tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2241150498710897447..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Ottoman terror in 15th c. CroatiaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-57167144530364373712013-02-25T01:49:55.224+02:002013-02-25T01:49:55.224+02:00"Have you protested against ethnic cleansing ..."Have you protested against ethnic cleansing in Krajina" No, because that ethnic cleansing never happened. As everyone old enough can remember Krajina Serbs moved in no more than 3-4 days. It's impossible to cleans a region in such a short time. Their leaders asked them to leave and they followed their orders.Misohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06679436632507119813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63930326823619296962012-12-06T17:49:57.571+02:002012-12-06T17:49:57.571+02:00Thanks for blog :) Thanks for blog :) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72528550994719625442009-12-22T11:11:43.393+02:002009-12-22T11:11:43.393+02:00@formerjerseyboy, who kindly wrote
"I found m...@formerjerseyboy, who kindly wrote<br />"I found myself part of a group staging demonstrations in front of the UN building and in front of the Yugoslav consulate in New York city, protesting the massacre of Mulsim boys and men at Srebrenica. I have forever left behind the simple duality of Christian=good and Muslim=bad. Does that make me a "leftist?""<br /><br />It makes you one more victim of propaganda and probably hypocrite. Have you protested against ethnic cleansing in Krajina, or destruction of Serbian villages near the Srebrenica by muslims?szopenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04219188379320432806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55424484958980131902009-11-28T00:37:02.157+02:002009-11-28T00:37:02.157+02:00"The conflict between Greeks and Turks today ..."The conflict between Greeks and Turks today is mostly a clash between ideologies,cultures,religion and nationalisms". <br /><br />As is almost every other conflict today, not just that between Greek and Turk. That's the problem. To me ideologies,cultures,religion and nationalisms are unimportant, but to most people they are what defines their own existence.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13948026271412949652009-11-27T13:47:26.753+02:002009-11-27T13:47:26.753+02:00>>Almost certainly would be. But that raises...>>Almost certainly would be. But that raises the question of where would you draw the line between Eastern and Western Anatolians? They too would no doubt basically form a cline, just like the one across the Aegean. <br /><br />I wouldn't put a line between East and West Anatolians. I would put the central Anatolians in the middle. Point of the matter is that Anatolians are genetically much more diverse than Greeks are. <br /><br />>>But Dienekes sees no problem. Anyone who is not an Orthodox Christian and speaks Greek cannot be Greek, even if his or her parents were Greek. <br /><br />Unfortunately Dienekes is right. In politics genes have no say in the matter. The conflict between Greeks and Turks today is mostly a clash between ideologies,cultures,religion and nationalisms. <br /><br />Genetically it may be a conflict between mostly Greeks vs mostly Anatolians (incl. Greeks), but that is of no matter. What matters is that since medieval times, a new culture has infiltrated Anatolia and the Balkans which in general lines has been hostile to the prosperity of the Greek people and their culture. <br /><br />The genes of the first Ottomans died out, but their memes are very well present in the modern Turkish population.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01686325221772844935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86677371752767519852009-11-27T13:21:28.933+02:002009-11-27T13:21:28.933+02:00But Dienekes sees no problem. Anyone who is not an...<i>But Dienekes sees no problem. Anyone who is not an Orthodox Christian and speaks Greek cannot be Greek, even if his or her parents were Greek. </i><br /><br />That is incorrect. Any Greek who converted to Islam was set on his way of de-Hellenization, as he stopped going to church (where he heard Greek and congregated with other Greeks) and started going to the mosque (where he heard Arabic and congregated with Turks). His choice made it likely that he (or his children) would intermarry with Turks, and thus his children could very well speak Turkish. And so on.<br /><br />The point isn't that Islam makes one not Greek. The point is that a Greek's conversion to Islam, especially in the historical context that we are talking about, set him on a path of inevitable de-Hellenization.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41943191489427725762009-11-27T03:14:46.202+02:002009-11-27T03:14:46.202+02:00"I doubt that the ancient Greek Cypriots were..."I doubt that the ancient Greek Cypriots were genetically identical to the mainland Greeks". <br /><br />So Greeks are different from Turks but they're also different from today's Greek Cypriots? <br /><br />"On the other hand you can easlily argue that Western Anatolians are closer to Greeks than to Eastern Anatolians. In fact, I wonder whether Western Anatolians are closer to South Italians (aegean influence) than to Eastern Anatolians". <br /><br />Almost certainly would be. But that raises the question of where would you draw the line between Eastern and Western Anatolians? They too would no doubt basically form a cline, just like the one across the Aegean. <br /><br />But Dienekes sees no problem. Anyone who is not an Orthodox Christian and speaks Greek cannot be Greek, even if his or her parents were Greek. <br /><br />Unfortunately that attitude is precisely the attitude that encouraged the 'Ottoman terror in 15th c. Croatia', and continues to encourage similar problems today.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69660053834680113552009-11-26T14:34:35.750+02:002009-11-26T14:34:35.750+02:00>> And not all Greeks descend from the Aegea...>> And not all Greeks descend from the Aegean island population. Western and mainland Greeks are presumably as different from Aegean Greeks as are the inland Anatolians. The Aegean islands provide continuity along the Greek/Anatolian cline. <br /><br />That may be true, but keep in mind that these differences may have been present since ancient times. I doubt that the ancient Greek Cypriots were genetically identical to the mainland Greeks. All things considered though, evidence shows that Greeks from different localities show genetic similarities. Most Greeks cluster with other Greeks, South Italians and/or Western Turks. It's fair to say that they are an 'Aegean people'. Anatolians on the other hand show mutch more diversity. And whereas the Aegean islanders provide continuity along the aegean line, you can't argue that they are closer to Western Anatolians than to mainland Greeks. On the other hand you can easlily argue that Western Anatolians are closer to Greeks than to Eastern Anatolians. In fact, I wonder whether Western Anatolians are closer to South Italians (aegean influence) than to Eastern Anatolians.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01686325221772844935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76410988340813076192009-11-21T12:33:07.100+02:002009-11-21T12:33:07.100+02:00>>I would have thought that the boundary bet...>>I would have thought that the boundary between Greece and Anatolia has most often been artificial<br /><br />Anatolia is a very vast region. In the course of history the Greek world was far more connected to Western Anatolia rather than with central and especially eastern Anatolia. I suspect that Western Anatolians were and are genetically and culturally much more similar to the people in what is today Greece than are eastern Anatolians. <br /><br />So when comparing modern Turks and Greeks genetically keep in mind that Turks descend of ALL Anatolians and not just Greeks/Romioi.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01686325221772844935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64226058421094695802009-11-20T04:04:05.586+02:002009-11-20T04:04:05.586+02:00"They are the result of a fundamental differe..."They are the result of a fundamental difference in worldview and culture". <br /><br />To me there is very little difference between Islam and Christianity, or Judaism. They're all based on the same falsehoods, so the differences are hardly 'fundamental'. The differences are just used by those with a particular political agenda. The beliefs have been able to survive for so long only for that reason. So, in fact '1,000 years of conflict' CAN 'be be ascribed to some temporary political passion or historical circumstance'. And 1000 years is not very long at all in geological terms, or even in terms of a wider view of prehistory.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55305742450273462072009-11-19T11:31:43.313+02:002009-11-19T11:31:43.313+02:00So the main difference between Turk and Greek is t...<i>So the main difference between Turk and Greek is their respective religions, even though they are genetically very similar? </i><br /><br />The Greeks who changed their religion to Islam were cut off from the Greek nation and thus the process of their de-Hellenization and Turkification began. Something very similar happened to the Greeks who became members of the Latin church, they were cut off from the Greek nation and were largely de-Hellenized.<br /><br /><br /><i>I would have thought that the boundary between Greece and Anatolia has most often been artificial, political and temporary rather than cultural and genetic</i><br /><br />1,000 years of conflict cannot be be ascribed to some temporary political passion or historical circumstance. They are the result of a fundamental difference in worldview and culture.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90605837237939559042009-11-19T06:16:29.921+02:002009-11-19T06:16:29.921+02:00"They left the Greek nation and over a few ge..."They left the Greek nation and over a few generations became assimilated with other Muslims in all respects". <br /><br />So the main difference between Turk and Greek is their respective religions, even though they are genetically very similar? <br /><br />I would have thought that the boundary between Greece and Anatolia has most often been artificial, political and temporary rather than cultural and genetic. From the moment boats were first introduced to the Aegean Islands that cultural and genetic unit would most often have connected, rather than separated, Greece and Anatolia. <br /><br />The division certainly developed after the Persian wars but just before then the biggest cultural division had been within Greece, between Dorian and Ionian. We can also discern a more ancient troublesome boundary that developed between Mycenaeans and Minoans. The Trojan War seems to be associated in some way with the Mycenaean takeover of the Aegean from a Minoan, or Crete-centred, cultural and genetic collective. This collective had extended its influence right through the Mediterranean, and even into the Atlantic. <br /><br />The Aegean returned to being a connecting cultural and genetic unit over the long period between Alexander's and the Turkish empires. <br /><br />Greeks had certainly lived along the Anatolian Aegean coast from the time of the Trojan War, and presumably long before then. Southern Italy and Sicily were also part of this cultural and genetic collective. So all these people cease to be Greek once they adopt another religion?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26508893161472473172009-11-18T20:16:13.863+02:002009-11-18T20:16:13.863+02:00The vision of italian, or italics better (this is ...The vision of italian, or italics better (this is the term used to distingue ancient people from modern italians), is clearly exposed in the greek source.<br />Greeks clearly distinguished the numerous italic tribes from the etruschans and from the celts, because they clearly saw they were related among them.<br />Only after the concession of the Roman citizenship etruscans and cisalpin celts were considered italics, on the geographical base.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2607812989188152222009-11-18T15:22:03.695+02:002009-11-18T15:22:03.695+02:00>If you change the label on a bottle of wine, y...>If you change the label on a bottle of wine, you don't change its content. You limit yourself to the label, and don't see the wine. Greeks called themselves Graikoi, Hellenes, Romaioi, but that does not mean that every time they change a label, they become a new people.<br /><br />I agree to some extent. What about the Greek speaking Romans whose descendants came to be called Turks?<br /><br />>Romans saw themselves as Italians in the sense that they lived in Italy, and not in the sense of being part of an Italian nation, like modern Italians do<br /><br />I disagree. Read Vergil or Roman historians like Livy. There was a sense of being Italian long before the empire. In any case Rome united one Italy and made all Italians Romans qite early in their history.<br /><br />>Modern French and modern Italians alike, have the same relationship to the ancient Romans, i.e., they speak a Romance language<br /><br />That is surely not the only relationship these two peoples have to the Romans, and your description is highly unusual - quite different from how French or Italians see it for example. <br /><br />Once again you are seemingly equating language to ethnicity in a very simplistic way. When I asked you about this before you seemed to get stuck and loose track. Remember:- are the Irish a kind of English? Were Hellenophones in ancient Alexandria all Greek?<br /><br />>modern French are not ancient Gauls<br /><br />Yes of course, but they have a "relationship" and I would say that the French and Italians have different relationships to different ancient peoples. <br /><br />Anyway, how is it that you say that the modern Turks ARE the ancient Turks, and can justifiably be blamed as such?<br /><br />>Are you suggesting that we should love or hate people based on their degree of genetic relatedness?<br /><br />I am certainly not saying this, but I was wondering whether you are. Perhaps what you are saying is that we should love and hate people on the basis of linguistic relatedness? For example: "the modern French would be irrational to blame the modern Italians for what the ancient Romans did to the ancient Gauls, since (a) both French and Italians have the same relationship to the ancient Romans, so they could just as well blame themselves, and (b) the modern French are not ancient Gauls."<br /><br />By the way, yes of course a brother remains a brother even if you hate him or he hates you.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21610367945834393742009-11-17T22:40:12.676+02:002009-11-17T22:40:12.676+02:00>You confuse a civic with an ethnic identity. T...>You confuse a civic with an ethnic identity. The fact that people started calling themselves Romans does not mean that ethnic groups within the Empire disappeared.<br /><br />No, I am not confused. I am saying this is not how it was. Romans who spoke Greek and were left in the rump of the empire started to use the word Greek again to refer to their communities.<br /><br />>Caesar was a Roman, he was ethnically neither French nor Italian. Moreover, the French are ethnically related to the Romans, so, such a Frenchman would be doubly insane.<br /><br />So I am trying to work out the two way this person would be insane. It seems at first sight...<br /><br />1. They would be insane to suggest that Romans saw themselves as Italians and that Italians, a modern people see themselves (and are) related to the Romans? So this would mean that modern Greeks would be insane to equate modern Turks to the ones who invaded what is Turkey long ago, and whose ancestry is only a tiny part of Anatolian ancestry more generally?<br /><br />2. They would be insane to hate a people who descend from a people who invaded them anciently if they know that they are also related to that modern people? So of course given the contact you must say that modern Greeks are not related to modern Turks?<br /><br />Best Regards<br />AndrewAndrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52267369124825342842009-11-17T20:55:18.357+02:002009-11-17T20:55:18.357+02:00Arab,Roman,and Ottoman empires were cosmopolitan.
...Arab,Roman,and Ottoman empires were cosmopolitan.<br /><br />It's the european idea of nation-state that ruined all.<br /><br />If we are to make a parallel with lute,let's dont forget that lute came from arabic al ud(=the wood,note the similarity of arabic and english word=lislakh?)but this dont mean that the arabic ud(ie the characteristic lute used by arabs)was necessarly made by an arab(cosmopolitan society).<br /><br />The same is for pandouri(pandora's box)wich is said to came from arabic tunbur which could came form sumerian pantur(pan=small,tur=bow)or egyptian nbr(=playin a music instrument)or even from arabic nabara(=producing sounds)or akkadien tanburu(=sound instrument,similar to talpushu=clothing from semitic lbs)<br /><br />If the sumerian hypothesis is the most plausible one(than the egyptian and semitic hypothesis) one could think that pantur appeared in the very period after semite akkadian migrations to south mesopotamia and their symbiosis with sumerians(k haplogroup?)so it could have benn brought by akkadians or that the symbiosis between akkadians and sumerians triggered "its invention"<br /> <br />or that it was built by a sumerian ethnic <br /><br />or by a semite akkadian ethnic and named with one of the 2 languages of the "dual" sumero-akkadian mixed society(in this case sumerian).<br /><br />bouzouki came from bozuq(saz)[bozuq is turkish for broken and saz is persian for built]but it could have been first made by a greek or persian or armenian or assyrian or arab...person.<br /><br />greek kementses come from the persian word kementshe but it's the arab rebab which is considered according to wikipedia the father of all bowed instruments(such as lira,rebbec,fiddle)<br /><br />so the culture(or at least for its musical component)show clearly the extraordinary and friendly symbiosis between ancient world peoples.<br /><br />so<br /><br />sumerians(and sumero-akkadians)=>afrasians(semites and egyptians)=>indo-iranians(and iranians)=>greeks=>arabs=>latins=>germans..<br /><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambur<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemencheashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52245541487885275162009-11-17T20:01:58.996+02:002009-11-17T20:01:58.996+02:00So the question was, were the religious wars withi...<i>So the question was, were the religious wars within and around the Eastern Roman empire not the same type of intra-communal fight when they first began?</i><br /><br />Let's not be vague. We were not discussing "religious wars", but the Muslim conquest and occupation of parts of the Roman Empire and of Spain. And, no, the fact that Muslim Arabs took over Roman lands and annexed them to the khalifate is not "intra-communal" warfare, but foreign invasion.<br /><br /><i>Do you have any sources for that claim? Was it really seen this way? From what I have read it always seems to me that the main name citizens gave to themselves collectively was Roman.</i><br /><br />You confuse a civic with an ethnic identity. The fact that people started calling themselves Romans does not mean that ethnic groups within the Empire disappeared. <br /><br /><i>So an Frenchman who hates Italians because of what Ceasar did in France would not be insane according to you?</i><br /><br />Caesar was a Roman, he was ethnically neither French nor Italian. Moreover, the French are ethnically related to the Romans, so, such a Frenchman would be doubly insane.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16285121155764656372009-11-17T19:27:21.308+02:002009-11-17T19:27:21.308+02:00Aner Lan-castrum says: "So a Frenchman who ha...Aner Lan-castrum says: "So a Frenchman who hates Italians because of what Ceasar did in France would not be insane according to you?"<br /><br />That it is what happens usually. The prejudice against Romans is very frequent on this forum and on others, without thinking to what is really Celt or Roman in today's Europeans. The friend Faux' thinking about R-U152 as a Celt haplogroup is clearly not true, being overall present in Italy also in places which never had a Celt presence. And also to link R-L21 to the Celt people is very problematic.<br /><br />About Frenchmen, thinking to the role they had from Charlemagne in protecting the Church and the pope then against the unity of Italy, Italians could in the same way to regret that Ceasar hasn't been more ferocious.Gioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999270356447668208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84645830756274914202009-11-17T16:59:44.581+02:002009-11-17T16:59:44.581+02:00>The British Commonwealth is neither a nation n...>The British Commonwealth is neither a nation nor an ethnic group.<br /><br />And neither was the Roman empire, nor even the Eastern Roman empire, nor even the Turkish version. Of course empires or parts of empires can come to be ethnic groups, for example today's Turks certainly derive some of what defines their ethnic group from the history of their part of the Roman empire. (And I would say many Irish people are comfortable with the concept of there being an "Anglo-Celtic" (a term common in Australia) or "English speaking" people (a more common term).<br /><br />Going back to where this came from, a fight between the Irish and the occupying English was "intra" a certain community, although not one we'd call an ethnos, just like the case of Protestants and Catholics fighting each other which you mentioned yourself, who were also not necessarily in the same ethnic groups. Correct?<br /><br />So the question was, were the religious wars within and around the Eastern Roman empire not the same type of intra-communal fight when they first began?<br /><br />(Yes, of course these factions eventually did become completely different empires, and peoples. But once again anachronism is a danger here.)<br /><br />>Greeks were the dominant nation (both in terms of numbers and in terms of cultural influence) within the Byzantine Empire<br /><br />Do you have any sources for that claim? Was it really seen this way? From what I have read it always seems to me that the main name citizens gave to themselves collectively was Roman.<br /><br />>"Military acts" establish relationships based on unequal power. The military act of Muslims conquering Spaniards established a society in which Christians were subservient to Muslims, and Christians were justified in wanting to undo this act by expelling Muslims and restoring the status quo ante.<br /><br />So an Frenchman who hates Italians because of what Ceasar did in France would not be insane according to you?Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69971789352526493662009-11-17T11:43:08.219+02:002009-11-17T11:43:08.219+02:00it's possible that the pandouris was develpoed...it's possible that the pandouris was develpoed from a more ancient instrument, sumerian maybe, but for sure it's the only fretted instrument we know from the ancient age.<br />It wasn't the great artists instrument, they prefered the Lyra. In all the greek-roman age it was the instrument of the low class people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8444806688721647452009-11-16T14:03:20.583+02:002009-11-16T14:03:20.583+02:00Thank you for the explanation.Thank you for the explanation.ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53127901295514689232009-11-16T04:51:35.286+02:002009-11-16T04:51:35.286+02:00"Because the construction of the box of reson..."Because the construction of the box of resonance is built in very different way". <br /><br />The difference is based on the way the note can be altered. In the harp family each note is fixed in pitch, obtained from a single string attached to the soundboard. In the lute family the strings run across a fingerboard from a bridge on the sounboard, so the note can be altered by altering the string's length. Although the santur has a bridge the individual strings cannot be altered in pitch during the performance, so it is a kind of harp, not a lute. <br /><br />"those in your image can't be called luths". <br /><br />True for most of them, but this link does show lutes, similar to modern day African Halam: <br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/Egyptianluteplayers.jpg<br /><br />The instruments shown at most of the other links Ashraf provided are in the harp family, such as: <br /><br />http://www.visualbiblealive.com/image-bin/Public/045/03/045_03_0047_VOT2_prev.jpg<br /><br />But I agree that the instrument shown at the following link appears to be in the lute family. It seems to have a bridge and fingerboard: <br /><br />http://www.guitarteachingbooks.co.uk/Images/hittite-guitar-player.gif<br /><br />Being Hittite they are not Semitic. I've no idea how old the halam-like Egyptian instruments in the wiki link are, but they could well be a product of instruments postdating the Hittite expansion. So the comment, 'The first true luth is the pandouris' cannot be correct, unless the instrument the Hittites are pictured playing is a pandouris. <br /><br />The conclusion can only be that musical instruments, ethnic groups, languages, religions and genes have been zipping around the world for a very long time. To regard any of them as being, or belonging to, distinct entities of long standing is to completely miss the boat.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35192738266443439462009-11-16T00:27:50.688+02:002009-11-16T00:27:50.688+02:00"Because the construction of the box of reson..."Because the construction of the box of resonance is built in very different way."<br /><br />source?ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31174922224414081112009-11-15T23:18:24.592+02:002009-11-15T23:18:24.592+02:00No, but they would be part of the English speaking...<i>No, but they would be part of the English speaking world which shares a common heritage of having been in the British Commonwealth</i><br /><br />The British Commonwealth is neither a nation nor an ethnic group.<br /><br /><i>You miss it because for you "Byzantine" means "Greek" whereas it in fact refers to a multinational empire that referred to itself as Roman</i><br /><br />Byzantine does not mean Greek, but Greeks were the dominant nation (both in terms of numbers and in terms of cultural influence) within the Byzantine Empire.<br /><br /><i>And in Constantinople. Which part of the Roman empire did they not mix in?</i><br /><br />Co-existing or mixing with either nations does not, of course, mean that nations do not exist. There is hardly a country or major city in Europe that doesn't have a polyethnic population today, but clearly this does not mean that ethnic groups have ceased to exist.<br /><br /><i>But we were specifically talking about a sense of the word "Greek" (or Turk) which would be strong enough that you could say that a person deserves expulsion from his home, and his ancestor's home on the basis of a military act centuries earlier.</i><br /><br />"Military acts" establish relationships based on unequal power. The military act of Muslims conquering Spaniards established a society in which Christians were subservient to Muslims, and Christians were justified in wanting to undo this act by expelling Muslims and restoring the status quo ante.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56742905754697728492009-11-15T21:23:05.237+02:002009-11-15T21:23:05.237+02:00"Why they can not be called luths?
And what a..."Why they can not be called luths?<br />And what about the Hittite luth here below"<br /><br />Because the construction of the box of resonance is built in very different way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com