Professor
This is the beginning of a great chunky rant paragraph which you have rehearsed as you say in the past:
"Sand argues, in short, that there is no genetically homogeneous Jewish people with a common ancestry and more than there is a Catholic one, and that proselytizing created both..." DK
It is hard to imagine a more significant distinction than the one between the people of Israel and Paul's mission to the gentiles, whom Paul conceived as Greeks and Romans, the civilized world then.
Proselytizing to include or to exclude gentiles are very different missions.
Paul had done the one, and then he did the other one. That does not make Judaism and Catholicism, genetically or otherwise, the same genetically.
Even someone like David Reich, liberal to a fault, would not dream of asserting something like this.
I don't want to get into the rest of this chunky one again, having beaten the dead Dred Scott horse in the past many times.
All the best
Professor
Bobbitt did a classification, transitions, of states, the most recent being state-nations, then nation-states.
Complicated interesting erudite eye candy account.
Lincoln's Union was Bobbitt's first nation-state, and, not coincidentally for Bobbitt, the first nation-state of terror, as well.
This analysis is, for me, while captivating, maybe a little too facile, and formulaic.
Michael Howard made what was for me a cryptic remark, printed on the cover.
All the best
Professor
The concept of a nation as a racially, culturally, and genetically distinctive and closed population group certainly goes back to prehistoric times.
These groups could be quite small by modern standards.
From a modern perspective, they may seem, retrospectively, almost indistinguishable.
The ancient Greek city states might be an example, although they exhibited quite distinctive characteristics, even to the modern historian.
Countless tribes everywhere consider themselves distinctive in nation-like ways.
All the best
No comments:
Post a Comment