Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, you know, the Greeks, ancient and modern, have their own culture.
Indeed, and that (Pagan hellenism) was the basis of much of the religion of the West and the middle- east, too, though it had a major religious change (Christianity) the culture remained essentially the same.
Quote:
I wonder what you would say about the native culture of England. By your way of thinking, the native culture of England is probably fundamentally Germanic with foreign influences. So, the "culture" of England is really pagan or "secular", what that means in the past, even though the state church of England is the Church of England.
Yes. the English culture was transformed after the Romans pulled out and was comprehensively reformed after the model of the Germanic tribes on the continent who of course came over in search of work . Eventually Christianity came here, but the culture was unchanged, and even slipped back into Paganism with the Vikings, who in turn were Christianized, and even the occupation by the Normans (originally Pagan Norsemen) didn't change the culture, though the political system was transformed.
Indeed, and that (Pagan hellenism) was the basis of much of the religion of the West and the middle- east, too, though it had a major religious change (Christianity) the culture remained essentially the same.
Yes. the English culture was transformed after the Romans pulled out and was comprehensively reformed after the model of the Germanic tribes on the continent who of course came over in search of work . Eventually Christianity came here, but the culture was unchanged, and even slipped back into Paganism with the Vikings, who in turn were Christianized, and even the occupation by the Normans (originally Pagan Norsemen) didn't change the culture, though the political system was transformed.
I'm lost. You seem to view English culture as static.
I'm lost. You seem to view English culture as static.
No. It evolves, as it did on the continent. But it can be traced back in a continuous cultural evolution as on the continent and I suppose they can be traced back to the Germanic tribes arriving in the later Roman Empire.
The evolution of English culture can be traced back to the Romans, where it ends and Roman culture was something different. When they left, the economic and administrative structure virtually vanished overnight, and if anything reverted back to the British (aka Celtic) culture that had existed before the Roman occupation.
No. It evolves, as it did on the continent. But it can be traced back in a continuous cultural evolution as on the continent and I suppose they can be traced back to the Germanic tribes arriving in the later Roman Empire.
The evolution of English culture can be traced back to the Romans, where it ends and Roman culture was something different. When they left, the economic and administrative structure virtually vanished overnight, and if anything reverted back to the British (aka Celtic) culture that had existed before the Roman occupation.
Not to steal Arq's thunder, but I was just in Cambridge last week, and visited the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, and they dealt with just this issue. Cambrisge was originally a Roman settlement, and as such was built in a very roman style the architecture, pottery, and other items ( ornaments, buckles, toiletry items, etc..) were typically Roman. Rome in general favored standardization, and had a lot of essentially mass produced things that were common all throughout the empire. When the Empire crumbled, the city of Cambridge remained, but the pottery, personal effects, and architecture reverted to the kinds of things that were there pre-Rome. The Roman governmental hierarchy gave way to clans and kings, and we ended up with the "Dark Ages", a time period where cultures that had been subsumed into the Roman empire reemerged. The "Dark Ages" is really a misnomer, it isn't that the work regressed or fell into darkenss, but that these indigenous cultures reasserted themselves, as the influence of the Roman system waned, as well as gaining new cultural influences from invading groups, mainly from the East...
I don't have a concise, single link I can point you to, but this is really well established history. Maybe a browse through wikipedia on topics like the early Middle Ages, or the collapse of the Roman Empire would help...
Not to steal Arq's thunder, but I was just in Cambridge last week, and visited the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, and they dealt with just this issue. Cambrisge was originally a Roman settlement, and as such was built in a very roman style the architecture, pottery, and other items ( ornaments, buckles, toiletry items, etc..) were typically Roman. Rome in general favored standardization, and had a lot of essentially mass produced things that were common all throughout the empire. When the Empire crumbled, the city of Cambridge remained, but the pottery, personal effects, and architecture reverted to the kinds of things that were there pre-Rome. The Roman governmental hierarchy gave way to clans and kings, and we ended up with the "Dark Ages", a time period where cultures that had been subsumed into the Roman empire reemerged. The "Dark Ages" is really a misnomer, it isn't that the work regressed or fell into darkenss, but that these indigenous cultures reasserted themselves, as the influence of the Roman system waned, as well as gaining new cultural influences from invading groups, mainly from the East...
I don't have a concise, single link I can point you to, but this is really well established history. Maybe a browse through wikipedia on topics like the early Middle Ages, or the collapse of the Roman Empire would help...
I fail to see how the Roman culture completely disappeared. Instead of saying that it "disappeared" or "collapsed", one could say that the Roman empire transformed, and the indigenous culture, after influence by the Romans, may have gone under some sort of transformation. There are so many variables that I do not think a simple answer/explanation can be provided. Furthermore, Arq needs to examine how his working theory applies to ethnoreligious groups (i.e. the Jews) and indigenous belief systems (i.e. Confucianism and Taoism) and indigenous religions (i.e. traditional Chinese religion, traditional African religions, traditional Native American religions, etc.). Lastly, instead of prescribing linguistic corrections, I wish Arq would just make an attempt to understand what the person is saying instead of jumping to conclusions based on his own ideas about how the world works. Apparently, Arq seems to be pretty convinced that his theory is truly how the world works, and he seems to be prioritizing "culture" over "religion" in the same way another person would prioritize "religion" over "culture". No, no, no. Instead of one prioritizing the other, I would abandon the priority model once and for all, and just treat language as language. I'd go with trying to understand what that person means instead of forcing your own beliefs into that person's words.
I fail to see how the Roman culture completely disappeared. Instead of saying that it "disappeared" or "collapsed", one could say that the Roman empire transformed, and the indigenous culture, after influence by the Romans, may have gone under some sort of transformation.
I don't think anyone is saying that any culture completely supplants another, but after the collapse of the Roman Empire, the results were not a horde of tiny Romes but rather the Britons, the Gauls, the Franks, and countless other cultures the reemerged as distinct entities. Were they unchanged by Roman occupation? No. Were they unchanged by Christianity? No. But neither were they replaced by these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDweller
There are so many variables that I do not think a simple answer/explanation can be provided. Furthermore, Arq needs to examine how his working theory applies to ethnoreligious groups (i.e. the Jews) and indigenous belief systems (i.e. Confucianism and Taoism) and indigenous religions (i.e. traditional Chinese religion, traditional African religions, traditional Native American religions, etc.).
I don't think he is advocating anything other than the idea that there is decidedly more to culture than a religion. Groups can share a culture without sharing a religion, and share a religion without sharing a culture. This is why it is unhelpful to try to lump all sorts of cultural phenomena under the label <Religion> Culture. It tends to place an undue emphasis on religion as opposed to other influences, both for good or ill. An example of this is that culturally I would wager an American Jew, and American Muslim, and an American Christian have more in common culturally that they do with similar believers in other countries with a different cultural heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDweller
Lastly, instead of prescribing linguistic corrections, I wish Arq would just make an attempt to understand what the person is saying instead of jumping to conclusions based on his own ideas about how the world works. Apparently, Arq seems to be pretty convinced that his theory is truly how the world works, and he seems to be prioritizing "culture" over "religion" in the same way another person would prioritize "religion" over "culture". No, no, no. Instead of one prioritizing the other, I would abandon the priority model once and for all, and just treat language as language. I'd go with trying to understand what that person means instead of forcing your own beliefs into that person's words.
I think his original point, and one I would agree with is that the words you use to communicate are important. If I refer to what call Western Culture as Enlightenment Culture, I am emphasizing the preeminence of Enlightenment thought and influence on our society. I might do this if I am trying to emphasize that we in America owe a greater debt to Enlightenment thinkers, to the Voltaires, Mills, Benthams, Kants, and Spinozas of history than to religion in any form. If that is not my point, it is more useful for communication, particularly with people who might disagree vehemently with my previous assertion, to use a less loaded term. Like Western Culture... By using "Christian Culture" you are using a loaded term with some implications. He was simply pointing this out.
To be fair, those of us who either come from a highly religious background, or who have encountered it in discussion are more sensitive to the underlying assertions inherent in some of the loaded language. I was reaised to beleive that yes it is a Christian Culture, we are a Christian Nation, and any good thing in any society a direct result of Christian religious principles. As such the religion should be enshrined in law, it should be given a preeminent place, and no other religion should be allowed to threaten its dominance. Can you see why using the same language as those who espouse these views, if this is not what you mean, might lead to misunderstanding? It would be the same if you went into the Christian forum and started talking about our Secularist Culture (which is not an altogether inaccurate picture of Western culture...).
To be fair, those of us who either come from a highly religious background, or who have encountered it in discussion are more sensitive to the underlying assertions inherent in some of the loaded language. I was raised to believe that yes it is a Christian Culture, we are a Christian Nation, and any good thing in any society a direct result of Christian religious principles. As such the religion should be enshrined in law, it should be given a preeminent place, and no other religion should be allowed to threaten its dominance. Can you see why using the same language as those who espouse these views, if this is not what you mean, might lead to misunderstanding? It would be the same if you went into the Christian forum and started talking about our Secularist Culture (which is not an altogether inaccurate picture of Western culture...).
As you said a few posts ago, context...
I think the wording is loaded. Gee, I have no idea what's preached in Christian homes. What catches my attention is the exclusivity of Christianity: that "no other religion should be allowed to threaten its dominance". Okay, okay. I'm going to be careful.
I was raised in a nonreligious Chinese household, in the United States. When I observe that U.S. history is full of Christians (even barring certain ethnic groups who just happen to be non-Christian from immigrating to the United States) and that Americans tend to be either Christian themselves or descended from a Christian, I make the generalization that this must be a heavily Christian-influenced American culture. People baptize their children as infants as a familial custom; people treat their confirmation in a similar way how a Jewish person would treat his/her own bar/bat mitzvah; people get married in a church building in front of a minister/priest/pastor; and people hire a funeral officiant upon someone's death. In the newspapers, I often see American atheists bothered by even the mentioning of the word "God", and then make a point that America is not a Christian nation. I think it's different from Chinese culture, because my parents have no problems with using idioms that have religious roots, and they seem to use it rather literally. My mother used to say, "月亮姑姑" [literally translated as "moon aunt"] to personify the moon, and in my mind, it impressed in me that there was some sort of woman that lived on the moon that could somehow descend to Earth and do stuff. There were also times when my parents would say, "老天爷" [literally translated as "old sky grandfather"]. Note the literal translations are not the intended meaning, for my parents are nonreligious atheists. Still, they use it in phrases that make it sound like they believe in some sort of god that can control the sky or the weather. As I look it up, I find that the term seems to have roots in Confucianism, Taoism and traditional Chinese religion. Translations are never perfect and exact, because the translator has to capture something: meaning, tone, cultural connotations. At best, perhaps an English equivalent would be: "God is happy to send you home." I use the term "God", because the word "heaven" just doesn't seem to fit. It's not a personification of anything. Yet, "God" has its own nuances in the English language, because "God" is often used to refer to the Christian God, or broadly speaking, the all-powerful Abrahamic God. See what I mean by "Christian culture" in this context? I don't think English has a word for a god-like being that can be used metaphorically, because for a long time, English is greatly influenced by Christianity. I could use "Buddha", but that would portray the wrong meaning, because "Buddha", or enlightened being, is too related to Buddhism. Another alternative would be using "Goodbye". The word "goodbye" comes from "God be with you", but it has been much secularized that people use it without even noticing its religious roots. However, this term removes the personification of nature, and if I want to capture the personification of nature in the original statement, I would still use "God is happy to send you home." If I want to say goodbye without religious references, I would use "再见" [literally translated as "See you later"] but it means "goodbye".
In conclusion, context and knowing your audience are both important in communication. To avoid offense or misunderstanding, I think it's best to use "heavily Christian-influenced American culture". That way, I avoid the unnecessary baggage.
Thanks capo for filling in on the background to the replacement of Roman culture in Britain by Germanic. Generally.
To say the culture 'transformed' is one way to put it, but to say that is disappeared overnight conveys how surprisingly quickly its influences failed to be general in Britain and were soon replaced by cultural styles from the continent.
McDweller..interesting that you have a Chinese background. Then you'll surely understand Chinese culture rather than Confucianist, Taoist, Buddhist or even Christian culture. Re British post - Roman culture, To say 'transformed' I think misses the point. The people were the same and their culture changed back to what it was before, or something similar- perhaps because that was all they could manage without Roman infrastructure. But the cultural style and tangible signs of it vanished. The terms can be debated, but overall, culture, pretty much as in Webster and as shown in cultural artifacts seems pretty much to fit what I described. And religion has not a lot to do with it, either way.
Thanks capo for filling in on the background to the replacement of Roman culture in Britain by Germanic. Generally.
Sure, history is a lot more nuanced than that. We tend to make messy history .
I just chimed in because this stuff was fresh in my head, after spending an afternoon looking at the Roman and post Roman artifacts from the Cambridgeshire area...
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Eventually Christianity came here, but the culture was unchanged, and even slipped back into Paganism with the Vikings, who in turn were Christianized, and even the occupation by the Normans (originally Pagan Norsemen) didn't change the culture, though the political system was transformed.
