|
|
|
Western Peoples...,
Notion of God...,
Death...,
Quebec...,
Cloning...
Although your article on racialist issues was interesting, you start out with a huge misconception. In opposition to the Mary Renault/Fallmerayerian myth, wholly embraced and reinforced by the Nazis by the way, that the "real", initial Greeks were blond and blue eyed, the fact is they were not particularly so. Based on historical evidence such as paintings, writings, vases etc., the first Greeks to invade the Balkan peninsula, the Achaeans, were the fairest of the ancient Greek tribes, having a good share of blond and blue eyed members. But even among the Achaeans, which soon became the Mycenaean civilization and Hellenized the far darker Minoans (who were initially not Greek), the fair-haired were far outnumbered by darker hair and complexions (as anecdotal evidence in support, a perusal of the Illiad and Odyssey would reflect this fact).
Although you state that the light invading Greeks assimilated with the darker, existing inhabitants, the historical record has shown us otherwise. It is the latter Greek tribe of the DORIANS, who were darker, "woolier" (direct translation meaning hairier) and more akin to your idea of Mediterranean that invaded the more civilized Myceneans (interestingly, Alexander the Great, who traced himself directly to Dorian lineage, was blond and blue eyed). Many centuries later, after Greece underwent a dark age, the eventual amalgam of the union of these two civilizations, but more importantly the evolution of the city-state, produced the classical age--the Athenian Golden Age of Greece.
Although it may fit neatly with notions of race which you or others may have, your summary of the racial aspect of the ancient Greeks is completely incorrect and undermines the rest of your argument. I hope you correct your text accordingly and, if you have any questions about my e-mail or would like to discuss it further please feel free to contact me.
ahmp@tribeca.ios.comWe know that at the tribal stage, all those who share the same language have the same physical appearance as well. The mixing usually starts between unions of different tribes into a nation as happened with the Armenians, or within the Persian empire, or in amalgamation between conquerors and conquered as in Greece. So, why would the Dorians be darker than the Achaeans for instance? The Greeks were great story tellers but it was not necessary a historical report. I read years ago, in a very respectable Swiss paper "Tribune de Geneve" that in one Greek tale some Greek inhabitants of, I believe, Northern Greece, had penises long enough to hang below their knees. It was just a little note within some other topic so I didn't pay too much attention and don't remember details. Personally, I find it doubtful that the Greeks at the tribal level could have had very different aspects from each other. From the sculptures of their gods and of their philosophers, we see that the Greeks had a quite nordic aspect. From paintings and pottery the darker element predominates but it may belong either to the archaic period or to the elements already mixed. Socrates, asking a young slave questions for the benefit of the audience, asked him first: "are you Greek?" -- meaning that at Socrates' time the non-Greeks were already physically indistinguishable from the Greeks. Where the Greek tribes which invaded the Balkans came from remains a mystery as far as I know. All I remember from my reading was that they could have come from Central Asia, perhaps escaping Mongolian pressure.
You say that Greece's Golden Age was preceded by a dark age. Dark Age usually means the collapse of something higher than before. I never heard about a Greek civilization that collapsed into a Dark Age in order to be reborn into a Golden Age. WM
Enjoyed the specific article and the overall tone and perspective of your newsletter.
Best wishes,
Larry Shannon
mail@the-truth.com
Internet Liaison
Advanced Concepts Research
Hello William,
From the things you have written I am not at all sure where you are with God
- it all sounds a bit confusing. Perhaps you might tell me. God's plan
for this earth is still the same and always will be.
kind regards
Ken
kgw@alphalink.com.au(Ken Walker)
....... I have read two of your essays. Regarding dead things: I can't think of all inanimate (right, a synonym for "dead") objects as dead. "Dead," to me, is strictly a quality and aspect of once-living organic beings, and cannot be ascribed to those things which never lived, at least in the sense that I take you to mean. Hence, a leather and wooden chair is, in large part, dead, but a plastic and metal one, though its plastic components previously existed as rotting dinosaur matter, has been since so chemically changed and refined that I, at least, am unable to conceive of it as a "once-dead" thing.
Indeed, all material things, though they lie there inert in our perception are abuzz with spinning molecules, loaded with energy just waiting to be tapped under the right circumstances. Though a fire does not live and breathe as a biological creature, can anyone look upon it and say it is a dead thing? But I stray here into the animism that occupied our ancestors' thoughts.
Finally, in death, the dead serve the living. The recently dead provide immediate sustenance, while the long-dead maintain the ongoing cycle of life that blankets the surface of this planet like a living mosaic. It is all a matter of perspective, I think.
Later,
John Romero
romerohj@telapex.com
Monsieur Markiewicz,
Quoique je deplore le fait que vous estimiez que la souverainete du Quebec est une eventualite indesirable, j'admire la lucidite et le bon sens avec lesquels vous jugez la situation. J'espere qu'apres la souverainete, nous pourrons maintenir une relation de bon voisinage et d'amitie.
Friendly yours,
Jean-Pierre Garneau
jgarneau@clic.net
Widescale cloning has little appeal. Most of us would prefer to see our family line continue, but not necessarily a copy of ourselves. I'm reminded of a humorous bumper sticker which said, "You! Outta the gene pool!"
For centuries societies have practiced selective breeding of livestock and pets which have altered many species. Many genetic changes are irreversible to the species. Selective breeding is a slow, deliberate process of choosing desirable traits over naturally dominant characteristics. The selection of desirable genetics has been occurring long before Mendel postulated about drosophila. Whenever people choose a marriage partner they are basically selecting a preference as to those traits as that they perceive as desirable for that society.
Human behavior is commonly altered through drugs and medication, religion, and complex interpersonal roles of societies. Cultural norms play strong roles in human behavior, therefore, genetic manipulations will be submitted to the overall rules of the society. Genetic manipulation will probably be more reflective of societal roles than determinative.
The goal of most genetic changes will be towards correcting that which society judges as defective. We have long been engaged in this process, but through slower more deliberate processes than by radical gene therapy.
Tim
"Timothy G. Keith" tkeith@mindspring.com
What repels me about cloning, artificial insemination, is mostly that it bypasses the ageless psychosomatic process of sexuality -- emotion, sensation, ritual -- with perhaps irreversible consequences for the species' reproductive system when practiced on a massive scale and long-term. So we may destroy a species! WM
Back to the index of the Vagabond
William Markiewicz