ΟΙ ΑΝΤΙΛΗΨΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ "ΑΝΘΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΥ" ΡΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ.
Ενας ζωηρός διάλογος για την υπόθεση του ονόματος των Σκοπίων, δημοσιεύεται στο blog του Richard Hill.
Ο τίτλος της ανάρτησης είναι:
Κοιτάξτε τι λέει εδώ στον "Adamantios" ο richard hill (Comment by richard hill 2008/12/06 at 15:21:08)
http://hill.blogactiv.eu/2008/04/07/whats-in-a-name-a-lot-it-seems/#comment-184
You're right, Adamantios. Hunger in Africa is a much bigger problem then conflict over a name. You're also right that I'm against Hellenism, the silly romanticism of some of my fellow-countrymen. But, curiously, I happen to be a great fan of the Greeks, particularly the rational ones.I include you in this category, GV. Of course, the percentages derived from genetic studies should be taken with a large dose of salt: after all, I did say 'suggest' and talked about probability. But I don't agree that culture necessarily takes precedence over genes, though I wish it did. The fact is that both are important and are, in many ways, incompatible. They are parallel realities and both need to be taken into account.As you say, "the glue that connects the history of a nation is culture, not genes." Culture is more important because it is around us all the time in our daily lives, whereas the genetic reality is most often hidden (and irrelevant to the study of individuals).But, as history tells us, cultures can change whereas genes do not. A good example is how the rough seafaring Vikings who settled in Normandy evolved in the course of little more than a century into the finest civilisation of western Europe at the time. Their culture changed completely, their genes did not.Thank you for your good wishes!
You're right, Adamantios. Hunger in Africa is a much bigger problem then conflict over a name. You're also right that I'm against Hellenism, the silly romanticism of some of my fellow-countrymen. But, curiously, I happen to be a great fan of the Greeks, particularly the rational ones.I include you in this category, GV. Of course, the percentages derived from genetic studies should be taken with a large dose of salt: after all, I did say 'suggest' and talked about probability. But I don't agree that culture necessarily takes precedence over genes, though I wish it did. The fact is that both are important and are, in many ways, incompatible. They are parallel realities and both need to be taken into account.As you say, "the glue that connects the history of a nation is culture, not genes." Culture is more important because it is around us all the time in our daily lives, whereas the genetic reality is most often hidden (and irrelevant to the study of individuals).But, as history tells us, cultures can change whereas genes do not. A good example is how the rough seafaring Vikings who settled in Normandy evolved in the course of little more than a century into the finest civilisation of western Europe at the time. Their culture changed completely, their genes did not.Thank you for your good wishes!
