01-06-2010, 09:01 AM
Quote:What I think is worse, is that if he DID dress accurately compared to our current knowledge and archaeological evidence, would he still be recognized as a "Roman soldier"? We here in the U.S. have been called some interesting names, and when trying to politely correct them, still get some flak.This is a very important point. On the one hand, a group of people needs something in common to recognize itself as a group. History often has the function of a foundation myth. In this way, the past is highly relevant. On the other hand, relevance is the enemy of history, which is -or should be- a subject of permanent debate. But what happens when the canon clashes with new insights?
Unfortunately, there are vested interests. I was shocked by some recent criticism and scorn when I said that we did not owe western democracy to the ancient Greeks, because I thought that by 2010, people would know more about the medieval roots of the system. Then I discovered that the people criticizing me, were classicists, afraid of their jobs; so they willingly tell stories they know are not true. Another example: Islamic influence on western universities is also unacceptable for many people - for obvious reasons, these days. So here's a legitimate subject of debate, but the debate can get tainted.
As far as I am concerned, I think that when the canon clashes with new insights, the latter must always prevail. Only then, people will realize that the past is always in flux, and that politicians and political activists cannot base their claims on historical antecedents. When people say "the past has taught us...", we should no longer listen.
Quote:In fact the city made a law a few years ago, which said that only "Romans" certified by the city are allowed to stand there now. When did you take the pic?Two weeks ago.
