Jump to content
Phantis Forums

Infelices infantilismos


Go:bekli

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

It doesn't matter what they were singing. It was a heroic action only Greeks were capable of.

 

Ah, those Souliotes. Interesting bunch.  Do you know they were paid by lord Byron and threatened to quit fighting for the revolution when he was late paying them? They visited him at his sick bed and threatened him with bodily harm if he didn't come up with their ..money!  It must have been those Souliotes who were Albanians (and didn't speak Greek),

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)      It doesn't matter what they were singing. It was a heroic action only Greeks were capable of.

 

Most likely, there was neither singing nor dancing.  There was a mass suicide attempt (some survived).   As for the noblesse of the gesture, let me cite the not much different (minus the massive for  the two first instances) precedent of Samsun, of Razis (also a Hebrew), and of the Sicarii at Masada.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, well, whatever makes me feel good is right, historical, and obvious superior to anyone's experience.

 

The Souliotes--a fiercely independent people--worked as mercenaries for many, and jumping camps was not unusual. Much like most people did during the Byzantine days.

 

The Souliotes were considered as a buffer between the Ottomans and the Ionion islands occupied then by various western powers.  I think they worked for the French at  some point, They worked for Ali Pasha of Ioaninna too, but that was a wrong decision...

 

The idea of getting paid for fighting wars is interesting. Someone may even say that if money was the prime motivator then where was the "nationalistic" fervor, you know, patriotism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of the impression that nationalism is a modern phenomenon (roughly 200 years old) and that, therefore, our understanding of remote events suffers when current beliefs and ideas are used to explain the past ideas and events (e.g., the behavior of Andronicus Dukas at Manzikert).

 

But, methinks, the important question lies elsewhere.   If, perchance, the text concerning the ?dance? is indeed badly written and the information provided the byproduct of past nationalistic raving, who, if any, will fix this entry of the Phantis-wikipedia?   And what process will be followed so as to ensure that the fix will be an improvement?

 

More important, one must wonder if similar entries in the Phantis-wikipedia were properly edited and are reliable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that goes for millions of such entries for all countries .......

 

as an Australian I still can't get my head around how the ANZACS  charge on the shores of Gallipoli saved 'my country'.....and I how today I enjoy freedom due to their 'braveness'???

 

nationalistic views and perceptions of war and history are indeed very interesting...to the point they are taboo to question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not wrong, at the time Australia had a White Australia policy.  Its purpose was to keep out of Australia all but the English and the North Europeans provided that they could speak English.  Famously, when a group of Maltese tried to go to Australia in 1916, it was given an ?English  dictation? exam in Dutch!  Well, if you live in Australia but think of yourself as Englishman, it makes sense to fight for England.  Be it at Gallipoli or in South Africa for more than one year after the Australian Independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes of course they believed they were British hence they fought for the mother land......that's the way I learnt my history growing up..

 

yet suddenly we have a whole generation of australians who believe the Gallipoli landing lead to our freedom....and we owe our freedom today to their deeds.....another nationalistic twist to history....that has little to do with reality....

 

I doubt most even know that the ANZACS were not victorious and that more Indians than aussies died in that campaign fighting for Britain..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nation-states are relatively new phenomenon, most were formed in the 17-20th c. People were told (made to feel) that a new entity was to capture their allegiance because now they weren't simple subjects but citizens!  Obligations but also benefits.

 

Gradually, nation-states became entities full of nationalism/patriotism. How do you build such? By giving certain real or perceived benefits plus lots of propaganda (even brain washing). It's been very successful as most people became rabid supporters. Hate of others isn't new; it began with "us versus them" and it had to do with competition for resources among various groups. But the hate of others present in all modern states (at least in their earlier stages) rose to great heights.

 

De-humanizing the enemy--something that all nation states have done--was one way to raise nationalist fervor and to make it easier to kill the enemies.

 

Guess what? Most people actually like this as it simplifies everything and gives them the special identity they crave. National myths are built often with little regard to historical truth. And, there's a built-in defense mechanism, like a good effective virus that infects a body (or a mind or a ..computer) that when it detects an effort to question it, it labels the operation as "treason" or "enemy" or the workings of the "devil"...

  • Like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note:  The posts concerning Gallipoli and the contrast between the events and the national perception     reminded me another set of events/perceptions that are more recent and closer to home.   About 9.5 years ago two planes collided over the Aegean. .  The Turkish pilot was rescued and survived, the body of the Greek pilot was never found.   A few days later Eleutherotypia published an eye-opening interview with the ex-chiefs of the Air Force and navy of Greece.  If a translation to English is necessary, I will provide the best I am capable of.   It should be noted that if this interview were to appear today, the title would be 40

Edited by Go:bekli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tantra,

As soon as I read your classy reaction (above) to the old, long, boring, and dyspeptical interview I posted yesterday, I called my friend Francis and demanded that you be canonized on the spot.  No-can-do me dijo mi compadre Francisco, necesitamos dos milagros.  

To expedite this affair, I decided to engineer a second instance in which my atrabilious nature and my choice of a long and pointless text will elicit a saintly response.    Here is the text I chose:

 

Edited by Go:bekli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the geopolitical situation really changes, I doubt that anything significant (and positive for Greece) will happen any time soon.   Because, as things stand 

 

(1) What we want does not appear to be feasible,

(2) What might be feasible is not acceptable to us, and

(3) Turkey is the local bully while Greece is neither able, in her opinion, nor willing to stand up to Turkey.

 

We may though end up believing our own disjoint thoughts and propaganda; in which case  we may manage to gift to Turkey what she is not able to grab today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Fearing that our political leadership may have not understood the concept of Realpolitik, our friend Recep Tayyip Erdogan (whose Pontic  great grandfather decided that regarding his finances Allah was more munificent than Jesus) made, mostly for our benefit, the following statements:

(can be read at http://www.france24.com/en/20160102-turkey-needs-israel-says-erdogan and elsewhere).

 

"Israel is in need of a country like Turkey in the region," Erdogan said in remarks to Turkish reporters published in leading dailies Saturday.

 

"And we too must accept that we need Israel. This is a reality in the region," said Erdogan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that all nations have the highest opinion of themselves? [the 2 notable exceptions in the years after WW2: Germany and Japan; and that's to their credit actually]

 

That they believe they're very good people, who have never done horrible things on purpose or in grand scale. That their enemies, especially neighbors or ethnic minorities within are monsters. That history shows how great they've been. That their culture and religion are superior to everyone else's. That are the most heroic. That they are the most talented. And, of course, the smartest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I suspect that at the end of WW2 both the Germans and the Japanese asked themselves what would happen to them if they were treated in the way they had treated those whom they conquered.   The plausibility of tit for tat and the possibility of national extinction helped them focus on the essential.   Over time they have become less humble and more assertive. 

2) Reasonable people/nations ask how they can better themselves; dumb people and failed nations look for someone/(some nation) that , in their opinion, fares worse than themselves.  If none can be found, they (1) create a new criterion that shows that they are better and (2) delve in demonology.

3) Personally it bothers me not if the wife of the neighbor is prettier than mine and I will not like mine more if the neighbor?s happens to be uglier.

4)  Being dumb is not bad; unfortunately, and as a rule, the self-anointed patriots tend to be dumb and a permanent risk to the nation they possibly love much but certainly not too well.

5) My definition of patriotism is ?I love myself, my family, my village, my region, my country, my species?, more or less in that order. 

6)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I wonder how many nations would actually feel shame for committing crimes against humanity? The Germans and Japanese did, and that's to their credit.  It's natural for younger generations to say we had nothing to do with those crimes and thus develop and different attitude. Very soon no one will be alive from WW 2 (who was an adult back then). How many 90+ year olds today bare even indirect responsibility for what happened back then?

 

The reasonable people tend to be in very short supply in times of crisis.

 

Societies under stress create myths to explain their woes, and blame others. Also they create people who are xenophobic and fans of conspiracies.

 

The quality of democracy, or the system in a given country often depends on the quality of people involved. ;)

 

Patriotism is like religion. In the minds of many, it cannot be questioned.

 

I think your problem is that you seem to believe people are motivated by reasoning and knowledge....  Tsk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's natural for younger generations to say we had nothing to do with those crimes 

 

 

Actually, this is incorrect!

 

1) Acts are, in part, rooted on beliefs and culture.  While, as a rule, one cannot hold X responsible for the acts of Y (unless X profits from the acts of Y (e.g., if X inherits what Y stole) one can wonder what X is capable of if X shares the beliefs and culture of Y.

 

2) The ?I am not responsible for the acts of my ancestors? axiom leads to the ?I cannot deserve credit for the exploits of my ancestors? theorem.  In other words, according to the no-blame theory, the Slavophones who claim that they are descendants of Alexander the great may sin against history but do not harm all these fine patriots who think that the Slavophones are stealing their inheritance and should have been invaded.

 

3) The only utility of the ?I did not do it, I am not responsible? theory is that the present generation of the Phantis? swamis cannot be held responsible for the mythostorical exploits of the previous generation of the Phantis? [pundits, poohbahs, and caciques] and the Phantis? sacred texts need not be modified.

 

4) Speaking of sacred texts, I need to remind you that in Exodus 20:5 we read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tsk. Haven't you heard of selective memory?

 

Of course, people want to claim Alexander's glory, for example, but not the brutality by which he got it.

 

Greeks in particular have the curse of their ancestors. I haven't met any other group which within minutes of meeting them they mention the glory of their ancestors and thus claiming how special they (descendants) are. Italians come a distant second.

 

Don't you understand the concept of motivated reasoning?

 

@#4: Excellent example in support of what I'm saying here. You pick and choose the sources that make you feel good. Like all the faithful, who having not examined why or how they came to their core beliefs, are explaining everything under the sun by citing a book. Well, in that case, my book ("To Serve Man") says it is right and all the other books, including yours, are false!

 

......

 

PS> Maybe Lazarus, our tech genius, could answer your questions about the Phantis software.  Every time I go into the basement to looks at the ..machine I don't want to start messing with it. Instead, I pick up a bottle of aged wine.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a on-going argument in the Greek American community, which tends to be conservative.... How does a person maintain his Greek roots? The prevailing view--and from those leaders in the community--is to be a good Orthodox and ultra patriot of Greece.  Of course, there are some of us who reject the notion that in order to appreciate Hellenism you have to be part of the political (old Greek politics) and especially the Greek Orthodox church.

 

I do acknowledge that the glue that brought together the various people in the Greek War of Independence was religion, not language. Of course, there were other factors why tribes, ethnic groups and westerners wanted a Greek independent state.

 

After the formation of the Greek state*, the Church sought to establish a theocracy, and most leaders and people wanted to define the new country by its religious identity.  The church was able to revise history--see official history textbooks taught in Greek schools. The church leadership had been against the revolution, although several priests--uneducated and close to their flock--did participate in the struggle against the rulers.  Historian Paparigopoulos and all other "official" Greek historians believed that whatever served the nationalism of the new country was ..right. Making Greeks out of a diverse population in the melting pot (especially in central and northern Greece) was paramount and thus historical truths had to be sacrificed. Not unlike the path other countries too, most recently FYROM.

 

The policy of the early Greek state was to ethnically cleanse the area of non-Greeks, which meant: non-Xtian.

 

 

* Even though the Greeks in Europe and the Phil-Hellenes were children of the Enlightenment,  this humanist revolution wave never really touched Greece. It can be argued that the countries that missed the E. in the 17-19 centuries developed politics distinct from the European countries which were influenced by the E. Still today, many Greeks do not accept several of the major values of the Enlightenment. Yes, many of these countries are part of a greater Europe today, but there's still a big difference between the western and eastern European countries and the reason is the E and its effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...