60
I had to see this, so now you do also
(thelemmy.club)
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
You moved the goalposts like, three times there, but I will take this all in good faith.
I am not talking about the idea of a singular inventor-entrepreneur. I am talking about a culture. A learned and shared pattern of behavior. Cultures 'invent' things. Maybe you are just hung up on the wording. Certain cultures are known by their generation of certain types of behavior. Yes, the idea of a singular 'Greek' culture is nationalist revisionism, however that doesn't mean that ancient people didn't take a level of civic m pride in the things their cities produced.
Yes, these people were 'close' but there are still distinct styles that develop, and that is how archeologists are usually able to determine things removed artistic influence. Athenian pottery is different than even Ithican pottery is different from Minoan A is different than Minoan B is different than pre-Greek influence Roman is different than Grecian-influenced Roman is different than after Rome conquers Greece. Sure though, all of it is part of a larger Mediterranean culture, however, a large part of that Mediterranean culture first gets its shape in Greece, and it spills out from there with the Greek colonial projects. And I am not saying this phenomena is unique to the Greeks, you can see the same kind of thing with the Phoenecians before then.
The Romans were in Italy when the iron ploughshare was introduced, but it did not gain any traction until after the decline of mass importation of slaves and general collapse of the West Roman state. Idk what any of that has to do with the fiscal policies of empire vis-a-vis the point I was making. All you've done is confuse the issue.
There are absolutely some levels of political saliency from Rome to the modern day, though extremely strained and not usually very helpful, but none of that is what I was talking about, so idk why you brought it up.
At this point, I will just have to agree to disagree with you, as I don't think we are really talking the same language here at all.
Edit: As well, the studies and analysis I am referencing come from Marxist historians. I mean, we can definitely question if the entire idea of culture is some sort of liberal totem, but just taking this analysis as 'liberal' is... an interesting choice to say the least.