Ursus

Family, community, an honest day's work. The rule of law. Basic social freedoms. Free enterprise without corporatist exploitation. A religious life for those so inclined. I'm sure that seems very basic, but if I walked into a sociology class in a very liberal college, I am sure I would be challenged. "Family is a social construct which discriminates against women and gays." Or something.

If I lived in Mexico I would flee to the US as well. But I would make an attempt to learn English, and needless to say I would obey the laws. I kind of agree with FC that national identity, or perhaps cultural identity, is important. I'm just not sure how that should be defined. Until fairly recently American culture was equated more or less with White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Anyone not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant could be locked out of the higher eschelons of political and socio-economic power. I myself am not Protestant by any means, and while I am White I don't care to define myself in those terms. I am sympathetic to arguments that English should be the offical language of government, as there needs to be a common means of communication. Aside from that I would be quite scared about how to define a common American cultural experience, especially by those on the religious right who think anyone not in their own particular religious cult are scum. I suppose the fact I can't find much in American culture to inspire me is one of the reasons I turned to the classics. The Romans had certain ideals and habits which made one "Roman" - and yet people of various backgrounds were allowed to adopt Romanitas.

Thank the gods you and yours are alive and well.

But the point is that the Romans were tolerant, or at least practical, regarding religious differences. For a cult to be deemed to be an enemy of the state it would have to be radically outside the traditions of normative Greco-Roman religion - which the Bacchic cult was, and which early Christianity (or at least certain strands) were as well, regardless of the surface validity of the charges.

If you enjoyed the snippets from Rives in the first post, you may enjoy his _Religion in the Roman Empire_ which I have just read. It's a full length analysis which expands on some of the topics above, and some other topics as well. Great stuff.

The Bush parallel was for the "Godfather" book. Speaking of reviews ..... do you call dibs on this one, Pretty Boy?

We are doubly blessed that Germanicus has been returned to us, and that our friend Pantagathus has been elevated to legate.

Mine is en route from Amazon as we speak!

Was at the Ecauldron years ago. I ran afoul of it. If Koi is still there, watch out for her. She is a rabid theology student (Christian) that the admins there keep around to convince themselves they are tolerant and high minded.

So who won? Hope it wasn't those pesky Normans. I don't want to have learn French.

_Sailing the Wine Dark Seas: Why the Greeks Mattered_ Thomas Cahill “For me, the historian’s principal task should be to raise the dead to life,” intones author Thomas Cahill in his introduction. Most historians would disagree with the notion that necromancy should be included in their job description. They are quite content to merely document the ebb and flow of past events and personalities. While this approach is all too often boring, it usually suffices to present the full array of known facts and figures of a given culture. Cahill’s approach is, as you might expect, far more personable and enticing. He renders a humanist’s perspective on Ancient Greece, suggesting how the Greeks thought and felt. Yet conversely this approach paints only the broadest possible portrait of Hellenic culture, leaving aside the nuts and bolts that often make history what it is. The result is a somewhat shallow treatment of Greek life. Cahill may succeed in resurrecting the Hellenes, but they are like the shades that haunt Hades, pale phantasms absolved from a breathing fresh-and-blood reality. Cahill’s work is divided into seven chapters. Each chapter revolves around a certain humanistic theme, and is prefaced by a choice passage from Hellenic literature. Chapter one and two concentrate on the martial valor of the warrior and the sentimental musings of a wanderer, respectively. As you might imagine, Homer and his two great works form the basis of the discussion. The next four chapter discuss in turn contributions from poets and playwrights, politicians, philosophers and artists. Finally, the last chapter concludes with the synthesis of Hebraic and Hellenic thought that transpired under Roman dominion, and led to what would later be termed Christianity. Each chapter offers a sketch of the subject under study. There is nothing especially insightful in these studies, though the author never claims otherwise. The author’s stated purpose is to make us taste and feel as the Greeks themselves tasted and felt. True enough, the author’s prose and colorful sense of humor are charmingly disarming. He does manage to convey a sense of warmth to an academic discipline that is all too often presented as dry and sterile. But in tasting each subject offered by Cahill, I felt as though I nibbled a meager portion from what could have been a veritable feast and buffet. Depth has been traded for breadth, substance for familiarity. The result is that I am not convinced, despite the subtitle, that the Greeks really mattered. They should matter – it seems a truism they should matter. But this book, despite its title, seems to take the assumption for granted and never quite gives us a penetrating disclosure on why they do matter. To the extent they matter, it seems to come to the fore in the last chapter. Cahill offers a brief if compelling account on how Christianity extricated itself from its purely Hebraic roots and became immersed in the language of Hellenic philosophy and mystery religions. But the Greeks matter thus only insofar as they gave a more marketable gloss to a Jewish product that would otherwise not sell in the glutted religious market of the Roman Empire. This is somewhat disappointing. As an aside, the author likens Romans to plodding apes of Greek culture, something that many Romanophiles might contest. Nonetheless, the author’s warmth and the work’s brevity make it a quick read. It also is rather affordable, selling on Amazon for under 10 dollars. I, however, would rather suggest the book to budding high school students than to adults wanting a serious examination on the miracle of ancient Hellas.

I think you should refrain from wriitng in all caps.

Mehercules!

I have little use for genetics and racial theories, but I'm also a bit cynical about lumping everyone together in one happy human race. I think culture is the real dividing line among different peoples.

I think the people who have it worse are the Pacific Islanders who build houses right next to Volcanos (and wonder why there is lava in the living room).

Suspects? Could be any number of people I recently placed on moderated status. ;-)

They could make a Paris Hilton day for all I care, as long as it considered leave with pay. :-)

Where ever they come from, let's move this to the forum peregrini.

Do we all pretend to be African-Americans on Kwanzaa?

Meh. I'll have to await months from now until the DVD comes out.

Different cultures had different types of Pagans. I don't know enough about the megalithic peoples of the British Isles to speak intelligently about them. But as you say, these ancient engineering feats are impressive and compelling.

They just did that to do distract us from the Foley scandal.

*bump* I have regained an interest in the MBTI, and offer our site newbies a chance to take the test.

Agrippa's contributions are critical, especially in the military sphere, but for anyone to suggest Augustus was little more than a front to Agrippa's genius is a bit strong, I feel. "A prince who is not wise himself cannot be wisely counseled." - Machiaevelli