Fred
11-08-2009, 11:12 AM
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10387
Basing one's identity on revisionist anthropological classification studies doesn't appeal to me. I like how the ancient Greeks and Romans used the stereotype kind of classification for referencing characteristics between different Europeans. From Agricola:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/texts/l/bl_text_Tacitus_Agricola.htm
11. Who were the first inhabitants of Britain, whether indigenous [44] or immigrants, is a question involved in the obscurity usual among barbarians. Their temperament of body is various, whence deductions are formed of their different origin. Thus, the ruddy hair and large limbs of the Caledonians [45] point out a German derivation. The swarthy complexion and curled hair of the Silures, [46] together with their situation opposite to Spain, render it probable that a colony of the ancient Iberi [47] possessed themselves of that territory. They who are nearest Gaul [48] resemble the inhabitants of that country; whether from the duration of hereditary influence, or whether it be that when lands jut forward in opposite directions, [49] climate gives the same condition of body to the inhabitants of both. On a general survey, however, it appears probable that the Gauls originally took possession of the neighboring coast. The sacred rites and superstitions [50] of these people are discernible among the Britons. The languages of the two nations do not greatly differ. The same audacity in provoking danger, and irresolution in facing it when present, is observable in both. The Britons, however, display more ferocity, [51] not being yet softened by a long peace: for it appears from history that the Gauls were once renowned in war, till, losing their valor with their liberty, languor and indolence entered amongst them. The same change has also taken place among those of the Britons who have been long subdued; [52] but the rest continue such as the Gauls formerly were.
Basing one's identity on revisionist anthropological classification studies doesn't appeal to me. I like how the ancient Greeks and Romans used the stereotype kind of classification for referencing characteristics between different Europeans. From Agricola:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/texts/l/bl_text_Tacitus_Agricola.htm
11. Who were the first inhabitants of Britain, whether indigenous [44] or immigrants, is a question involved in the obscurity usual among barbarians. Their temperament of body is various, whence deductions are formed of their different origin. Thus, the ruddy hair and large limbs of the Caledonians [45] point out a German derivation. The swarthy complexion and curled hair of the Silures, [46] together with their situation opposite to Spain, render it probable that a colony of the ancient Iberi [47] possessed themselves of that territory. They who are nearest Gaul [48] resemble the inhabitants of that country; whether from the duration of hereditary influence, or whether it be that when lands jut forward in opposite directions, [49] climate gives the same condition of body to the inhabitants of both. On a general survey, however, it appears probable that the Gauls originally took possession of the neighboring coast. The sacred rites and superstitions [50] of these people are discernible among the Britons. The languages of the two nations do not greatly differ. The same audacity in provoking danger, and irresolution in facing it when present, is observable in both. The Britons, however, display more ferocity, [51] not being yet softened by a long peace: for it appears from history that the Gauls were once renowned in war, till, losing their valor with their liberty, languor and indolence entered amongst them. The same change has also taken place among those of the Britons who have been long subdued; [52] but the rest continue such as the Gauls formerly were.