Posted on 07/31/2007 2:48:21 PM PDT by blam
It seems so on the surface, but you can bet the Viking berserker trigger is still very much present.
You don't see it so much in the cities because of the socialist gloss. But out in the country side, and on the docks , you will see it very much alive and well.
They same tenacity for "tolerance" can flip around in a nanosecond.
Yeah, I think Muslims need their own Reformation.
It has always been an interest of mine to understand history from a contemporary perspective, that is what would it have been like to live during any arbitrary historical period.
We're all familiar with clinically generic and sterile history of names, dates, and places, most of which is focused upon the elite, the ruling class. Very little of history is representative of what life was actually like then. This is no different than what can be discerned from any history books concerning contemporary modern times. what do Boomer's children & grandchildren actually know about what life was like post-Kennedy assassination, LBJ era, landing on the moon, Watergate, etc. except what the history books state, except nameless faces and clinical detachement of sterile figures, places, and events (e.g. Tonkin Gulf, U.S.S. Pueblo, Landing Xone X-Ray). Its not until first hand narrative accounts are read that one gets an inkling what it was like to live through those events.
I think Grimmelhausen's satire does an exquisite and erudite job of edifying and illuminating the period from the eyes of the common man, i.e. the hoi polloi, and not some lofty, rarified, nobility and blue-blooded aristrocracy (the tip of the iceberg if you will). That would be akin to understanding contemporary life through accounts of the names, dates, places and activities and meetings held by current heads of state.
You mention the price of progress. I guess there's no better example of that than the U.S. Civil War. The Time-Life series on the Civl War puts that conflict into contemporary eyewitness terms, i.e., what it was like to have actually lived through those battles (often on an hour to hour time frame).
Another good example of this would be Robert Graves series, I, Claudius. This is a historical narrative written from Emperor Claudius' perspective about what contemplatively and plausibly could've been day to day life for the very elite of Roman society. Initially its written from the "fly on the wall" perspective. What struck me immensely with that work is the irony of these people considering themselves to be the epitome of civilized. One only can ponder what "barbarian" life was like in that regard (in that the horrendous brutality of those "civilized" people is utterly breathtaking).
Other than that, no point should be implied by my posting that excerpt from Grimmelhausen's story, other than what may be inferred existentially; you'll get out of it whatever you get out of it (in whatever terms whatever you get out of it means something to you).
The problem with the Muslims is that they HAVE had their Reformation. The fanatics today look backwards to the “purity” of the 7th Century and reject all that they learned from the Christians peoples whom their forefathers subjected or the modern colonial powers who ruled them.
The 30 Years War was a free-for-all. Nominally it was the Protestant princes vs. the Catholic League. But the fighting was all mixed up. Free Companies would fight for anybody, but mostly they fought for plunder. A lot of cities were just flat-out sacked.
That depends. A lot of people starved or died of plagues spread by armies. Direct battle deaths didn't actually exceed "other causes" until armies instituted regular supply systems & stopped living off the land. Also, innoculations & antibiotics helped limit "camp deaths".
The Allied Expeditionary Force probably lost more men to the Spanish Influenza of 1919 than it did in combat in 1918. The US Army in Cuba (1898-9) was decimated by Malaria.
Something more like an Enlightenment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Valley
Kind of a crappy movie, but it kind of shows what James Clavell thought would happen to an alpine village that was occupied by a Free Company outfit during the 30 Years War.
Incidentally, James Clavell was the author of “King Rat”, “Shogun”, and “Nobel House” to name a few.
Well one thing I think we can agree on, is that they are presently in the Dark Ages.
Which, in the footnotes, refers to "ihnen den Hintern zu lecken." Or, basically, to lick their butts.
If its true that the midieval sense of fair play, ethic and morality was of higher standard than contemporary - sodomy not being considered - then where in the world did he come up with the heinous deeds he writes about? This particular satire must stand as a benchmark then for blackest of satire.
The real shudder I got in the passage I cited was how they finished those peasants off, well, at least what they were doing to 'em when Simplissicimus left the scene (in that he states he doesn't know what actually happened to them). What he accounted is pretty garish in any case. What is noteworthy is how both sides gave as good as they recieved (and vice versa).
The overhwelming impression that I obtained reading the work is the overwhelming insanity and depravity of the whole period. The satire being exquisite in that a doddering nitwit's persepctive is relating the events (as if he being too stupid to comprehend the sanity of the lunacy going on around him). What makes the story even more poignant is the understanding it was published a mere 20 years after cessation of hostilities. One has to question who the intended audience was. Who could at the time read his work? I doubt it was the people who bore the brunt of the events. He most undoubtedly for the time was Ann Coulter writ in Collosus statue sized letters.
Later on in the story, you'll read about the abysmal plight of the hoi polloi, and yet the aristocrats engaged in utter debauchery and wanton waste of such a precious commodity, i.e., food. My utter revulsion at how they just wasted the food knows no bounds. And it should be clear and quite obvious (as is positively the usual case), the elite ate quite well - at the expense and upon the backs of the hoi polloi - makes that behaviour even more egregious knowing the full depth and horror of the plight of the peasants.
The story certainly can be tedious at times (partially due to its medieval English translation), and struck me possessing elements of Munchhausen's stories (did things really happen that way or to such degree?). All I know in that regard is that the depravity of Man truly knows no bounds. How does the Good Book say? "Let him who readeth have wisdom." How relieved we can be now in our thoughts, "Whew, I'm glad that's over. At least we're civilized now."
At least in the medieval period, they knew what the rules were.
And, btw, a particular pet peeve of mine - "the hoi polloi" is redundant, like "Rio Grande River". "Hoi" is a transliteration of the Greek definite article ʿoi (the diacritical mark ought to be over the omicron, but the font won't do it)
Anyways, just so you know: you're the first person that has ever gotten onto my case 'bout the use of hoi polloi. I don't know what Cracker Jacks box you obtained your lexicon (there's a prize in every box) from, but hoi polloi refers to the "common people" not that which is colloquially connotated as being the novoue riche.
Hoi polloi is a borrowing of the Greek phrase hoi polloi, consisting of hoi, meaning "the" and used before a plural, and polloi, the plural of polus, "many." In Greek hoi polloi had a special sense, "the greater number, the people, the commonalty, the masses." This phrase has generally expressed this meaning in English since its first recorded instance, in an 1837 work by James Fenimore Cooper. "Hoi polloi" is sometimes incorrectly used to mean "the elite," [see? Ah, ha ah-HAH!] possibly because it is reminiscent of high and mighty or because it sounds like "hoity-toity". · Since the Greek phrase includes an article, some critics have argued that the phrase "the hoi polloi" is redundant. But phrases borrowed from other languages are often reanalyzed in English as single words. For example, a number of Arabic noun phrases were borrowed into English as simple nouns. The Arabic element al- means "the," and appears in English nouns such as alcohol and alchemy. Thus, since no one would consider a phrase such as "the alcohol" to be redundant, criticizing the hoi polloi on similar grounds seems pedantic. - Usage Note (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved).Consider yourself "slammed" whilest I do the Church-lady "Superior Dance". (In your face, In your face, In Your Face. My aren't I feeling special?). You are "slammed" sir, do not try some cheap specious and transparent attempt to un-slam yourself. Everybody will see your feeble attempts as being nothing more than the tactics of a desperate slammee to un-slam themselves.
Snicker, snicker, chortle, chortle, guffaw. Just what in the $$*#@( is the difference between a chortle and a guffaw anyways?
Raygun snickers and chortles, with a mighty well pleased smirk on his face.
As usual, the heaviest price was paid by the German peasantry, who suffered terribly after decades of brutal war.
The English Puritans in my view were reformers, opposed to a corrupt aristocracy. Had the English Civil War happened a century later, England might have been the first representative democracy, and not the U.S. But, Cromwell proved no Adams or Jefferson.
The American Heritage Dictionary draws its usage standard not from what is correct, but what people are (however incorrectly) using. At least in your example, they first state the correct usage, although they then in a weaselly afterword say that it doesn't matter anyway. It is what is commonly known as a "popular dictionary" - iow, The English Language by Popular Vote.
I am a great fan of American Heritage Magazine, originally the Journal of State and Local History back in the late 40s . . . they have done a great service for historians and for amateurs alike. It's worth hunting down back issues - I have a few of the old paperbounds and most of the hardcover issues that began in the 50s. But the dictionary has not been one of their finest hours, especially since H-M bought them out.
Of course correct usage matters (shall we simply jettison etymology by popular vote?) And to compare Greek words that are still quoted in italics in the original language with Arabic loan-words that entered the language centuries ago via medieval Latin is hair splitting at best, and a knowingly specious argument at worst.
My lexicon is Liddell & Scott's. You may have heard of it. (Dean Liddell's other claim to fame was that he was the father of the original "Alice in Wonderland".) I think you would enjoy learning Greek, it is a beautiful language. Plus you have the enjoyment and knowledge of reading Homer, the 5th century Athenians, and the New Testament in the original!
hubba bubba.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.