Originally posted by robbie carrobie a system where all the wealth was concentrated on something like 5% of the population, where peasants had no rights, had basically no freedom, had to do most of the heavy and dirty job and were taxed all the time -
Originally posted by FabianFnas And this is what occupation is about. To bring in the chinese population, and chinesify the culture, religion and moda di vita. After a while Tibet is a part of China, and the old Tibet is gone.
That's exactly why I don't agree with it and call it an invasion.
And even though this is true, the fact also is that Tibet was a very stratified and unjust region.
I just wonder why those mystic and totally non-materialistic buddhist monks needed so much wealth...
Originally posted by adam warlock That's exactly why I don't agree with it and call it an invasion.
And even though this is true, the fact also is that Tibet was a very stratified and unjust region.
I just wonder why those mystic and totally non-materialistic buddhist monks needed so much wealth...
Then you do indeed think that the Sovjet invasion of the Afganistan was just too? Because they did it of the same reason.
Or the Iraqi invasion of Quweit?
Or the German invasion of Poland?
No of these states cared about the population. What they cared about is to expand their area of influence, and prosper of the new territory?
Originally posted by FabianFnas Then you do indeed think that the Sovjet invasion of the Afganistan was just too? Because they did it of the same reason.
Or the Iraqi invasion of Quweit?
Or the German invasion of Poland?
No of these states cared about the population. What they cared about is to expand their area of influence, and prosper of the new territory?
Fabian, I said that I don't agree with Chinese actions in Tibet and called it an invasion.
What's more to ask?
Originally posted by FabianFnas Sorry, sorry, and again sorry.
When you wrote "That's exactly why I don't agree with it and call it an invasion." I misunderstood you.
No problem, but it wasn't the first time I had stated that I didn't agree with Chinese actions in Tibet.
By the way Russia didn't invade Afghanistan with the pretext of liberating it from stratified, unjust society (and I also think this wasn't the reason China gave at the time of the invasion, but I'm not sure on this) it invaded Afghanistan after several months of requests by the (puppet) Afghan regime and only after it had intelligence that the US was funding the Mujahedeen.
This much was admitted by Brezinski himself.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I have no proof. That's the story I've been exposed to mostly; he's a Welshman (well, Briton technically) who maintains order after the Romans leave, only to fall to the Angles and other Germanic tribes. Whether Arthur was an individual or a symbol of Celtic resistance I don't know. If my statement wasn't fact then it was poetic license.
I under ...[text shortened]... ctually, but I am in no way willing to argue that Arthur was an actual historical figure.
There are a couple of scraps of evidence for an actual person, possibly named 'Arthursus', an interesting name as 'Arth' means 'Bear' in Welsh, and obviously so does Ursus in Latin. The British monk Gildas offers the strongest contemporary (or thereabouts) evidence, but he doesn't imply that Arthur (let's call him that for argument's sake) was a king, or even the leader of the British - though he claims he led the British forces against the Saxons. Bede doesn't mention him, though he really should if he were a significant figure. The Welsh annals make a couple of oblique references, but nothing concrete. On balance I suspect that there was an actual person at the root of the myth, and he may well have carried the tradition of the Roman cavalry - I like the idea of Caledfwlch (later Caliburn, then Excalibur) being a Roman cavalryman's sword. These were like a longer version of the gladius and would have been an impressive inheritance in post-Roman Britain.
Originally posted by adam warlock Not in person. But do you dispute anything that I've said in that post?
I just dont know why you are having a go at the tibetans? Surely there are much,much worse societies that need attention.
I did meet a tibetan monk and I shall never forget him. He radiated love and compasion to all more so than any other human being I had met.
Originally posted by karoly aczel I just dont know why you are having a go at the tibetans? Surely there are much,much worse societies that need attention.
I did meet a tibetan monk and I shall never forget him. He radiated love and compasion to all more so than any other human being I had met.
But I'm not having a go at tibetans.
Yes there are regimes that are a thousand times worth than that, but it doesn't excuse the fact or does it?
Originally posted by karoly aczel Having read through your other posts I think I get you.
Basically you are saying that tibetan culture is not all its romanticized up to be. right?
Originally posted by avalanchethecat There are a couple of scraps of evidence for an actual person, possibly named 'Arthursus', an interesting name as 'Arth' means 'Bear' in Welsh, and obviously so does Ursus in Latin. The British monk Gildas offers the strongest contemporary (or thereabouts) evidence, but he doesn't imply that Arthur (let's call him that for argument's sake) was a kin n of the gladius and would have been an impressive inheritance in post-Roman Britain.
You mean the spatha?
"Whyte" went with the explanation that "Excalibur" meant "out of a mold"; it was made of some kind of super metal from a meteor and they had to cast the hilt in a mold or something. Of course it's just a novel.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat There are a couple of scraps of evidence for an actual person, possibly named 'Arthursus', an interesting name as 'Arth' means 'Bear' in Welsh, and obviously so does Ursus in Latin. The British monk Gildas offers the strongest contemporary (or thereabouts) evidence, but he doesn't imply that Arthur (let's call him that for argument's sake) was a kin n of the gladius and would have been an impressive inheritance in post-Roman Britain.
This seems like the best description of what I assume happened:
In the course of time, the usurping king Vortigern, to buttress the defence of the kingdom of Great Britain which he unrighteously held, summoned warlike men from the land of Saxony [AKA the English] and made them his allies in the kingdom. Since they were pagans and of devilish character, lusting by their nature to shed human blood, they drew many evils upon the Britons [AKA Welsh]. Presently their pride was checked for a while through the great Arthur, king of the Britons. They were largely cleared from the island and reduced to subjection. But when this same Arthur, after many victories which he won gloriously in Britain and in Gaul, was summoned at last from human activity, the way was open for the Saxons to go again into the islane, and there was great oppression of the Britons, destruction of churches and persecution of saints. This persecution went on through the times of many kings, Saxons and Britons [English and Welsh] striving back and forth. In those days, many holy men gave themselves up to martyrdom; others, in conformity to the Gospel, left the greater Britain which is now the Saxon's homeland [England], and sailed across to the lesser Britain [Britanny in France]
William, Chaplain to Bishop Eudo of Leon - "Legend of St. Goeznovius, preface" (c. 1019)
Originally posted by AThousandYoung This seems like the best description of what I assume happened:
In the course of time, the usurping king Vortigern, to buttress the defence of the kingdom of Great Britain which he unrighteously held, summoned warlike men from the land of Saxony [AKA the English] and made them his allies in the kingdom. Since they were pagans and of devilish cha ...[text shortened]... ile:Map_Gaels_Brythons_Picts_GB.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britonia6hcentury.png
This is quite a late source though, 4 or 500 years after the events (up at the other end of the so-called 'dark' ages), and as you know, is questionable - could be informed by Gerald. Annals of Wales is Annales Cambriaei (think that's spelt right), which is earlier, but still not contemporary. I struggle with Arthur as a king because of the lack of early reports. Surely Bede or Gildas would have mentioned the name of a heroic king? That said, the sources are so scant that almost anything's possible, and it does make a good story! I also recall another snippet, can't remember from where, which suggests he originated up around the Scottish borders, and I always liked the idea of him being late of the Wall legions, or the successors thereof - maybe the ex- of the Numerus Hnaudifridi!
08 Jul '10 14:531 edit
Hinduism, backdrop to the caste system
Back to Top