactly do you think dropping a nuke on Mecca would accomplish?
Originally posted by RobtardThe eventual smugling of pakistani nukes into the US to blow its cities and infinite funding to attacks against the USA from everybody with a dime among the 1 billion+ muslims of the world in a planetary jihad. Not to mention the end of the oil supply and the crippling of the US economy. This is just the muslim reaction of course, the rest of the world would not be kind about it either.
Besides killing thousands and thousands of Muslims (and others) that have no capability let alone intention of harming the US/Americans and serving as a rallying point for US hatred, what exactly do you think dropping a nuke on Mecca would accomplish? [/B]
Originally posted by 753
The eventual smugling of pakistani nukes into the US to blow its cities and infinite funding to attacks against the USA from everybody with a dime among the 1 billion+ muslims of the world in a planetary jihad. Not to mention the end of the oil supply and the crippling of the US economy. This is just the muslim reaction of course, the rest of the world would not be kind about it either.
also, it would conventionalize nuclear weapons
if America nukes the middle east, there is no reason Russia couldn't do the same in the Caucasus or NK to SK. Or Israel.
Originally posted by Robtard
Blame the media for that, but those overractors are just as idiotic as that Pastor in Florida.Flag burning isn't illegal in the US, so why should the US react to it if Afghans do it?
Besides killing thousands and thousands of Muslims (and others) that have no capability let alone intention of harming the US/Americans and serving as a rallying point for US hatred, what exactly do you think dropping a nuke on Mecca would accomplish?
Baad assabt biji yom al ahad....
But yes, nuking Mecca will achieve nothing apart from killing a whole lot of innocent people.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Afghans protest against Koran burning for third day.KABUL (Reuters) – Demonstrators took to Afghanistan's streets for a third day on Sunday to protest against a U.S. preacher's plan to burn copies of the Koran even though he has since withdrawn the threat.
Chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Christians", demonstrators clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar province, south of the capital Kabul.
"The governor must give us an assurance that the church is not going to burn the Koran, otherwise we will attack foreign troop bases in our thousands," protester Mohammad Yahya said.
reports of some injuries after rock-throwing and stick-wielding protesters clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar's Baraki Barak district.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_muslims_afghanistan
And i'm sure they were burning the u.s. flag too. something we, i might add, take as much pride in as they do the koran. but we'll still have to be nice about it. ghey. just as ghey as jones is for chickening out.
Nuke Mecca!
You realize that you would feel all the side effects of that nuke yes? People who even consider using nukes are insane.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Afghans protest against Koran burning for third day.KABUL (Reuters) – Demonstrators took to Afghanistan's streets for a third day on Sunday to protest against a U.S. preacher's plan to burn copies of the Koran even though he has since withdrawn the threat.
Chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Christians", demonstrators clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar province, south of the capital Kabul.
"The governor must give us an assurance that the church is not going to burn the Koran, otherwise we will attack foreign troop bases in our thousands," protester Mohammad Yahya said.
reports of some injuries after rock-throwing and stick-wielding protesters clashed with Afghan security forces in Logar's Baraki Barak district.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_muslims_afghanistan
And i'm sure they were burning the u.s. flag too. something we, i might add, take as much pride in as they do the koran. but we'll still have to be nice about it. ghey. just as ghey as jones is for chickening out.
Nuke Mecca!
I'm sorry, but are you f'ing INSANE?