how is hindusim viewed in the europe?
harmony
fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
King Amdo
> looks like the west is taking to yoga and meditation of late. is it just a
> fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
...With loathing if the truth be told behind the forced grin - like
the rest of the east.
w_su...@yahoo.co.uk
> fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
"Bud bud ding ding £2.99" just about sums it up.
Arminius
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6lGEh.358355$qy.3...@newsfe16.lga...
> looks like the west is taking to yoga and meditation of late. is it just a
> fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
I think it is held in much higher esteem than Islam anyway, and rightfully
so.
Hindus are largely peaceful, tolerant and productive people.
Generally-speaking though I think most Westerners are very ignorant of
Hinduism.
As a great religion, and one which emphasizes the inner being, as well as
peace, harmony and tolerance, it deserves to be better known.
Michael McCann
Piss off, Paki.
clough
>
>"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6lGEh.358355$qy.3...@newsfe16.lga...
>> looks like the west is taking to yoga and meditation of late. is it just a
>> fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
>I think it is held in much higher esteem than Islam anyway, and rightfully
>so.
Islam is one of the most ignorant, superstitious, intolerant and
repressive religions there is.
>Hindus are largely peaceful, tolerant and productive people.
And integrate well.
>Generally-speaking though I think most Westerners are very ignorant of
>Hinduism.
Most people have no idea of Vedantic philosophy.
>As a great religion, and one which emphasizes the inner being, as well as
>peace, harmony and tolerance, it deserves to be better known.
The Upanishads are some of the most profound religious and
philosophical documents ever written
Clough
john...@gmail.com
> fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
It's more attractive than Christianity, more reminiscent of ancient
paganism. Once there was a hope that religious sensibility in the
west might learn from India and become something more theosophical.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It also shares roots with the native religion of Northern Europe.
--
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4
http://www.resonancefm.com
Arminius
"Michael McCann" <m1cky@(((0))).net > wrote in message
news:jjj6u2hd4utf16imo...@4ax.com...
I'm not a Paki, retardo (most Pakistanis are Muslims, by the way, because
Hinduism has been almost driven out of Pakistan).
Arminius
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54haq0F...@mid.individual.net...
> Arminius wrote:
>> "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6lGEh.358355$qy.3...@newsfe16.lga...
>>> looks like the west is taking to yoga and meditation of late. is it just
>>> a fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
>>
>> I think it is held in much higher esteem than Islam anyway, and
>> rightfully so.
>>
>> Hindus are largely peaceful, tolerant and productive people.
>>
>> Generally-speaking though I think most Westerners are very ignorant of
>> Hinduism.
>>
>> As a great religion, and one which emphasizes the inner being, as well as
>> peace, harmony and tolerance, it deserves to be better known.
>
> It also shares roots with the native religion of Northern Europe.
Very true!
Europe - nay the world - has suffered the most from the nasty Abrahamic
religions which originated in the Middle East. Christianity is not native to
Europe. Germanic and Celtic paganism, while ultimately having their roots in
the sub-continent, are European, being substantial adaptations of that
religious system from India.
Arminius
"clough" <in...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:jfk6u2hf7dqp786e7...@4ax.com...
Well said that man!
AlanG
>
>"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6lGEh.358355$qy.3...@newsfe16.lga...
>> looks like the west is taking to yoga and meditation of late. is it just a
>> fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
>
>I think it is held in much higher esteem than Islam anyway, and rightfully
>so.
>
>Hindus are largely peaceful, tolerant and productive people.
Only when they are in the minority.
Otherwise they are violent, intolerant and bigoted just like many
christians and muslims
Arminius
"AlanG" <pl...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:5lq7u2d789drnukog...@4ax.com...
>>Hindus are largely peaceful, tolerant and productive people.
>
> Only when they are in the minority.
> Otherwise they are violent, intolerant and bigoted just like many
> christians and muslims
Evidence? How often has India invaded other countries throughout recorded
history? It's been invaded alot...
john...@gmail.com
> "AlanG" <p...@invalid.com> wrote in message
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4651619.stm
Former BBC India correspondent Mark Tully recalls the day Hindu
fanatics pulled down the historic Babri mosque in the northern Indian
town of Ayodhya.
Arminius
<john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172583017....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
So an isolated incident here or there by a minority group of fanatics. I'm
talking about the bigger picture. Historically, India cannot be counted as
an aggressive nation in any significant way.
You're also forgetting that Hindus have experienced a history of being
invaded and abused by Muslims and Christians - not invading but invaded - a
certain amount of backlash has to be expected. Most peoples would not have
borne their ill-treatment as well as the Hindus have.
naure...@aol.com
> looks like the west is taking to yoga and meditation of late. is it just a
> fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
I think hinduism is the best amongst all other four draculian
religions i.e christianity, islam, judism and sikhism. Westreners have
no respect for hinduism. Firstly, monotheists have this superiority
complex of worshiping only one invisible ,shapeless male God up in the
sky and down in Australia. They have no respect for living and formed
things of our planet such as stones, rats, cows, etc etc. Secondly,
most hindus are persued as ugly, poor and very dark and so there is
little chance of westerns accepting religion of darks and underfeds.
Moorthy
You as Paki Muzzi are giving your own experience of being despised,
hated and ridiculed. Indeed, term Muslim and Islam in the West has
become synonymous with fanaticism, terrorism and bigotry; and for a
very valid and understandable reasons. Paki Muzzies and other Muzzie
should not use excuse of racism, which of they often do though
inappropriately, to explain rising wave Islamophobia. They should show
some intellectual honesty and look within their religion, communities
and nations.
Arminius
"Moorthy" <mort...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172615311.2...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> They should show
> some intellectual honesty and look within their religion, communities
> and nations.
The key flaw in your argument being the word "intellectual" used in the same
context as "Islam". Clearly a reasonably developed intellect and belief in
the absurdities of Islam are mutually exclusive.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Not really.
One can develop a quite logical and consistent theory from insane axioms.
habshi
town of Ayodhya.<
Built over a temple destroyed by the Muslims , just like in
Jerusalem. Why should the Hindus not take it back if the Muslims wont
sell it to them in the holy city of Hindus ?
habshi
Actually Haryana Jat Hindus like Amitabh Bachan are the
tallest of all south asians including pathans
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
comes to historical wrongs. Otherwise we would be invading Italy to
demand compensation from what the Roman Empire did to us 2000 years ago.
--
naure...@aol.com
> Actually Haryana Jat Hindus like Amitabh Bachan are the
> tallest of all south asians including pathans
Can u back up your statement? I myself is 5ft 8 inches. The three
short pathans of bollywood are totally fake pathans. The real pathans
are kapoors, dilip kumar and feroze khan clan.
The Black Monk
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:54haq0F...@mid.individual.net...
>
I would not equate Christianity with Islam, nor with the pre-Christian
beliefs. Hinduism prior to Buddha wasn't very nice, either...
Europe pre-Christian:
The story of the Roman Empire at the time of the birth of Christ is
one of a society with no concept of the human being as a sovereign
individual with claims against state and society. It is a time of
disposable children, disposable women, and widespread human slavery.
For example, in the empire of the 1st century, it was not unusual for
a pregnant woman to receive a note from her husband instructing her
that when she gave birth: "if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard
it." "Discarding" a baby usually consisted of leaving it on the
nearest dungheap. The baby would usually die of exposure within a few
hours, or possibly be eaten by wolves. If the baby was fortunate it
would be found by a member of one of the local Christian communities
that often kept an eye on places where babies were dumped in order to
adopt them. The discarded babies were usually girls, but deformed
male
babies could suffer the same fate, and the practice was so widespread
that in many parts of the empire, men outnumbered women by 30 percent
or more.
Once grown, pagan women could rarely expect better treatment than
they
had been afforded when they had been infants. Compared to Christian
women, pagan women married younger, had less choice in whom they
married, and were expected to endure frequent adultery from their
spouses since Saint Paul's admonition to men to remain faithful was
hardly the prevailing attitude among pagan men. The Christian ideal
that men and women must be held to identical systems of ethics and
were equals in the eyes of God was, to say the least, a novelty in
pagan Rome. Ironically, according to the authors, Saint Paul, the man
villainized by non-Christians as the leading misogynist of the bible
was quite possibly the most prominent proponent of "sexual equality"
in the Empire.
The restriction of sexual behavior to marriage was certainly an
affront to Roman noblemen who kept young boys imprisoned in their
private chambers for their sexual pleasure, and the idea that the
poor, the helpless, and the weak should be treated with kindness and
mercy struck many pagans as ridiculous considering their pagan ideals
of strength, heroism, and conquest. The medieval knight's oath to
protect orphans and widows would have struck a Roman centurion as
pointless and absurd.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken66.html
--------------
BM
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
We were talking about indigenous Northern European religions.
Not the Southern ones.
I expect you'll be telling us next how democracy comes from the bible.
As well as women's rights etc.
LOL!
Arminius
> We were talking about indigenous Northern European religions.
> Not the Southern ones.
> I expect you'll be telling us next how democracy comes from the bible. As
> well as women's rights etc.
> LOL!
Moreover northern European paganism - with the obvious exception of the
Vikings and that was mainly due to other factors than religion - did not
lead to either an effect or a deliberate policy of attempting to spread the
religion worldwide by fair means or foul (usually foul). Christianity is one
reason for colonialism.
The Black Monk
wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
...cut...
>
> We were talking about indigenous Northern European religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts_and_human_sacrifice
Let's not project the concept of modern harmless hippy or
environmentalist pagans onto the real, barbarian pagans, who for
example sacrificed children by splitting their heads oopen before
layign them intot he foundation of their new homes.
> Not the Southern ones.
Okay. Primitive tribesmen living in the woods, whether in northern
Europe or the Americas, are probably inherently less harmful than are
people living in organized societies. But as what I had posted
earlier showed, Christianity had a positive impact on the urban,
civilized Roman culture. And it was certainly preferable to the
bloodthristy pre-Christian urban American (Aztec)
civilization.
> I expect you'll be telling us next how democracy comes from the bible.
Modern Western democracy has its roots in ancient Germanic customs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_%28assembly%29
Those guys, such as the Vikings, were a rather bloodthirsty group.
Just like modern democratic Americans.
regards,
BM
> As well as women's rights etc.
> LOL!
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk- The UK's only occult talk show
> Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4http://www.resonancefm.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Black Monk
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:54m11vF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > We were talking about indigenous Northern European religions.
> > Not the Southern ones.
> > I expect you'll be telling us next how democracy comes from the bible. As
> > well as women's rights etc.
> > LOL!
>
> Moreover northern European paganism - with the obvious exception of the
> Vikings and that was mainly due to other factors than religion - did not
> lead to either an effect or a deliberate policy of attempting to spread the
> religion worldwide by fair means or foul (usually foul).
Well, relatively primitive tribes are hardly going to conquer the
world (unless they are on horseback) - although the Celts managed to
cause a lot of havoc before being tamed by the Romans.
> Christianity is one reason for colonialism.
Colonialism was possible because Christian Europe went from living
like 18th century Zulus during the 5th century to becoming the most
technologiocally advanced culture in the world by the end of the 5th
century. Did Christianity make Europeans more aggressive? The
numerous pre-Christian barbarian invasions, whether by Gauls, Goths,
Vandals, etc. suggest not. Christianity inspired some good amidst the
colonial destruction. Christian activists basically ended slavery
throughout the world (it still exists in small pockets, in the Muslim
world), just as they had done centuries earlier in the Roman
world.
I can only imagine what the world would have been like if the Vikings
could circumnavigate the globe and if they had guns. How would you
like it if the Aztecs had the technological edge over Europeans and
used primitive European tribal lands as their hunting ground for human
sacrifice, as they did their American Indian neighbors?
regards,
BM
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
If you think Europe was advanced google "Cheng Ho"
habshi
the Hindus . Birthplaces of God Shiva , Ram and Krishna and the
Muslims deliberately destroyed them and built mosques over them.
Muslims can sell the sites for ten times the prices and build
ten times bigger mosques a mile down the road, but they refuse and so
these sites have to be fought over.
habshi
>Can u back up your statement? I myself is 5ft 8 inches. <
I like long legs . are you old enough ? :)
1X2Willows
news:1172694706.1...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 1:54 pm, "Arminius" <armin...@hotmale.com> wrote:
>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:54m11vF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > We were talking about indigenous Northern European religions.
>> > Not the Southern ones.
>> > I expect you'll be telling us next how democracy comes from the bible.
>> > As well as women's rights etc.
>> > LOL!
>>
>> Moreover northern European paganism - with the obvious exception of the
>> Vikings and that was mainly due to other factors than religion - did not
>> lead to either an effect or a deliberate policy of attempting to spread
>> the religion worldwide by fair means or foul (usually foul).
>
> Well, relatively primitive tribes are hardly going to conquer the
> world (unless they are on horseback) - although the Celts managed to
> cause a lot of havoc before being tamed by the Romans.
By all means... a rather simplistic view of a complex piece of history.
>> Christianity is one reason for colonialism.
>
> Colonialism was possible because Christian Europe went from living
> like 18th century Zulus during the 5th century to becoming the most
> technologiocally advanced culture in the world by the end of the 5th
> century.
Wow really!
What fundie propaganda paper did you pull that from?
> Did Christianity make Europeans more aggressive? The
> numerous pre-Christian barbarian invasions, whether by Gauls, Goths,
> Vandals, etc. suggest not. Christianity inspired some good amidst the
> colonial destruction.
LOL!
Such as...?
> Christian activists basically ended slavery throughout the world
> (it still exists in small pockets, in the Muslim world), just as they
> had done centuries earlier in the Roman world.
This is getting better by the sentence...
> I can only imagine what the world would have been like if the Vikings
> could circumnavigate the globe and if they had guns.
Hard to say. Perhaps Monotheism would again fulfill its
designated role as an insignificant Middle Eastern desert cult?
> How would you
> like it if the Aztecs had the technological edge over Europeans and
> used primitive European tribal lands as their hunting ground for human
> sacrifice, as they did their American Indian neighbors?
I'd say let em' try it!
You're one funny Monk, Monk.
Dan
M. Ranjit Mathews
> On Feb 28, 1:54 pm, "Arminius" <armin...@hotmale.com> wrote:
> > Moreover northern European paganism - with the obvious exception of the
> > Vikings and that was mainly due to other factors than religion - did not
> > lead to either an effect or a deliberate policy of attempting to spread the
> > religion worldwide by fair means or foul (usually foul).
>
> Well, relatively primitive tribes are hardly going to conquer the
> world (unless they are on horseback) - although the Celts managed to
> cause a lot of havoc before being tamed by the Romans.
Nah; the Romans managed to cause a lot of havoc among the Celts.
> > Christianity is one reason for colonialism.
>
> Colonialism was possible because Christian Europe went from living
> like 18th century Zulus during the 5th century to becoming the most
> technologiocally advanced culture in the world by the end of the 5th
> century. Did Christianity make Europeans more aggressive? The
> numerous pre-Christian barbarian invasions, whether by Gauls, Goths,
> Vandals, etc. suggest not.
The Gauls didn't invade - they were invaded.
As for the others, what's pre-Christian about them?
The Goths had been Christian for a century when they took over Rome.
The Vandals were Christians.
> Christianity inspired some good amidst the
> colonial destruction. Christian activists basically ended slavery
> throughout the world (it still exists in small pockets, in the Muslim
> world), just as they had done centuries earlier in the Roman
> world.
If bonded labor is included, it's large pockets. Here's a certain
Johnson Nadar, proprietor of a sweetmeat shop called Johnson Sweets
(Christian Nadars are high caste Christians whose ancestors were low
caste Hindus)
http://ambedkar.org/News/hl/32%20kids.htm
"These children, who are Dalits from Tamil Nadu, were brought here by
agents hired by Nadar more than a year ago," alleges Warne. "Their
parents were paid a paltry sum of Rs 1000." According to Samarthan,
the children were paid a shockingly meagre salary of Rs 150 ($3) a
year. They were used to manufacture chikki and other sweets, and were
forced to work from 6 a.m. to nine in the night. The police have
already recorded some preliminary statements made by the children --
according to which, they were often beaten up, and allowed a lunch
break of only 10 minutes. Narrates 10-year-old Balraj, "We worked from
early morning to late night and were paid Rs 150 for the whole year.
We were allowed to rest only during the lunch break and were given two
pairs of shorts and two vests by way of clothing." According to
Samarthan officials present during the raid, several of the rescued
children said that on earlier occasions they had tried to escape from
the premises but had been caught and beaten by Nadar.
> I can only imagine what the world would have been like if the Vikings
> could circumnavigate the globe and if they had guns.
It's hardly necessary to imagine it since the Vikings did establish
kingdoms all over (in Normandy, Britain, Sicily, Southern Italy and
Russia), although without having guns.
Look up Rollo, Danelaw, Guiscard and Rurik.
> How would you
> like it if the Aztecs had the technological edge over Europeans and
> used primitive European tribal lands as their hunting ground for human
> sacrifice, as they did their American Indian neighbors?
Despite Europeans having the technological edge. they killed more
slowly than this:.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture
For the reconsecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the
Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the
course of four days. Four tables were arranged at the top such that
the victims could be jettisoned down the sides of the temple.[4] This
would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day
consecration.
> regards,
> BM
1X2Willows
news:1172693615.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 1:47 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The Black Monk wrote:
> ...cut...
>>
>> We were talking about indigenous Northern European religions.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts_and_human_sacrifice
LOL! Wikipedia!
"Celts" in Britain 5000 years ago, Maud Cunnington (died 1951) as the
ultimate authority in the field and a bunch of 2000+ year old propagandist
yarn written by the biggest liar of statesmen (until GWB) to spice it up.
Impressive scholarship indeed!
> Let's not project the concept of modern harmless hippy or
> environmentalist pagans onto the real, barbarian pagans, who for
> example sacrificed children by splitting their heads oopen before
> layign them intot he foundation of their new homes.
Sure. They cooked and ate them too and used only extra virgin
baby blood for satanic rites as well as their salad dressing and dip.
The whole world knows that by now, mostly thanks to judeo-christian
scribes and 'academics'.
Aaaah if it wasn't for their rigorous and time tested objectivity in
all reports about other, especially non-abrahamic 'belief'-systems...
What would have possibly become of this poor doomed planet!
>> Not the Southern ones.
>
> Okay. Primitive tribesmen living in the woods, whether in northern
> Europe or the Americas, are probably inherently less harmful than are
> people living in organized societies. But as what I had posted
> earlier showed, Christianity had a positive impact on the urban,
> civilized Roman culture. And it was certainly preferable to the
> bloodthristy pre-Christian urban American (Aztec) civilization.
What... those urban (Aztec and pretty much all other) civilizations
which have been all but eradicated by the good hearted and morally
oh so superior believers in the zilly Desert God?
Mymy, Monk.
Now if that isn't adding insult to injury, then what is...
One would expect a little more compassion from clerics like you.
>> I expect you'll be telling us next how democracy comes from the bible.
>
> Modern Western democracy has its roots in ancient Germanic customs:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_%28assembly%29
ROFL! another Wiki reference!
I bet "in ancient christianized Germanic customs" too, right?
Geez you're a hoot, Monk.
> Those guys, such as the Vikings, were a rather bloodthirsty group.
> Just like modern democratic Americans.
Well, at least you're not a warmonger like other wannabe 'enlightened
ones' that I can think of. On yer knees and pray now!
:-Dan
1X2Willows
news:1172717920....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> [....]
ite Europeans having the technological edge. they killed more
> slowly than this:.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture
*groan* Please! Ranjit!! Not Wiki"Wisdom" again!!! :-)
> For the reconsecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the
> Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the
> course of four days. Four tables were arranged at the top such that
> the victims could be jettisoned down the sides of the temple.[4] This
> would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day
> consecration.
Sure.
Very believable account by some 3rd rate Spanish frockwetter
with a grass roots career in proselytism and slander.
"No first-hand, eyewitness accounts by Europeans of actual human
sacrifice are known, ..." sounds more like it.
No doubt the world's a better place since:
a) literacy is steadily on the rise, so the writing of history may not be
exclusive domain of religious/political propagandists anymore
(although they keep trying to this day)
b) the Arabs came up with a decent numeric system which doesn't
easily mistake Xs for Us anymore (as in those days) and
c) Penicillin helps ease the delusions of syphillis ridden brains,
which were the prime source for this urban legend and others, all
designed to discredit any culture but the ones based on biblical myth.
Dan
1X2Willows
I hope from the bottom of my heart, that some beautiful jungle patch
will grow over the whole area, once you guys have fought it out,
blown each other to bits and not a single believer in some zilly
deity is getting in the way of true beauty anymore.
Something like Anghkor Wat would be nice.
More room for plants and animals!
Yeeeeeeee....!
Dan
clough
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Despite Europeans having the technological edge. they killed more
>slowly than this:.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture
>For the reconsecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the
>Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the
>course of four days. Four tables were arranged at the top such that
>the victims could be jettisoned down the sides of the temple.[4] This
>would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day
>consecration.
European ritual slaughter can be pretty impressive, too.
During the great patriotic slaughtering of 1914 -1918 the British
victims of the battle of the Somme numbered 20,000 killed and 40,000
wounded on just the first day. This was an impressive achievement. The
German machine gunners put in a tremendous and sustained effort in
order to keep the numbers rising as quickly and consistently as they
did, and the British accomplishment in supplying them with never
ending rows of troops in long, well ordered lines to be mown down,
despite difficulties such as massive and rising heaps of corpses in no
mans land tending to disrupt the long lines of well ordered victims
slowly marching into the machine guns, should not be underestimated.
So you see, Europe is not easily outdone.
Clough
1X2Willows
news:ervutg$qqg$02$2...@news.t-online.com...
>> Arminius wrote:
>>> "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6lGEh.358355$qy.3...@newsfe16.lga...
>>>> looks like the west is taking to yoga and meditation of late. is it
>>>> just a fad? how is hinduism viewed in europe?
>>>
>>> I think it is held in much higher esteem than Islam anyway, and
>>> rightfully so.
>>>
>>> Hindus are largely peaceful, tolerant and productive people.
>>>
>>> Generally-speaking though I think most Westerners are very ignorant of
>>> Hinduism.
>>>
>>> As a great religion, and one which emphasizes the inner being, as well
>>> as peace, harmony and tolerance, it deserves to be better known.
>>
>> It also shares roots with the native religion of Northern Europe.
>
> Very true!
>
> Europe - nay the world - has suffered the most from the nasty Abrahamic
> religions which originated in the Middle East.
Good to hear someone else saying it how it is, without beating around
the bush! Most indoctrinated Westerners with an interest in alternative
spiritualities can't even tell the difference anymore, because they're
really just suffering from "recovering church goer syndrome" as we call it.
You know the "we all pray to the same god anyway" crowd...
Never occurs to them that one can be deeply spiritual without having
to grovel before some human shape metaphor or theological supposition.
> Christianity is not native to Europe. Germanic and Celtic paganism, while
> ultimately having their roots in the sub-continent, are European, being
> substantial adaptations of that religious system from India.
Rather than one being an adaptation of the other, it appears Hinduism and
traditional Celtic paganism relate to each other sort of like wolf and dog
or human and ape, for that matter. Individually evolved critters with a
common ancestor, which would have to be some archaic form of nature
spirituality, shared by all hunter/gatherer-, as well as early agricultural
societies around the globe.
It's always newly astounding how much similarities in core principles and
tenets and such can be found between people as far removed from each
other as the Maori and ancient Egyptians for example, who came to lots
of the same conclusions without ever knowing of each other's existence.
(...or so we have to assume, at least... ;)
That's what deserves the name "universal truth".
The rest is only cultural/ethnic window dressing.
Dan
john...@gmail.com
> The restriction of sexual behavior to marriage was certainly an
> affront to Roman noblemen
It's an affront to us too, isn't it?
Jim
"1X2Willows" <spamb...@euro-celts.dot.com> wrote in message
news:es6orq$n0f$1...@news.albasani.net...
Good one Dan!!!
That is exactly what my old teacher Glen taught me.
There is also the concept of synchronicity and akasha involved, i.e. one
universal and "not man made" truth held in the etheric and coming to those
able to tune in.
Jim
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
IIRC the biggest one day slaughter in military history was the battle of
Cannae.
The Black Monk
> On 28 Feb 2007 18:58:40 -0800, "M. Ranjit Mathews"
>
The key difference is that the war dead were soldiers' self-sacrifice
while the Aztecs were not only killing POWs...
regards,
BM
The Black Monk
wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2:31 pm, "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 1:54 pm, "Arminius" <armin...@hotmale.com> wrote:
> > > Moreover northern European paganism - with the obvious exception of the
> > > Vikings and that was mainly due to other factors than religion - did not
> > > lead to either an effect or a deliberate policy of attempting to spread the
> > > religion worldwide by fair means or foul (usually foul).
>
> > Well, relatively primitive tribes are hardly going to conquer the
> > world (unless they are on horseback) - although the Celts managed to
> > cause a lot of havoc before being tamed by the Romans.
>
> Nah; the Romans managed to cause a lot of havoc among the Celts.
Eventually. Before the Romans crushed them, however...
http://www.lost-civilizations.net/celtic-civilization.html
400 - Celts invade Italy and Cisalpine Gaul.
400 - Celts atack the Etruscan city of Clusium.
390 - Raiding Celtic tribes under the leadership of Brennus ravage
Rome and occupy the city for three months. Offended by the dirty
conditions of the city (they were country boys at heart) they demand a
ransome to leave the Romans alone. Brennus demands his weight in gold
and when the Romans complain he throws his sword on the scales to be
weighed as well with the cry "VAE VICTUS" - (Woe to the Vanquished).
335 - Alexander recieves envoys from the Celts, and exchange pledges
of alliance. Large numbers of Celtic Warriors join the Greeks in a war
against the Etruscans.
323 - Alexander dies and the Celts push into Macedonia.
279 - Celtic tribes invade Greece.
By 276 they had settled in parts of Phrygia but continued raiding and
pillage until finally quelled by Attalus I of Pergamum about 230. In
Italy, meanwhile, Rome had established supremacy over the whole of
Cisalpine Gaul by 192 and, in 124, had conquered territory beyond the
western Alps--in the provincia (Provence).
> > > Christianity is one reason for colonialism.
>
> > Colonialism was possible because Christian Europe went from living
> > like 18th century Zulus during the 5th century to becoming the most
> > technologiocally advanced culture in the world by the end of the 5th
> > century. Did Christianity make Europeans more aggressive? The
> > numerous pre-Christian barbarian invasions, whether by Gauls, Goths,
> > Vandals, etc. suggest not.
>
> The Gauls didn't invade - they were invaded.
How did they get to Galatia, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia#Celtic_Galatia
> As for the others, what's pre-Christian about them?
> The Goths had been Christian for a century when they took over Rome.
They were invading Celtic lands and driving off the natives before
their conversion.
> The Vandals were Christians.
Sort of - they were Arians. But those German tribes were no less
violent nor expansionist before they became "Christians."
> > Christianity inspired some good amidst the
> > colonial destruction. Christian activists basically ended slavery
> > throughout the world (it still exists in small pockets, in the Muslim
> > world), just as they had done centuries earlier in the Roman
> > world.
>
> If bonded labor is included, it's large pockets.
Neither serfdom nor bonded labor/sweatshop exploitation are quite
comparable to slavery.
> Here's a certain
> Johnson Nadar, proprietor of a sweetmeat shop called Johnson Sweets
> (Christian Nadars are high caste Christians whose ancestors were low
> caste Hindus)http://ambedkar.org/News/hl/32%20kids.htm
> "These children, who are Dalits from Tamil Nadu, were brought here by
> agents hired by Nadar more than a year ago," alleges Warne. "Their
> parents were paid a paltry sum of Rs 1000." According to Samarthan,
> the children were paid a shockingly meagre salary of Rs 150 ($3) a
> year. They were used to manufacture chikki and other sweets, and were
> forced to work from 6 a.m. to nine in the night. The police have
> already recorded some preliminary statements made by the children --
> according to which, they were often beaten up, and allowed a lunch
> break of only 10 minutes. Narrates 10-year-old Balraj, "We worked from
> early morning to late night and were paid Rs 150 for the whole year.
> We were allowed to rest only during the lunch break and were given two
> pairs of shorts and two vests by way of clothing." According to
> Samarthan officials present during the raid, several of the rescued
> children said that on earlier occasions they had tried to escape from
> the premises but had been caught and beaten by Nadar.
Um...we are talking about societies here anyways, not individuals.
> > I can only imagine what the world would have been like if the Vikings
> > could circumnavigate the globe and if they had guns.
>
> It's hardly necessary to imagine it since the Vikings did establish
> kingdoms all over (in Normandy, Britain, Sicily, Southern Italy and
> Russia), although without having guns.
> Look up Rollo, Danelaw, Guiscard and Rurik.
Rather brutal and violent times. Remember what Kiev's princess Helga
did to the Derevlian tribe when she avenged her husband?
> > How would you
> > like it if the Aztecs had the technological edge over Europeans and
> > used primitive European tribal lands as their hunting ground for human
> > sacrifice, as they did their American Indian neighbors?
>
> Despite Europeans having the technological edge. they killed more
> slowly than this:.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture
> For the reconsecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the
> Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the
> course of four days. Four tables were arranged at the top such that
> the victims could be jettisoned down the sides of the temple.[4] This
> would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day
> consecration.
Good for Cortes...
regards,
BM
>
>
>
> > regards,
> > BM- Hide quoted text -
1X2Willows
news:1172807018.7...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 9:58 pm, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 2:31 pm, "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 1:54 pm, "Arminius" <armin...@hotmale.com> wrote:
>> > > Moreover northern European paganism - with the obvious exception of
>> > > the
>> > > Vikings and that was mainly due to other factors than religion - did
>> > > not
>> > > lead to either an effect or a deliberate policy of attempting to
>> > > spread the
>> > > religion worldwide by fair means or foul (usually foul).
>>
>> > Well, relatively primitive tribes are hardly going to conquer the
>> > world (unless they are on horseback) - although the Celts managed to
>> > cause a lot of havoc before being tamed by the Romans.
>>
>> Nah; the Romans managed to cause a lot of havoc among the Celts.
>
> Eventually. Before the Romans crushed them, however...
>
> http://www.lost-civilizations.net/celtic-civilization.html
Absolute and utter bullcrap.
Crawl back to your monastery and get an education outside the Internet.
Dan
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172807018.7...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
LOL. Let me guess: American?
BM
>
> Dan- Hide quoted text -
1X2Willows
Swiss.
- of Helveti ancestry to be precise.
Your references so far in this thread were utter bullcrap.
Respectable academics don't cite Wikipedia et al.
Dan
DarkFire1
wrote:
> habshi wrote:
> >> fanatics pulled down the historic Babri mosque in the northern Indian
> > town of Ayodhya.<
>
> > Built over a temple destroyed by the Muslims , just like in
> > Jerusalem. Why should the Hindus not take it back if the Muslims wont
> > sell it to them in the holy city of Hindus ?
>
> Because civilised nation have a defacto statute of limitations when it
> comes to historical wrongs. Otherwise we would be invading Italy to
> demand compensation from what the Roman Empire did to us 2000 years ago.
Italy does not lie in England.... Ayodhya lies in India;
Let the Saudis of Mecca pull down Buckingham Palace and build a
beautiful and wondrous Masjid over it (with cool Chinese flashing
lights an' all), and then talk your little talk...
(...With the Queen and the Bishop of Canterbury, holding hands and
gazing on it in awe...).
Before that, I suggest you understand what your "wonderful" land did
first, before commenting on what others do now....
Tomorrow, what others did will also be "history"; Then, we all can
chastise an Island chieftain off the West African coast, that *he*, is
not "civilized"...
(Bloody freakin' neanderthal barbarians...)
Do you know what their problam is? They have no history to remember...
---------------------------
> Dirk
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172886699.6...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What - is my post supposed to be an academic paper? Should I go to
the library to find citations to prove to you the well-known fact by
anybody other than the totally ignorant, that the Celts were the
Vandals of the Hellenistic age? Sheesh...In five minutes I found this
reference through google, from a class at the University of Texas:
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ironagecelts/
During the centuries before the Roman conquest, Iron Age Europe was
home to the many peoples that we now collectively call the early
"Celts." Known to the Greeks and Romans as fearless warriors,
prodigious drinkers, and amoral barbarians, the Celts interacted with
the classical Mediterranean through trade and in hostile encounters.
Feared for their attacks on Rome and Delphi, the Celts were a constant
presence in Europe, northern Italy and Spain on the one hand, and in
western Turkey on the other.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On Feb 27, 8:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> habshi wrote:
>>>> fanatics pulled down the historic Babri mosque in the northern Indian
>>> town of Ayodhya.<
>>> Built over a temple destroyed by the Muslims , just like in
>>> Jerusalem. Why should the Hindus not take it back if the Muslims wont
>>> sell it to them in the holy city of Hindus ?
>> Because civilised nation have a defacto statute of limitations when it
>> comes to historical wrongs. Otherwise we would be invading Italy to
>> demand compensation from what the Roman Empire did to us 2000 years ago.
> ---------------------------
> Italy does not lie in England.... Ayodhya lies in India;
And how long has the nation of India existed?
1X2Willows
> "1X2Willows" wrote:
>> Your references so far in this thread were utter bullcrap.
>> Respectable academics don't cite Wikipedia et al.
>
> What - is my post supposed to be an academic paper?
What - just because this is Usenet, you think it's okay to
spout zilly stereotypes and historical inaccuracies which go
against the grain of any and all current, accurate knowledge?
> Should I go to
> the library to find citations to prove to you the well-known fact by
> anybody other than the totally ignorant, that the Celts were the
> Vandals of the Hellenistic age?
That - and more - would be appreciated indeed. Maybe a trip to the
library will also teach you the quite significant difference between
Celts and Vandals.
> Sheesh...In five minutes I found this
> reference through google, from a class at the University of Texas:
>
> [Link and quote snipped]
Ah. UoT.
Your leading source for the study of European History I take it.
"Known to the Greeks and Romans as fearless warriors,
prodigious drinkers, and amoral barbarians,"
Are you either a Greek or a Roman Monk, Monk?
If yes... I will rest my case, of course.
BTW I found this charming article here as an antidote of sorts:
"Decline and fall of the Roman myth"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article714033.ece
"It is a familiar story, and it’s codswallop.
The fact that we still think of the Celts, the Huns, the Vandals,
the Goths and so on as "barbarians" means that we have all fallen
hook, line and sinker for Roman propaganda. We actually owe far
more to the so-called "barbarians" than we do to the men in togas."
Terry Jones is not only up-to-date and accurate, he's also funny.
Now you and your crusade are also funny --- but different funny.
He's both funnier and more accurate.
Ten Hail Marys and I'll forget I ever read your drivel.
:-Dan
1X2Willows
Are you posting from soc.culture.french?
Just wondering...
Dan
DarkFire1
wrote:
> DarkFire1 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 8:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> habshi wrote:
> >>>> fanatics pulled down the historic Babri mosque in the northern Indian
> >>> town of Ayodhya.<
> >>> Built over a temple destroyed by the Muslims , just like in
> >>> Jerusalem. Why should the Hindus not take it back if the Muslims wont
> >>> sell it to them in the holy city of Hindus ?
> >> Because civilised nation have a defacto statute of limitations when it
> >> comes to historical wrongs. Otherwise we would be invading Italy to
> >> demand compensation from what the Roman Empire did to us 2000 years ago.
> > Italy does not lie in England.... Ayodhya lies in India;
>
> And how long has the nation of India existed?
--------------
You surely *must* be joking; If not, I cannot understand a "civiized"
person *ever* passing such a remark (Note: I disdained from saying
that it was even a question).
India is Bharat (or Bharatha)... India's official name is "Bharat".
Bharat existed long before your particular ancestors in Europe were
jumping from tree to tree, and/or covering in caves, each time
lightening struck;
The first *recorded* civilization of Bharat, was the Indus Valley
civilization; The first civilizational empire of Bharat, was the
Muryan Empire which defeated the combined turds of Alexandria & co,
other lesser Europe, Arabia and Persia, all right there on the banks
of the Indus... (Watch the movie "Alexander")
What were your ancestors doing *then*, over there in that part of
Europe my little friend? Pulling on your little twaddle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra
(But to be fair, the lesser would not (and need not) ever
comprehend...)
--------------
john...@gmail.com
If you actually approve such an outbreak of fanaticism then you really
have lost the plot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4651619.stm
"During my years in India I have reported many stories that have
distressed me. I arrived in Bhopal before all the bodies of those
killed by the poison gas had been removed from their shacks in the
slums in front of the Union Carbide plant.
This was a man-made disaster which need never have happened and, as
usual, the poorest of the poor were the victims.
I was in Pakistan during the trial and execution of the former Prime
Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and sources inside the jail had told me
about his courage throughout that ordeal.
It should be an outstanding example of religious pluralism
I was in close contact with one of the judges and so I knew that his
execution was a travesty of justice.
Rajiv Gandhi greeted me warmly when he cast his vote, hours before he
was assassinated.
Earlier in that election campaign he had spoken to me about the
mistakes he had made during his first term of office and asked me to
accept that he would be able to push through his plans for modernising
India if he won this time.
I witnessed those and many other tragedies often involving people
whose names will not be recorded in history, but, asked to recollect
one incident I reported for the BBC, I've chosen Ayodhya because it
was a denial of something which I regard as quintessentially Indian.
The culture of India is by its very nature accommodating, and for
centuries it has allowed all the great religions of the world to make
their homes here.
Hindus traditionally accept there are many ways to god and, as one
20th Century Western scholar has put it, "for the dogmatic certainty
that has racked the religions of semitic origin Hindus feel nothing
but shocked incomprehension."
So India with its Hindu majority should be the last place to find
religious fanaticism. It should be an outstanding example of religious
pluralism in a world where people of different faiths still so often
find it difficult to live with each other.
The Black Monk
wrote:
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172890885.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "1X2Willows" wrote:
> >> Your references so far in this thread were utter bullcrap.
> >> Respectable academics don't cite Wikipedia et al.
>
> > What - is my post supposed to be an academic paper?
>
> What - just because this is Usenet, you think it's okay to
> spout zilly stereotypes and historical inaccuracies which go
> against the grain of any and all current, accurate knowledge?
Sorry, Celtic warmongering was weell known. Why don't you explain how
the Gauls got to Galatia? Do you even know where Galatia is?
Norman Davies, a professor emeritus from the University of London,
gives a very good account of Celtic warmongering in his "Europe: a
History", published by Oxford University Press. It's a good
introduction to basic European history, very well written.
But here is a lot more info for you, disproving the fantasy that the
Celts were harmless, nature-worshipping hippies:
"The best archaeological data supporting Celtic human sacrifice is the
body of the man placed in Lindow bog in the first of second century
C.E. The body was so well preserved that scientists were able to
analyze his stomach contents to discover his last meal (a partially
scorched grain cake). Lindow man was almost certainly a ritual
sacrifice; he was strangled, hit on the head, and had his throat
cut, in quick order, then surrendered to the bog. This pattern
fits the "three-fold" death referred to in medieval Irish tales.
What's more, the man seems to have been of high social rank, and a
willing victim. There are also other bog burials (Tollund Man bog body
in Denmark is very similar) in various places in Europe, as well as
no longer grain storage pits and shafts in Britain, that had human
bodies thrown in them, for instance at the Danebury hillfort."
- "Pagan Celtic Britain"
Anne Ross,
Chicago Academy Publishers, 1996.
"Just like the Continent, there are bog bodies which indicate that
human lives were taken. Three bog bodies (or parts of them) were found
in Lindow Moss in Cheshire, dating from the beginning of the Roman
period. The best preserved of the three was a man who had been hit on
the head with sufficient force to detach chips of his skull into his
brain and to crack a molar. His throat had been slit and there was
also a leather garrotte, tightened with a slip-knot, around his neck.
He was almost naked except for a fox-fur armband and, amongst his
stomach contents of burnt bread was pollen of mistletoe, a plant
sacred to the Celts and Britons. One member of the investigating
team thought that this was an ancient murder rather than a ritual
killing but a full understanding of the body's context makes this
very unlikely."
- "Bodies for the gods: the practice of Human Sacrifice"
Dr Mike Parker-Pearson
Sheffield University Press March 2002
Celtic ritual cannibalism:
"Archaeologists from Bristol University have uncovered evidence for
the most recent cannibalism in the British Isles in a cave at
Alveston, South Gloucestershire. Dr Mark Horton, Reader in
Archaeology, has been working with a local caving group who made
the discovery of numerous bones, some ten metres below ground.
Radiocarbon dating of the bones from the cave suggests that they were
buried around 2,000 years ago, at the very end of the Iron Age or
the beginning of the Roman occupation. Last September, the cave
excavations were filmed as part of Channel 4's Time Team
archaeology series, and the full horror of the cave's grisly
contents came to light.
About five percent of the bone deposit has so far been excavated, and
the remains of at least seven individuals have been discovered.
At least one had been murdered, as the rear of the skull was first
pole-axed and then smashed inwards; another bone showed evidence of
a deformity, and a third showed traces of Pagets disease. But the
most interesting find was an adult human femur, which had been split
longitudinally and the bone marrow scraped out.
This practice, which cannot happen accidentally, is considered to be
very good evidence of cannibalistic activity. The clue as to why
these bones were placed in the cave comes from the other finds.
These included numerous dog bones, as well as the occasional
cattle bone, and a possible vertebra of a bear, as well as wooden
twigs.
Dr Horton said: 'This was a highly structured deposit that can only
have got there as a result of some form of ritual activity. This
region was an important centre for underworld cults during the later
Iron Age, some of which survived into the Roman period; in particular
the Celtic Hound God, Cunomaglus, was represented as a dog guarding
the underworld in local temple sculpture.' Archaeologists have
been suspecting Iron Age cannibalism for some time, from bones found
in rubbish pits, but this is the first time that strong evidence has
been found for the practice. Roman sources describe human sacrifice
among the Celts, but do not mention cannibalism. The sheer scale of
cave deposits, and the identical radiocarbon dates from the bones
might suggest a single great massacre and feast, perhaps involving
over 50 individuals, whose remains were then placed in the cave."
- "Cannibalistic Celts discovered in South Gloucestershire"
U of Bristol, UK March 2001
"Earlier excavations at Gordion recovered coins of the sort used to
pay Celtic mercenaries, a few artifacts with parallels in Celtic
Europe (a helmet flap, sheep shears, and pin), and a sherd
inscribed with a clearly Celtic name, Kant[x]uix. Nevertheless,
the archaeological evidence for a large Galatian presence at the
site was not overwhelming until our discovery of grisly evidence of
rituals involving humans. The broken-necked bodies and decapitated
heads at Gordion cannot be attributed to any local Anatolian group,
but are characteristic of European Celts. Our view of Galatian
Gordion has changed considerably over the past few decades. The
picture of a simple farming community has been replaced by one of a
prosperous town. But when the Galatians settled permanently in
central Anatolia, they did not simply shed their old ways and adopt
those of the native peoples (presumably Hellenized Phrygians in the
case of Gordion), as our discoveries of sacrificial ritual involving
humans as well as animals have shown."
- "Celtic Sacrifice at Gordion"
Jeremiah R. Dandoy, Page Selinsky, AND Mary M. Voigt
Archaeology Magazine Volume 55 Number 1, January/February 2002
On the same site, from the University of Pennsylvania:
http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?157&soc
The most dramatic evidence for Celts at Gordion came with new
excavations in third century B.C. or later levels of the lower town.
In the eastern part of the lower town, archaeologists found five
bodies strewn across an outside ground surface. It is clear that
several of the people died violently, with strangulation the most
common cause of death, whether by hanging or garotting:
o A male, 30 to 45 years old, whose head was twisted back and away
from his torso, his spinal column clearly broken;
o A 15-20-year-old female, who also had a broken neck;
o A 30-45-year-old female, whose skull was fractured by two blows, was
also strangled, as a catastrophic angle in mid-neck attests.
These people may have been killed as part of Celtic divination
rituals. Greco-Roman sources report that the Celtic religious leaders,
or Druids, were prophets who killed humans in order to discern the
future as revealed by the dying victims' movements. The Gordion
victims could have been war captives -- a category of people used in
divination, but sometimes simply slaughtered.
Excavation in the lower town's western part revealed clusters of human
bones from dismembered bodies. The remains, commingled with animal
bones, had been carefully rearranged, sometimes in symmetrical
patterns, on an outside ground surface:
o On the skeleton of a young woman, aged 16-21, the lower jaw of a
male over 50 was found where her skull should be. Beneath the young
woman was a 35-45-year old female whose legs had been detached and
placed on either side of her torso. The young woman's missing skull
and her first five vertebrae had been placed at the top of the older
woman's spinal column;
o Decayed wood in the opening at the base of a 20- to 35-year-old
male's skull suggests his severed head had been mounted on a wooden
stake for display, a practice documented in Celtic Europe;
o The skull of a teenager 12-17 years old was carefully placed above a
dog skull, pelvic bone, and leg bones.
The largest deposit in the lower town held over 2,100 animal bones and
a few human bones representing a 4- to 8-year-old child, a female aged
35-39, and a male aged 40 44. A distinctive "spiral fracture" on a
femur (probably from the male) may be evidence of the offering of
marrow to the spirits, a Celtic practice documented in Europe. Based
on their age at death, the animals were slaughtered in the fall, when
Celtic groups in Europe celebrated Samhain, around November 1. Celts
believed that barriers between the natural world and the spirits broke
down during Samhain, and the veil between the present and the future
was most transparent. Various divination rituals were performed to
foretell future events. It may not be too far a stretch, say the
excavators, to link these bones to this Celtic festival, which we
still celebrate as Halloween.
Is that enough for you?
Joseph Conrad was absolutely right when, in Heart of Darkness, he
mentioned that there was once a time when the Thames was like the pre-
European Congo.
> > Should I go to
> > the library to find citations to prove to you the well-known fact by
> > anybody other than the totally ignorant, that the Celts were the
> > Vandals of the Hellenistic age?
>
> That - and more - would be appreciated indeed.
That was a rhetorical question. Why don't you just educate yourself.
You can start with the book I mentioned, above.
> Maybe a trip to the library will also teach you the quite significant difference between
> Celts and Vandals.
I guess analogies are a bit too advanced as a means of communicating
with you. Sorry.
> > Sheesh...In five minutes I found this
> > reference through google, from a class at the University of Texas:
>
> > [Link and quote snipped]
>
> Ah. UoT. Your leading source for the study of European History I take it.
???
> "Known to the Greeks and Romans as fearless warriors,
> prodigious drinkers, and amoral barbarians,"
>
> Are you either a Greek or a Roman Monk, Monk?
> If yes... I will rest my case, of course.
>
> BTW I found this charming article here as an antidote of sorts:
> "Decline and fall of the Roman myth"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article714033.ece
>
> "It is a familiar story, and it's codswallop.
>
> The fact that we still think of the Celts, the Huns, the Vandals,
> the Goths and so on as "barbarians" means that we have all fallen
> hook, line and sinker for Roman propaganda. We actually owe far
> more to the so-called "barbarians" than we do to the men in togas."
Mr. Jones also confirms that the Celts were warlike when he describes
their sophisticated use of war chariots.
> Terry Jones is not only up-to-date and accurate, he's also funny.
Indeed. A Monty Python is a far more legitmate source for historical
information than a professor of history at the University of Texas.
LOL.
BM
john...@gmail.com
>
> read more »
The blood of bulls and goats would satisfy
Of old the hellish thirst of the Most High.
Well -- at the worst Jehovah's altars smoke
And hiss with flesh of his own favoured folk.
But Thou, O Christ, dost glut thy lust refined
Upon the ravaged souls of all mankind.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On Mar 2, 10:04 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> DarkFire1 wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 8:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> habshi wrote:
>>>>>> fanatics pulled down the historic Babri mosque in the northern Indian
>>>>> town of Ayodhya.<
>>>>> Built over a temple destroyed by the Muslims , just like in
>>>>> Jerusalem. Why should the Hindus not take it back if the Muslims wont
>>>>> sell it to them in the holy city of Hindus ?
>>>> Because civilised nation have a defacto statute of limitations when it
>>>> comes to historical wrongs. Otherwise we would be invading Italy to
>>>> demand compensation from what the Roman Empire did to us 2000 years ago.
>
>>> Italy does not lie in England.... Ayodhya lies in India;
>> And how long has the nation of India existed?
> --------------
> You surely *must* be joking; If not, I cannot understand a "civiized"
> person *ever* passing such a remark (Note: I disdained from saying
> that it was even a question).
> India is Bharat (or Bharatha)... India's official name is "Bharat".
And its boundies as a unified nation are exactly the same as today (but
including Pakistan)?
> Bharat existed long before your particular ancestors in Europe were
> jumping from tree to tree, and/or covering in caves, each time
> lightening struck;
Not entirely, since my ancestors are the IndoEuropeans who conquered
'India' and established it (as well as the caste system). In fact, high
caste Indians such as Brahmins have been shown to have more in common
genetically with Western Europeans (such as myself) than they do with
low caste natives.
> The first *recorded* civilization of Bharat, was the Indus Valley
> civilization; The first civilizational empire of Bharat, was the
> Muryan Empire which defeated the combined turds of Alexandria & co,
> other lesser Europe, Arabia and Persia, all right there on the banks
> of the Indus... (Watch the movie "Alexander")
>
> What were your ancestors doing *then*, over there in that part of
> Europe my little friend? Pulling on your little twaddle?
Ad hominem and insult.
The mark of a crank.
1X2Willows
> "1X2Willows" wrote:
>> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1172890885.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>> > "1X2Willows" wrote:
>> >> Your references so far in this thread were utter bullcrap.
>> >> Respectable academics don't cite Wikipedia et al.
>>
>> > What - is my post supposed to be an academic paper?
>>
>> What - just because this is Usenet, you think it's okay to
>> spout zilly stereotypes and historical inaccuracies which go
>> against the grain of any and all current, accurate knowledge?
>
> Sorry, Celtic warmongering was weell known. Why don't you explain how
> the Gauls got to Galatia? Do you even know where Galatia is?
No need for resorting to propagandist terminology. Every single
culture at the time engaged in warfare. - or name one that didn't?
As to Galatia... yes? You make it sound as if their presence
was shrouded in some mystery, while everyone knows how
they got there: By migration like everyone else. What's the question?
- and besides... condescending remarks will not get you any further
from objectivity than you already are; so, go right ahead...
[Quotes snipped]
> Is that enough for you?
Why yes, thank you.
You presented several Kilobytes worh of quotes from authors, whose
expertise in Celtology is largely non extant --- save maybe Anne Ross
to some degree, though even she is way behind the curve nowadays.
Nevertheless, we have established that Celtic culture and spirituality
have always been quite different from Greco-Roman ideals and they still are.
In comparison with Judeo-Christianity, those ideals are even further removed
to the point of incompatibility - just like in Hinduism. Nobody denies that.
Now what was your specific issue with that fact?
> Joseph Conrad was absolutely right when, in Heart of Darkness, he
> mentioned that there was once a time when the Thames was like the pre-
> European Congo.
Also Józef Teodor Nalecz Konrad Korzeniowski has certainly never
been an authority in the celtological academia. You seem to have this
fascination with Poles and other Eastern Europeans because, apparently,
their lay work about Celts helps you quasi-prove your errand points.
Don't believe everything you read in a book or on the Internet.
>> > Should I go to
>> > the library to find citations to prove to you the well-known fact by
>> > anybody other than the totally ignorant, that the Celts were the
>> > Vandals of the Hellenistic age?
>>
>> That - and more - would be appreciated indeed.
>
> That was a rhetorical question. Why don't you just educate yourself.
> You can start with the book I mentioned, above.
Why sure it was a rhetorical question but an improper one at that.
I'm afraid the burden of education is on you. I don't read pseudo-historical
schlock by unqualified laymen. Life's too short.
[ad hominem dribble snipped]
> Mr. Jones also confirms that the Celts were warlike when he describes
> their sophisticated use of war chariots.
Yes? As mentioned above, everyone and their dogs engaged in warfare.
So? What's the question?
> Indeed. A Monty Python is a far more legitmate source for historical
> information than a professor of history at the University of Texas.
> LOL.
LOL away for all I care.
- of "European history" was the quote. I don't know about you but if I want
to know something about European history, I usually consult European
sources and not some Hick from the Bible Belt. Makes all sense, wouldn't
you agree?
I'm also convinced that Kinky Friedman, the TX native comedian has a better
insight into- and more knowledge about the history of the state of Texas
than, say, some random Prof. from the Sorbonne in Paris. That would only
be natural, just like a whole bunch of other things are natural yet they go
against the grain of the rather supremacist approach you and others take,
when discussing and evaluating history.
In short... I think your Christian bias shows big time, Monk.
Dan
1X2Willows
news:1172935630.3...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> The blood of bulls and goats would satisfy
> Of old the hellish thirst of the Most High.
> Well -- at the worst Jehovah's altars smoke
> And hiss with flesh of his own favoured folk.
> But Thou, O Christ, dost glut thy lust refined
> Upon the ravaged souls of all mankind.
Nice!
Sums it all up, doesn't it.
Dan
1X2Willows
> "1X2Willows wrote
Once in a while, I get the feeling he's around, observes and guides...
Then again --- I'm a Loony. :-}
> There is also the concept of synchronicity and akasha involved, i.e. one
> universal and "not man made" truth held in the etheric and coming to those
> able to tune in.
"coming to those" being the relevant part, I suppose?
Don't know about you but I see folks all around, trying to push and
"get there" instead of waiting for what comes in. Tried that strategy too,
so I'm equally 'guilty' but I like to think of myself as cured now.
Dan
hognoxious
news:1172901315....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
> Muryan Empire which defeated the combined turds of Alexandria & co,
> other lesser Europe, Arabia and Persia, all right there on the banks
> of the Indus... (Watch the movie "Alexander")
If it's in a Hollywood film, it must be true!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra
And if it's on Wikipedia, it must be even truer!
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172935130.5...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "1X2Willows" wrote:
> >> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1172890885.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> >> > "1X2Willows" wrote:
> >> >> Your references so far in this thread were utter bullcrap.
> >> >> Respectable academics don't cite Wikipedia et al.
>
> >> > What - is my post supposed to be an academic paper?
>
> >> What - just because this is Usenet, you think it's okay to
> >> spout zilly stereotypes and historical inaccuracies which go
> >> against the grain of any and all current, accurate knowledge?
>
> > Sorry, Celtic warmongering was weell known. Why don't you explain how
> > the Gauls got to Galatia? Do you even know where Galatia is?
>
> No need for resorting to propagandist terminology.
Which is "propogandist terminology" - Gauls or Galatia?
> Every single culture at the time engaged in warfare. - or name one that didn't?
I was merely pointing out that northern (or any) Europeans were
warmongers long before Christianity. The Celts invaded their way as
far as Asia Minor.
> As to Galatia... yes? You make it sound as if their presence
> was shrouded in some mystery, while everyone knows how
> they got there: By migration like everyone else.
Yup, just like how the Europeans ended up in North America.
Migration.
> What's the question?
> - and besides... condescending remarks will not get you any further
> from objectivity than you already are; so, go right ahead...
>
> [Quotes snipped]
>
> > Is that enough for you?
>
> Why yes, thank you.
> You presented several Kilobytes worh of quotes from authors, whose
> expertise in Celtology is largely non extant --- save maybe Anne Ross
> to some degree, though even she is way behind the curve nowadays.
How about archeology or history?
> Nevertheless, we have established that Celtic culture and spirituality
> have always been quite different from Greco-Roman ideals and they still are.
> In comparison with Judeo-Christianity, those ideals are even further removed
> to the point of incompatibility - just like in Hinduism. Nobody denies that.
Yes. We don't sacrifice 4-8 year old children in our cultural
rituals. That's rather different, indeed. You or your friends may
pretend to be "druids" or whatever, but I suspect you don't do such
things either. That's at least one positive thing to have happened
since the fall of the Celtic religion.
> Now what was your specific issue with that fact?
I was merely pointing out that the Celts were a pretty brutal bunch,
by any standards.
> > Joseph Conrad was absolutely right when, in Heart of Darkness, he
> > mentioned that there was once a time when the Thames was like the pre-
> > European Congo.
>
> Also Józef Teodor Nalecz Konrad Korzeniowski has certainly never
> been an authority in the celtological academia.
Who claimed that he was? He just stated the obvious. "Celtological
academia" has a rather funny sound to it though. Is studying it akin
to obtaining a degree in "women's studies" or "social justice?"
> You seem to have this
> fascination with Poles and other Eastern Europeans because, apparently,
> their lay work about Celts helps you quasi-prove your errand points.
> Don't believe everything you read in a book or on the Internet.
Should I merely consult revisionists such as yourself?
(rhetorical question)
> >> > Should I go to
> >> > the library to find citations to prove to you the well-known fact by
> >> > anybody other than the totally ignorant, that the Celts were the
> >> > Vandals of the Hellenistic age?
>
> >> That - and more - would be appreciated indeed.
>
> > That was a rhetorical question. Why don't you just educate yourself.
> > You can start with the book I mentioned, above.
>
> Why sure it was a rhetorical question but an improper one at that.
> I'm afraid the burden of education is on you. I don't read pseudo-historical
> schlock by unqualified laymen. Life's too short.
Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
other things for his work on the British Isles. From the book cover,
he's a professor Emeritus at the University of London, a senior member
of Wolfson College, Oxford, and a fellow of the British Academy.And
he's a Celt himself - a Welshman. Is your definition of "pseudo-
historical schlock" anything that doesn't agree with your
fantasies?
This is what he wrote (page 221): "Celts stormed Rome in 390 BC and
Greece in 279BC, terrorizing their victims by their huge stature,
their red hair and ferocious temperemtn, and their sickening habit of
head-hunting. For twenty years at the close of the second century BC,
in the shape of the Cimbri...they caused immense havoc in Gaul and
Spain until caught by the Consul Marius..."
(I guess he doesn't belong to your "celtological Academia ghetto,
though...)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Celts were warmongering, human
sacrificng, cannibalistic invaders. In contrast, after they became
Christians, Europeans became merely warmongering invaders.
> [ad hominem dribble snipped]
>
> > Mr. Jones also confirms that the Celts were warlike when he describes
> > their sophisticated use of war chariots.
>
> Yes? As mentioned above, everyone and their dogs engaged in warfare.
> So? What's the question?
Well, it's good that you admit that Christianity isn't the cause of
European colonialism, given that pre-Christian Celts were doing plenty
of invading and colonizing (as well as human sacrificng, and
cannibalizing).
> > Indeed. A Monty Python is a far more legitmate source for historical
> > information than a professor of history at the University of Texas.
> > LOL.
>
> LOL away for all I care.
> - of "European history" was the quote. I don't know about you but if I want
> to know something about European history, I usually consult European
> sources and not some Hick from the Bible Belt.
So the faculty at the University of Texas are "hicks from the Bible
belt"? LOL.
> Makes all sense, wouldn't you agree?
What makes sense is that for all your pretence you don't know much
about academia.
> I'm also convinced that Kinky Friedman, the TX native comedian has a better
> insight into- and more knowledge about the history of the state of Texas
> than, say, some random Prof. from the Sorbonne in Paris.
Not more than a specialist of Texan history at Sorbonne (if there is
such a thing), though.
> That would only be natural,
So next time I have questions about Plato, I should consult not a
specialist in Classics or Greek history or culture in Yale (or even
the University of Texas), but go to Athens and speak to a taxi driver
there, cause he'll know better. Otherwise I'm taking a "supremacist
approach." LOL.
> just like a whole bunch of other things are natural yet they go
> against the grain of the rather supremacist approach you and others take,
> when discussing and evaluating history.
>
> In short... I think your Christian bias shows big time, Monk.
It serves to highlight your unrealistic romantic Celtic fantasies.
BM
> Dan
1X2Willows
news:1173063980.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...> messagenews:1172935130.5...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > Sorry, Celtic warmongering was weell known. Why don't you explain how
> > the Gauls got to Galatia? Do you even know where Galatia is?
>
>> No need for resorting to propagandist terminology.
> Which is "propogandist terminology" - Gauls or Galatia?
"warmongering" you zilly sod
>> Every single culture at the time engaged in warfare. - or name one that
>> didn't?
>
> I was merely pointing out that northern (or any) Europeans were
> warmongers long before Christianity. The Celts invaded their way as
> far as Asia Minor.
Wow.
"People engaged in warfare before the coming of Christianity"
Is that the point you're trying to make? How profound.
Now that we have established the fact...
So? What about it?
Christianity certainly didn't end warfare --- or do you need examples
for your records?
> Yup, just like how the Europeans ended up in North America.
> Migration.
Yes? ... and...?
> How about archeology or history?
What about archaeology or history?
> Yes. We don't sacrifice 4-8 year old children in our cultural
> rituals. That's rather different, indeed. You or your friends may
> pretend to be "druids" or whatever, but I suspect you don't do such
> things either. That's at least one positive thing to have happened
> since the fall of the Celtic religion.
There ya' go spouting that POP culture Wikipedia nonsense again.
You appear to have no idea what you're talking about. No idea
whatsoever... right?
>> Now what was your specific issue with that fact?
>
> I was merely pointing out that the Celts were a pretty brutal bunch,
> by any standards.
Yeppers. - and proud of it.
Brutal like the rest --- if not way brutal-ler. :)
Got an issue with that?
If so... why?
>> Also Józef Teodor Nalecz Konrad Korzeniowski has certainly never
>> been an authority in the celtological academia.
>
> Who claimed that he was? He just stated the obvious. "Celtological
> academia" has a rather funny sound to it though. Is studying it akin
> to obtaining a degree in "women's studies" or "social justice?"
Eeeeewwww... Now your biases are really starting to show.
You better watch that, Monk, or the rest of us might be getting the
impression that you're really nothing more than a fundie bigot.
Celtology is taught at several highly acclaimed universities in Europe
these days; one of them in Vienna, probably the oldest Univesity in
the 'Western Hemisphere'. You got an issue with that as well?
>> You seem to have this
>> fascination with Poles and other Eastern Europeans because, apparently,
>> their lay work about Celts helps you quasi-prove your errand points.
>> Don't believe everything you read in a book or on the Internet.
>
> Should I merely consult revisionists such as yourself?
X'cuse me?
Are you jewish, Monk?
> Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
> other things for his work on the British Isles. From the book cover,
> [....]
"From the book cover"! How charming. Have you ever heard of
advertising tactics, Monk? Anyway... Never heard of a lad named
"Norman Davies" in celtological circles and I doubt my peers have either.
Seems to be a nobody, what indepth knowledge about Celts is concerned.
Case dismissed.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Celts were warmongering, human
> sacrificng, cannibalistic invaders. In contrast, after they became
> Christians, Europeans became merely warmongering invaders.
Aaaaah how nice it must be... to live in such peaceful ignorance... :-)~
[rest mercifully snipped]
Now get off your ass and run to church!
It's Sunday, Shabbes, Lent... whatever you morons call it!
:-Dan
DarkFire1
wrote:
> DarkFire1 wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 10:04 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> DarkFire1 wrote:
> >>> On Feb 27, 8:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> habshi wrote:
> >>>>>> fanatics pulled down the historic Babri mosque in the northern Indian
> >>>>> town of Ayodhya.<
> >>>>> Built over a temple destroyed by the Muslims , just like in
> >>>>> Jerusalem. Why should the Hindus not take it back if the Muslims wont
> >>>>> sell it to them in the holy city of Hindus ?
> >>>> Because civilised nation have a defacto statute of limitations when it
> >>>> comes to historical wrongs. Otherwise we would be invading Italy to
> >>>> demand compensation from what the Roman Empire did to us 2000 years ago.
>
> >>> Italy does not lie in England.... Ayodhya lies in India;
> >> And how long has the nation of India existed?
> > You surely *must* be joking; If not, I cannot understand a "civiized"
> > person *ever* passing such a remark (Note: I disdained from saying
> > that it was even a question).
> > India is Bharat (or Bharatha)... India's official name is "Bharat".
>
> And its boundies as a unified nation are exactly the same as today (but
> including Pakistan)?
----------------------
No, they encompassed much larger teritory... What's your point?
----------------------
>
> > Bharat existed long before your particular ancestors in Europe were
> > jumping from tree to tree, and/or covering in caves, each time
> > lightening struck;
>
> Not entirely, since my ancestors are the IndoEuropeans who conquered
> 'India' and established it (as well as the caste system). In fact, high
> caste Indians such as Brahmins have been shown to have more in common
> genetically with Western Europeans (such as myself) than they do with
> low caste natives.
----------------------
You must be new here. Do you know what Hindu civilization is all
about? We never do talk the nonsense you just did.
Hindu civilization's most contemptual concept, is your little bloody
nonsensical Euro-Classism.
There was none of this "IndoEuropean" sh.t you speak of; Bharatha, was
a land of *one* Hindu Dravida and Saraswathy civilizations, which
joined together to form a single super-civilization... This has
nothing to do with your ridiculous European "Roman/Greek trash
"civilization" of any kind... Capiche?
Your reference has nothing to do with Us...You must confusing Us with
the goat-herding Euro-Arab trash. If you want anything to do with us,
you must first earn it by understanding the history of the human
race.... i.e. The history of the Hindu Race...
----------------------
john...@gmail.com
Nationalism breeds all manner of new historical theories flattering to
to the peoples who devise them. Capiche yourself. Please refer us to
proper scholars on all sides of the debate. You have anyway revealed
yourself to be a fanatic with a mile high chip on your shoulder. You
may get some pleasure from blowing of steam but it is more amusing for
others to bait you.
>
> Your reference has nothing to do with Us...You must confusing Us with
> the goat-herding Euro-Arab trash. If you want anything to do with us,
> you must first earn it by understanding the history of the human
> race.... i.e. The history of the Hindu Race.
1X2Willows
news:1173079889.9...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Mar, 06:58, "DarkFire1" <kgs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 1:19 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
Welcome to alt.spirituality.druid, John.
- even though you didn't choose to contribute but you just have
been "internalized' of sorts... ;-)
Great post.
We all need more people of your caliber.
Dan
1X2Willows
news:45eb3c70$0$2936$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Indeed.
Oh *groan*
What has this world come to...
Dan
DarkFire1
> > No, they encompassed much larger teritory... What's your point?
>
> > > > Bharat existed long before your particular ancestors in Europe were
> > > > jumping from tree to tree, and/or covering in caves, each time
> > > > lightening struck;
>
> > > Not entirely, since my ancestors are the IndoEuropeans who conquered
> > > 'India' and established it (as well as the caste system). In fact, high
> > > caste Indians such as Brahmins have been shown to have more in common
> > > genetically with Western Europeans (such as myself) than they do with
> > > low caste natives.
> > You must be new here. Do you know what Hindu civilization is all
> > about? We never do talk the nonsense you just did.
>
> > Hindu civilization's most contemptual concept, is your little bloody
> > nonsensical Euro-Classism.
>
> > There was none of this "IndoEuropean" sh.t you speak of; Bharatha, was
> > a land of *one* Hindu Dravida and Saraswathy civilizations, which
> > joined together to form a single super-civilization... This has
> > nothing to do with your ridiculous European "Roman/Greek trash
> > "civilization" of any kind... Capiche?
>
> Nationalism breeds all manner of new historical theories flattering to
> to the peoples who devise them. Capiche yourself. Please refer us to
> proper scholars on all sides of the debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is this "debate" you refer to? Is it about Indian civilization?
If so, what is the alternate theory that differs from what i just said
about the Dravida and Saraswati civilizations, which you folks over
there failed to ever understand even after jerking-off for almost two
hundred years over here? BTW, although the entire European industrial
revolution was powered by the wealth of India, it does not mean that
you learned anything else other than a pile load of crap, while you
were in Asia... If god meant for you to have such wisdom, he would
have carefully put it into a toilet ... (Which you consider as the
hallmark of *your* civilization...)
http://www.harappa.com/har/indus-saraswati.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_Empire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> You have anyway revealed
> yourself to be a fanatic with a mile high chip on your shoulder. You
> may get some pleasure from blowing of steam but it is more amusing for
> others to bait you.
> > Your reference has nothing to do with Us...You must confusing Us with
> > the goat-herding Euro-Arab trash. If you want anything to do with us,
> > you must first earn it by understanding the history of the human
> > race.... i.e. The history of the Hindu Race.
> > > > The first *recorded* civilization of Bharat, was the Indus Valley
DarkFire1
> "hognoxious" <hognoxious_kos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45eb3c70$0$2936$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
>
> > "DarkFire1" <kgs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1172901315....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > ...
> >> Muryan Empire which defeated the combined turds of Alexandria & co,
> >> other lesser Europe, Arabia and Persia, all right there on the banks
> >> of the Indus... (Watch the movie "Alexander")
>
> > If it's in a Hollywood film, it must be true!
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra
>
> > And if it's on Wikipedia, it must be even truer!
Yeah, had it been "written" in your cartoon "National Archives", or
better yet the daily BNP report, you would have reached orgasm and
jerked off all over it. Tell me, what "news" paper should it have been
written, for it to be credible in the eyes of the BNP, Belmont
Brotherhood and the average bigot citizen, grown up on tales of
"Malthusian Eugenics" which hilariously, is based off a South-
European Greek concept...
...Implying that the Germanics, cannot *even* come up with such
concepts???! What an insult! This must be a deliberate insult against
Germany (Since they are Germanics), carefully created by the
English???
...
-----------------------
>
> Indeed.
> Oh *groan*
> What has this world come to...
-----------------------
After your kind screwed it to death? Nothing much...
-----------------------
> Dan
john...@gmail.com
The ideas about the "Indo-European shit", as you put it, which still
seem to find a lot credence. If they really are so thoroughly
discredited please give us your authorities and tell us why they
should be trusted. Wikipedia won't really do. Here's Kidpede:-
Indo-Europeans in Ancient India
About 1500 BC, India was invaded by Indo-European people. These people
came from the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian sea. Between
2500 and 2000 BC, many Indo-Europeans migrated all over Eurasia. Some
went to Europe and became the Romans and the Greeks, some settled in
Turkey and became the Hittites. Others migrated south-east instead.
Some of them stopped in Iran, while others continued south-east to
Pakistan and India. The slow migration did not arrive in northern
India until about 1500 BC. In India, the Indo-Europeans are usually
called the Aryans.
Some people have disputed this arrival of the Indo-Europeans, and if
you search the web you will find some sites saying that it never
happened. But there are written records of the language that these
Indo-European people brought with them to India, Sanskrit. We can read
Sanskrit, and we can easily see that many words in Sanskrit are
basically the same as in other Indo-European languages. In addition,
recent genetic evidence supports the arrival of the Indo-Europeans.
In addition to their language, the Aryans brought their gods with them
to India. These gods form the basis of the Rig Veda and other sagas
which were first written down in Sanskrit. They also brought the
domesticated horse.
Indus River
Indus River
The Aryans first settled along the Indus River, in the same place
where the Harappa people had lived. They settled down and mixed with
the local Indian people. They lived there from about 1500 BC to about
800 BC. It seems to be at this time that the caste system got started
in India.
About 800 BC, the Aryans learned how to use iron for weapons and
tools. They probably learned to work iron from the people of West
Asia, the Assyrians, who had learned it from the Indo-European
Hittites. Once the Aryans learned how to use iron, they used their new
weapons to conquer more of India, and moved to the south and east into
the Ganges river valley. They settled there not long after 800 BC.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
You are obviously ill educated.
Many European languages share a common origin with Sanskrit.
That ought to tell you the same thing as the genetic analysis of high
caste Indians.
But I won't hold my breath.
Of course, if you're a Dalit I can quite understand your pretensions.
--
DarkFire1
> > What is this "debate" you refer to? Is it about Indian civilization?
> >http://www.harappa.com/har/indus-saraswati.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.or...
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear John, John, John, The theory of the "Aryans invasion" nonsense of
India, and thus in association the theory of "Indo-Europeanism", was
constructed by silly little fools with grandiose greeds but little
knowledge.
India for centuries has had immigrants from various Asian origins;
However, as your nutsy's from Shangri-La imply, there was no targeted
immigration or "invasion" of any kind. People did indeed migrate to
India during the Indus and Saraswati civilizational periods... These
civilizations, being established before the Egyptian civilization.
This has nothing to do with any European civilization or "invasion",
simply because there existed *no* European civilization during the
time of the Indus and Saraswati civilizations...
So, talking of "Indo-European" civilization and pointing to "Aryan
invasion" is as silly as claiming that Europe was infact an *African*
civilization, pointing to the fact that humans originated from Africa
(Ethiopia/Somalia to be more precise).
You said above that this "Aryan invasion" occurred around 1500BC to
800BC... Now we all know that there was no European civilization of
any value around this period. If you are claiming that this European/
Aryan invasion was mounted by the tribes that populated Europe at that
time, then the questions are:
1) If these Europeans were barbarians, then it certainly is nothing to
be proud of, even if they did invade India.
2) If these Europeans were highly civilized (i.e. Claiming that they
had access to the Vedas), then how come they did not create their
*own* advanced Vedic civilization in Europe itself??? It just does not
makes sense now, does it? I mean, why migrate half-way across the
world, if you are already advanced enough to create your own advanced
civilizations, as witnessed by Vedic literature?
3) If a so-called Vedic civilization did exist in Europe before it
came to India, how come it was wiped out by a lesser and newer Arabic
Christian civilization, while it still continues to exist in India?
Are you claiming that Europeans are of a breed of people with rather
lose moral values, who will change their entire belief system and
their very core values of humanity, all at the drop of an Arab turban?
4) If such a Vedic civilization did infact exist in Europe, and if
infact it was intellectually more valuable (e.g. the Druidic faith of
Europe) than the bible-thumping Arab faiths, why was it denigrated and
maligned all over Europe, calling any remaining practitioners of such
faiths as "witches" and "evil people"? So obviously, either the newer
Arab-faiths were considered as "better" (thus implying the pre-Arab
faiths were lesser), or the European people lacked the intellect to
see the difference... Which is it?
------------------------------------------------------------
john...@gmail.com
You are attacking various straw men here. Just stick to the content of
the kidepede article. No one is saying India was civilised by Europe.
The Black Monk
wrote:
> "The Black Monk" wrote in message
>
> news:1173063980.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> "1X2Willows" wrote:
> > "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:1172935130.5...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > > Sorry, Celtic warmongering was weell known. Why don't you explain how
> > > the Gauls got to Galatia? Do you even know where Galatia is?
>
> >> No need for resorting to propagandist terminology.
> > Which is "propogandist terminology" - Gauls or Galatia?
>
> "warmongering" you zilly sod
According to the dictionary warmonger is:
American Heritage Dictionary - war·mon·ger (wôr'mŭng'gər, -
mŏng'-) Pronunciation Key
n. One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
An accurate description. Just because you don't like an accurate
description doesn't mean it is "propogandistic terminology."
> >> Every single culture at the time engaged in warfare. - or name one that
> >> didn't?
>
> > I was merely pointing out that northern (or any) Europeans were
> > warmongers long before Christianity. The Celts invaded their way as
> > far as Asia Minor.
>
> Wow.
> "People engaged in warfare before the coming of Christianity"
> Is that the point you're trying to make? How profound.
Apparently, profound to those who claim that Christianity is
responsible for colonialism.
> Now that we have established the fact...
> So? What about it?
>
> Christianity certainly didn't end warfare --- or do you need examples
> for your records?
I never claimed it did...
> > Yup, just like how the Europeans ended up in North America.
> > Migration.
>
> Yes? ... and...?
>
> > How about archeology or history?
>
> What about archaeology or history?
You seem not to know much about it.
> > Yes. We don't sacrifice 4-8 year old children in our cultural
> > rituals. That's rather different, indeed. You or your friends may
> > pretend to be "druids" or whatever, but I suspect you don't do such
> > things either. That's at least one positive thing to have happened
> > since the fall of the Celtic religion.
>
> There ya' go spouting that POP culture Wikipedia nonsense again.
No, that was from archeological digs in Galatia.
> You appear to have no idea what you're talking about. No idea
> whatsoever... right?
That would be you.
>
> >> Now what was your specific issue with that fact?
>
> > I was merely pointing out that the Celts were a pretty brutal bunch,
> > by any standards.
>
> Yeppers. - and proud of it.
> Brutal like the rest --- if not way brutal-ler. :)
> Got an issue with that?
My only issue is with those trying to paint a false, rosy portrait of
those guys.
> If so... why?
>
> >> Also Józef Teodor Nalecz Konrad Korzeniowski has certainly never
> >> been an authority in the celtological academia.
>
> > Who claimed that he was? He just stated the obvious. "Celtological
> > academia" has a rather funny sound to it though. Is studying it akin
> > to obtaining a degree in "women's studies" or "social justice?"
>
> Eeeeewwww... Now your biases are really starting to show.
> You better watch that, Monk, or the rest of us might be getting the
> impression that you're really nothing more than a fundie bigot.
Your rejection of highly respected historians or archeologists in
favor of "celtological academia" just sounds suspiciously like the
myopic individuals from those other fields I listed. People who place
ideology or politics before facts or science and who despite not being
experts in fields such as history, economics, literature, etc. comment
on them.
> Celtology is taught at several highly acclaimed universities in Europe
> these days; one of them in Vienna, probably the oldest Univesity in
> the 'Western Hemisphere'. You got an issue with that as well?
And there's a woman's studies department at Yale, probably.
> >> You seem to have this
> >> fascination with Poles and other Eastern Europeans because, apparently,
> >> their lay work about Celts helps you quasi-prove your errand points.
> >> Don't believe everything you read in a book or on the Internet.
>
> > Should I merely consult revisionists such as yourself?
>
> X'cuse me?
> Are you jewish, Monk?
Do you even know what revisionism is?
> > Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
> > other things for his work on the British Isles. From the book cover,
> > [....]
>
> "From the book cover"! How charming. Have you ever heard of
> advertising tactics, Monk?
Are you suggesting the book cover lies about Davies' position at
Oxford?
> Anyway... Never heard of a lad named
> "Norman Davies" in celtological circles
Which proves what I had said about "Celtological academia." People
who aren't specialists in histroy and don't know much abvout it.
> and I doubt my peers have either.
Exactly.
> Seems to be a nobody, what indepth knowledge about Celts is concerned.
> Case dismissed.
...As you place your head back into the sand.
> > Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Celts were warmongering, human
> > sacrificng, cannibalistic invaders. In contrast, after they became
> > Christians, Europeans became merely warmongering invaders.
>
> Aaaaah how nice it must be... to live in such peaceful ignorance... :-)~
I'm happy you enjoy your peaceful ignorance.
BM
DarkFire1
> > No, they encompassed much larger teritory... What's your point?
> >>> Bharat existed long before your particular ancestors in Europe were
> >>> jumping from tree to tree, and/or covering in caves, each time
> >>> lightening struck;
> >> Not entirely, since my ancestors are the IndoEuropeans who conquered
> >> 'India' and established it (as well as the caste system). In fact, high
> >> caste Indians such as Brahmins have been shown to have more in common
> >> genetically with Western Europeans (such as myself) than they do with
> >> low caste natives.
> > You must be new here. Do you know what Hindu civilization is all
> > about? We never do talk the nonsense you just did.
>
> > Hindu civilization's most contemptual concept, is your little bloody
> > nonsensical Euro-Classism.
>
> > There was none of this "IndoEuropean" sh.t you speak of; Bharatha, was
> > a land of *one* Hindu Dravida and Saraswathy civilizations, which
> > joined together to form a single super-civilization... This has
> > nothing to do with your ridiculous European "Roman/Greek trash
> > "civilization" of any kind... Capiche?
>
> > Your reference has nothing to do with Us...You must confusing Us with
> > the goat-herding Euro-Arab trash. If you want anything to do with us,
> > you must first earn it by understanding the history of the human
> > race.... i.e. The history of the Hindu Race...
>
> You are obviously ill educated.
---------------------
Quite hilarious, considering that your high-point of historical
civilizational knowledge, revolves around crumpets and tea...
---------------------
> Many European languages share a common origin with Sanskrit.
---------------------
As do many African languages... Or didn't you hear that the entire
human civilization originated from Africa (Ethiopia/Somalia to be
precise)? And this *fact*, was discovered by Europeans to boot!
---------------------
> That ought to tell you the same thing as the genetic analysis of high
> caste Indians.
> But I won't hold my breath.
> Of course, if you're a Dalit I can quite understand your pretensions.
---------------------
But, the Dravidic civilizational languages did not originate from
Sanskrit now, did they? Or didn't you hear about it? Or, are all the
Dravidic people "Dalits"???!! (What, BBC forgot to run that special
episode of "Dr. Who - Europe, the *only* Earthly child"??)
http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/acxxvi.html
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html
---------------------
> Dirk
Lilith
The Black Monk wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:18 pm, "1X2Willows" <spambuc...@euro-celts.dot.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>>>I was merely pointing out that the Celts were a pretty brutal bunch,
>>>by any standards.
>>
>>Yeppers. - and proud of it.
>>Brutal like the rest --- if not way brutal-ler. :)
>>Got an issue with that?
>
>
> My only issue is with those trying to paint a false, rosy portrait of
> those guys.
>
>
However, you've spent a deal of words in trying to show that Dan was the
painter of said rosy picture.
You came into this group (ASD) ready-set with bales of straw... so what
exactly *is* your point?
>>If so... why?
>>
>>
>>>>Also Józef Teodor Nalecz Konrad Korzeniowski has certainly never
>>>>been an authority in the celtological academia.
>>
>>>Who claimed that he was? He just stated the obvious. "Celtological
>>>academia" has a rather funny sound to it though. Is studying it akin
>>>to obtaining a degree in "women's studies" or "social justice?"
>>
>>Eeeeewwww... Now your biases are really starting to show.
>>You better watch that, Monk, or the rest of us might be getting the
>>impression that you're really nothing more than a fundie bigot.
>
>
> Your rejection of highly respected historians or archeologists in
> favor of "celtological academia" just sounds suspiciously like the
> myopic individuals from those other fields I listed. People who place
> ideology or politics before facts or science and who despite not being
> experts in fields such as history, economics, literature, etc. comment
> on them.
>
Thing is, and it's been pointed out before, "academia" is a pretty broad
spectrum.
It would need a specialist in things Celtic to *be* an actual authority
when discussing things Celtic. Out of that cultural context provides far
too general a scope.
Capiche?
Margaret Murray was considered an exemplary historian of Egyptian, but
her target practice of Western Medieval "Witch Cults" was totally
dismissed by academics of that sphere.
This seems to be a similar case - that he's out of his depth seems to be
the academic consensus of the peers of Celtic history... of which he is
not.
>
>>Celtology is taught at several highly acclaimed universities in Europe
>>these days; one of them in Vienna, probably the oldest Univesity in
>>the 'Western Hemisphere'. You got an issue with that as well?
>
>
> And there's a woman's studies department at Yale, probably.
>
>
Strawman.
What the *Hel* has that to do with anything?
Are you suggesting that an expert on Aztec history or culture would be
qualified to comment on Egyptian history?
Or merely that a Celt-specific historian is actually a feel-good
distinction set up for political correctness?
>>>>You seem to have this
>>>>fascination with Poles and other Eastern Europeans because, apparently,
>>>>their lay work about Celts helps you quasi-prove your errand points.
>>>>Don't believe everything you read in a book or on the Internet.
>>
>>>Should I merely consult revisionists such as yourself?
>>
>>X'cuse me?
>>Are you jewish, Monk?
>
>
> Do you even know what revisionism is?
>
Do you?
Why were you accusing him of revisionism when you are the one setting up
the strawmen for target practice, and using a *revisionist* historian as
a "credible" source?
>
>>>Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
>>>other things for his work on the British Isles. From the book cover,
>>>[....]
>>
>>"From the book cover"! How charming. Have you ever heard of
>>advertising tactics, Monk?
>
>
> Are you suggesting the book cover lies about Davies' position at
> Oxford?
>
LOL!
Strawman.
How's about "putting the best light on things?"
<grin>
They're selling books, Monk. Of course they're going to put the best
'resume' they can think of on the cover. It's glossy for a reason. Sheesh!
That he is well educated and has contributed to academia is undoubted...
that his contributions were in *Celtic* history seems to be in serious
doubt - except as a topic-starter.
His area of expertise is Slavonic - he's a hero in Poland - it's Eastern
Europe, *not* Western Europe where the bulk of his knowledge lies.
To quote you;
quote:
Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
other things for his work on the British Isles.
/quote
"Among other things" because it's peripheral to his sphere of expertise
- if it can be considered within his sphere at all, which seems to be in
doubt to those accredited *Celtic* academics. They seem to take issue
with not only his "Isles" book, but parts of his "History of Europe" as
well. Pop culture on the other hand... well, look at Margaret Murray's
popularity.
<shrug>
quote:
From the book cover, he's a professor Emeritus at the University of London,
/quote
"Emeritus" meaning honorary rank - and still, his professorship when he
had it was in Slavonic History... that ain't Celtic.
quote:
a senior member of Wolfson College, Oxford, and a fellow of the
British Academy.
/quote
Again, *not* British history, not Celtic history, not even Western
European history.
quote:
And he's a Celt himself - a Welshman.
/quote
No, "Celt" is a cultural term. If anything he's Slavonic as that's where
his passion and primary interests lie.
<snip>
> BM
>
you seem to be bent on standing up strawmen in order to knock them down.
You've taken Dan's points and twisted them into the best target for you.
That's not very honest, y'know.
;)
Lilith
(leaving in the other groups this time)
>
--
Lilith Dragonswife, Yin Bitch
~ "Better to be an enemy than a slave." ~
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Dear John, John, John, The theory of the "Aryans invasion" nonsense of
> India, and thus in association the theory of "Indo-Europeanism", was
> constructed by silly little fools with grandiose greeds but little
> knowledge.
> India for centuries has had immigrants from various Asian origins;
> However, as your nutsy's from Shangri-La imply, there was no targeted
> immigration or "invasion" of any kind. People did indeed migrate to
> India during the Indus and Saraswati civilizational periods... These
> civilizations, being established before the Egyptian civilization.
> This has nothing to do with any European civilization or "invasion",
> simply because there existed *no* European civilization during the
> time of the Indus and Saraswati civilizations...
>
> So, talking of "Indo-European" civilization and pointing to "Aryan
> invasion" is as silly as claiming that Europe was infact an *African*
> civilization, pointing to the fact that humans originated from Africa
> (Ethiopia/Somalia to be more precise).
>
> You said above that this "Aryan invasion" occurred around 1500BC to
> 800BC... Now we all know that there was no European civilization of
> any value around this period. If you are claiming that this European/
> Aryan invasion was mounted by the tribes that populated Europe at that
> time, then the questions are:
>
> 1) If these Europeans were barbarians, then it certainly is nothing to
> be proud of, even if they did invade India.
Well, somehow your ruling class has more in common with me genetically
than your average low caste Indian. Care to explain that?
> 2) If these Europeans were highly civilized (i.e. Claiming that they
> had access to the Vedas), then how come they did not create their
> *own* advanced Vedic civilization in Europe itself??? It just does not
> makes sense now, does it? I mean, why migrate half-way across the
> world, if you are already advanced enough to create your own advanced
> civilizations, as witnessed by Vedic literature?
Well, nobody is claiming they came from Europe.
They came from Asia and spread outwards into both Europe and India, plus
some other places.
--
DarkFire1
wrote:
Say what??! What on earth do you mean by "ruling class of India"???!
In India, there *is no* "ruling class"... Just in case you forgot to
watch the latest episode of BBC, India is a "democracy" - i.e. A "One
human, one vote" system... Or in other words, "All humans created as
one, under God".. (You must be thinking of the European "blue blood"
system...)
Now going past that, how on earth did you come up with the theory that
you have something genetically common with this mythical "ruling class
of India" (even if such a fantastic thing exists!)??? Did you do a DNA
test with this so-called "ruling class" life-form, and compare the
results from another DNA test with a so-called "average low caste
Indian"???!! If you did so, (believe me!) there will be a million
genealogy scientists across the world, who are eagerly awaiting *your*
particular interpretation of these results....
--------------------
>
> > 2) If these Europeans were highly civilized (i.e. Claiming that they
> > had access to the Vedas), then how come they did not create their
> > *own* advanced Vedic civilization in Europe itself??? It just does not
> > makes sense now, does it? I mean, why migrate half-way across the
> > world, if you are already advanced enough to create your own advanced
> > civilizations, as witnessed by Vedic literature?
>
> Well, nobody is claiming they came from Europe.
--------------------
Sorry, John did; He claimed that Indo-Aryans came from around the
Black sea area... And the last time I checked, the Black sea was
located adjacent to Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, etc and also somewhat
close to Greece.... Unless of course, you are claiming that Romania,
Bulgaria, Russia, Greece, etc are not part of Europe...
--------------------
> They came from Asia and spread outwards into both Europe and India, plus
> some other places.
> Dirk
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I was thinking of the caste system, India's great contribution to democracy.
> Now going past that, how on earth did you come up with the theory that
> you have something genetically common with this mythical "ruling class
> of India" (even if such a fantastic thing exists!)??? Did you do a DNA
> test with this so-called "ruling class" life-form, and compare the
> results from another DNA test with a so-called "average low caste
> Indian"???!! If you did so, (believe me!) there will be a million
> genealogy scientists across the world, who are eagerly awaiting *your*
> particular interpretation of these results....
Are you so pig ignorant you don't know????
Well, here's a simple reference in simple words for you:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Indo-European.shtml
And guess what - it's buy an Indian!
Allow me to quote the very first sentence:
"A new study has revealed that Indians belonging to higher castes are
genetically closer to Europeans than are individuals from lower castes,
whose genetic profiles are closer to those of Asians."
john...@gmail.com
I didn't claim anything, I quoted what some people think. The
historian Breasted says they cane from the northern grasslands which
stretch 'from the lower Danube eastward along the north side of the
Black Sea through southern Russia and far into Asia north and east of
the Caspian"
The great Indian thinker NIrad Chaudhuri gives an intersting angle.
His version of the Aryan myth is itself a wonderful poetic or romantic
achievement, Aryans coming from Europe via Mesopotamia. A war in Iran
over religious differences. The Iranians semitising religion, the
India bound branch objecting to this. Greeting the rivers of India
with joy, as a memory of the Danube. Yet being enervated and depressed
by the climate.
DarkFire1
wrote:
> DarkFire1 wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 4:23 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> DarkFire1 wrote:
> > Say what??! What on earth do you mean by "ruling class of India"???!
> > In India, there *is no* "ruling class"... Just in case you forgot to
> > watch the latest episode of BBC, India is a "democracy" - i.e. A "One
> > human, one vote" system... Or in other words, "All humans created as
> > one, under God".. (You must be thinking of the European "blue blood"
> > system...)
>
> I was thinking of the caste system, India's great contribution to democracy.
-----------------------
The caste system, is still practiced in Europe today, just as it
originated in Europe as the orginal "blue blood" system, and polluted
the entire globe with its repugnent concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility
It is by no means, unique to India. While India has specific legal
laws against class systems and *for* affirmative action to redress the
historical wrongs of the class system, I see no such laws prevalent in
Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India
On the contrary, people are taking to the streets everyday in Europe,
in support for a return of the class system! :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1993597.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6032331.stm
http://www.irr.org.uk/2003/december/ak000005.html
(I assume you will not fail to see the irony of the cultural
differences, and what you propose as "similarities" between India
(Bharatha) and Europe...i.e. The tolerance of Bharat vs the fanatism
of Europe, and how you want to claim to equate the two as the same
thing!)
-----------------------
>
> > Now going past that, how on earth did you come up with the theory that
> > you have something genetically common with this mythical "ruling class
> > of India" (even if such a fantastic thing exists!)??? Did you do a DNA
> > test with this so-called "ruling class" life-form, and compare the
> > results from another DNA test with a so-called "average low caste
> > Indian"???!! If you did so, (believe me!) there will be a million
> > genealogy scientists across the world, who are eagerly awaiting *your*
> > particular interpretation of these results....
>
> Are you so pig ignorant you don't know????
> Well, here's a simple reference in simple words for you:http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Indo-European.shtml
> And guess what - it's buy an Indian!
> Allow me to quote the very first sentence:
>
> "A new study has revealed that Indians belonging to higher castes are
> genetically closer to Europeans than are individuals from lower castes,
> whose genetic profiles are closer to those of Asians."
-----------------------
Excellent quote (I applaud your brilliant quote)... Only one small
problem: The "author" (Apparently a Bharatian origin person in this
case), was simply a reporter quoting somebody else... One "Mr. Michael
Bamshad" to be precise...
And *he*, sure don't sound like no "Indian" to me... In fact, he
sounds more like some middle Euro-Asian pseudo Euro-Islamic crap...
And we don't know for certain, whether he and his team was smoking the
hookah, while typing out this "research paper"...
(You get a bonus token... Try again...)
-----------------------
> Dirk
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>> And guess what - it's buy an Indian!
>> Allow me to quote the very first sentence:
>>
>> "A new study has revealed that Indians belonging to higher castes are
>> genetically closer to Europeans than are individuals from lower castes,
>> whose genetic profiles are closer to those of Asians."
> -----------------------
> Excellent quote (I applaud your brilliant quote)... Only one small
> problem: The "author" (Apparently a Bharatian origin person in this
> case), was simply a reporter quoting somebody else... One "Mr. Michael
> Bamshad" to be precise...
>
> And *he*, sure don't sound like no "Indian" to me... In fact, he
> sounds more like some middle Euro-Asian pseudo Euro-Islamic crap...
> And we don't know for certain, whether he and his team was smoking the
> hookah, while typing out this "research paper"...
>
> (You get a bonus token... Try again...)
> -----------------------
I don't have to.
The original reference work is quoted at the foot of the article.
Here, since you are obviously still wallowing in willful ignorance.
Bamshad, M. et al. Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste
populations. Genome Res 11, 994-1004 (May 2001).
Majumder, P.P. Indian caste origins: genomic insights and future
outlook. Genome Res 11, 931-932 (May 2001).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those Indian names as well?
DarkFire1
wrote:
> DarkFire1 wrote:
> >> And guess what - it's buy an Indian!
> >> Allow me to quote the very first sentence:
>
> >> "A new study has revealed that Indians belonging to higher castes are
> >> genetically closer to Europeans than are individuals from lower castes,
> >> whose genetic profiles are closer to those of Asians."
> > Excellent quote (I applaud your brilliant quote)... Only one small
> > problem: The "author" (Apparently a Bharatian origin person in this
> > case), was simply a reporter quoting somebody else... One "Mr. Michael
> > Bamshad" to be precise...
>
> > And *he*, sure don't sound like no "Indian" to me... In fact, he
> > sounds more like some middle Euro-Asian pseudo Euro-Islamic crap...
> > And we don't know for certain, whether he and his team was smoking the
> > hookah, while typing out this "research paper"...
>
> > (You get a bonus token... Try again...)
> I don't have to.
> The original reference work is quoted at the foot of the article.
> Here, since you are obviously still wallowing in willful ignorance.
>
> Bamshad, M. et al. Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste
> populations. Genome Res 11, 994-1004 (May 2001).
>
> Majumder, P.P. Indian caste origins: genomic insights and future
> outlook. Genome Res 11, 931-932 (May 2001).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those Indian names as well?
-------------------------
Good lord my dear Chap, "Bamshad"?? "Majumder"??? Can you not see that
they are Islamic Shi'ite (Shia) origin names, that probably may have
migrated to Albania/Yugoslavia or (god forbid!) India?
Can you not see that the very word "Majumder", implies a tribal
Islamic connotation???
-------------------------
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
So that must mean (in your eyes) that their research is worthless.
Along with all the other research that backs their findings by different
scientists.
You're a loon.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I assume that would be
Partha P. Majumder
Anthropology and Human Genetics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute,
Calcutta 700035, India
> So that must mean (in your eyes) that their research is worthless.
> Along with all the other research that backs their findings by different
> scientists.
>
> You're a loon.
Yes, you are indeed a loon.
BTW, if you want to dispute the truth of the findings that high caste
Indian are more like Western Europeans than you darkies, you better nip
along to Calcutta and do your little wardance or whatever you quaint
natives do when shown to be wrong (by your own countryman).
DarkFire1
> > Good lord my dear Chap, "Bamshad"?? "Majumder"??? Can you not see that
> > they are Islamic Shi'ite (Shia) origin names, that probably may have
> > migrated to Albania/Yugoslavia or (god forbid!) India?
>
> > Can you not see that the very word "Majumder", implies a tribal
> > Islamic connotation???
>
> So that must mean (in your eyes) that their research is worthless.
> Along with all the other research that backs their findings by different
> scientists.
-------------------------------------------------------
In most situations, they are (worthless); To *them*, they want credit
for all human civilization even if they never did earn it (You, must
be familiar with this concept).
As such they are trash, as is their research far more laughable than
even their Quran... (Don't you folks over there too, pay great
cultural reverence to the Quran?)
They, come from a worthless desert-n.gger race that spread across
Europe, polluting Europe into maggots of a lesser breed (Calling
themselves "European blue blood");
The Hindu civilization, while attacked by these maggots, not only
repelled these desert-maggots, but also repelled their infected Euro-
Arab hybrid as well...
...Therein, lies the difference between India and your others... (And,
you don't even have a clue why Gandhi was so pissed off with
Europeans!)
...The only solution could be, a radio-active Mecca, as the brilliant
Jews would have planned it... And you folks slurping on the Arab blue-
blooded p.nis, sure don't look like candidates we want to be
associated with...
To put in terms that you can understand, you are welcome to slurp on
the blue-blooded Arab (Sheikh) p.nis, while their balls get blown
off...
-------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Well, that puts the Calcutta Institute of Statistics in its place.
FFF
DarkFire1
> Well, that puts the Calcutta Institute of Statistics in its place.
--------------------------------
Calcutta, the capital of the vile European Empire, is and was, run by
the most corrupt communist vermin that Asia has ever known...
Unfortunately, it is to this day, still run by the ancestors of the
same crowd that that were given reign of the British empire, and then
used Calcutta as a way-stop to make deals with Stalin during the WW
II.
Trust me, anything currently instituted with Calcutta, is not
something you want to be a place of... After all, they were the
capital of the original European empire!! (How good can *that* be???)
There can only be one contender, for the crown of Asia...
--------------------------------
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 11:18 pm, "1X2Willows" <spambuc...@euro-celts.dot.com>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >>>I was merely pointing out that the Celts were a pretty brutal bunch,
> >>>by any standards.
>
> >>Yeppers. - and proud of it.
> >>Brutal like the rest --- if not way brutal-ler. :)
> >>Got an issue with that?
>
> > My only issue is with those trying to paint a false, rosy portrait of
> > those guys.
>
> However, you've spent a deal of words in trying to show that Dan was the
> painter of said rosy picture.
> You came into this group (ASD) ready-set with bales of straw... so what
> exactly *is* your point?
I came into this thread in response to Arminius' assertion that
Christianity was a cause of colonialism. I mentioned that pre-
Christian Europeans were pretty brutal invaders too, Christianity
wasn't necessary for that. At which point others disputed this
characterization of Celts, by among other things describing them as
victims of Romans rather than maruaders whose invasions were
ultimately ended by Rome.
> >>If so... why?
>
> >>>>Also Józef Teodor Nalecz Konrad Korzeniowski has certainly never
> >>>>been an authority in the celtological academia.
>
> >>>Who claimed that he was? He just stated the obvious. "Celtological
> >>>academia" has a rather funny sound to it though. Is studying it akin
> >>>to obtaining a degree in "women's studies" or "social justice?"
>
> >>Eeeeewwww... Now your biases are really starting to show.
> >>You better watch that, Monk, or the rest of us might be getting the
> >>impression that you're really nothing more than a fundie bigot.
>
> > Your rejection of highly respected historians or archeologists in
> > favor of "celtological academia" just sounds suspiciously like the
> > myopic individuals from those other fields I listed. People who place
> > ideology or politics before facts or science and who despite not being
> > experts in fields such as history, economics, literature, etc. comment
> > on them.
>
> Thing is, and it's been pointed out before, "academia" is a pretty broad
> spectrum.
> It would need a specialist in things Celtic to *be* an actual authority
> when discussing things Celtic. Out of that cultural context provides far
> too general a scope.
What about archeology? And who has the monopoly on descriptions of,
say, Cetlic invasions of the Hellenistic world? Celtologists or
specialists in ancient Greek history? Which of the following facts do
you dispute and why?
"The best archaeological data supporting Celtic human sacrifice is
the
body of the man placed in Lindow bog in the first of second century
C.E. The body was so well preserved that scientists were able to
analyze his stomach contents to discover his last meal (a partially
scorched grain cake). Lindow man was almost certainly a ritual
sacrifice; he was strangled, hit on the head, and had his throat
cut, in quick order, then surrendered to the bog. This pattern
fits the "three-fold" death referred to in medieval Irish tales.
What's more, the man seems to have been of high social rank, and a
willing victim. There are also other bog burials (Tollund Man bog
body
in Denmark is very similar) in various places in Europe, as well as
no longer grain storage pits and shafts in Britain, that had human
bodies thrown in them, for instance at the Danebury hillfort."
- "Pagan Celtic Britain"
Anne Ross,
Chicago Academy Publishers, 1996.
"Just like the Continent, there are bog bodies which indicate that
human lives were taken. Three bog bodies (or parts of them) were
found
in Lindow Moss in Cheshire, dating from the beginning of the Roman
period. The best preserved of the three was a man who had been hit on
the head with sufficient force to detach chips of his skull into
his
brain and to crack a molar. His throat had been slit and there was
also a leather garrotte, tightened with a slip-knot, around his
neck.
He was almost naked except for a fox-fur armband and, amongst his
stomach contents of burnt bread was pollen of mistletoe, a plant
sacred to the Celts and Britons. One member of the investigating
team thought that this was an ancient murder rather than a ritual
killing but a full understanding of the body's context makes this
very unlikely."
- "Bodies for the gods: the practice of Human Sacrifice"
Dr Mike Parker-Pearson
Sheffield University Press March 2002
Celtic ritual cannibalism:
"Archaeologists from Bristol University have uncovered evidence for
the most recent cannibalism in the British Isles in a cave at
Alveston, South Gloucestershire. Dr Mark Horton, Reader in
Archaeology, has been working with a local caving group who made
the discovery of numerous bones, some ten metres below ground.
Radiocarbon dating of the bones from the cave suggests that they were
buried around 2,000 years ago, at the very end of the Iron Age or
the beginning of the Roman occupation. Last September, the cave
excavations were filmed as part of Channel 4's Time Team
archaeology series, and the full horror of the cave's grisly
contents came to light.
About five percent of the bone deposit has so far been excavated, and
the remains of at least seven individuals have been discovered.
At least one had been murdered, as the rear of the skull was first
pole-axed and then smashed inwards; another bone showed evidence
of
a deformity, and a third showed traces of Pagets disease. But the
most interesting find was an adult human femur, which had been split
longitudinally and the bone marrow scraped out.
This practice, which cannot happen accidentally, is considered to be
very good evidence of cannibalistic activity. The clue as to why
these bones were placed in the cave comes from the other finds.
These included numerous dog bones, as well as the occasional
cattle bone, and a possible vertebra of a bear, as well as
wooden
twigs.
Dr Horton said: 'This was a highly structured deposit that can only
have got there as a result of some form of ritual activity. This
region was an important centre for underworld cults during the
later
Iron Age, some of which survived into the Roman period; in particular
the Celtic Hound God, Cunomaglus, was represented as a dog guarding
the underworld in local temple sculpture.' Archaeologists have
been suspecting Iron Age cannibalism for some time, from bones
found
in rubbish pits, but this is the first time that strong evidence has
been found for the practice. Roman sources describe human sacrifice
among the Celts, but do not mention cannibalism. The sheer scale of
cave deposits, and the identical radiocarbon dates from the bones
might suggest a single great massacre and feast, perhaps involving
over 50 individuals, whose remains were then placed in the cave."
- "Cannibalistic Celts discovered in South Gloucestershire"
U of Bristol, UK March 2001
"Earlier excavations at Gordion recovered coins of the sort used to
pay Celtic mercenaries, a few artifacts with parallels in Celtic
Europe (a helmet flap, sheep shears, and pin), and a sherd
inscribed with a clearly Celtic name, Kant[x]uix. Nevertheless,
the archaeological evidence for a large Galatian presence at the
site was not overwhelming until our discovery of grisly evidence of
rituals involving humans. The broken-necked bodies and decapitated
heads at Gordion cannot be attributed to any local Anatolian group,
but are characteristic of European Celts. Our view of Galatian
Gordion has changed considerably over the past few decades. The
picture of a simple farming community has been replaced by one of a
prosperous town. But when the Galatians settled permanently in
central Anatolia, they did not simply shed their old ways and adopt
those of the native peoples (presumably Hellenized Phrygians in the
case of Gordion), as our discoveries of sacrificial ritual involving
humans as well as animals have shown."
- "Celtic Sacrifice at Gordion"
Jeremiah R. Dandoy, Page Selinsky, AND Mary M. Voigt
Archaeology Magazine Volume 55 Number 1, January/February 2002
On the same site, from the University of Pennsylvania:
http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?157&soc
The most dramatic evidence for Celts at Gordion came with new
excavations in third century B.C. or later levels of the lower town.
In the eastern part of the lower town, archaeologists found five
bodies strewn across an outside ground surface. It is clear that
several of the people died violently, with strangulation the most
common cause of death, whether by hanging or garotting:
o A male, 30 to 45 years old, whose head was twisted back and away
from his torso, his spinal column clearly broken;
o A 15-20-year-old female, who also had a broken neck;
o A 30-45-year-old female, whose skull was fractured by two blows,
was
also strangled, as a catastrophic angle in mid-neck attests.
These people may have been killed as part of Celtic divination
rituals. Greco-Roman sources report that the Celtic religious
leaders,
or Druids, were prophets who killed humans in order to discern the
future as revealed by the dying victims' movements. The Gordion
victims could have been war captives -- a category of people used in
divination, but sometimes simply slaughtered.
Excavation in the lower town's western part revealed clusters of
human
bones from dismembered bodies. The remains, commingled with animal
bones, had been carefully rearranged, sometimes in symmetrical
patterns, on an outside ground surface:
o On the skeleton of a young woman, aged 16-21, the lower jaw of a
male over 50 was found where her skull should be. Beneath the young
woman was a 35-45-year old female whose legs had been detached and
placed on either side of her torso. The young woman's missing skull
and her first five vertebrae had been placed at the top of the older
woman's spinal column;
o Decayed wood in the opening at the base of a 20- to 35-year-old
male's skull suggests his severed head had been mounted on a wooden
stake for display, a practice documented in Celtic Europe;
o The skull of a teenager 12-17 years old was carefully placed above
a
dog skull, pelvic bone, and leg bones.
The largest deposit in the lower town held over 2,100 animal bones
and
a few human bones representing a 4- to 8-year-old child, a female
aged
35-39, and a male aged 40 44. A distinctive "spiral fracture" on a
femur (probably from the male) may be evidence of the offering of
marrow to the spirits, a Celtic practice documented in Europe. Based
on their age at death, the animals were slaughtered in the fall, when
Celtic groups in Europe celebrated Samhain, around November 1. Celts
believed that barriers between the natural world and the spirits
broke
down during Samhain, and the veil between the present and the future
was most transparent. Various divination rituals were performed to
foretell future events. It may not be too far a stretch, say the
excavators, to link these bones to this Celtic festival, which we
still celebrate as Halloween.
> Capiche?
>
> Margaret Murray was considered an exemplary historian of Egyptian, but
> her target practice of Western Medieval "Witch Cults" was totally
> dismissed by academics of that sphere.
Okay. Still, hardly as Dan described, "pseudo-historical schlock by
unqualified laymen."
> This seems to be a similar case - that he's out of his depth seems to be
> the academic consensus of the peers of Celtic history... of which he is
> not.
Okay, that may be true of his detailed work on the British Isles, but
is that criticism applicable even if he makes general statements such
as the one I quoted? Do you dispute that quote?:
This is what he wrote (page 221): "Celts stormed Rome in 390 BC and
Greece in 279BC, terrorizing their victims by their huge stature,
their red hair and ferocious temperemtn, and their sickening habit of
head-hunting. For twenty years at the close of the second century
BC,
in the shape of the Cimbri...they caused immense havoc in Gaul and
Spain until caught by the Consul Marius..."
> >>Celtology is taught at several highly acclaimed universities in Europe
> >>these days; one of them in Vienna, probably the oldest Univesity in
> >>the 'Western Hemisphere'. You got an issue with that as well?
>
> > And there's a woman's studies department at Yale, probably.
>
> Strawman.
> What the *Hel* has that to do with anything?
> Are you suggesting that an expert on Aztec history or culture would be
> qualified to comment on Egyptian history?
I would trust him in making a general comment on Mayan history.
> Or merely that a Celt-specific historian is actually a feel-good
> distinction set up for political correctness?
>
> >>>>You seem to have this
> >>>>fascination with Poles and other Eastern Europeans because, apparently,
> >>>>their lay work about Celts helps you quasi-prove your errand points.
> >>>>Don't believe everything you read in a book or on the Internet.
>
> >>>Should I merely consult revisionists such as yourself?
>
> >>X'cuse me?
> >>Are you jewish, Monk?
>
> > Do you even know what revisionism is?
>
> Do you?
re·vi·sion·ist
-noun 1. an advocate of revision, esp. of some political or religious
doctrine.
2. a reviser.
3. any advocate of doctrines, theories, or practices that depart from
established authority or doctrine.
Obviously, revisionists have dealt not only with the Holocaust but in
other fields. It is well established among the mainstream literature
that the Celts were warmongering (factual, not pejorative description
- for example Britannica describes them as "warlike Celts") and into
human sacrifice (also according to Britannica). This is the theory of
established authorty.To suggest otherwise is to engage in revisionism,
according to the definition of that word.
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9367541/human-sacrifice
> Why were you accusing him of revisionism when you are the one setting up
> the strawmen for target practice, and using a *revisionist* historian as
> a "credible" source?
How about the archaeological evidence too?
> >>>Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
> >>>other things for his work on the British Isles. From the book cover,
> >>>[....]
>
> >>"From the book cover"! How charming. Have you ever heard of
> >>advertising tactics, Monk?
>
> > Are you suggesting the book cover lies about Davies' position at
> > Oxford?
>
> LOL!
> Strawman.
> How's about "putting the best light on things?"
> <grin>
Why shouldn't the book cover describe the guy's biography?
> They're selling books, Monk. Of course they're going to put the best
> 'resume' they can think of on the cover. It's glossy for a reason. Sheesh!
So?
> That he is well educated and has contributed to academia is undoubted...
Well, apparently it is doubted by Dan, who described it as
"pseudohistorical schlock by unqualified laymen."
> that his contributions were in *Celtic* history seems to be in serious
> doubt - except as a topic-starter.
> His area of expertise is Slavonic - he's a hero in Poland - it's Eastern
> Europe, *not* Western Europe where the bulk of his knowledge lies.
>
> To quote you;
> quote:
> Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
> other things for his work on the British Isles.
> /quote
>
> "Among other things" because it's peripheral to his sphere of expertise
> - if it can be considered within his sphere at all, which seems to be in
> doubt to those accredited *Celtic* academics. They seem to take issue
> with not only his "Isles" book, but parts of his "History of Europe" as
> well. Pop culture on the other hand... well, look at Margaret Murray's
> popularity.
Which parts of the quote from Davies that I provided are considered
false?
> <shrug>
>
> quote:
> From the book cover, he's a professor Emeritus at the University of London,
> /quote
>
> "Emeritus" meaning honorary rank - and still, his professorship when he
> had it was in Slavonic History... that ain't Celtic.
>
> quote:
> a senior member of Wolfson College, Oxford, and a fellow of the
> British Academy.
> /quote
>
> Again, *not* British history, not Celtic history, not even Western
> European history.
..And naturally there is no overlap?
> quote:
> And he's a Celt himself - a Welshman.
> /quote
>
> No, "Celt" is a cultural term. If anything he's Slavonic as that's where
> his passion and primary interests lie.
Sorry, that's silly.
regards,
BM
>
> <snip>
>
> > BM
>
> you seem to be bent on standing up strawmen in order to knock them down.
> You've taken Dan's points and twisted them into the best target for you.
> That's not very honest, y'know.
> ;)
>
> Lilith
> (leaving in the other groups this time)
>
>
>
> --
> Lilith Dragonswife, Yin Bitch
> ~ "Better to be an enemy than a slave." ~- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
1X2Willows
"1X2Willows" wrote:
> "The Black Monk" wrote in message
> news:1173063980.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> mong'-) Pronunciation Key
> n. One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
>
> An accurate description. Just because you don't like an accurate
> description doesn't mean it is "propogandistic terminology."
Nice cut n'paste but you still don't get it; do you.
Every single culture before the advent of that jewish desert cult you
call "christianity" advocated and stirred up war, and christianity
happily chimed in, once it got schlepped into Western Europe
and grew affluent enough to buy weaponry and rouse own armies.
Once more. Your point is...?
> > Wow.
> > "People engaged in warfare before the coming of Christianity"
> > Is that the point you're trying to make? How profound.
>
> Apparently, profound to those who claim that Christianity is
> responsible for colonialism.
Who said that? Certainly not me --- so why bring it up?
Christianity is responsible for enough pain and suffering and anguish
and atrocities as it is. No need to blame also colonialism on it.
>> Christianity certainly didn't end warfare --- or do you need examples
>> for your records?
>
> I never claimed it did...
Then what is it, that you wish to share with us? Are you just trolling
for sympathy with the second most ridiculous bastard of monotheism?
>> There ya' go spouting that POP culture Wikipedia nonsense again.
>
> No, that was from archeological digs in Galatia.
If I wasn't totally convinced you're not interested in serious scholarship
at all, I'd happily provide you with some prime research papers about
those same digs. - but "pearls before swine" rings a bell; doesn't it.
Go ahead. Stick to third rate polish jokes and the all-knowing Internet. :)
> My only issue is with those trying to paint a false, rosy portrait of
> those guys.
Yepp. Here we agree. Fancy that. Nothing rosy about Celts.
- quite in contrast to historical Romans, Greeks and certainly
worlds apart from sodomizing monks and other x-tian clerics.
um... your point, please?
We're still waiting.
> Your rejection of highly respected historians or archeologists in
> favor of "celtological academia" just sounds suspiciously like the
> myopic individuals from those other fields I listed. People who place
> ideology or politics before facts or science and who despite not being
> experts in fields such as history, economics, literature, etc. comment
> on them.
You're just talking out of your arse anymore. Suppose you'd refer me to
Prof. Xian Tsiao Huan in Bejing next time I need to know something
about Egyptology. Do yourself a favour and get a clue.
>> Celtology is taught at several highly acclaimed universities in Europe
>> these days; one of them in Vienna, probably the oldest Univesity in
>> the 'Western Hemisphere'. You got an issue with that as well?
>
> And there's a woman's studies department at Yale, probably.
OH! we're not only ignorant but also a little misogynist to boot...
Hm. On second thought... No surprise.
Care to make your point at last?
> Do you even know what revisionism is?
Sure. That's why I asked...
> Are you suggesting the book cover lies about Davies' position at
> Oxford?
Nope. Does the cover mention the gentleman's degree in Celtology?
[blubber snipped]
Dan
1X2Willows
> [....]
> I came into this thread in response to Arminius' assertion that
> Christianity was a cause of colonialism.
Hogwash. Arminius didn't assert any such thing.
Here's what he really said:
**********************************
> Europe - nay the world - has suffered the most from the nasty Abrahamic
> religions which originated in the Middle East. Christianity is not native
> to Europe. Germanic and Celtic paganism, while ultimately having their
> roots in the sub-continent, are European, being substantial adaptations
> of that religious system from India.
***********************************
Please note the term "Abrahamic" which includes Judaism and Islam
and also note his inclusion of all eras until the present day. Anyone
disputing the validity of Arminius' statement must be seriously uninformed,
biased or then suffer from some case of dementia.
Just turn on the Telly, read some news and tell us the mess out there
around the Globe isn't once more the result of every Abrahamic faith
trying to gain the upper hand over the other two.
Dan
1X2Willows
> "1X2Willows" wrote:
>>
>> Indeed.
>> Oh *groan*
>> What has this world come to...
> -----------------------
> After your kind screwed it to death? Nothing much...
> -----------------------
"My kind"?
Who's my kind?
Dan
gordon monohan
<spamb...@euro-celts.dot.com>, wrote
Kashmir, Thailand, etc.............
Lilith
The Black Monk wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:11 pm, Lilith <dragonsw...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>The Black Monk wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 4, 11:18 pm, "1X2Willows" <spambuc...@euro-celts.dot.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>>>I was merely pointing out that the Celts were a pretty brutal bunch,
>>>>>by any standards.
>>
>>>>Yeppers. - and proud of it.
>>>>Brutal like the rest --- if not way brutal-ler. :)
>>>>Got an issue with that?
>>
>>>My only issue is with those trying to paint a false, rosy portrait of
>>>those guys.
>>
>>However, you've spent a deal of words in trying to show that Dan was the
>>painter of said rosy picture.
>>You came into this group (ASD) ready-set with bales of straw... so what
>>exactly *is* your point?
>
>
> I came into this thread in response to Arminius' assertion that
> Christianity was a cause of colonialism. I mentioned that pre-
> Christian Europeans were pretty brutal invaders too, Christianity
> wasn't necessary for that. At which point others disputed this
> characterization of Celts, by among other things describing them as
> victims of Romans rather than maruaders whose invasions were
> ultimately ended by Rome.
>
lol
And where does it say it must be one or the other?
As far as I can see it, they all took turns being one then the other.
Perhaps the disagreement came about because of your(?) portrayal of them
(any of the 'them') as the 'degenerates', thus inferring the others
(presumably the Romans/Christians) to be the enders of all that
'incivility'.
>
>>>>If so... why?
>>
>>>>>>Also Józef Teodor Nalecz Konrad Korzeniowski has certainly never
>>>>>>been an authority in the celtological academia.
>>
>>>>>Who claimed that he was? He just stated the obvious. "Celtological
>>>>>academia" has a rather funny sound to it though. Is studying it akin
>>>>>to obtaining a degree in "women's studies" or "social justice?"
>>
>>>>Eeeeewwww... Now your biases are really starting to show.
>>>>You better watch that, Monk, or the rest of us might be getting the
>>>>impression that you're really nothing more than a fundie bigot.
>>
>>>Your rejection of highly respected historians or archeologists in
>>>favor of "celtological academia" just sounds suspiciously like the
>>>myopic individuals from those other fields I listed. People who place
>>>ideology or politics before facts or science and who despite not being
>>>experts in fields such as history, economics, literature, etc. comment
>>>on them.
>>
>>Thing is, and it's been pointed out before, "academia" is a pretty broad
>>spectrum.
>>It would need a specialist in things Celtic to *be* an actual authority
>>when discussing things Celtic. Out of that cultural context provides far
>>too general a scope.
>
>
> What about archeology?
What *about* it?
As it pertains to a specific culture the finds need to be surveyed
within that cultural context in order to be understood as full as it is
able.
There are archaeologists specialised in Celtic cultures, y'know. Sheesh!
Those would be the ones who would be consulted on Celtic finds.
And who has the monopoly on descriptions of,
> say, Cetlic invasions of the Hellenistic world? Celtologists or
> specialists in ancient Greek history?
Strawman.
Who said anything about monopoly?
I would think that the find would need to be interpreted in the light of
the culture interred, primarily.
A Celtic settlement or grave goods within the borders of Hellenistic
area would need to be interpreted properly, fully, by or with someone
skilled in Celtic understanding - and vice versa.
Setting up for a yes/no arbitrary answer is merely strawman-tactics.
Would you please *stop* that?
It makes you look bad.
Which of the following facts do
> you dispute and why?
>
<snip>
This is yet another strawman tactic. Why do you do that?
You arbitrarily decide what my position is on a given subject and phrase
your question accordingly.
To answer your question as if it were real though, my only dispute with
any of that (not having read it in context) would be where they've taken
the facts and applied their own bias to the findings. No one can *know*
from an archaeological find why that burial was done that way. There is
seldom (if ever) enough data. Assuming otherwise, concluding arbitrarily
with cultural bias and *without* supporting historical/cultural
reference is unprofessional.
Guesses, suppositions, yes. Phrased as such... not as "fact".
>
>>Capiche?
>>
>>Margaret Murray was considered an exemplary historian of Egyptian, but
>>her target practice of Western Medieval "Witch Cults" was totally
>>dismissed by academics of that sphere.
>
>
> Okay. Still, hardly as Dan described, "pseudo-historical schlock by
> unqualified laymen."
>
That's Dan's take. <shrug>
As said, Davies' sphere is *not* Celtic history. Dan's is and he's never
heard of Davies. His descriptive might be off the mark, but not far as
Davies *is* out of his element when he steps out of his own sphere.
Historians of Celtic Europe have said as much, he *is* unqualified in
that sphere, that makes him a mere step above layman. And, his writings
pertaining to British/Celtic history are considered revisionist. Without
the support of experts in those fields it might as well *be* "schlock".
>
>>This seems to be a similar case - that he's out of his depth seems to be
>>the academic consensus of the peers of Celtic history... of which he is
>>not.
>
>
> Okay, that may be true of his detailed work on the British Isles, but
> is that criticism applicable even if he makes general statements such
> as the one I quoted? Do you dispute that quote?:
>
> This is what he wrote (page 221): "Celts stormed Rome in 390 BC and
> Greece in 279BC, terrorizing their victims by their huge stature,
> their red hair and ferocious temperemtn, and their sickening habit of
> head-hunting. For twenty years at the close of the second century
> BC,
> in the shape of the Cimbri...they caused immense havoc in Gaul and
> Spain until caught by the Consul Marius..."
>
>
I dispute the emotion-catching tone of the quote, yes.
That's cultural bias and shows a distinct lack of professionalism in a
historian.
>>>>Celtology is taught at several highly acclaimed universities in Europe
>>>>these days; one of them in Vienna, probably the oldest Univesity in
>>>>the 'Western Hemisphere'. You got an issue with that as well?
>>
>>>And there's a woman's studies department at Yale, probably.
>>
>>Strawman.
>>What the *Hel* has that to do with anything?
>>Are you suggesting that an expert on Aztec history or culture would be
>>qualified to comment on Egyptian history?
>
>
> I would trust him in making a general comment on Mayan history.
>
ummm... are you thus suggesting that Celtic culture is kissing-cousin to
Polish culture?
Just trying to figure where you're coming from here.
>
>>Or merely that a Celt-specific historian is actually a feel-good
>>distinction set up for political correctness?
>>
Duly noted you chose not to answer this bit.
;)
>>
>>>>>>You seem to have this
>>>>>>fascination with Poles and other Eastern Europeans because, apparently,
>>>>>>their lay work about Celts helps you quasi-prove your errand points.
>>>>>>Don't believe everything you read in a book or on the Internet.
>>
>>>>>Should I merely consult revisionists such as yourself?
>>
>>>>X'cuse me?
>>>>Are you jewish, Monk?
>>
>>>Do you even know what revisionism is?
>>
>>Do you?
>
>
> re·vi·sion·ist
> -noun 1. an advocate of revision, esp. of some political or religious
> doctrine.
> 2. a reviser.
> 3. any advocate of doctrines, theories, or practices that depart from
> established authority or doctrine.
>
> Obviously, revisionists have dealt not only with the Holocaust but in
> other fields. It is well established among the mainstream literature
> that the Celts were warmongering (factual, not pejorative description
> - for example Britannica describes them as "warlike Celts") and into
> human sacrifice (also according to Britannica). This is the theory of
> established authorty.To suggest otherwise is to engage in revisionism,
> according to the definition of that word.
>
> http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9367541/human-sacrifice
>
>
Are you very confused?
This is, in fact yet another of your strawmen.
>>Why were you accusing him of revisionism when you are the one setting up
>>the strawmen for target practice, and using a *revisionist* historian as
>>a "credible" source?
>
>
> How about the archaeological evidence too?
>
You keep saying that, but without context.
How about your revisionistic "authority" on Celtic/British history?
>
>>>>>Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
>>>>>other things for his work on the British Isles. From the book cover,
>>>>>[....]
>>
>>>>"From the book cover"! How charming. Have you ever heard of
>>>>advertising tactics, Monk?
>>
>>>Are you suggesting the book cover lies about Davies' position at
>>>Oxford?
>>
>>LOL!
>>Strawman.
>>How's about "putting the best light on things?"
>><grin>
>
>
> Why shouldn't the book cover describe the guy's biography?
>
Of course it's acceptable.
Are you deliberately obtuse?
Let me spell it out;
"Professor at Blah Blah University" = what exactly?
Is a professor of mathematics going to be a good source of info on, say,
medicine?
*Is* a professor of Polish history necessarily a qualified historian on
British history?
Modern historian qualified to expound on ancient history?
... but dam, "Professor of history" *does* look good on the cover!
this is another of your strawmen. You are deliberately misunderstanding
my point or you are an idiot.
I prefer to think the former.
>
>>They're selling books, Monk. Of course they're going to put the best
>>'resume' they can think of on the cover. It's glossy for a reason. Sheesh!
>
>
> So?
>
>
>>That he is well educated and has contributed to academia is undoubted...
>
>
> Well, apparently it is doubted by Dan, who described it as
> "pseudohistorical schlock by unqualified laymen."
>
Strawman or idiot?
hmmm...
It's revisionist history by an under-qualified author, whose exemplary
qualifications lie in a distant field. And, by the quote you provided,
also prone to cultural bias.
>
>>that his contributions were in *Celtic* history seems to be in serious
>>doubt - except as a topic-starter.
>>His area of expertise is Slavonic - he's a hero in Poland - it's Eastern
>>Europe, *not* Western Europe where the bulk of his knowledge lies.
>>
>>To quote you;
>>quote:
>>Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
>>other things for his work on the British Isles.
>>/quote
>>
>>"Among other things" because it's peripheral to his sphere of expertise
>>- if it can be considered within his sphere at all, which seems to be in
>>doubt to those accredited *Celtic* academics. They seem to take issue
>>with not only his "Isles" book, but parts of his "History of Europe" as
>>well. Pop culture on the other hand... well, look at Margaret Murray's
>>popularity.
>
>
> Which parts of the quote from Davies that I provided are considered
> false?
>
Strawman.
>
>
>><shrug>
>>
>>quote:
>> From the book cover, he's a professor Emeritus at the University of London,
>>/quote
>>
>>"Emeritus" meaning honorary rank - and still, his professorship when he
>>had it was in Slavonic History... that ain't Celtic.
>>
>>quote:
>> a senior member of Wolfson College, Oxford, and a fellow of the
>>British Academy.
>>/quote
>>
>>Again, *not* British history, not Celtic history, not even Western
>>European history.
>
>
> ..And naturally there is no overlap?
>
Not enough, obviously, from the opinions of *qualified* peers of
Celtic/British history.
Though this is, obviously another of your strawmen.
Trying to build an army, are you?
>
>>quote:
>>And he's a Celt himself - a Welshman.
>>/quote
>>
>>No, "Celt" is a cultural term. If anything he's Slavonic as that's where
>>his passion and primary interests lie.
>
>
> Sorry, that's silly.
>
> regards,
>
> BM
>
lol
Perhaps... point is though, he's an honourary citizen of Poland, much of
his time is spent there, and the vast majority of his studies are
focused there.
*Not* in Wales, *not* on Welsh or Celtic history or culture.
Celt *is* a cultural term and he spends little if any time immersed in
that culture.
if it makes you feel any better though, next time I want to study modern
Eastern European history or Polish history, Davies is the first name
that'll come to mind... unfortunately, now that I've seen him use the
words "sickening habit of head-hunting" in reference to Celtic
practices, I'll have to read everything by him with a grain of salt even
though the snippet you provided may well have been lifted from it's
original context.
L.
1X2Willows
news:voutu2h3pi2vvgq69...@4ax.com...
> "1X2Willows" wrote
Well yes, I noticed right after hitting the "send" button.
That should have read "... the result of one or another Abrahamic faith
beating local-traditional non-abrahamic belief systems into submission
"by the sword" or economic pressure, before trying to gain the upper
hand over the other two schismatic subsets of monotheism."
Thanks for the hint.
Dan
1X2Willows
> The Black Monk wrote:
>
>> Which of the following facts do you dispute and why?
>>
> <snip>
> any of that (not having read it in context) would be where they've taken
> the facts and applied their own bias to the findings.
I read 'em too and came to the same conclusion; especially after
the indepth discussion some of us already had years ago, about that
dig at Gordion and what all the mangled bodies could mean in a
professional context. Monk's quotes on the other hand are speckled with
suggestive, emotional terminology which is usually the mark of the under-,
or barely graduate mainstream historian without real expertise in
any one specific sub-field.
Ya' know... It's always "strongly suggests" this and "probably" that
and "we can only assume", while no one is able to back up these
claims and prove why everything's so "evident" as they like the
know-nothing reader to believe.
> No one can *know*
> from an archaeological find why that burial was done that way. There is
> seldom (if ever) enough data. Assuming otherwise, concluding arbitrarily
> with cultural bias and *without* supporting historical/cultural reference
> is unprofessional.
> Guesses, suppositions, yes. Phrased as such... not as "fact".
X'actly. It's been over a hundred years since the 'Victorian approach'
was hailed as the be all and end all of "modern science", but supremacist
ideology still rears its ugly head. Most of the time, pseudo-academic
papers like the ones mentioned by Monk have been written with the
verdict in mind already, before the first sentence was put to paper:
"We are dealing with an inferior culture."
Time to wake up and smell the coffee... ;)
Dan
Dana
"Lilith" <drago...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:S%CHh.24421$lY6.11256@edtnps90...
>
[much snippage]
>
>>>;)
>>>
>>>Lilith
>>>(leaving in the other groups this time)
>>>
>>
Oy, Lilith!!! Whassup in here?? There's straw all over the place!!
Lemme get you a broom....or maybe we should just toss in a match.....
Dana
The Black Monk
wrote:
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1173238056.8...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [....]
> > I came into this thread in response to Arminius' assertion that
> > Christianity was a cause of colonialism.
>
> Hogwash. Arminius didn't assert any such thing.
In message 13 of this thread he stated "Christianity is one reason for
colonialism." However my first message preceded this statement.
> Here's what he really said:
> **********************************> Europe - nay the world - has suffered the most from the nasty Abrahamic
> > religions which originated in the Middle East. Christianity is not native
> > to Europe. Germanic and Celtic paganism, while ultimately having their
> > roots in the sub-continent, are European, being substantial adaptations
> > of that religious system from India.
>
> ***********************************
> Please note the term "Abrahamic" which includes Judaism and Islam
> and also note his inclusion of all eras until the present day. Anyone
> disputing the validity of Arminius' statement must be seriously uninformed,
> biased or then suffer from some case of dementia.
And I pointed out that the Abrahamic faiths are not all equal and that
the pre-Christian cultures of Europe (Roman as well as Celtic) were
certainly no less brutal than the Christian culture that triumphed
over them all. Given the latter point, therefore saying that Europe
has "suffered" from the Abrahamic religions is wrong.
> Just turn on the Telly, read some news and tell us the mess out there
> around the Globe isn't once more the result of every Abrahamic faith
> trying to gain the upper hand over the other two.
That's just because the are the most dynamic ones right now. The
headlines would be much worse if the old Celtic, pagan Roman, or
(worst of all) Aztec cultures were having a worldwide impact.
BM
> Dan
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 4:11 pm, Lilith <dragonsw...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >>However, you've spent a deal of words in trying to show that Dan was the
> >>painter of said rosy picture.
> >>You came into this group (ASD) ready-set with bales of straw... so what
> >>exactly *is* your point?
>
> > I came into this thread in response to Arminius' assertion that
> > Christianity was a cause of colonialism. I mentioned that pre-
> > Christian Europeans were pretty brutal invaders too, Christianity
> > wasn't necessary for that. At which point others disputed this
> > characterization of Celts, by among other things describing them as
> > victims of Romans rather than maruaders whose invasions were
> > ultimately ended by Rome.
>
> lol
> And where does it say it must be one or the other?
Well, this is a snippet from an exchange (post 16) on this thread:
BM:
> Well, relatively primitive tribes are hardly going to conquer the
> world (unless they are on horseback) - although the Celts managed to
> cause a lot of havoc before being tamed by the Romans.
M. Ranjit Mathews:
Nah; the Romans managed to cause a lot of havoc among the Celts.
> As far as I can see it, they all took turns being one then the other.
You are correct, although the Celts were the initial aggressors. They
messed with the wrong people, though...
> Perhaps the disagreement came about because of your(?) portrayal of them
> (any of the 'them') as the 'degenerates', thus inferring the others
> (presumably the Romans/Christians) to be the enders of all that
> 'incivility'.
Degenerates is not applicable in either case.
Agreed.
> Setting up for a yes/no arbitrary answer is merely strawman-tactics. Would you please *stop* that?
> It makes you look bad.
>
> Which of the following facts do you dispute and why?
>
> <snip>
>
> This is yet another strawman tactic. Why do you do that?
> You arbitrarily decide what my position is on a given subject and phrase
> your question accordingly.
Sorry for my assumptions. Do you dispute what was written in what I
posted?
> To answer your question as if it were real though, my only dispute with
> any of that (not having read it in context) would be where they've taken
> the facts and applied their own bias to the findings. No one can *know*
> from an archaeological find why that burial was done that way.
Okay. But the reason I posted that was to show the importance of
human sacrifice in Celtic culture.
> There is
> seldom (if ever) enough data. Assuming otherwise, concluding arbitrarily
> with cultural bias and *without* supporting historical/cultural
> reference is unprofessional.
> Guesses, suppositions, yes. Phrased as such... not as "fact".
>
> >>Capiche?
>
> >>Margaret Murray was considered an exemplary historian of Egyptian, but
> >>her target practice of Western Medieval "Witch Cults" was totally
> >>dismissed by academics of that sphere.
>
> > Okay. Still, hardly as Dan described, "pseudo-historical schlock by
> > unqualified laymen."
>
> That's Dan's take. <shrug>
> As said, Davies' sphere is *not* Celtic history. Dan's is and he's never
> heard of Davies.
Which means that he is probably too narowly focussed.
> His descriptive might be off the mark, but not far as
> Davies *is* out of his element when he steps out of his own sphere.
> Historians of Celtic Europe have said as much, he *is* unqualified in
> that sphere, that makes him a mere step above layman.
No. One of the world's top cardiologists would not be a mere step
above layman in some other medical specialty.
> And, his writings
> pertaining to British/Celtic history are considered revisionist. Without
> the support of experts in those fields it might as well *be* "schlock".
I was speaking specifically about the quote from his generalist
European history book, not Davies' more detailed work in that field.
> >>This seems to be a similar case - that he's out of his depth seems to be
> >>the academic consensus of the peers of Celtic history... of which he is
> >>not.
>
> > Okay, that may be true of his detailed work on the British Isles, but
> > is that criticism applicable even if he makes general statements such
> > as the one I quoted? Do you dispute that quote?:
>
> > This is what he wrote (page 221): "Celts stormed Rome in 390 BC and
> > Greece in 279BC, terrorizing their victims by their huge stature,
> > their red hair and ferocious temperemtn, and their sickening habit of
> > head-hunting. For twenty years at the close of the second century
> > BC,
> > in the shape of the Cimbri...they caused immense havoc in Gaul and
> > Spain until caught by the Consul Marius..."
>
> I dispute the emotion-catching tone of the quote, yes.
What about the facts? Did the Celts not invade Rome and Greece, were
the Greeks and Romans not terrified of them and of practices such as
headhunting? Did they not cause havoc until stopped by the Romans?
> That's cultural bias and shows a distinct lack of professionalism in a
> historian.
Do you claim that referring to headhunting as "sickening" is
culturally biased?
> >>>>Celtology is taught at several highly acclaimed universities in Europe
> >>>>these days; one of them in Vienna, probably the oldest Univesity in
> >>>>the 'Western Hemisphere'. You got an issue with that as well?
>
> >>>And there's a woman's studies department at Yale, probably.
>
> >>Strawman.
> >>What the *Hel* has that to do with anything?
> >>Are you suggesting that an expert on Aztec history or culture would be
> >>qualified to comment on Egyptian history?
>
> > I would trust him in making a general comment on Mayan history.
>
> ummm... are you thus suggesting that Celtic culture is kissing-cousin to
> Polish culture?
> Just trying to figure where you're coming from here.
Celtic and Polish history are closer than Aztec and Egyptian history.
Celts did live in Poland, there is some overlap. Though you're
right, the relationship wasn't as close as that between Aztecs and
Mayans.
Incidentally, davies seems to be invovled in Celtic activities in
Poland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2346687.stm
Only if you indeed agree with what Britannica has said about the
Celts.
> >>Why were you accusing him of revisionism when you are the one setting up
> >>the strawmen for target practice, and using a *revisionist* historian as
> >>a "credible" source?
>
> > How about the archaeological evidence too?
>
> You keep saying that, but without context.
> How about your revisionistic "authority" on Celtic/British history?
Do you dispute any of the _facts_ written by him that I posted or
not?
> >>>>>Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
> >>>>>other things for his work on the British Isles. From the book cover,
> >>>>>[....]
>
> >>>>"From the book cover"! How charming. Have you ever heard of
> >>>>advertising tactics, Monk?
>
> >>>Are you suggesting the book cover lies about Davies' position at
> >>>Oxford?
>
> >>LOL!
> >>Strawman.
> >>How's about "putting the best light on things?"
> >><grin>
>
> > Why shouldn't the book cover describe the guy's biography?
>
> Of course it's acceptable.
> Are you deliberately obtuse?
> Let me spell it out;
> "Professor at Blah Blah University" = what exactly?
> Is a professor of mathematics going to be a good source of info on, say,
> medicine?
> *Is* a professor of Polish history necessarily a qualified historian on
> British history?
How about European history? I clearly stated that the quote was from
his book "Europe: a History." Poland is in the center of Europe.
While I agree that Davies shouldn't be considered an authority on
British history on the level of specialists in that field, he is more
than qualified to expound on general European history, and the quote
that I posted about the Celts in Greece and Rome comes from that
work. The facts are not in doubt, are they?
> Modern historian qualified to expound on ancient history?
In a generalist book, sure. You seem to be assuming that a specialist
in one area of history (which, in the case of Poland, is rather broad,
encompasing most areas of European history from the eighth century
onward) knows only about his own speciality and very little about
anything else, and that the skills and experiences he has in pursuing
his specialty in history don't apply when he examines other places and
times.
> ... but dam, "Professor of history" *does* look good on the cover!
>
> this is another of your strawmen. You are deliberately misunderstanding
> my point or you are an idiot.
> I prefer to think the former.
Thank you.
> >>They're selling books, Monk. Of course they're going to put the best
> >>'resume' they can think of on the cover. It's glossy for a reason. Sheesh!
>
> > So?
>
> >>That he is well educated and has contributed to academia is undoubted...
>
> > Well, apparently it is doubted by Dan, who described it as
> > "pseudohistorical schlock by unqualified laymen."
>
> Strawman or idiot?
> hmmm...
> It's revisionist history by an under-qualified author, whose exemplary
> qualifications lie in a distant field.
So Polish history is a distant field from European history? Or
rather, a guy who is at the top of his field in Polish and Eastern
European history isn't qualified to write a even generalist paragraph
on Celts in the 3rd century BC, the quote I added and which caused
this controversy about his background?
> And, by the quote you provided, also prone to cultural bias.
LOL.
> >>that his contributions were in *Celtic* history seems to be in serious
> >>doubt - except as a topic-starter.
> >>His area of expertise is Slavonic - he's a hero in Poland - it's Eastern
> >>Europe, *not* Western Europe where the bulk of his knowledge lies.
>
> >>To quote you;
> >>quote:
> >>Norman Davies is one of Europe's foremost historians, known among
> >>other things for his work on the British Isles.
> >>/quote
>
> >>"Among other things" because it's peripheral to his sphere of expertise
> >>- if it can be considered within his sphere at all, which seems to be in
> >>doubt to those accredited *Celtic* academics. They seem to take issue
> >>with not only his "Isles" book, but parts of his "History of Europe" as
> >>well. Pop culture on the other hand... well, look at Margaret Murray's
> >>popularity.
>
> > Which parts of the quote from Davies that I provided are considered
> > false?
>
> Strawman.
If you don't dispute the facts from the quote, why do you attack his
credibility in this field?
> >><shrug>
>
> >>quote:
> >> From the book cover, he's a professor Emeritus at the University of London,
> >>/quote
>
> >>"Emeritus" meaning honorary rank - and still, his professorship when he
> >>had it was in Slavonic History... that ain't Celtic.
>
> >>quote:
> >> a senior member of Wolfson College, Oxford, and a fellow of the
> >>British Academy.
> >>/quote
>
> >>Again, *not* British history, not Celtic history, not even Western
> >>European history.
>
> > ..And naturally there is no overlap?
>
> Not enough, obviously, from the opinions of *qualified* peers of
> Celtic/British history.
Would they disagree with what I posted or not? Are you constructing
the strawman now?
> Though this is, obviously another of your strawmen.
> Trying to build an army, are you?
Are we in an arms race?
> >>quote:
> >>And he's a Celt himself - a Welshman.
> >>/quote
>
> >>No, "Celt" is a cultural term. If anything he's Slavonic as that's where
> >>his passion and primary interests lie.
>
> > Sorry, that's silly.
>
> > regards,
>
> > BM
>
> lol
> Perhaps... point is though, he's an honourary citizen of Poland, much of
> his time is spent there, and the vast majority of his studies are
> focused there.
> *Not* in Wales, *not* on Welsh or Celtic history or culture.
> Celt *is* a cultural term and he spends little if any time immersed in
> that culture.
On the other hand, someone at the top of his field in one area of
history is probably, even as a dilitante, far ahead of others in
another area of history. Especially when it comes to generalist
statements.
> if it makes you feel any better though, next time I want to study modern
> Eastern European history or Polish history, Davies is the first name
> that'll come to mind... unfortunately, now that I've seen him use the
> words "sickening habit of head-hunting" in reference to Celtic
> practices, I'll have to read everything by him with a grain of salt
LOL. I wonder why the Nazis don't also get a free pass from moral
relativists? If referring to head-hunting as "sickening" is to be
criticized, why not insist that we take a neutral stance towards Nazi
or Communist modern barbarians too? It can be argued that the morally
nihilistic post-War climate resulted in a culture in which traditional
morality no longer held sway, ushering in a new culture with new
morality. Accordingly, this would make value judgments of those new
cultural practices "cultural biases". Right? Sorry, I don't regard
refering to head-hunting as "Sickening" to be any more poorly
reflective of someone's credibility than I do similar statements about
scalping, impaling, enslaving, genocide, etc.
regards,
BM
1X2Willows
On Mar 7, 12:54 pm, Lilith wrote:
> And where does it say it must be one or the other?
Well, this is a snippet from an exchange (post 16) on this thread:
BM:
> Well, relatively primitive tribes are hardly going to conquer the
> world (unless they are on horseback) - although the Celts managed to
> cause a lot of havoc before being tamed by the Romans.
M. Ranjit Mathews:
Nah; the Romans managed to cause a lot of havoc among the Celts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last time I looked, it was Rome who invaded Gaul in ~50BCE
and not the other way around. --- but I'm aware by now, that
most of us tend to look in other places than you do. ;-}
Dan
1X2Willows
> "1X2Willows" wrote:
>> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1173238056.8...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > [....]
>> > I came into this thread in response to Arminius' assertion that
>> > Christianity was a cause of colonialism.
>>
>> Hogwash. Arminius didn't assert any such thing.
>
> In message 13 of this thread he stated "Christianity is one reason for
> colonialism." However my first message preceded this statement.
Now here, you sound like you flunked out of Jerry Falwell's Liberty
University debating team. "one reason for" does not equate
"the cause of", or my shoes were egret guts by the same logic. :)
>> Here's what he really said:
>> **********************************
>> > Europe - nay the world - has suffered the most from the nasty
>> > Abrahamic religions which originated in the Middle East. Christianity
>> > is not native to Europe. Germanic and Celtic paganism, while ultimately
>> > having their roots in the sub-continent, are European, being
>> > substantial adaptations of that religious system from India.
>> ***********************************
>> Please note the term "Abrahamic" which includes Judaism and Islam
>> and also note his inclusion of all eras until the present day. Anyone
>> disputing the validity of Arminius' statement must be seriously
>> uninformed, biased or then suffer from some case of dementia.
>
> And I pointed out that the Abrahamic faiths are not all equal
Irrelevant as to the accuracy of Arminius' statement as a whole.
More Straw.
> and that
> the pre-Christian cultures of Europe (Roman as well as Celtic) were
> certainly no less brutal than the Christian culture that triumphed
> over them all. Given the latter point, therefore saying that Europe
> has "suffered" from the Abrahamic religions is wrong.
Pray tell, Monk. What exactly is "Christian culture"?
I was so far under the impression that Christianity is a religion?
Isn't culture an umbrella term for what people do; including religion?
>> Just turn on the Telly, read some news and tell us the mess out there
>> around the Globe isn't once more the result of every Abrahamic faith
>> trying to gain the upper hand over the other two.
>
> That's just because the are the most dynamic ones right now. The
> headlines would be much worse if the old Celtic, pagan Roman, or
> (worst of all) Aztec cultures were having a worldwide impact.
Yeah! - or worst of all... worshippers of the Mason G*d YHWH!
Uuuuuh what a blood bath that would be. Possibly nuclear.
Horrible!
- but you're back to being funny again, Monk.
That's the way we like you.
:-Dan