Azure <tain@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote :
> Gaelic's, Huns and the Hoard in general disagreed with Rome.
Exactly. As I said, it's common to see one's own society as the better
one - just as many Americans assume that the USA is the zenith of
civilisation. If it weren't for the deep-seated cynicism that seems
almost genetic in us in these days, we Brits would probably assume the
same about the UK. Our not-so-distant ancestors certainly did.
But a biased, patriotic view of one's own society isn't necessarily an
accurate *****sment of its pros and cons, or how 'advanced' its
government truly is.
You still haven't answered my main question effectively, which was to
ask you what constitutes an 'advanced' society. All you've done so far
is big up America, but without any comment on what it is about the USA
that you call advanced, and why.
>> Your puerile abuse is a sign of your weakness.
>
> Hey the term is "PURIEL, House of the Badb are the unfortunate suckers
> who's destiny is to review the souls of man to determine who has
> obtained the right to proceed.
No, I assure you the term is 'puerile'. You'll find it in any good
dictionary.
>> My point? My point is that the claim you made:
>>
>> > > Barbarians are not stupid cavemen.
>> > > They actually had a very advanced form of Government.
>>
>> ... has no rational basis, since 'barbarian' did not and does not
>> describe a single cultural system. 'Barbarian' was a word used by
>> those who considered themselves 'advanced' (and just as you consider
>> America advanced, perhaps) to describe those they didn't consider so.
>
> Yeah well if you want semantics over vernacular then understand the
> topic before you go cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Nice try. But this isn't a matter of semantics. Your claim was just
wrong, in that you made it for 'barbarians' as a whole.
> Not what actual History say's regardless of Greek or Roman Bigotry
> over people who were not "Citizens".
'Actual history' does in fact include Greek and Roman sources. While
their views might well be biased towards an assumption of the
superiority of their own culture (which is exactly my point, and is a
parallel to your own assumption about yours), it's not wise to dismiss
the records of two such significant ancient societies.
I'm no historian, I'll freely admit - which means most of my information
comes from books about 'actual history'. You're free to read one, if
you're interested in finding out more. If you're not, then by all means
carry on as you are.
> Barbarians is a Greek Term.
> Used the same by Rome.
Correct. It means 'outsider' or 'stranger'. Today the word carries a
somewhat different meaning.
> All are born of Sin, all are born of Kin.
> Your Family is the evil.
I'm not required to accept any notion of hereditary sin. That's your
yoke, not mine. The latter statement here is nothing more than "your
momma", as far as I can see, and is of no relevance.
>> As for the Huns, they established a relatively successful (if rather
>> short-lived) empire based primarily on their advanced military
>> tactics - credit where it's due - but their form of government was
>> very basic indeed: they did as their leader(s) told them.
>
> You failed history didn't you?
No, actually, I didn't. But by all means, tell me your corrected
version, if you like.
> And you are a total nothing on history.
Yes, you've said this.
>> instead of making one up out of dodgy fantasy stories?
>
> I did not write the legends they are thousands of years old.
Legends or not, the task here is for you to prove your descent, if
you're going to rely on it for your sense of superiority.
> Yeah, just don't be a descendant of the Royals of Tara.
A strange instruction. One can't *choose* one's descent. Unless of
course one is in any case prone to making these things up, and picking
one's ancestors according to preference... But *you* wouldn't be
inclined to do *that* sort of thing, would you?
|
