"Intellectual" is a dirty word.

BBB
My experience with intellectuals indicates there are two types. One type is narrowly educated on a specific path, usually a profession, often an academic. The other type is widely educated, deeply curious and a life long student.

The first types often have little common sense to take care of all facets of life beyond their interests. The second types may have the same problem, but are more inclined to have some common sense so they don't screw up their lives as much.

Sometimes it is worrisome when intellectuals achieve public policy influence. They don't have real life experience to apply their theories to real life people and circumstances. This has been the complaints about academics. I have known many people who were not exposed to much education but were profoundly wise and full of common sense. Which type is better off for themselves and for the common good?

We saw this in the Bush administration when neocon intellectuals dominated Bush's policies with regard to foreign policy. Another concern I have about Barack Obama is that he has little governing experience. He announced that he is relying on intellectuals he knows well and trusts from his university days to advise him on foreign and domestic policy. He has to have the judgement to discern good advice from bad. That lack of judgment is Bush's fatal flaw.

BBB

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The New Testament does not deal with European history. I'm not surprised, though, that you don't know that.

You said, "Jews were not tax collectors," which is an incorrect statement.

If you want to clarify your inaccurate remark, go right ahead.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The New Testament does not deal with European history. I'm not surprised, though, that you don't know that.

Jews were tax collectors in medieval Europe, since under feudalism and the Church, good Christian peasants were not supposed to handle money. The Jew could handle money, since he had no proscription against it. Plus, it served the aristocracy for the peasants to think that the Jew had all of the peasants' tax money, since any rebellion would then be against the Jews, and not the aristocracy. The peasants didn't realize the Jewish tax collector was only given a small pittance of the collected taxes, and the rest went to the king or prince. This all made sense, since the king owned the Jews in his kingdom, the same way he owned the deer in his forests, or his hunting spaniels. The term was in fact used, "the king's Jews." Everyone under feudalism served a needed function, the peasants, the Church, the aristocracy, the king's Jews.

The above facts are in secular history, not the New Testament, which, as you pointed out, does not get involved in European history, since Europe was still barbarians at the time of Jesus.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

..since Europe was still barbarians at the time of Jesus.

You mean that the Romans that ruled Palestine at the time of Jesus were barbarians?

Look your history again...

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Foofie wrote:
..since Europe was still barbarians at the time of Jesus.

You mean that the Romans that ruled Palestine at the time of Jesus were barbarians?

Look your history again...

Sorry; I meant northern Europe. The Romans were not barbarians, since the definition of barbarian meant, one who would/or could not speak Latin. The Romans spoke Latin, but with a Brooklyn accent. (Just kidding.)

But, the Franks hadn't yet settled in France? So, who was in France during the time of Jesus?

0 Replies

I meant you know very little about history, Foofie, or everything else for that matter.

You want me to lecture you about the Gaul (Latin: Gallia) and the Gauls?

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

I meant you know very little about history, Foofie, or everything else for that matter.

You want me to lecture you about the Gaul (Latin: Gallia) and the Gauls?

Hey what about the Celts?

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Hey what about the Celts?

Just for you, McT:

Quote:

The Gauls were Celts which was a word coined in the 17th century to describe the people that inhabited the British Isles and Gaul which not only consisted of France but parts of Spain (see Gallaecia nowadays Galicia), northern Portugal and northern Italy.

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

I meant you know very little about history, Foofie, or everything else for that matter.

You want me to lecture you about the Gaul (Latin: Gallia) and the Gauls?

Weren't the Gauls a barbaric tribe? They weren't Greeks or Romans with their respective cultures. I'd guess they have some meaning to you, but for me they could have just been the earliest practitioners of mime?

Regardless, European history is not a big interest of mine. American history is. As you are likely aware, anything outside the United States is, for me, of minor interest. No need for me to be Eurocentric. I was only making the point that Jews were tax collectors in medieval Europe. Perhaps due to some degree of ethnicity, European Jewish (Ashkenazi) history has some interest to me. But, I don't let it take up much time. I'd rather spend it reading about American history. You see, some Americans, I believe, regardless of ethnic background have adopted the American Anglo Saxon history, that goes back to England. I know the French were very much part of the early exploration of North America, but the English, settling it as families seem to have gotten the edge on proselytizing an interest in their history and culture. My ancestor's European history is so inconsequential, it is pathetic, so adopting the history of the early (English) settlers has more panache.

0 Replies

Hey, are you all waxing nostagic over wandering tribes? What did they do? The Romans had Pax Romana, the Greeks gave us philosophy and a concept of democracy. Both gave us art. What could wandering tribes do?

Did they have a written alphabet, or did they have to borrow the Roman's Latin alphabet? Who cares what wandering tribes did? So they plotzed on a portion of Europe and forever after lived a life, waiting to be Christianized and effectively managed by feudalism.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

European Jewish (Ashkenazi) history has some interest to me.

Don't try to pretend you know something of what you are talking about, Foofie.

Even your related ethnicity, doesn't allow you to utter all kinds of vague concepts.

Sephardi Jews originated from Spain and Portugal. These countries are Europe, as far as I know.

Now, for your interest in American history, that's a good thing.

Forgetting all other cultures and civilizations is a sign of a poor mind..

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Hey, are you all waxing nostagic over wandering tribes? What did they do? The Romans had Pax Romana, the Greeks gave us philosophy and a concept of democracy. Both gave us art. What could wandering tribes do?

Did they have a written alphabet, or did they have to borrow the Roman's Latin alphabet? Who cares what wandering tribes did? So they plotzed on a portion of Europe and forever after lived a life, waiting to be Christianized and effectively managed by feudalism.

What unashamed, ill-informed and incurious tripe.

Nay, balderdash.

Still by your own admission, Foofie, you don't know about that stuff, and what does it matter? It all happened a long time ago, and outside the United States at that.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

So they plotzed on a portion of Europe and forever after lived a life, waiting to be Christianized and effectively managed by feudalism.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion. I've been reading quietly along.

To plotz means to be overcome with emotion; give way to excitement, anger, delight, etc.

Is this what you intended to say, foofie?

(I know from plotzing; that's why I chimed in.)

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The New Testament does not deal with European history. I'm not surprised, though, that you don't know that.

You said, "Jews were not tax collectors," which is an incorrect statement.

If you want to clarify your inaccurate remark, go right ahead.

It is not an inaccurate remark, because it refers to Foofie's remark:

Quote:

The ability to read requires no more evolution of our brains than what man had during the Middle Ages. I don't underestimate man of the Middle Ages. Religion and feudalism was melded to give the peasants a culture that kept them in their place. It was a popular culture that illiterates could understand. For example, it made sense that the tax collector was a Jew, since good Christians should not touch money.

You could understand these things more easily by following along carefully to understand them in context.

Why don't you try reading the thread . . . start at page 1.

Jackass.

0 Replies

Roberta wrote:

Foofie wrote:

So they plotzed on a portion of Europe and forever after lived a life, waiting to be Christianized and effectively managed by feudalism.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion. I've been reading quietly along.

To plotz means to be overcome with emotion; give way to excitement, anger, delight, etc.

Is this what you intended to say, foofie?

(I know from plotzing; that's why I chimed in.)

Well, I was using "plotzed" like in a sentence, "I was so tired when I got home, I just plotzed onto the couch." A young lady would learn at charm school, in days gone by, how to seat herself elegantly, not to plotz down on a chair.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You could understand these things more easily by following along carefully to understand them in context.

Why don't you try reading the thread . . . start at page 1.

Jackass.

What I would suggest is you write what you mean. If you meant to limit your remark to a certain geographic region or time in history, then you should limit you remark accordingly. It's pretty damn funny that you think your lack of accuracy and/or clarity is due to my inability to ready your mind. What you SAID was, "Jews were not tax collectors." Which is ridiculous.

Numskull.

0 Replies

As i said, you should read the thread. In context, people are not expected to endlessly repeat the details of matters under discussion. The only kind of person who would expect that would be a . . .

Moron.

0 Replies

Can't resist...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNYcc3qAKVs

RH

<snort>

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Foofie wrote:
European Jewish (Ashkenazi) history has some interest to me.

Don't try to pretend you know something of what you are talking about, Foofie.

Even your related ethnicity, doesn't allow you to utter all kinds of vague concepts.

Sephardi Jews originated from Spain and Portugal. These countries are Europe, as far as I know.

Now, for your interest in American history, that's a good thing.

Forgetting all other cultures and civilizations is a sign of a poor mind..

Sephardim (not Sephardi, if you are trying to denote the plural) did come from Spain (arriving 300 BC, yet they were told they had to leave 1800 years later, since they weren't authentic/pure Spaniards - Christianized Visigoths that came hundreds of years later. Talk about audacity) and with the Inquisition some must have gone to live in Moslems lands, even though others went to Holland, Portugal and Italy. So, in modern times, Jews living in North Africa, France, Italy, Spain, in effect Mediterranean countries, are thought of as Sephardim -descendants of the Jews that left Spain.

The Ashkenzi Jews are supposedly part of some group that originally settled in Germany and then went to Eastern Europe, or other Western European countries.

The two groups tend to be separate. Separate synagogues amongst other separations.

Needless to say, my interest in Ashkenazi Jewish history is because I relate to the Jewish history of the Ashkenazi Jews. But you are correct. Sephardim live in Europe. I guess I have my bias for the world of Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe.

0 Replies

Roberta wrote:

Foofie wrote:

So they plotzed on a portion of Europe and forever after lived a life, waiting to be Christianized and effectively managed by feudalism.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion. I've been reading quietly along.

To plotz means to be overcome with emotion; give way to excitement, anger, delight, etc.

Is this what you intended to say, foofie?

(I know from plotzing; that's why I chimed in.)

I'm guessing you were thinking of the word like in a sentence, "Oh my God! I was so startled in seeing him at the party, I nearly plotzed!"

By the way, on tv you hear women saying, "Oh my God!" as an exclamation for this or that. I believe it started in NYC, by princesses sometime in the late '70's or early '80's.

0 Replies

"Intellectual" is a dirty word.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know