14 coaches online • Server time: 04:37
* * * Did you know? The number of matches played is 2984453.
Recent Forum Topics  [L] OBBA Smack Talk ... | Cindy fumbling after... | FUMBBL HAIKU'S |
2016-11-12 12:22:45
6 votes, rating 4.3
6 votes, rating 4.3
The Pelasgian Dilemma
Herodotus tells of the Pelasgians and a group of Athenian women living amongst them as concubines:
"In time these women had numerous children, whom they brought up to behave like Athenians and to speak Attic Greek. The boys as they grew older would not mix with the children of the Pelasgian women, and all supported one another when it came to blows, and a Pelesgian boy hit a Greek one. Indeed the children of the Greek mothers fancied themselves lords and masters of the rest and completely dominated them. The situation gave the Pelasgians something to think about: if these bastard children were already determined to support one another and to lord it over their legitimate children, what would they do when they grow up? They decided in consequence to kill the Attic women's children; they having sone so, they murdered the mothers as well."
Now you take a step back and tell me how to plead?
And if you are to plead in favor of the Pesalgians on what ground could you base your defense and win the high court's approval?
EDIT in response to Wreckage’s first comment:
I should have given a citation. This is a direct translation from Herodotus (Book Six) and those are not my words – that is why I put them in quotation marks. His words are definitely not impartial but rather lay open the cold-blooded expediency from the Pelasgian’s perspective as a justification of their deed.
The Pelesgians seized these women out of revenge for being expulsed from Athens. I left that information out as I feel that it is not really relevant to the matter and rather distracting.
I will not pretend to have read Herodotus. This part was also quoted in the philosophical work Rising up and Rising down by William T.Vollmann (as Balle has already figured out with the friendly help of google ;-)). The author derives from this historic episode the dilemma for the Athenian minority: “Do I express who I am, and thereby cause harm to myself and others, or do I protect myself by becoming one of them?”. So the question that follows from this is: Is it justifiable that a person or group has to restrain its own freedom to express itself?
I read this a while ago and it always stuck with me. The recent developments worldwide reminded me again of this and I wanted to post it for discussion. (So that is probably mood as it seems that throughout history and almost all societies minorities seem to be confronted with this dilemma to varying degrees).
I am not a lawyer and the whole thing about pleading and building up a defense was probably pretty dump. I just felt that I needed a hook to round it off and felt that “reflect on this one” did not do it. Therefore please feel free to ignore it. Let’s hope for an healthy discussion. ;-)
"In time these women had numerous children, whom they brought up to behave like Athenians and to speak Attic Greek. The boys as they grew older would not mix with the children of the Pelasgian women, and all supported one another when it came to blows, and a Pelesgian boy hit a Greek one. Indeed the children of the Greek mothers fancied themselves lords and masters of the rest and completely dominated them. The situation gave the Pelasgians something to think about: if these bastard children were already determined to support one another and to lord it over their legitimate children, what would they do when they grow up? They decided in consequence to kill the Attic women's children; they having sone so, they murdered the mothers as well."
Now you take a step back and tell me how to plead?
And if you are to plead in favor of the Pesalgians on what ground could you base your defense and win the high court's approval?
EDIT in response to Wreckage’s first comment:
I should have given a citation. This is a direct translation from Herodotus (Book Six) and those are not my words – that is why I put them in quotation marks. His words are definitely not impartial but rather lay open the cold-blooded expediency from the Pelasgian’s perspective as a justification of their deed.
The Pelesgians seized these women out of revenge for being expulsed from Athens. I left that information out as I feel that it is not really relevant to the matter and rather distracting.
I will not pretend to have read Herodotus. This part was also quoted in the philosophical work Rising up and Rising down by William T.Vollmann (as Balle has already figured out with the friendly help of google ;-)). The author derives from this historic episode the dilemma for the Athenian minority: “Do I express who I am, and thereby cause harm to myself and others, or do I protect myself by becoming one of them?”. So the question that follows from this is: Is it justifiable that a person or group has to restrain its own freedom to express itself?
I read this a while ago and it always stuck with me. The recent developments worldwide reminded me again of this and I wanted to post it for discussion. (So that is probably mood as it seems that throughout history and almost all societies minorities seem to be confronted with this dilemma to varying degrees).
I am not a lawyer and the whole thing about pleading and building up a defense was probably pretty dump. I just felt that I needed a hook to round it off and felt that “reflect on this one” did not do it. Therefore please feel free to ignore it. Let’s hope for an healthy discussion. ;-)
Comments
Posted by Burnalot on 2016-11-12 13:44:02
wat
Posted by Wreckage on 2016-11-12 14:56:23
Although it is a delightful story, it doesn't really convey how the question relates to it. Whether there is some sort of trial, who the parties in the trial are, who judges them and what they are judged on.
Also are the earlier mentioned attic like women identical to the later mentioned attic women?
Also is there some source to this story? The way you tell it it doesn't feel overly impartial :P.
Is the dilemma that the Greek like people are victim of a terrible crime and you are in a position to have to defend the Pesalgians?
Also are the earlier mentioned attic like women identical to the later mentioned attic women?
Also is there some source to this story? The way you tell it it doesn't feel overly impartial :P.
Is the dilemma that the Greek like people are victim of a terrible crime and you are in a position to have to defend the Pesalgians?
Posted by Balle2000 on 2016-11-12 14:59:54
"Do I express who I am, and thereby cause harm to myself and others, or do I protect myself by becoming one of them?", google tells me. It's a difficult challenge to judge ancient cultures with modern day morals.
Posted by Lorebass on 2016-11-12 16:24:44
@Balle
Completely right, moral code would require some ancient cultures to just kill/torture people who were inferior to them (ie: anyone not them) to put them in their place.
Also if the people who called the shots on the murders were of a higher rank (since they were because not concubines) they were well within their rights. Sure the hubby could be unhappy about his extra girls being dead and can exact his own justice but there are different laws that apply when the ones doing the murder are the same people/class.
There is no one set of laws for all. Its more of a "heyyyy your inferior so have these laws apply". Cause in Greece no one is better than the Greeks or whatever subset these people are.
Completely right, moral code would require some ancient cultures to just kill/torture people who were inferior to them (ie: anyone not them) to put them in their place.
Also if the people who called the shots on the murders were of a higher rank (since they were because not concubines) they were well within their rights. Sure the hubby could be unhappy about his extra girls being dead and can exact his own justice but there are different laws that apply when the ones doing the murder are the same people/class.
There is no one set of laws for all. Its more of a "heyyyy your inferior so have these laws apply". Cause in Greece no one is better than the Greeks or whatever subset these people are.
Posted by Wreckage on 2016-11-12 17:13:29
I'm not entirely certain, but this sounds like its from the founding times of Greece before they became a unified entity.
What they call the mythological age. Or the age of heroes. But mind that we probably wouldn't know about Herodotus if not for his time in democratic Athens and this story is also told through his eyes.
I don't think there is any society where life is worthless. But absent of a rather fixed set of human rights like the philosophers of the enlightend age worked them out to be based on god/nature (axiom), the value of human life certainly was more in eye of the beholder.
Therefore the question who is doing the trial would be largely important in the matter of how to defend the act. There is no doubt in my mind that any society would consider this type of murder to be wrongdoing. What probably differs is how the value of that life would be weighted compared to the actions of the murderers.
@ balle, if being who you really are, means to be a dick, you are probably better off concealing your true nature.
In Athens, 500 years later, the mainstream perspective would have probably been that to elevate yourself over others like a lord is pretty unacceptable but that Greeks are generally superior to everyone else due to their intellect.
What they call the mythological age. Or the age of heroes. But mind that we probably wouldn't know about Herodotus if not for his time in democratic Athens and this story is also told through his eyes.
I don't think there is any society where life is worthless. But absent of a rather fixed set of human rights like the philosophers of the enlightend age worked them out to be based on god/nature (axiom), the value of human life certainly was more in eye of the beholder.
Therefore the question who is doing the trial would be largely important in the matter of how to defend the act. There is no doubt in my mind that any society would consider this type of murder to be wrongdoing. What probably differs is how the value of that life would be weighted compared to the actions of the murderers.
@ balle, if being who you really are, means to be a dick, you are probably better off concealing your true nature.
In Athens, 500 years later, the mainstream perspective would have probably been that to elevate yourself over others like a lord is pretty unacceptable but that Greeks are generally superior to everyone else due to their intellect.
Posted by Lorebass on 2016-11-12 17:53:48
I concede,,, orgies and naked pie fights in the baths were probably best.
Posted by bghandras on 2016-11-12 20:13:19
"I don't think there is any society where life is worthless."
Maybe not worthless. But there is a difference between applying murder (as per equal rank), or damaging someone elses property (aka killing a slave).
Maybe not worthless. But there is a difference between applying murder (as per equal rank), or damaging someone elses property (aka killing a slave).
Posted by bghandras on 2016-11-12 20:21:27
I am unsure, but feel, based on the 'partial' storytelling that there might be some clause about who is athenian. The storyteller feels important to tell that they behaved like athenians.
So i feel (not sure, just feel), that the argument would revolve around being slave, or not.
So i feel (not sure, just feel), that the argument would revolve around being slave, or not.
Posted by Wreckage on 2016-11-12 21:25:05
I think it's pretty clear that this story isn't about how to best integrate into society or what status you have but about genocide and racial/cultural dominance, natural selection.
The true nature of emergence of the Greek culture is a bit in the dark, but I imagine the Minoans were the driving force in their literacy. Who were overtaken then eventually by invasion forces. But rather than merely conquer they culturally merged and created an entity that wasn't so much ethnically linked as it just had a common way of life.
In the early stages you would have tribes that aren't fully immersed yet into the greek culture like the Pelasgians that would still excert factual control over some regions but must have been under serious threat from the hellenistic culture to either adapt or submit.
In this stage you find a leader/warlord whatever who incorporates women into his culture who follow that greek way of life. That probably wouldn't feel immediately threatening on its own.
The Attikan educated children in the story however are perceived as believing themselves to be superior and conspiratory in nature. The fear is that they will try to overthrow the rulers and try to install their own way of life.
Note also this is some sort of family internal struggle, so if the father is some sort of ruler they would have been the (illegitimate) children of that ruler. They were certainly not slaves.
Who now exactly killed them (if it was the (legitimate) brothers, the fathers or just some concerned citizen) is not entirely clear.
The story is also one about killing women and children. The accusation is not that the children committed a crime, but that they might do so in the future. So it is a response to an abstract fear (we see somewhat realized in the ultimate dominance of the Greeks over the peninsula and beyond).
By extension also the killing of the mothers for no better reason than... well... when you go and kill their children, you can't really keep the mothers alive, can you?
The true nature of emergence of the Greek culture is a bit in the dark, but I imagine the Minoans were the driving force in their literacy. Who were overtaken then eventually by invasion forces. But rather than merely conquer they culturally merged and created an entity that wasn't so much ethnically linked as it just had a common way of life.
In the early stages you would have tribes that aren't fully immersed yet into the greek culture like the Pelasgians that would still excert factual control over some regions but must have been under serious threat from the hellenistic culture to either adapt or submit.
In this stage you find a leader/warlord whatever who incorporates women into his culture who follow that greek way of life. That probably wouldn't feel immediately threatening on its own.
The Attikan educated children in the story however are perceived as believing themselves to be superior and conspiratory in nature. The fear is that they will try to overthrow the rulers and try to install their own way of life.
Note also this is some sort of family internal struggle, so if the father is some sort of ruler they would have been the (illegitimate) children of that ruler. They were certainly not slaves.
Who now exactly killed them (if it was the (legitimate) brothers, the fathers or just some concerned citizen) is not entirely clear.
The story is also one about killing women and children. The accusation is not that the children committed a crime, but that they might do so in the future. So it is a response to an abstract fear (we see somewhat realized in the ultimate dominance of the Greeks over the peninsula and beyond).
By extension also the killing of the mothers for no better reason than... well... when you go and kill their children, you can't really keep the mothers alive, can you?
Posted by Uedder on 2016-11-13 16:37:23
Well greeks aren't surely the most impartial source imo. But anyway to answer your question: best way to survive is concealement, that doesn't mean forgetting who you are. Integrate in the foster society so you can live peacefully while helping its evolution from within.
Posted by Wreckage on 2016-11-13 17:05:54
@soranos, anyways.
Being oneself can mean a lot of things.
Jesus chose the path of being himself well aware of where he would end. But what makes his behavior gratifying isn't that he stood to himself but that he tried to live up to a higher standard. He lived a life of poverty and yet spent all his time helping others. Strangers, friends, anyone who asked him to.
This is what elevates him and makes him valueable as a person, this is why in spite of it all he is still remembered today.
In a sociological context you are confronted here with the converse question of the case. What is it a fair society would/could expect of you. And the answer is that you cooperate with and respect the society and its rules.
In a social context you could then expect to get the same respect back. If being oneself means to not respect anyone but yourself, don't expect to get respect back.
Of course that isn't a given. If you deal with a situation where the society is very hostile not insisting on being oneself is what is going to help you to survive. Is survival the objective tho?
Then being oneself is utterly unimportant.
And here we touch an interesting bigger matter. Which is:
Why is being oneself even important? And what does it even mean.
Are you still yourself when you go to work every morning and do a work you don't care about for a boss you don't like?
Or are you just yourself when you quit the job, buy a tend and spend your days in the park stealing from people?
What if any path leads you to not being yourself?
What if you become to like the way you live. The way you used to despise.
On a competitive playing field, deception is the norm. In a cooperative environment you want to be honest to maximize the efficiency of your environment.
Being oneself can mean a lot of things.
Jesus chose the path of being himself well aware of where he would end. But what makes his behavior gratifying isn't that he stood to himself but that he tried to live up to a higher standard. He lived a life of poverty and yet spent all his time helping others. Strangers, friends, anyone who asked him to.
This is what elevates him and makes him valueable as a person, this is why in spite of it all he is still remembered today.
In a sociological context you are confronted here with the converse question of the case. What is it a fair society would/could expect of you. And the answer is that you cooperate with and respect the society and its rules.
In a social context you could then expect to get the same respect back. If being oneself means to not respect anyone but yourself, don't expect to get respect back.
Of course that isn't a given. If you deal with a situation where the society is very hostile not insisting on being oneself is what is going to help you to survive. Is survival the objective tho?
Then being oneself is utterly unimportant.
And here we touch an interesting bigger matter. Which is:
Why is being oneself even important? And what does it even mean.
Are you still yourself when you go to work every morning and do a work you don't care about for a boss you don't like?
Or are you just yourself when you quit the job, buy a tend and spend your days in the park stealing from people?
What if any path leads you to not being yourself?
What if you become to like the way you live. The way you used to despise.
On a competitive playing field, deception is the norm. In a cooperative environment you want to be honest to maximize the efficiency of your environment.
Posted by Balle2000 on 2016-11-13 17:11:00
@wreckage pardon?
Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-11-13 22:58:39
I haven't read these texts, and probably never will, but I do understand why they would have killed these children. As Shaka Zulu's mother once said, "Never leave an enemy behind, or it will rise again to fly at your throat."
Posted by awambawamb on 2016-11-15 17:54:54
skotobiniao