Veneti (Was Re: Belgs)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > ==========
> > I guess real historians like M. Knysh could say more.
> > I read that before the start of the industrial revolution,
> > England first knew an agricultural sharp increase of productivity,
> > which had two consequences :
> > - a brutal increase of the general population,
> > hence a lot of people who could/had to move somewhere else.
> > - a huge number of unemployed people
> > who were later on employed in new industrial activities,
> > that prior to that could not happen because there were nobody to
> > work on that.
>
> That makes no sense. Labor-saving devices are deployed because of a
> shortage of working hands, not because of a surplus.
> =======
> Sorry,
> but this is how things are explained.

By whom?

> The industrial revolution _first_ happened in England
> _because_ it had been made possible to happen
> _because_ majors advances in agricultural pratices had been made.
> Unemployed workers in agriculture got employed in new industrial

businesses.

It happened because it had been made possible to happen?

>
> > This first happened in England.
>
>
> > I noticed You have some kind of recurrent hatred outbursts against
> > Louis XIV and the Ancien Regime.
> > but this problem of yours is irrelevant for most issues we
> > discuss, including Veneti.
>
> This is how Okulicz (p. 25) describes the same process, with other
> actors:
> 'Im Laufe des 2. Jhs. u.Z. verlor die samländische Kultur in
> Zusammenhang mit der Durchschneidung der Bernsteinstraße infolge der
> großen aus Pommern in südöstlicher Richtung ausgehenden gotischen
> Expansion ihre weiten Verbindungen. Die archäologischen Spuren
> dieser Wanderung findet man in der sog. Wielbark-Kultur (ehem.
> Goto-Gepidisch), die eine sehr charakteristische Verbreitung
> aufwies. Sie bildete einen schmalen Streifen, der von der unteren
> Weichsel über das nördliche Masowien, Podlasie und Wolhynien
> führte. Die Völker dieser Kultur übernahmen die Kontrolle über die
> Bernsteinstraße und isolierten das ganze westbaltische Gebiet von
> der unmittelbaren Einwirkung der römischen Donauprovinzen. In
> dieser Zeit wurde der Stil der samländischen Kultur von den
> Siedlungen der Masurischen Seenplatte, West- und Mittellitauens und
> Lettlands adoptiert. So begann der lange Prozeß der
> Kulturintegration der westbaltischen und der lettolitauischen
> Völker, der ununterbrochen bis zum frühen Mittelalter dauerte.'
>
> And I pointed out that this scenario played out once again between
> Holland and France. As they say, for nations interests are
> permanent, friends and enemies aren't.
> Torsten
> ===========
>
> I'm afraid I have understood about nothing in this.
>
> I tend to believe that one of the major weaknesses of your line of
> thinking is your tendency to deal with people and languages as if
> they were _immanent_ entities, in complete disregard of conditions
> of ethnological genesis.

I compared the conflict between two (sets of) peoples with another
conflict between two (sets of) peoples. If I thought properties of
peoples were immanent such a comparison would make no sense.

> Your obsessions about present-day geo-politics are irrelevant as
> regards the past of Europe.

My 'obsessions' about present-day geopolitics would be irrelevant as
regards the past of Europe exactly if I had believed that properties
of peoples were immanent, which I don't. I believe the structure of
conflicts of peoples in similar situations can be compared, which
makes me a structuralist, in the French sense.

> France, as a historical concept, does not make any sense before
> 1000 AD.

In the literal sense, true. However, if by 'does not make any sense'
you mean "can't be compared with any other state or people", you are
exactly guilty of ascribing immanent properties to peoples, in casu
the French one, which thus becomes lifted above history as something
unique.

> The fact that Okulicz may have the same weaknesses as you is no
> relief.

I can understand why ascribing the same property to Okulicz which you
erroneously ascribed to me instead of yourself gives you no relief.

> Your claim that you want to avoid a "grandiose" scheme about the
> past is a hypocritical smoke-screen that allows you to indefinitely
> project into the past ethno-linguistic entities such as
> "old-European" and "Veneti", that are
> undescribed,

They are described by Krahe in several books.

> uncharacterized,

They are characterized by a limited set of roots and suffixes listed
by Krahe

> and therefore
> uncontrollable,

Controllable

> undemonstrable

Demonstrable

> and unfalsifiable.

You can't falsify a name; you can falsify a statement; you ought to
know that.


It seems to me that since I have opinions that differ from yours you
have identified me as the Enemy, and therefore repeat the best
critique you can think of of the Enemy, who is obviously the
Essentialist, who is guilty of Essentialism, which is a Bad Thing, if
I remember correctly from the introductory university exam of
philosophy. Better luck next time, after you read and understood what
I wrote.


Torsten