Posted on 03/27/2007 12:57:21 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
By now, dozens of critics have weighed in on the massive box office success of 300, but not one I’ve read has figured out the reason for it. I have: it’s a terrific picture, one of the best in years. When I compare it to the movies that were nominated for Best Picture Oscars last year, it makes them seem to be exactly what they were: watered-down warm milk for liberal baby boomers who want to close the curtains on World War III, and snuggle down under their tie-dyed covers for a long winter’s nap full of tangerine dreams.
They are a weary failure of a generation. Like the British Edwardians before them, they could not live up to the achievements of their elders. So they invented a new set of rules, rules that sounded daring and dangerous and radical, but are in fact puerile, safe and anesthetic. Does western civilization require defense and sacrifice? Well, then ho, ho, ho, western civ has got to go. Does political freedom require responsibility and self-discipline? Well, then we’ll redefine freedom as individual licentiousness. Do other, lesser cultures want to destroy us? Well, then, we’ll join them in blaming America and avoid any unpleasantness. In short, the baby boomers’ leftist philosophy amounts to nothing more than an elaborate rationalization of their own cowardice and a way to dull the pain of the resultant self-disgust.....
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalmavens.com ...
Actually, the events depicted in the movie are more or less accurate, from what we can gather from the ancient historical sources. The Persians only crushed the Spartans because of Ephialtes' betrayal, and the the burning of Athens is not within the timeframe of the movie, coming later after the Persians had pressed further into Greece.
The Spartans were mostly homosexuals
Correction - the Spartans (as with most other Greeks), were homoerotic. They did not practice a "homosexual lifestyle" in the sense that us moderns think of it. Pederasty was common in ancient Greece. NAMBLA would, in many ways, have been quite at home in Athens. The Thebans had an elite band of warriors made up entirely of pairs of male lovers. It was a vice that afflicted Greek society generally.
They were authoritarian that is why they fought with and did not respect the Athenians
MOST Greek city-states at the time were authoritarian, either monarchies or under the various tyrants. Even Athens lived under Peisestratus for a while. The Athenians themselves, even under the democracy, still managed to execute Socrates, oppress their "allies" in the Delian league, even razing city-states that wouldn't cooperate with them, and kept a full quarter of their population as slaves.
They did not believe in democracy or the Western way of life as claimed
Well, "democracy" is not the end all and be all of the Western way of life. Indeed, most of Western history has NOT been characterised by a great love of democracy. Even Athenian democracy was not what we think of by the term today.
They are not exactly the models of modern society or the advents of modern democracy
And nobody has said they were. The Spartans had a LOT of serious problems with their societal ethos, not the least of which was that they were themselves an imperial state which had conquered Messenia during the Archaic period and kept the Messenians as helots - serfs tied to land and kept as third-class citizens. Young Spartan men, before their full entry into the Spartan military aristocratic society, would serve a couple of years as "secret policemen", spying on the helots for any signs of dissent, and would more or less summarily execute any thought to be subversive. So yes, Sparta definitely had its problems, and even in Classical Greece, it was viewed as a backward and regressive state.
But the point of the movie, and why we should yet be glad for the sacrifice of the Spartans (and Thebans, and Thespiaens) at Thermopylae is that they really did, historically speaking, give the rest of Greece time to get it together to defend the cradle of our civilisation from the Persians. If they hadn't done so, our whole Western civilisation might well have been strangled in the crib. Leonidas gave Themistocles time to win at Salamis, and this battle, along with Plataea, Marathon, and Salamis, were instrumental in altering the entire course of world history.
That's why this baby boomer is a proud libertarian.
Libertarians will pick up the pieces after the two group-think parties have run this country into the ground, and are run out of town.
BUMP
No, the Republicans are failing because the Republican "leadership" is a copycat of the Democrats.
Unfortunately, on the social issues that count, the Libertarians are a copycat of the Democrats, which is why the Libertarians have gotten about zero traction in the last thirty years.
Yes, that all sounds about where I'm at, too.
***I'm really sick of the Boomer bashing. ***
I AM THE BOOMER GENERATION! I can say what I want about them, yet I have not been tainted by the 1960's radicalism.
Libertarians are the future of this great country because baby boomers are about to retire and govt spending must be brought under control. Republicans are now big spenders and they have lost my vote.
The recent reality is that 70% of Americans no longer support the far right (busybody & hawk) wings of the Republican party as reflected by the 30% popularity of the President. Since I believe in a strong defense I am not part of that 30%. But Congressional Republicans are running from him just look at the recent elections and the anti-war bill just passed.
In many ways this is 1970s revisited.
BUMP
Libertarians are the future of America? Please. Tell me, if the Republicans ever stop trying to be America's sugar daddy, will they get your vote back? If not, then I'd say their big spending wasn't the reason you stopped voting for them in the first place.
The recent reality is that 70% of Americans no longer support the far right (busybody & hawk) wings of the Republican party as reflected by the 30% popularity of the President. Since I believe in a strong defense I am not part of that 30%. But Congressional Republicans are running from him just look at the recent elections and the anti-war bill just passed.
This is a somewhat broad statement that seems to try to distill about ten dozen different motivations people might have for disapproving of the President's job performance into one (the "busybody and hawk" wing of the party). I mean, when polled, *I* disapproved of Bush's performance - because I'm unhappy with his spending and with his non-performance on the illegal immigration issue, among other things. To point to his 35% (closer to reality, like it really matters) approval rating, and read a libertarian impulse into it is simply quixotic on your part.
The fact of the matter is that, on philosophical matters, the majority of Americans are with the GOP. If the GOP leadership would ever step up to the plate, and bring its practice back into line with its theory, then it'd be the Reagan years all over again. And I hate to tell the libertarians this, but that includes the social issues as well. I know that libertarians have this fantasy that a vast majority of Americans really are cool with abortion on demand and gay marriage, and that these only exist as viable political issues because the evil, busy-body, nanny-state Religious Right keeps spending their tithe money on newspaper advertisements, but facts simply don't bear this out. Abortion is a winning issue for the GOP - polling for the last decade shows that a small-but-consistent majority of Americans take at least a soft pro-life stance, and much larger majorities oppose federal funding of abortion (which, to their credit, so do most libertarians), partial birth abortion, and support numerous restrictions on abortion such as parental notification laws. As for gay marriage (which is *not* a "bedroom issue", by the way), even in liberal states like Oregon, the public opposes it by at least 60%. Winning issues for the GOP, and also opposition to both abortion and gay marriage have the added advantage of simply being the right stances to take.
In many ways this is 1970s revisited. And look what happened in the 1970s. Even with the Damoclean swords of Vietnam and Watergate hanging over the proto-RINO Ford, he almost beat Carter (pop. vote was 50.1% to 48.0%, EV 297-240), and that was when the South was still solidly Democratic (VA and OK were the only Southern states to go for Ford). When the GOP got it together and presented a true conservative candidate, they thrashed Carter. Hopefully, the GOP will present such a candidate in 2008, I believe Fred Thompson to be the best choice in this regard, and repeat their performance in 1980.
Bump!
Correction - the Spartans (as with most other Greeks), were homoerotic. They did not practice a "homosexual lifestyle" in the sense that us moderns think of it. Pederasty was common in ancient Greece. NAMBLA would, in many ways, have been quite at home in Athens. The Thebans had an elite band of warriors made up entirely of pairs of male lovers. It was a vice that afflicted Greek society generally."
Actually that is not correct, NAMBLA and any "homosexual" would have been ostracized, stripped of citizenship, exiled or put to death in most ancient Greek cities, inculding Sparta, Athens and Thebes(of whom the first case of same-sex pedophile was taught to Thebian children as one who destroyed their whole civilization for generations to come because of his sexual prefrences). This myth that ancient Greeks were "NAMBLA" members or "homosexuals" came about in the late 19th century by certain pseudo scholars as I like to call them who were themselves NAMBLA and homosexuals. These 'scholars' turned a whole civilization into some NAMBLA freaks to justify their own lifestyles. In the 20th century the Gay movement took this one step further and turned ancient Greece into a "heaven" for homoseuxals. All of which was bogus. The ancient Greeks viewed homosexuality and pedophilia in a negative way, they called them "crime against nature", "deviant behavior", "as bad as a child having sex with his parents or borthers and sisters having sex with each other":
"Whether these matters are to be regarded as sport, or as earnest, we must not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature" ~Plato Laws 636
Aeschines in his speech which is the most detailed "LEGAL" document we have of ancient Greek laws also reference the Lacedaemonians in where he speaks about how the Spartans during one of their assembly events were '[a] man who in despite of nature has shamed against his own body' by taking part in such activities when he was younger was basically kicked out by the Spartans and Aeschines used this event to praises the Lacedaemonians ways by quoting an old Athenian saying "kalon d' esti dai tas xenikas mimeisthai" translation: "well to imitate virtue even in a foreigner." ~ Aeschines: Against Timarchus ([180]-[181])
[13]The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. "But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other. ~Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 2.13
It should be mentioned here that in the original Classical Greek Xenophon does not say "in the boy's outward beauty" but he states paidos=boy's swmatos=body, which translates to "the youth's body" - "if the attraction lay on the youths body he banned the connexion as an abomination" in general he didn't just say 'sexual intercourse' which he could have since there were Classical Greek terms to describe such activity nor does he state "if he loved both the youths body and soul then sexual activities were ok" as some other mistranslations have claimed in essence these modern 'scholars' have rewritten Xenophon's work for him but that is not what Xenophon is stating as some falsely claim. Xenophon compares all sexual physical acts in the educational system to that of an abomination of ALL sexual physical relations between children and their parents and siblings. Its a known fact that all ancient Greeks viewed sexual relations between brother and sister or parent and child with disgust, Xenophon would not be making such comparisons between their educational relationships to that of incenst with ones partents or siblings if there was any truth to the false claims some pseudo 'scholars' have been making that sexual activities in the student/teacher relationship were "accepted", they were not sexual which is why Xenophon compares any sexual connotations to that of incenst which the Greeks viewed very negatively.
Xenophon lived amongst the Spartans, put his sons through the Spartan educational system and he is backed up by not only Aeschines that there was no sexual contact between the student/teacher relationship but by Aristotle and Plutarch too, they all state very clearly sexual pederastic relationships between student and teacher were forbidden and viewed as sick as having sexual relations with ones parents or siblings. Also if we take into account that Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, Socrates etc. all state that the erasths must 'love' the erwteumenoi relationship is that as a father does his son, meaning strictly platonic because to the ancient Greeks incest was viewed with disgrace and abnormality. Scorates several times compares the relationship between the older teacher erasths and younger student erwteumenoi to that of a relationship found between a father and a son and Plutarch states clearly that for an erasths to have physical desire for his erwteumenoi would be as shameful as a father sexuality desires his son. Anyone who is familiar with the Greek oikos would be aware that this relationship was never meant to be sexual in any nature as some moderns 'scholars' falsely claim. Some of the mix up for some comes from the mistranslation of the Greek terms Kalos Kagathos which had no 'sexual' connotations to it, it describe a person's ethics and bravery only; this term is used to describe the teachings of a youth becoming a Kalos Kagathos=Honorable Good Citizen that's it.
"Spartan 'love' had nothing to do with shamefulness, if there ever was any such a suspicion since they would have brought shame upon Sparta. The result would be the exile of both of the loss of their lives..." ~Claudius Aelianus 'History' III.12
"Any male Sparta that admires a Lakonian youth, admires him only as we would a very beautiful statue. For bodily pleasures of this type are brought upon them by Hubris and are forbidden.." ~Maximus of Tyre "Declamations' 20.e
"homosexuality often becomes habitual in those who are abused from childhood." .... in Ta Ethika ~ 1138b30 Aristotle refers very clearly to homosexuality and states one is turned into a homosexual when one as a child has sexual relations with others, Aristotle even goes one step further and compares this as a "vice beneath human nature and those who practice it are like beasts". He then goes on to list what he tell us such a vice is:"for instance, the female who is said to rip open pregnant women and devour the infants… the case of the man who offered his mother as a sacrifice to the gods and ate of her… [cases of] chewing coal or earth."
As Aesehines stated in one of the Laws:
"He forbids the teacher to open the school-room, or the gymnastics trainer the wrestling school, before sunrise, and he commands them to close the doors before sunset; for he is exceeding suspicious of their being alone with a boy, or in the dark with him."(244)
There wouldn't be such a law in place which speaks about it being against the law for a teacher and a student being alone to prevent such sexual relations of occurring if as the fallacies those pseudo sources have been spreading about the student/teacher relationship was ALSO based upon a sexual relations. Why would they forbid the teacher who is forming a relationship with the student from forming the fallacy of a relationship these 'scholars' have been claiming was sexual in nature too? Or are they now going to tell us that the teachers and students weren't allowed to be alone togehter but they ALL got together in a public area and had one big orgy feast with one another. The answer: because sexual contact between males was forbidden and there was no sexual relations between the student and teacher relationship, period, it was strictly platonic.
"John Rist; University of Cambridge, ("Plato and Professor Nussbaum on Acts 'Contrary to Nature'", 65-79) criticizes the claim that there is no evidence that ancient Greeks such as Plato regarded homosexual conduct morally as worse than other forms of sexual behaviour. ~Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition
The funniest thing that I have come across recently are some modern "scholars" and their attempts to continue to justify these fallacies with such idiotic claims as to say the derogatory Greeks terms found in ancient Greek plays and literature, i.e. such as the ones written by Aristophanes who had such "lovely" Greek terms such as "lakkoproktos, "euruproktos", "kinaidos", "katapugon"were not really insults but it meant towards individuals who couldn't get 'enough of butt-sex', see having these terms applied to pedophiles and homosexuals:
lakkoproktos= lakko=hollow / proktos=anus = translation hallowed-anus. See calling someone a hallowanus was suppose to be very complementary. LOL!!
euruproktos= euru=wide / proktos=anus= translation wideanus Here is another flattering term one can call someone a widea$$hole. BWHAHAHA!!
katapugon and kinaidos terms often used in Classical Greek literature to ridiculous individuals and which translate to "down the arse". These terms have contempt connotation to them that are akin to f@g-got this is confirmed also by the fact that most finds of the word in artifact are discovered as pejorative graffiti on walls meant to defame an individual. Ah but some of these same 'off their bonkers' modern 'scholars', these bunch of imbeciles, are trying to claim that these terms that were often used in derogatory context by the ancient Greeks when speaking about same sex relations were not to "humiliate" or "make fun of" said individuals, oh no these quacks want us to believe that calling one a widea$$hole or a hallowanus or terms that are the connotation akin to f@g-got were not "insulting" terms. One does not need a Classics degree to figured out calling one a wideanus no matter the time period, culture or language can figure out its a freaken insulting term. But you'd all be surprised how many of these pseudo 'scholars' are lapping up this idiotic fallacy. By the way, I have mentioned on numerous occasions how I had Professor friends of mine who taught Aristophones plays and numerous other Classics of Greece uncensored and were called "homophobics" by some of their students, well that is because these professors did not censor what the ancient Greeks were saying but straight out used these terms. So even a student who takes one semester Classics could figure out how derogatory these terms were but supposed "professionals" with degrees are running around trying to pass another fallacy that terms like widea$$hole and hallowanus that were applied towards individuals who practiced same sex relations in ancient Greece were not insulting. How idiotic can they get.
Ah yes and lets not forget Nussbaum comical act in the courtroom regarding the term tolmêma:
Her own interpretation of tolmêma, she wrote, was borne out by "the authoritative dictionary relied on by all scholars in this area." She then proceeded to give the dictionary entry, which indeed lists no pejorative connotation of the word. But what "authoritative dictionary" did she have in mind? The answer to that question would soon land her in trouble. Nussbaum's affidavit is organized as a series of numbered paragraphs. In paragraph 10, the name of the lexicon in question appears this way:
Liddell, Scott (blank space--a blob of liquid paper on the original document) Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language.
The possible significance of the blank space--a blob of liquid paper on the original document--leaped out at Finnis and George. For the authoritative dictionary that is actually relied on by all Greek scholars is, in fact, customarily listed as "Liddell, Scott & Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon." Without the "& Jones," "Liddell and Scott" necessarily refers to an 1897 edition of this basic lexicographical reference tool--a long-superseded edition that in fact lists no pejorative meaning for the word tolmêma. The Jones edition, on the other hand, published in 1940, includes extensive revisions made under the direction of the scholar Henry Stuart Jones. Among the revisions, as both Finnis and George are quick to point out, is the inclusion of "shameless act" as a possible translation of tolmêma.
Had Nussbaum resorted to a bibliographic sleight of hand? Since Finnis first published his observations about Nussbaum's use of the superseded dictionary, the lengths to which Nussbaum has gone to justify herself have been considerable--and, in the eyes of some, embarrassing. "I like Martha, and I admire her a lot," one classicist, an expert in Hellenistic philosophy, told me. "But with this dictionary thing, she's really pooping all over herself." For instance, Nussbaum claimed in a letter to George that the edition she herself used was, in fact, the one without the supplementation by Jones-- a claim rendered somewhat dubious, as George tartly observed in a 1995 Academic Questions article, by the fact that the edition she regularly cites in her own published work is the later, 1940 Jones edition. Nussbaum went on to suggest, in the same letter, that the Jones revisions were at any rate immaterial with respect to the lexicon's treatment of the classical philosophers, since, she claimed, the 1897 edition was "more reliable on authors of the classical period," while the material added by Jones pertained to "late and Christian-era authors." Unfortunately for Nussbaum, her claims seem to be forcefully answered by the words of Henry Stuart Jones himself. "[T]he references to Plato and Aristotle," Jones writes of the treatment of those authors in the older, superseded edition, "needed careful revision and some amplification."
"The permanent popularity of female courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous." ~ Robert Flaceliere
true, but i would hardly pick sparta as my model for the society i would want to live in.
still, a great movie
Historical Fact:
Infanticide:
Infanticide has pervaded almost every society of mankind from the Golden Age of Greece to the splendor of the Persian Empire. ...infanticide has been for centuries a prominent and socially acceptable event in two related areas of the world: India and China.
http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm
It has long been accepted that the practice of exposure (expositio) existed in the Roman world, and is considered to be the main way in which the Romans asserted control over the size of their families. The practice was considered to be normal with parallels existing in Roman mythology, such as the story of Romulus and Remus.
http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/teach/ancthist/projects/children/expo1.html
Infanticide existed in most ancient civilizations, from Greek, to Roman, to Persian, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Egyptian, Carthage, Eskimos, etc. and it did not get banned until major religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. came into play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.