An Odd Culture- Weekly Journal 6- Greek Lit
Thurs 2–16 1.5 hours (Class) 8:00am–9:30am
Today, after the quiz, we did an activity in translating Greek to English. The activity wasn’t as hard as I initially thought it would be but after traanslating the letters to english characters I looked up the words so in a way I took a shortcut. I found the activity very interesting because I learned a great deal about the origin of a variety of words. Outside of the stories and principles within, one of the most interesting parts of the class, to me, is the greek translations of words and discerning which english words they have led to. I’ve always been intrigued by linguistics, studying the intricacies of language, how words came to be and exactly what they mean. I feel that if you have a better understanding of where language came from and what it actually means it will make you a better writer and thinker. I really enjoy writing and I try to diversify my vocabulary as much as possible especially when I write anything that is more than two pages. The lessons and side notes dealing with greek words and their meaning has helped me a great deal in learning new words and therefore forming new ideas on how to write or present certain ideas.
Fri 2–17 3 hours 2pm-5pm
I read the first half of book 4 of Herodotus this afternoon. The Scythian are the opposing group of the chapter and they’re the most interesting thus far. They gained my interest mainly because of their nomadic habits but their culture definitely made them the most interesting to me. Herodotus lables them as savages and basically outlines their cultures as barbarous as he systematically discuses it but at the same time I feel like this is what made them a formidable group against the Persians. The fact that they were so “savage” and under developed as a people allowed them to live their nomadic life style. Even though they could not fight the Persians head on they were still in a position to outsmart them and chip away at their forces because they weren’t attached to material things or certain lands. There was an explanation that they only way that they were actually tied to any physical cite on earth was through the tombs of their dead. Whenever there is a discussion of the dead or any kind of family ties I commonly think back to the ideas of respecting the gods and basically being an upstanding person so that you don’t get cursed. I feel that if any army attacked the tomb of any enemy’s dead this would definitely result in a curse being placed upon the army. Even still, at the other end of this same thought, the culture of the Scythians can be seen as “Godless”. Godless and savage cultures have historically been seen as synonymous. Many Europeans, as they set out on conquests and voyages, often imposed rule or control over other cultures that they deemed to be savage or godless especially if they served their own gods. Even though there are no direct connections between these two cultures I feel that, thematically, there are parallels in those two scenarios based out of the thought of a more advanced or longstanding culture going into another to dominate and introduce a foreign god, cutstoms and traditions on this new group. Herodotus often compares the customs and worship of the gods of the greek to others that he encounters or speaks upon. He does a good job of not inserting bias but at the same time to label a group as savage is to stigmatize them. The Scythians just have a different way of doing things but in the end I would agree if any culture would have to be labeled as savage they fulfill many of the guidelines. While describing their culture there were a few things that seemed to be done purely for the sake of violence and extremity. As herodotus opened up about them, the analysis of the Scythians went from mildly perplexing to wildly odd. To me the drinking of the blood of your first kill was somewhat understandable. It was seen as a ritual that was undertaken when a Scythian officially became a warrior and in many culture, the drinking of an enemy’s blood is seen as consuming their spirit after death which in turn would make a warrior more powerful. This, in context of the Scythians being a less civilized people, makes sense and has a purpose in their culture and supposed strength as warriors. Then there was the descriptions of how they used the bodies of their enemies after they have been killed and to me there was no logic behind anything moving from that point. The scythians skin their enemies and stretch the hides out on display and also use the scalps of said enemies basically as napkins. Among other things, these actions seem to have no significant purpose outside of tradition and what may be the intimidation of other people around them. In this context I would say that, removing the comparison of cultures and gods, these actions can be categorized as those of savages and the uncivilized. Shifting to focus on the story telling aspect, I feel that setting the Scythians up as such uncivilized and savage people helps to build the narrative of how the Persians lost to them. Not only were these people uncivilized in that they didn’t own or claim any land or civilization, they were also formidable enemies in their intimidation tactics and strategies in fighting the Persians. I felt that the Scythians were characterized as formidable in every sense and a true enemy to fear, especially when they asked their neighbors for help and led the fight to those who refused anyway. I enjoyed the way this story was told throughout the book and the reactions of those who were present at the time.
Tues 2–21 1.5 hours 8:00am-9:30am
During class we finished going over the translation of the greek passage. Again I was highly interested in the translation of words and understanding the origin of some of our modern words and exactly what they mean. The discussion about the meaning of philanthropist and misanthropist, a lover of humans and a hater of humans respectfully, led to talking about the political system, returning to a passage of Herodotus. We discussed the passage in which Otanes, Megabyzus and Darius discuss which form of government Persia should have after they overthrow Cambyses. Each man proposed a different form of government; Otanes proposed democracy, Megabyzus offered oligarchy and Darius rooted for monarchy. In the end the seven men present decided to vote in monarchy for the form of rule and Darius was made the acting king after that discussion. After talking about this scene in depth Prof. Sandridge then discussed the 3 main arguments against democracy. The common citizen isn’t intelligent enough to make decisions about governing. Democracies are inefficient in answering questions and getting things done. Democracy needs too much transparency to work, sometimes those who are governing need to be secretive and this is unacceptable within democracy. As these three points were laid out, the class had a discussion on the modern applicability of these three points. I completely agree with each point, especially as a political science major, I feel that at times monarchies and oligarchies are the most effective and effieicent forms of government. In a democratic republic such as the U.S., the shining exmple of democracy for the rest of the world, a great deal of things can go wrong in the governing and electoral process. This falls heavily upon the first point, that average citizens aren’t educated or well informed enough to make political decisions. Being a student of political science I’ve noticed that more than anything people make political decisions based on what people in power tell them or make them think and not necessarily facts. I firmly believe that a person shouldn’t participate in politics if they dont know at leaast the basic facts about the points that their candidate speaks about. More often than not, a politician or key firgure will speak about and offer certain changes that can’t be done or will have unmentioned conequences. Many people don’t take the time out to fact check so they simply vote and advocate for the person who sounds the most beneficial. This point was rased in our class discussion as well.
At some point in the lecture Prof. Sandridge quoted Abraham Lincoln, “Any man can stand adversity but to truly test his character, give him power”. This made me think back to a variety of experiences in my life and to the fact that I find leadership to be a very fickle and difficult subject. I feel that theres a wide range of types of leadership and leaders. There are leaders who arise out of necessity and also leaders who force their way into a position. I often find that those who naturally rise to become leaders through ecessity are much more reliable and fit to be a leader. On the other hand, a leader who forces them self into a leadership position usually has a flaw, which is often the thirst for power. Tying this back into the quote being a leader doesn’t necessarily upholding everyone during a time of adversity but also constantly setting an example and tone that will carry the group that is being led to the best level of prosperity. If someone is power hungry they may want to be in control of everything when, as a leader it is important to know when to dilute your power to others to be more efficient and effective as a leader. This is a principle that often leads to many failing as a leader, being that sometimes a single person isn’t equipped with all the skills and knowledge that is needed to lead a people. The integration of the quote intrigued me in that it reminded me of examples in my life as well as shows that I’ve watched throughout the years.
Weds 2–22 5 hours 10am- 12pm, 8pm-11pm
I took time out to finish the book as well as do review for the quiz. After finishing the book I found review articles and videos online to help me retain the information that I had just read. The story that held my interest the most from the second half of book four was that of the Barkaians. Barke was established after a fight between brothers over power took place. Arkesilaos was one of hose killed in said battle and his death lent to the establishment of Barke. Soon thereafter the Persians came into their territory and tricked them into being conquered. This was done by estblishing an oath that was actually a play on words that was soon invalidated. Once the Barkaians were captured, Pheretime, the mother of Arkesilaos saw this as a time to exact her revenge for those ho let her son be killed. Pheretime gathers the men and impales them along the walls. She does the same to the women as well except she also cuts off their breasts and hangs them along the wall as well. Pheretime then leaves this area and goes to live elsewhere but by then she suffers a worm infestation that is placed upon her by the gods for her crimes. The worms infest her entire body and she then dies. I have discussed this in pervious journals but I feel that there is a great deal of inconsistency in when the god decide to punish someone for doing something. The actions that Pheretime commited were atrocious but at the same time why not punish the brothers who killed one another or many of the other transgressions among family members that take place throughout the story that are carrried out without consequence. In this situation I suppose that the only argument that I can think of as to why she was punished by the gods is because she killed many innocent people in her actions. There are a variety of Greek mythological stories in which the gods allow mortal to chase revenge and it is even encouraged in many stories but Pheretime went beyond that in her mass murder of the Barkains. Even still, I feel that there are no rigid rules or course of action relating to when the gods punish a mortal.
