Miss Taken wrote:I'm not arguing against it being a facet of ancient Greek Culture, what I am arguing against is that it was necessarily an ideal for every single Greek young man, or even for Greek society as a whole. I'd link to a couple of articles but they are pretty pornographic, and I don't wish to offend anyone...
I never said it was an ideal for every single one. I said it was an ideal, and it was. It was so popular and prevelant that the Romans picked up on it. One Roman emperor was so distraught when his young partner died that the poets tried to console him by writing a story about this boy becoming one of the stars in the sky (a.k.a. apotheosized). Pederasty originated most likely with Dorian initiation rites. The older man was called the
erastes, and the boy was called the
eromenos. It was entirely inappropriate for two grown men to consort (they were called
kinaidoi, and that was a title you didn't want). The older man was required to be the agressor. For a grown man to be a passive participant was humiliating. Among aristocratic circles every man had a young man lover. When democracy came to Athens this changed, and pretty much everyone was practicing pederasty. In 450 BC a law was passed making payment to the lackey's a disqualification for public office. The laws had nothing bad to say about the practice, but it was considered immoral to charge for it. Xenophon and Plato both testify that Socrates was smitten with adolescents. You can insist and insist that you're right about this, but you've managed to avoid providing any evidence that pederasty was not the accepted norm in Greece. My evidence is what I've provided in addition to the books
Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece, by Percy; "Greek Love at Rome," by Craig A. Williams, in
The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 45.2 (1995): 517-39; and
Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents, by Thomas K. Hubbard. If you wish to continue to insist you are right then I will request that you provide evidence.
Miss Taken wrote:No, I am not, I appreciate that cultures (which are not easily defined particularly if they existed 2000 years ago, let alone 4000 years ago) differed, in some times significant ways, but that under-pinning that is my assertion at least that human beings have the same needs (think Maslow) and that the way they act are probably attempts to efficiently meet those needs.
But that doesn't address ancient perspectives on war and killing.
Miss Taken wrote:Not on this thread you havn't.
You're right, it's on the thread that directly addresses this issue. I apologize.
Miss Taken wrote:I'm sorry, but what are you suggesting here? Humans have choices, they can choose to co-operate for resources (and there is excellent evidence that they have always done just that) or they can choose to compete, particularly if the resources are scarce. That's human nature, regardless of the ethical context in which they lived, and that 'ethical context' (even if we have lists of ethical beliefs and laws) is incredibly difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty. Particularly since for the majority of 'ordinary' (as opposed to the rich and powerful) people we have relatively little information about them, as you have already admitted.
You're right, they could have chosen that, but they didn't, and one group of 70,000 people is not going to change the minds of millions of others who kill or enslave 70,000 people every month. The evidence is crystal clear on this. You can conjecture all you want because it doesn't make sense to you, but this is not an issue that has many grey areas, as shocking as that may sound to you.
Miss Taken wrote:That's quite a big area, with a diverse number of cultures and peoples.
That it is.
Miss Taken wrote:Are you including the Natufian culture in that?
The Natufian culture existed thousands of years before civilization began, and they have nothing to do militarization because there was no such thing back then.
Miss Taken wrote:and Macedonia isn't in the Levant at least (when I visited last year) a Greek person would never admit such. (very beautiful though)
And you must know that I am well aware of that fact. The question of God's people in the Old Testament deals with the Levant, but this principle was alive and well all over the world back then, even in the more "civilized" Hellenistic cultures.
Miss Taken wrote:Now, now Maklelan, no need to get 'b*tchy'!!
I'm sorry.