pothos.org

marcus wrote:

the_accursed wrote:I also think the line about Alexander being "arguably the most famous secular person in history" should be deleted. There are many historical, secular people who are just as famous as Alexander.

You really made me think about this! I have a strong feeling that this is a quote from one of the famous bygone academics ... but blow me if I can't remember who it was, nor can I find it anywhere (although I definitely have the quote somewhere).

Wasn't it Paul?

Semiramis wrote: That link simply refused to come out in the post. I've emailed you the file. For the origins of Eurocentrism, for a period, ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians were also designated "white" and considered proof of European superiority. But with the rise of anti-semitism in Europe, these people fell out of fashion, speaking Semitic languages and all. The focus in scholarship changed to the Aryan/Semite divide. It's almost chance really that when historical justification is required for Eurocentrism, the Greeks are evoked. Constructing "us" and "them" is so common in records from so many different civilizations, it feels unfair to single the Greeks out. The way I see it, origins of racism lie in post-Enlightenment race-based slavery and colonialism, not in ancient Greece. But there are never simple answers for these questions.

In “Politics”, Aristotle writes that that there are natural masters and natural slaves, and that all “barbarians” belong to the latter group. This exact argument (among others) was used in America to justify slavery. To me, this indicates that the post-Enlightenment racist ideas were influenced by earlier ideas, and that some of them can be traced back to ancient Greece. You are right that regarding the idea of superior and inferior people, the Greeks should not be singled out. But it seems to me, that when we're talking about the origins of racist ideas in the west, specifically, it would be wrong deny the influences from ancient Greece. If the idea of “democracy” is a Greek “legacy”, then so, it seems to me, is the idea of the Greeks as “natural masters” and "barbarians" as “natural slaves”.

Paralus wrote: Actually, for its time, the Athenian democracy was a full democracy. There is no point in viewing ancient societies through modern mores. Athens was the first documented full democracy in history. And it was a "universal suffrage" within its time. Women, metics and slaves were non citizens. Of the citizen body the whole could participate - no property restrictions impinging on that right. Hence the classic "sailor rabble" description.

Just as, in its original form and time, the US was a universal democracy. Women were not enfrnachised citizenry until the 19th amendment in 1920.

Which is to say that the democracy of the ancient Athenians unsurprisingly fulfilled the definition of “democracy” as defined by the ancient male (non-metic, non-slave) Athenians – the only Athenians who had a say in the matter. Myself though, I wonder what the Athenian women, slaves and metics thought of that definition.

As a thought experiment, one can remove the citizen rights from some of the Athenian men (for whatever reason) and still call it democracy. And one can continue to do this until Athens is a city state where only one person is considered a “citizen” and thus is the only person who is allowed to vote. It is still technically a “democracy”, if one defines “democracy” as a city state where all adult “citizens” are allowed to vote.

the_accursed wrote:I wonder what the Athenian women, slaves and metics thought of that definition.

Women thinking? One did not suggest such barbaric ideas in democratic Athens.

You make a good point about about Aristotle being used to justify racial hierarchies. Not to mention the bible, anthropology, evolution, linguistics, Indian caste system to name just a few other appropriations. It may be time for a dose of Foucault pour moi.

the_accursed wrote:As a thought experiment, one can remove the citizen rights from some of the Athenian men (for whatever reason) and still call it democracy. And one can continue to do this until Athens is a city state where only one person is considered a “citizen” and thus is the only person who is allowed to vote. It is still technically a “democracy”, if one defines “democracy” as a city state where all adult “citizens” are allowed to vote.

That, if I may say, is an extension into the ridiculous. Athens was, as I said, a complete democracy. Men - the only citizens in Greece in ancient times - were not ever, under the democratic constition, disenfranchised in Athens (for whatever reason) unless they were from another state (metics) or slaves. Even the lowest - the thetes - voted and took their part. Indeed, by the end of the Peloponnesian War, the greater part of their "class" lay on the bottom of the Aegean.

Your "experimet" is complete exaggeration for effect.

Paralus wrote:That, if I may say, is an extension into the ridiculous. Athens was, as I said, a complete democracy. Men - the only citizens in Greece in ancient times - were not ever, under the democratic constition, disenfranchised in Athens (for whatever reason) unless they were from another state (metics) or slaves. Even the lowest - the thetes - voted and took their part. Indeed, by the end of the Peloponnesian War, the greater part of their "class" lay on the bottom of the Aegean.

Your "experimet" is complete exaggeration for effect.

What it does is illuminate the flaw in a definition of “full democracy” that leads to the inclusion of democracies such as the one in ancient Athens.

Detract from the "full" Athenian democracy by retracting the citizenships of people belonging to certain groups within the group “free Athenian non-metic men”, and the democracy remains as "full" as it was before the detraction. Add to it, by giving citizenships to the people belonging to the groups of adults who had previously been denied them – women, slaves, metics - and it still remains just as "full" as it was before the addition.

That's one strange "full democracy".

You are looking at the Athenian democracy strictly through the eyes of the people who had the power to grant or deny other adults in the Athenian population citizenship, and thus the power to define exactly what would constitute a "full" Athenian democracy, and arguing as if theirs was the only reasonable point of view. That what matters is that all the groups within the group “free Athenian non-metic men” got to vote. And I disagree with that opinion. In my opinion, one must also take into consideration the adults within the Athenian population who were denied citizenship. They might have disagreed with you're characterization of the Athenian democracy as “full”.

the_accursed wrote:You are looking at the Athenian democracy strictly through the eyes of the people who had the power to grant or deny other adults in the Athenian population citizenship, and thus the power to define exactly what would constitute a "full" Athenian democracy, and arguing as if theirs was the only reasonable point of view. That what matters is that all the groups within the group “free Athenian non-metic men” got to vote. And I disagree with that opinion. In my opinion, one must also take into consideration the adults within the Athenian population who were denied citizenship. They might have disagreed with you're characterization of the Athenian democracy as “full”.

Hi "accursed".

This is a difficult one, because it is possible to fully comprehend both sides of the argument and argue them both, as well. I would suggest that one of the problems with your final sentence is the need to take into account the cultural milieu - would Athenian women have disagreed, because they were brought up and conditioned to be non-citizens, and therefore in likelihood would not even consider there to be anything wrong with the system as it existed? If Germaine Greer were there to run a series of workshops, then perhaps their view might have changed. Educated Athenian women might well have questioned the system - although there would have been no outlet for them to express their thoughts (at least in a way that would have gained a decent hearing); but uneducated women quite possibly would merely have accepted the situation.

That doesn't mean it was "right" (to our modern, liberal, "eurocentric" minds), but within the context of 5th/4th century Athens, probably unquestionable.

As a thought - after all, Britain was a "liberal democracy" throughout the 19th century, and women didn't get the vote until 1918 (and even then it was only a partial franchise).

ATB

marcus wrote:Hi "accursed".

This is a difficult one, because it is possible to fully comprehend both sides of the argument and argue them both, as well. I would suggest that one of the problems with your final sentence is the need to take into account the cultural milieu - would Athenian women have disagreed, because they were brought up and conditioned to be non-citizens, and therefore in likelihood would not even consider there to be anything wrong with the system as it existed? If Germaine Greer were there to run a series of workshops, then perhaps their view might have changed. Educated Athenian women might well have questioned the system - although there would have been no outlet for them to express their thoughts (at least in a way that would have gained a decent hearing); but uneducated women quite possibly would merely have accepted the situation.

That doesn't mean it was "right" (to our modern, liberal, "eurocentric" minds), but within the context of 5th/4th century Athens, probably unquestionable.

As a thought - after all, Britain was a "liberal democracy" throughout the 19th century, and women didn't get the vote until 1918 (and even then it was only a partial franchise).

ATB

Hello “marcus”,

I think it's unrealistic to believe that there wasn't a single woman, slave or metic who ever thought the system was unfair and that they should be allowed to take part in the democracy. Not a single woman who was married off to an idiot and thought it illogical that the husband was allowed to make important decisions on her behalf and take part in the democracy and she wasn't? Not a single slave who thought similar things about his/her “owner”? Not a single metic who thought the extra burdens put on metics were unfair, and that they should have a say in the democracy they lived in (and some had lived in Athens for many generations) and, through their work, contributed to?

As I see it, a single woman, slave or metic who questioned the fairness of the Athenian democracy, and who believed she/he should have been allowed citizenship, is all it takes to make the Athenian democracy something less than “full” - looking at it from the point of view of that particular ancient Athenian.

the_accursed wrote:I think it's unrealistic to believe that there wasn't a single woman, slave or metic who ever thought the system was unfair and that they should be allowed to take part in the democracy. Not a single woman who was married off to an idiot and thought it illogical that the husband was allowed to make important decisions on her behalf and take part in the democracy and she wasn't? Not a single slave who thought similar things about his/her “owner”? Not a single metic who thought the extra burdens put on metics were unfair, and that they should have a say in the democracy they lived in (and some had lived in Athens for many generations) and, through their work, contributed to?

As I see it, a single woman, slave or metic who questioned the fairness of the Athenian democracy, and who believed she/he should have been allowed citizenship, is all it takes to make the Athenian democracy something less than “full” - looking at it from the point of view of that particular ancient Athenian.

But doesn't the above describe many governments throughout history rather than just reflecting a possible Athenian's point of view? I mean, I'm sure that some Victorian and Edwardian women (and earlier) had the same feelings, as did indentured servants and slaves in the US, along with the indigenous peoples. (Native Americans didn't get the right to vote in state elections in Utah until the 1950's!) I realize that this discussion is hinged on the word "full" as used by Paralus to describe the Athenian democracy, but the kind of democracy that you are describing is one with universal suffrage which didn't exist in the western world until the 20th century.

Best regards,

marcus wrote: This is a difficult one, because it is possible to fully comprehend both sides of the argument and argue them both, as well. I would suggest that one of the problems with your final sentence is the need to take into account the cultural milieu - would Athenian women have disagreed, because they were brought up and conditioned to be non-citizens, and therefore in likelihood would not even consider there to be anything wrong with the system as it existed? If Germaine Greer were there to run a series of workshops, then perhaps their view might have changed. Educated Athenian women might well have questioned the system - although there would have been no outlet for them to express their thoughts (at least in a way that would have gained a decent hearing); but uneducated women quite possibly would merely have accepted the situation.

That doesn't mean it was "right" (to our modern, liberal, "eurocentric" minds), but within the context of 5th/4th century Athens, probably unquestionable.

As a thought - after all, Britain was a "liberal democracy" throughout the 19th century, and women didn't get the vote until 1918 (and even then it was only a partial franchise).

ATB

Marcus,

I find that sentence highlighted in bold as huge assumption. Members of the common folk are often capable of understanding how they are being exploited and of questioning their underclass status, as evidenced by the countless rebellions in history. One could take my argument to an extreme and claim that an "education" can be seen as conditioning the mind to accept the status quo. Take Accursed's favourite philosopher, Aristotle. No one would doubt that he was "educated". But that only seemed to justify and entrench his hierarchical views regarding women or non-Greeks.

One could take that broad definition of "full democracy" and apply it to apartheid South Africa as well. But I'm not generous enough to accord it to any place without universal franchise.

Semiramis wrote:

marcus wrote: This is a difficult one, because it is possible to fully comprehend both sides of the argument and argue them both, as well. I would suggest that one of the problems with your final sentence is the need to take into account the cultural milieu - would Athenian women have disagreed, because they were brought up and conditioned to be non-citizens, and therefore in likelihood would not even consider there to be anything wrong with the system as it existed? If Germaine Greer were there to run a series of workshops, then perhaps their view might have changed. Educated Athenian women might well have questioned the system - although there would have been no outlet for them to express their thoughts (at least in a way that would have gained a decent hearing); but uneducated women quite possibly would merely have accepted the situation.

That doesn't mean it was "right" (to our modern, liberal, "eurocentric" minds), but within the context of 5th/4th century Athens, probably unquestionable.

As a thought - after all, Britain was a "liberal democracy" throughout the 19th century, and women didn't get the vote until 1918 (and even then it was only a partial franchise).

ATB

Marcus,

I find that sentence highlighted in bold as huge assumption. Members of the common folk are often capable of understanding how they are being exploited and of questioning their underclass status, as evidenced by the countless rebellions in history. One could take my argument to an extreme and claim that an "education" can be seen as conditioning the mind to accept the status quo. Take Accursed's favourite philosopher, Aristotle. No one would doubt that he was "educated". But that only seemed to justify and entrench his hierarchical views regarding women or non-Greeks.

Hence my use of the phrases might well have and quite possibly. I make no claims that educated Athenian women had the slightest interest in how Athens was governed, nor that uneducated Athenian women were not entirely dissatisfied with their lot. I'm making no assumptions, beyond what I know about how people have gone unquestioningly about their business for centuries.

If I continue with the theme of female suffrage in Great Britain, there were an awful lot of pro-suffrage campaigners who were from middle and upper class backgrounds, but relatively few from working class backgrounds because they didn't have the time to show the slightest bit of interest in whether or not they or anybody had the vote. At the same time, there were middle and upper class women who were vehemently against female suffrage, believing that it was the men's job to deal with politics, and women's job to stay at home and look after the domestic arrangements.

ATB

the_accursed wrote:I think it's unrealistic to believe that there wasn't a single woman, slave or metic who ever thought the system was unfair and that they should be allowed to take part in the democracy.

I never said that was the case, nor did I say I believed it.

ATB

marcus wrote:
If I continue with the theme of female suffrage in Great Britain, there were an awful lot of pro-suffrage campaigners who were from middle and upper class backgrounds, but relatively few from working class backgrounds because they didn't have the time to show the slightest bit of interest in whether or not they or anybody had the vote. At the same time, there were middle and upper class women who were vehemently against female suffrage, believing that it was the men's job to deal with politics, and women's job to stay at home and look after the domestic arrangements.

ATB

I do agree with you that the feminist movement has tended to cater to upper and middle class women right from its inception.

amyntoros wrote:But doesn't the above describe many governments throughout history rather than just reflecting a possible Athenian's point of view?

Yes.

amyntoros wrote:I mean, I'm sure that some Victorian and Edwardian women (and earlier) had the same feelings, as did indentured servants and slaves in the US, along with the indigenous peoples. (Native Americans didn't get the right to vote in state elections in Utah until the 1950's!) I realize that this discussion is hinged on the word "full" as used by Paralus to describe the Athenian democracy, but the kind of democracy that you are describing is one with universal suffrage which didn't exist in the western world until the 20th century.

Right. And in my opinion, only since then has it been reasonable to use words such as "full" and "complete" to describe these democracies.

marcus wrote:I never said that was the case, nor did I say I believed it.

Didn't mean to imply that you did. I just wanted to point out that one adult who thinks the system is unfair is all it takes to make a democracy like the one in ancient Athens less than full. Maybe I should have written "I think it would be unrealistic...".

the_accursed wrote:

amyntoros wrote:But doesn't the above describe many governments throughout history rather than just reflecting a possible Athenian's point of view?

Yes.

amyntoros wrote:I mean, I'm sure that some Victorian and Edwardian women (and earlier) had the same feelings, as did indentured servants and slaves in the US, along with the indigenous peoples. (Native Americans didn't get the right to vote in state elections in Utah until the 1950's!) I realize that this discussion is hinged on the word "full" as used by Paralus to describe the Athenian democracy, but the kind of democracy that you are describing is one with universal suffrage which didn't exist in the western world until the 20th century.

Right. And in my opinion, only since then has it been reasonable to use words such as "full" and "complete" to describe these democracies...".

“Full” and “complete”, when used by myself, are clearly described in both instances:

Paralus wrote: Actually, for its time, the Athenian democracy was a full democracy.There is no point in viewing ancient societies through modern mores. Athens was the first documented full democracy in history. And it was a "universal suffrage" within its time. Women, metics and slaves were non citizens. Of the citizen body the whole could participate - no property restrictions impinging on that right. Hence the classic "sailor rabble" description.

Paralus wrote: Athens was, as I said, a complete democracy. Men - the only citizens in Greece in ancient times - were not ever, under the democratic constitution, disenfranchised in Athens (for whatever reason) unless they were from another state (metics) or slaves.

Arguments based upon what a metic or a woman thought are completely anachronistic and totally irrelevant. One might as well argue that the gladiatorial games of Rome were the organised murder of innocents to satisfy the blood lust of a degenerate citizenry. In fact they were the contact sport of a time where modern human rights values did not exist.

Such arguments have about as much bearing as what ancients might have thought of slaves and their position. There was no “abolitionist” movement in ancient times. The ancient world was, in fact, a slave economy. The slave revolts of the ancient world are a subject unto themselves but are quite illuminating. They are characterised by redistribution of land (an old chestnut) and the seeking of some alternate, Hesiod inspired agrarian utopia where the former slaves would have the land produce its abundance for them. How? Slaves naturally.

One of the few to realise this was Drimarkos who led the “slave revolt” of Chios in the early third century. Militarily he succeeded and established a treaty with the Chians which facilitated his “moderate robbing” of the local storehouses. Aristonicus of Pergamum, in 132, is oft represented as another in the “abolitionist” mode. That he promised a similar programme to Cleomenes and Nabis of Sparta (land redistrinution et al) and was attempting to take the kingdom of Pergamum, willed to Rome by Attalus III, seems to have escaped notice. The two large rebellions in Sicily (and Spartacus himself) all exhibit the same rationale: an agrarian utopia not possible without slaves.

It is how people saw matters at the time. Ditto the great American democray of the founding fathers: women did not count then. Indeed the more genteel of those founding fathers decided that an electoral college of the landed gentry should elect the president directly, not the unwashed.

To put it in plain terms:

Definition of a complete or full democracy: that all (adult) citizens are enfranchised to participate in government and its workings (in ancient Athenian terms from the assembly through to the “law courts”).

Definition for citizenship in ancient Athens: that one was a free born male of Athenian parents.

Those allowed full participation under the ancient Athenian constitution: all citizens without qualification or restriction based on class or wealth.

Paralus wrote:Arguments based upon what a metic or a woman thought are completely anachronistic and totally irrelevant. One might as well argue that the gladiatorial games of Rome were the organised murder of innocents to satisfy the blood lust of a degenerate citizenry. In fact they were the contact sport of a time where modern human rights values did not exist.

If there were metics and women who, at the time, thought that metics and/or women should be allowed citizenship, then it's not anachronistic to look at the Athenian democracy from their point of view, and characterize it as less than full.

Paralus wrote:To put it in plain terms:

Definition of a complete or full democracy: that all (adult) citizens are enfranchised to participate in government and its workings (in ancient Athenian terms from the assembly through to the “law courts”).

Definition for citizenship in ancient Athens: that one was a free born male of Athenian parents.

Those allowed full participation under the ancient Athenian constitution: all citizens without qualification or restriction based on class or wealth.

Yet...had there been such restrictions, had not all free non-metic Athenian men been allowed citizenship, then the Athenian democracy would still have been “full” (from the point of view of the people who defined the Athenian democracy), as all “citizens” would still have been "...enfranchised to participate in government and its workings". But I doubt that all of the the free non-metic Athenian men who would not have been allowed citizenship would have agreed.