Display:
Glorious predecessors? like those that in India who built the Taj for the Modern Indians? I dont see how that comment dosn't drive a wrecking ball through the  rest of the comments that you have made.

If you're saying that the Europeans claims for Greco-Roman heritage is ridiculous, then Why does the Indian culture  have any better connection, other than living on the same piece of earth. Modern India is also a relatively recent creation too, I dont see that whole last comment making any real sense.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 09:34:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]


The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 09:37:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Glorious predecessors for Italy and Greece if you would bother to read my statement correctly. Not for UK or France.
by FarEasterner on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 01:44:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you think that France has any less connections to the Roman Empire than Italy? The bulk of both were part of it for roughly 400 years, after the Empire's collapse, both areas were ruled by invading Germanic tribes that were a minority of the population, all of these Germanic kingdoms had a short life and they assimilated into the existing population.

And again, what closer connection does modern India have to Asoka or even the Mughal Empire? For that matter, by all insistence on continity, wasn't China more a succession of different empires not even on the exact same area (f.e. little common area between the Qin dynasty and Southern Song) than one?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 04:50:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Being part of empire even for many hundreds of years does not make part a heiress of the empire. Otherwise Latvia might claim for heritage of empire of Peter Romanov.

It's nice you mentioned invading Germanic tribes, that's why purists might even deny Italy and Greece any connection to their glorious predecessors.

France and UK have negligible ethnic connection to Romans or Greeks.

Here is the difference with India - unlike Europe here ethnic mix did not change much and modern states may claim historical legacy freely. The same population, the same territory.

In Europe Italy and Greece have the same territory as Roman empire and Greek city states but population might had changed ethnically significantly over the centuries, not speaking about Christianity which was not existent in ancient societies.

About China I would recommend you to read any history book, for example John Keay's History of China and you will understand where your question or statement is fundamentally flawed.

by FarEasterner on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 01:33:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now you're saying that culture is a heritable trait. Essentially that the son or daughter of a German tribesman could not possibly adopt Roman culture.

That's a popular line among the European far-right. It does not, however, have anything to do with reality.

The reality, of course, is that most empires succeed to some extent in imposing their culture on their colonies, and in some measure adapt their culture to reflect that of their colonies.

And, of course, cultures evolve over time, to the point where they become unrecognisable as the ancestor culture. To say that modern Greece or India has any claim to the monuments located there - other than the geographic fact that they are located in their jurisdiction - is vaguely silly. Just as it is vaguely silly to suppose that Germany has some claim to the merits of the Hanseatic League.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 26th, 2009 at 03:08:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series