On 300, Partisanship and WILLFUL IGNORANCE

Rant ONN

yep now it is definitive

Americans are ignorant of history... in fact Americans are so ignorant that it is shameful!

300 is about the rear guard action, better known as the Battle of Thermopylae, back during a small scuffle between the Greeks and the Persians

If you read any critique of the movie from the RW you'd think it is about Iraq and the United States

If you read the reviews at Alternet, you'd think it is a sexy violent ready made for the right, orgasmic movie

I have yet to see it, but after seeing the reactions FROM BOTH SIDES I am horrified at how little history people know.

Or for that matter the inability to understand the difference between a tactical event (in which case the Spartans and their Thespians allies lost, bad... as in where slaughtered), and a strategic event, in which case this rear guard action in which casualties for the Persians were at least 40K, started a chain of events that led to the eventual defeat of the Persians under Xerxes.

Now just as Star Wars people are seeing what they want though their PARTISAN lenses.

Folks Frank Miller wrote this Graphic Novel in 1998 (Star Wars was written in 1973-4). They are not comments on CURRENT events, by a long shot. Now Star Wars was party about the Nixon Administration and given the eerie similarities well the glove fits a little better.

The point is, we live in a sad state of affairs when PARTISANS on both sides complaint about a fringing movie...

And we really live in really sad state of affairs when some of these partisans even complaint that this is an allegory and not based on history... or for that matter complaint that the portrayal of hand to hand combat was too gory... news to all... war IS gory... and hand to hand combat can and is the goriest of all.

This is willful ignorance of the worst kind....

Rant off!

I disliked the movie, but I did not see the intense political stuff that I had expected from both right and left reviews

1. History's got nothing to do with it.

2. Folks Frank Miller wrote this Graphic Novel in 1998. And the movie was made in 2006. Star was was made in 76/77, yet the "Revenge of the Sith" or whatever it was was written in 2004(?), and it's got all kinds of shallow, anti-Bush references.

3. It's just a dumb movie.

all the movies were written way back in the 70s, the refernces you are seeing are more to Nixon

Even Lucas has said that, what would he know? After all he wrote it.

Lucas wrote Star Wars in 75/76, and had the general plot outline for three movies.

He wrote the scripts for each of the prequels shortly before each was made. Unfortunately.

Ok.

Oh brother, the whole Star Wars saga was an allegory for Nixon... it "firs" current events only becuase Darth Vader (aka Chenney) is a graduate of that SLIMY administration, and he is just one of them

Talk about willful ignorance.

in some ways an allegory to the Nixon Administration, Allegories do NOT, I repeat DO NOT use the exact names.

But hey, as I said, I guess George Lucas does not know what Goerge Lucas says

Are you serious? Yes, I know he said it, but do you really think Star Wars is about Nixon?

Jeez.

Lucas said it... I'lll trust the primary source any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

He said it... I can't help you there

Because it's a load of crap.

The first Star Wars wasn't about politics at all. It was a loose conglomeration of Japanese samurai movies, nazi propaganda, a smattering of Roman history, and space opera. Nothing to do with Nixon

Lucas didn't write The Empire Strikes Back at all, which explains a lot. Again, nothing to do with Nixon.

And then there's Return of the Jedi, where they made Leia the sister, following the success of the big surpise from Empire. And there were some teddy bears for the sake of marketing. If you're telling me Lucas wrote that in the seventies, I say you and he are full of beans.

And then he, unfortunately, wrote each prequel as it came up. You can look up the stories about how he wrote each one as it came up, it was in the news as it happened. He included all sorts of cheesy references to current politics as it came up. If you think he started writing a Nixon allegory in the late nineties, I've got a bridge to sell you.

why should I doubt the Author?

this reminds me of a discussion some years back with a gamer

We were talking about the Psyros, a faction in a miniature game no longer in print. He told me that the author did not mean what I said the author meant

He kept going and going and going, finally I told him... given I AM the author, I think I know what I meant

So if Lucas said, this is about Nixon, yes, he meant it, I believe him

What particular part of Star Wars had you thinking "Nixon?"

but the Emperor, that IS Nixon

I remember him saying way back when, as his inspiration, or was it Speilberg?

I remember Lucas saying that in an interview and repeating it not too long ago

He lives in a fantasy world that only billions can provide!

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960606.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&query=%22george+lucas%22

(...)

Yet for someone who has become a multi-billionaire courtesy of the movie business, Lucas sounds not just disenchanted with the theatrical world's bloat, but semi-delusional about the present state of television.

Asked about his decision to shift to television, he explained that in movies, "The risks are so high, and the odds so great, it takes the fun out of it." By contrast, he said, in TV, "Nobody seems to care. You just get to do whatever you want to do."

(Very funny article...)

The only history anyone bothers to write or read are the stories that speak to us now. History has little to do with the past--you could make up stories to perform the same role, and people frequently do.

I should not

That is the classic statement in the US, to deny the value of history

By the way... just curious, outside of Classics Departments, or for that matter some history departments, how many people read Herodotus for Fun? For that matter Xenophon? How about the Gaelic Wars?

Anybody?

At one time people did... and the comments that I have seen about this movie in the last 48 hours, I mean the real ignorant one, would not be made

It is to the point that the next liberal that tells me but we are better read and KNOW history, I will laugh in their face. Liberals AND Conservatives are willfully ignorant of history to the same degree.

and from historians.

sorry, nor did I ever see that kind of take in even the American Historical Association Journal, or in my study and writing of History coursework

Now American students of history, absolutely.

Every book I've read with a title similar to "What is history?" discusses that interpretation of it. You've pursued an odd PhD program if you haven't run across that discussion, much less taken part in it.

but in my studies of history and what is history I never ran into it

If they are putting that in books these days, it is news to me

But no, I never came across it, sorry

It was not allegory the way it was presented... but the study of the past. History is the STUDY OF PAST EVENTS and how they relate to present Events... that was the definition drilled into my head.

And my claim to fame is a Masters not a PhD, for clarity sake.

Masters, minor oral exams, language exams, and a step before ABD. Burned out before I completed my major oral exams. Kids, financial problems, stuff like that.

You've just argued part of my argument. History is the study of past events and "how they relate to present events." The emphasis is on the last. I can't do justice to the book, but Edward Carr (I think--though it's been so long I'm probably stating more my argument than his) in "What is History?" argues that an event isn't historical until it means something to us now. We don't care about the past unless it interests us. Fifty years ago women's history, and much of social and cultural history, was considered unknowable, and often considered unimportant. Now every major university has an emphasis on social and cultural history, and many have degrees in "Women's Studies." The story of women's rights, women's activities in the household, women's role in society, the place of women in philosophy and theology, etc, where not even concepts someone in the Middle Ages would have thought to verbalize, so when we study such topics, it is not because of the past, it is because of the present. And what we learn, write about, and teach, isn't what would have been interesting to contemporaries, but what is interesting to us, in our time, in our perspective. It may be the story of the past, but it is our story, not their story. And the story is only told because people in modern times have an interest in it because of questions we raise about our own society. The questions they ask in a hundred years may bear no resemblance to what we ask now, so the "history" they write might make little sense to us today. It would still be "a study of the past" but it would not be the past we know.

Ask most people to justify some belief or action, and sooner or later they will cite an historical reference. Take a hot topic today. Ask a Freeper-sort about homosexuality, and the less informed will say something like "there was no homosexuality until modern times." A slightly more informed Freeper might mention Sappho or Julius Caesar, but then claim Christianity always preached against it. A learned liberal might cite John Boswell to explain that most cultures were not hostile to it. But each person would be using "history." The difference between the way a Freeper and an educated person used it would be mostly their reliance on facts. And an historian would go a step further, and insist only on accurate facts, perhaps to the point of undermining his argument. He might claim that the facts were the only important part of an historical discussion. But he wouldn't be having the discussion unless he was trying to say something about modern times.

History is an allegory using past events to describe the modern world. That's all it's ever been. Even Herodotus and Thucidides had their objectives and their biases, as you know. That's not to say it's unimportant, or that we shouldn't try to get the facts right (an historian should always try to get the facts right). And that's not to say that we should try to learn genuine lessons rather than simply crafting history to fit our own arguments. But historical facts without some larger context is just trivia. And that context is always modern, and always political. Even if the argument is that political history is not as important as social and cultural and economic and even ecological history (which is a point I would argue), that argument is still, at its base, political. (Then again, everything is political, but that's another of my long rambling explanations.)

So it's not a big deal to me that Hollywood uses stories like 300 or Braveheart for political reasons, or that audiences find political allegories in such films. The only real difference between Braveheart and a scholarly tome on William Wallace is how accurately the creator tries to portray the facts. The story is still told to tell us something about our time, even if the scholarly tome's message may be more complex and more ambiguous about the message.

That's my point, not really Carr's. It's been too long for me to remember his specifically, and IIRC, he has more than one point to make.

:rofl:

again they don't teach history no more

The tranlated volume is about a foot from me

It's Gallic Wars. Not Gaelic...

how cute!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Google is your friend.

It's Gallic. Julius Caesar fought Gaul, not the Gaels.

http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.html

"how many people read Herodotus for Fun? For that matter Xenophon? How about the Gaelic Wars?"

You assummed he meant Gallic,he was mentioning history in general.

nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-12-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Julius Caesar
again they don't teach history no more

The tranlated volume is about a foot from me

I did assume the poster was talking about the Gallic wars in post #7. But it turns out I was correct in assuming she was talking about the Gallic wars.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/218

here you go

Oh and for clarity sake my copy is in Spanish therefore it is called

Las Gerras Galias, por Julio Cesar.

corect spelling, we seem to be having a problem with folks even getting it

By the way, here is the link for the give me a link now... crowd (not you)

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/218

As opposed to the Ireland Wars.

Sheesh. It was just a typo. Everybody knows what everybody's talking about here.

:-)

and one not shared in Europe or Asia. It is also both enabling and hobbling in several respects

And I've spoken to and learned from European historians who have said the same.

Maybe I'm not clear on this... but what I got from jobycom's post up there was that, in a nutshell, history is malleable.

If I'm right about that, I can tell you for a fact that that view is actually shared by at least one European -- Terry Jones. His series on the Barbarians was very enlightening.

interperetation changes as well as how history is written

But I cannot change facts... only what they mean in the long run.

It is, for example, a fact that Nixon resigned.

What that means depends on who you ask

If you believe in the Constitution that is a great thing, if you don't....

Or it is a fact that Libby was convicted... read DU lately? Have you talked to your Freeper neighbor about it? It ranges from WOW they did it, to witchhunt.

Something similar happens with history

It used to be that history was taught as the great man in history theory... you know what if George Washington had not been there...

These days and this is my preferred view, yep (to look back at this batle) Leonidas and Xerxes where the major characters but how this event influenced the course of the war and future history is what matters to me, aka the casuality chain that leads from even 2400 years ago, to today and me typing on the computer about it.

;-)

.

but in that series... actually what happened, or what seemed to have happened, based on Jones' interpretation (;)), is that the events were not recorded accurately.

So it wasn't just interpretation that was changed, but actual recording of the events was skewed in favor of the Romans' chosen perspective.

So...

the less you have of a problem with that

But that is because History was recorded different too... as in the events, as in the year of a battle for example

We go by Annus Mirablilis (AD), or better yet, CE....

the Romans (and the Barbarians) went by years of somebody's rule

That is the first nightmare for classicists

We have also found that timeliness need correcting due to this problem from time to time

And yes there is that perspective thing and propaganda (a hot issue when I was going to graduate school) and how much of the description of the evens are done as propaganda

I added to that discusion on the Alamo....

If you read American accounts, even recent ones (though the problem is less severe now), and then Mexican Accounts of the SAME battle, you'd think you are readying about two differnt battles of the Alamo.

;-)

The battle was a historical fact, though I would nitpick with the charaterization that it was a rear guard action. The graphic novel/glorified comic book is a classic of the genre. The movie follows Sin City in style and was very heavily post processed to achieve the look that it has. It is more an art film more than any kind of political statement.

On the political side though, the slogan MOLON LABE/MOLON LABE used by the pro gun crowd is attributed to this battle. In Greek it is "Μολών Λαβέ" <"ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ" in the upper case> and is It come from when the Persian leader Xerxes offered to spare the Spartans if they gave up their arms, Leonidas replied "Molon Lave", or "Come and get them."...

was made the other day by a Classisict on the history channel that dealt with it.

From his POV it was, but he also put it in the larger context of the whole war.

I'll admit I have not read the Histories in some years, they are in my pile of material to ahem REREAD, if you get my drift...

These days I write sci fi, but what better way to "Invent future history" than to look at the real deal

Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέµψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'µολὼν λαβέ'

To Xerxes' demand, "hand over your arms," (Leonidas) retorted,"come and get them."

(Plutarch, Moralia, III, Apophthegmata Laconica, "Sayings of Spartans")



Over on the High Road (popular gun board), people who had seen 300 said they did put that line in the movie. "Come and take them."

It's better to know about Vietnam than frickin' Thermopylae. I'm sure an Iraqi insurgent would take an entirely different lesson from this movie. Sacrifice, honor, the noble valor of resisting the numberless powers of a global empire for the cause of one's country, even when some elements in your society are going soft and losing their manful purity.

My god, "300" is a pro-terrorist movie!

and you are right, it is not important, that is why every war college around the world studies the battle and every cadet in every military academy studies the whole campaign... but you are right, it is not important

Give me a break!

Damn!

Here, here a hanky....

Had the Persians not been defeated in the Persian Wars, the history of that region and even the world would have turned out VERY differently.

And if Titus Vorenus, 1st century Roman dishwasher, hadn't twisted his ankle on his day off on March 23, 67 A.D., and stayed home, he would have gotten hit by a chariot while crossing the street the next day.

And if that hadn't happened, the world would be VERY different today.

:eyes:

Your little education might comprehend

What would have happened if the Allied Troops were thrown out of Normandy?

Please do try to convince me that the end of WW II would have followed the exact same script it did follow.

For starters we would have used a nuke ON BERLIN first... or worst negotiated a peace with the Third Reich. (And you and I woudl not be having this conversation as my father would have perished inside Fortress Europa)

But I am sure in your fantasy there is no causality chain

Sorry, for the fifty cent word

And some folks want to have deep discussions on the meaning of film in the modern world when we have yet to demonstrate to those who are willfully ignorant of the most basic of historical facts (and proud of it) that yes, this is one of those few extremely critical events in History.

What is worst people complaint Johhny can't read, but at the same time are proud of how ignorant they are... this is not right or left, this is now the standard way of thinking,

since it was, after all, won by the Persians. Were their losses the only thing that stopped them winning the battle of Salamis? That's contestable. The campaign continued after that too. It's possible that if Thermopylae had never happened, the course of things would have been much the same.

not a tactical event. As tactical event it was a disaster for the Greeks

but the Persians took 40K more or less to the Greek 1300 (I'm adding the Thespians here)

It started a chain of events that led to an increasingly lowered morale for the Persian army.

Now if the battle had not been followed by the other battles... we would not be even talking about it

But its effect is in the morale of the invading army.

Think about it, you got 300 Rangers and 1000 Line Infantry beat the tar feathers of your army and kill 40K of your best buddies....

And the reason why it is still studied in war colleges around the world, it is the use of terrain... and forcing an extremely large force that should have been able to
flank them, into a funnel, which became a killing field, and not even the shock troops could dislodge them (the immortals)

What do the Persian histories say about the effect on morale of Thermopylae? If they don't exist, or they say something different from Greek histories, then you can't trust what the Greeks said about Persian morale.

Sure, it's important for use of terrain - but that's important in the military, not in general schools.

they were found recently and are changing the view of the period

that said, an army morale and this statement is not based on Greek histories... Hell Herodotus does not even go into that... the lowly trooper really does not matter to him, if you know what I mean... but of modern experiences with military forces

And it is a cause and effect conclusion... given the will to fight was ultimately gone by the end of Salamis, and it started somewhere

It's anachronistic. Just as both sides like to claim the founding fathers would share their ideals, it just isn't so.

At the same time, though, historical fictions in film and print sometimes fall prey to the same biases.


I, for one, haven't seen 300, but it sure looks intersting.

A bit intense, some liberties taken, but breathtaking in many ways.

Just as Gladiator was an awesome film, it took some huge liberties historically.

It was really interesting the tactics both sides used in the battle. Also given in the context of the whole war, I appreciated the signifigance of the battle a lot more. For me reality is more interesting than the movie, although I haven't seen it yet.

After watching the program, it really turned me off to the movie, since it just looks like a mindless action movie with over the top special effects, while ignoring the real life strategic brilliance and signifgance of the battle.

And people viewing this movie through their partisan lenses is just stupid. It's just a action movie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=393826&mesg_id=393826

Perhaps we need less ranting, and more clear-eyed thinking about what we're talking about when we're talking about film.

film as a social construct

But the overall lack of knowledge of history

Com'on Greece is what is left in the pan after you fry some bacon... that is what you have to conclude after readying these reviews

Films as social construct is a whole different animal

This rant is about the lack of knowledge of any history, that is what this rant is about

And you cannot move into film as social construct until you get a grip on the real basic historical facts (and the fact that chances are this movie glosses over history, but hey Pearl Harbor was a love story with December 7th as a back drop with so many errors, factual and otherwise, that it was not even funny)

I do agree on this point: "And you cannot move into film as social construct until you get a grip on the real basic historical facts."

Absolutely, at one level of analyses you need to know the history of Greek antiquity. Clearly, the film is ridiculous when it comes to that.

You'd also need to know the way Sparta functions in the history of historical representation (that is, you'd have to understand historiography). That would mean that you'd have to understand the way that the history of Greek antiquity was written by different historians during different historical periods (is the historical interpretation of Sparta different among Cold War historians than among post-Cold War historians? How did Victorian archaeologists think about Sparta? How did Enlightenment Germans think about and write about Athenian democracy?).

You'd also have to understand the history of the film industry with respect to its mode of production. Most recently, you'd have to understand the economic relationships behind the cycling of graphic novels into film (clearly, 300 comes after dozens of such arrangements, which seem to have mushroomed over the last ten or fifteen years...as has the graphic novel industry and the reflective understanding of graphic novels, such as that laid out in Scott McCloud's book). You'd also have to understand the technological history of SGI and its economic development in the modern film industry.

Finally, you'd have to understand the history of the genre, how aspects of 300 are determined by that history, and ow other aspects twist or resist that history.

Each of these are legitimate historical investigations related to 300. If you want to take history and film seriously, you'd see that each of these will tell us something about the politics of the film, even if it is not an allegory. Now, let me make clear, I have no stake in whether it is an allegory for this or that. As I say in my post, I find the allegorical reading of film to be the most tedious and uninteresting. Similarly, since the debunking of the allegory relies on a similar logic, I find it similarly tedious. Much more interesting in relation to 300 - in my view - is the question of aesthetics (taken historically and politically) and the question of its relation to a change in the cinematic mode of production. These are ALL historical questions. You restrict your historical inquiry to the level of allegory (even in debunking), and that's my main concern.

I cannot expect people to move beyond until they understand one fact, this is loosely based on a historical event that happened in a real time line of history

read the ridiculous reviews coming from BOTH SIDES

I cannot move anybody to go into a serious critique of the movie as movie making. or the graphic novel as graphic novel, until people have a firm base on a simple fact... the battle happened... it is not left, it is not right, it happened

Once you get that established you can move on and look at it in a deeper fashion and ask any other questions

But the first step, let me repeat this, is to emphasize that Thermopilae happened, that Leonidas is a real person, so is Xerxss.

You may have a problem with this... but in my view you first have to establish in the mind of a willfully ignorant population the fact that the battle happened.

Once again, once you do that, you can move on to a series of historical and philosophical questions

Yes my friend, we are starting from bellow the basement here

I'm not thoroughly convinced that people don't KNOW that the battle happened, and your vague reference to reviews doesn't help me establish that. I've read at least one review (A.O. Scott's) that was negative, and focused, to some degree, on the allegorical reading. I suspect that A.O. Scott knows full well that the Battle of Thermopylae was a real event. The only review you named specifically (Alternet), moreover, specifically notes that Thermopylae was a real event.

A another level, I'm not sure how insisting on the fact of the event buys you out of the allegorical reading? The Battle of Agincourt was a real event, as every lowly pit dweller in the Globe Theater surely knew. But as no end of New Historicist critics have rigorously (if tediously) demonstrated, Shakespeare's Henry V certainly addressed contemporary political concerns, like the modernization of the Elizabethan Army under the Privy Council, the high rates of desertion in the Irish and Spanish campaigns, the consolidation of Tudor rule, etc. The same could be said for all of his histories. The allegorical reading, in other words, is not overturned by mere reference to historical fact. One would still have to explain why such-and-such historical fact suddenly emerged to prominence in the cultural space (Why Thermopylae? Why now?). That's where the allegorical reading draws its power, so that's where you should concentrate your efforts if you seek to debunk it.

Now you've gone and done it. You have me defending allegorical readings of film, my least favorite activity. Of course, one could have a very different answer to "Why Thermopylae? Why Now?" That Frank Miller produced the graphic novel in the late-1990's is no answer, since you'd still have to explain why it was proposed and greenlighted (as they say) in the mid-2000's. One alternative reading would have to do precisely with the economic forces I mentioned earlier.

Now, if your only point is that people who don't know that Thermopylae was a real event should know, I have no quarrel with you there. Obviously, they should. But I don't understand how such ignorance could be "willful." Once you've told them that it was a real event, they would no longer be ignorant, and then your problem would ostensibly be solved, no?

but what irks me is the wilfful ignorance of History by Americans

you wnat to go further on this? We sure can

We can also discuss this wifllul ignorance as part of the American spirit, the culture is insward looking and hates any intellectualism

As to why Frank Miller has been green lighted, you woudl have to extend that to ... Sin City as well...

They are part of a continuum, and one reason for this particular movie is Lord of the Rings...

Action adventure sells... they know that...

They also know that the kind of dialigue used can help sell the movie, (going from the previous)

I'd be the last person to disagree with you that ahistorical attitudes are rampant. Of course they are.

As for your explanation for the green lighting, that is precisely what I was arguing in Post 40, to wit:

You'd also have to understand the history of the film industry with respect to its mode of production. Most recently, you'd have to understand the economic relationships behind the cycling of graphic novels into film (clearly, 300 comes after dozens of such arrangements, which seem to have mushroomed over the last ten or fifteen years...as has the graphic novel industry and the reflective understanding of graphic novels, such as that laid out in Scott McCloud's book). You'd also have to understand the technological history of SGI and its economic development in the modern film industry.

And in Post 43, to wit:

That Frank Miller produced the graphic novel in the late-1990's is no answer, since you'd still have to explain why it was proposed and greenlighted (as they say) in the mid-2000's. One alternative reading would have to do precisely with the economic forces I mentioned earlier.

So, no surprise there. That would be an alternative reading to Why Thermopylae? Why now?. I am happy to have provided that to you. One proviso would be that these economic features are a political aspect of the film that affect it at nearly every level.

That said, you still haven't demonstrated that the reviews ignore (willfully or otherwise) that the Battle of Thermopylae actually happened. This seems to be your rather low threshold, established here: until people have a firm base on a simple fact... the battle happened... Nor have you been able to demonstrate that based on either the fact of the battle or the time of Miller's writing, the allegorical reading is faulty, as you proclaim here: They are not comments on CURRENT events, by a long shot.. I'd rather hear you cash out these two claims than get into an extended discussion of the ahistorical character of the American spirit, on which point we agree, in any case.

including the one at Alternet and then talk to people from BOTH sides

You get the feeling that people want to lift this from any history and to just make this a political statement

And to witt this did not start with the Passion, or for that matter with the Last Temptation, but it has reached a fever pitch

I did not watch Apocalypto, but that movie was also poulticed (and was terrible history to witt), but look around

Star Wars.. it is about the bush administration... no, it is not... per Lucas it is about Nixon.

Oh never mind, he THE AUTHOR NO LESS, does not know what he wrote about.

Lord of the Rings, it is about Bush... no, it is about WW I.

The fact that this is happening is distressing, and yes I will contend that one reason this is happening is because Americans like to think they are outside history and will never truly be historical actors.

As I said, we can have a fascinating discussion as to why films are made, but I will contend the treatment by BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT after they are released is telling of OTHER problems and yes I will contend that we need to start by telling people... yep this is based, albeit loosely, on a battle... and in the final event it is made to ENTERTAIN.

Oh and as to how this is not a real event, read the review from alternet.. the ending did not make any sense to the reviewer... anybody who knows a tad about the battle knows that the ending, aka the daeth of the 300 is the expected end

It is like watching titanic, you KNOW in the end the ship sinks.



There are movies with a clear political comment out there (children of men comes to mind), but I fear people are just politicizing these film releases and it is just a sign of how far we have been polarized as a nation

In Post #35 you seem to respond to my link in Post #33. Given this latest response, I can only assume that you haven't done me the same courtesy.

Cheers.

have a good one

Peter Jackson did. And there's no way (given that it was edited right up until the release dates) that the producers were unaware of the historical moment in which it was released -- that neocons would exploit it as Sauron="Terrorism", whereas everyone else would plainly see that Sauron is the Bush regime, Saruman is Blair and the prowar Democrats, and the Fellowship is a wish that there were actually any heroes who will destroy the Ring and restore a happy state that never actually existed.

You gotta take this with more humor or it's gonna wear ya down. It's not like you just noticed the decline of this culture, is it?

is CLOSELY based on Tolkien's work

I give up...

Unfriging amazing....

The timing of a later adaption can always be relevant.

It was a real battle. Is the movie accurate about the real battle's key facts? Does the movie provide any sort of historical context? Isn't it possible to tell the story about the battle in such a way that it leans one way or another? Same with real people. Are they shown as they were or as somebody wants to see them?

Again, I do not understand the 'willfully ignorant' complaint. What is that supposed to mean? That a majority have not read a significant amount of history books? Or watched shows on the History channel? That they won't believe something is real just because somebody says so on the internets? You expect a movie reviewer to be a history major, or to consult a history major before he/she writes a review?

in the United States to know that the battle happened, I also expect that same graduate to be able to find Greece on a map

Just as I expect that same graduate to know his or her rights under the Bill of Rights, and that there is an indirect connection between Greece and that Declaration of Independence and US Constitution he supposedly read in HS.

I know I expect too much, after all those are the kind of MINIMUM expectations in other countries

I graduated in 1980 and took a class in World History as an elective in my sophomore year. I think my memory is pretty sharp, but I doubt if I remember half of the things from that course almost 30 years ago, and I do not remember that battle at all. In my 2nd senior year of college my roommate was taking a history of Europe course that went for a full year, and I read that entire text in less than a tri-mester just for pleasure. But again, no memory of such an incident (I also do not remember what years the course or book covered)

As for the minimum of expectations in other countries, I find that hard to believe. The literacy rate in India, for example, is only 52%. In Deutschland, they put students in tracks, so that only a minority go onto gymnasium.

and we read about Marathon and about this battle, and about Salamis

Gee, perhaps I expect too much from Americans and perhaps you are right, Americans are dumb as rocks, which is the opinion of many abroad

Perhaps your attitude is typical... and I should forget about the POTENTIAL of humans in general and Americans in particular

But hey, this is the reason why Johnny cannot read... we don't expect Johnny to read

Thanks for making my point

Is it the lowest in the world at 38%?

I never said that Americans are dumb as rocks. I certainly do not accept the postulate that not knowing about some ancient Grecian battle makes somebody either hopelessly stupid or ignorant. Just because Johhny does not read about ancient Greece doesn't mean he can't read. Maybe he'll watch the movie "300" and get the information anyway.

look this was taught in schools at one time...even oh shocker, American Schools...

IT WAS...

But hey, whatever, you helped to prove the point... people not only do not care for history but the inner looking nation called the US does not care about anything but American Idol.

Americans are also positive they live OUTSIDE of history, and are not HISTORICAL actors

as to the graduation rate I have not checked in a while... I just used myself as an example of a country where at least at one point this was taught.

By the way, I also got to read the US COnstitution in Junior High, mostly it was the 1824 Mexican Constitution... and I also was aware of the connections, as tenuous as they were, between Classic Greece and the Enlightenment.

That knowledge grew in College...

But yes, I will say this once again... Americans, as my rant said, are willfully ignorant, and PROUD OF IT!

Then they ask why Johnny cannot read...

With all due respect to lovers of Latin, they were still teaching Latin in high school long after it was irrelevant.

I'd think teaching about the Battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Marathon etc. are equally a relevant, and have no point in a high school setting. Except perhaps for a brief mention in a survey course on Ancient History.

In fact, I suspect they were covered in your high school because they were some vestigial remnant of the same teaching philosophy behind Latin.

Lets see what other things can we cut from the curriculum? Oh yes CIVICS, what a waste of time! (Done by the way)

PE... we don't want the liability (Done by the way)

Next will be math, reading and writing, who needs that anyhow when we have computers!

Ah yes, why Johnny can't read

by the way, you know the logic behind latin...

I'll give it to you

It helps you determine the meaning of words from surprise, surprise, latin origin

Example

Philosophy

Philos, love for

Logos, knowledge

Wasn't that hard, was it?

Philos and Logos.

Shouldn't sophistry be in there too? Philo. sophy. I can see philos and logos in philology, but not so much in philosophy.

I would have been happy to do without PE. Were we supposed to learn something there? Thankfully it was not required in high school. Just talking with a kid at lunch she was surprised that my high school had no math requirement beyond freshman algebra. I took all the math they offered anyway, for all the good it did me.

care to tell me if you like employees who can think for themselves?

By the way both Etymologies, Greek and Latin, are taught to people who have a well rounded education... apparently we don't want that in the United States. Uggh the horror!

And yes, I was shocked to learn that the Civics requirement has been dropped from local California schools

So what should we teach kids.

Apparently math is useless (Critical thinking is useless apparently)

Why bother with science?

Hell, why bother with history.

Should we just convert the schools to warehousing places for the kids? Oops too late

And then employees complaint that their new employees cannot do basic math, or read or comprehend basic written instruction, and at times verbal instruction.

Yep, perfect example of why we are here.

It is not only policy by those who want to destroy education, but also happily swallowed by the masses who hate any book learning...mom pa, they are making me read in them darn schools, what's good this is gonna do me when hunting 'coon?

Serious you think that algebra did not do you any good? It is called critical thinking and being able to work your way through a problem... you don't realize that when solving quadratic equations, in my case at 11... you realize that when you grow up and find out exactly what that taught you... and it was not the solving of the quadratic equation perse... could not do it today... but the ability to think through a problem.

That's a long way from learning greek and latin.

a course called etumologies

No longer taught in schools either

I will ask again, when we are done cutting and pruning the curriculum, what will be left?

And not full Latin language courses, and the Battle of Thermopylae.

is the reason democracy AS A CONCEPT survived

I guess that is unimportant

And what is important stuff?

Define it

Apparently math ain't it, from your posts, since it did you no good... definitely not logic, history who cares?

See here is the problem I am having, for you school is essentially a waste of time... it is not, or at least should not be

The only reason anybody's talking about the Battle of Thermopylae is because somebody made a big, flashy movie about it, they might as well have included big explosions and car chase sequences.

"See here is the problem I am having, for you school is essentially a waste of time... it is not, or at least should not be"

I don't think curriculum should be based on box office receipts, or other flashes in the pan.

history is not based on box office receipts

Then again when I studied history things like the battle were studied because they were important in the causality of events that lead to the modern world

You understand what the word means right?

We also studied other things like I don't know, Cortes and the take over of Tenochtitlan and that small navigational error made by that poor Genovese sailor (columbus)

We also studied things like the Gaelic Wars, and of course the Enlightenment in general... and how connected the Enlightenment is to Classical times... again they are not useless

A man by the name of Santayana put it best'

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it

you refuse to learn from it... you draw your conclusions.

If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have freedom.

And let's not forget Da Vinci, if it hadn't been for him we wouldn't have figured out that whole Holy Grail thing.

:crazy:

great men in history mode with casuality chains

And on purpose I will add

But Santayana is a philosopher... modern times, he wrote that after WW II

In fact, the number of students participating in the National Latin Exam has steadily increased since 1977 from about 5,000 to over 130,000 in 2006.


http://www.nle.org/comm.html#
http://www.nle.org


Participation in Government or some other form of civics education remains a requirement for high school graduation in most states. A number of initiative deal with this issue. Join one, instead of ranting:

http://www.cived.net/index.html
http://www.civiced.org/index.php

I want to see your sources for your supposedly extensive knowledge about the current state of high school education and curriculum changes.

on no child left behind

By the way, go back and READ the congressional record on hearings held on NCLB and how it has affected curriculum changes due to meeting minimum requirements

As to Civics, this is California and recent graduates in the San Diego Unified School district have not had to take any civics class in 8th grade as they used to

They still take the exam, but no class

I am sure the kids and teachers who told me this wee making a tall tale as well :sarcasm:

(do you?), I have followed the NCLB legislation closely and carefully. There have certainly been detrimental curricular changes, but they are nowhere near the complete collapse that you describe. So, do you still claim that Latin isn't taught in high schools? Your anecdotal evidence on 8th grade civics courses in SDUSD is interesting, but not sufficient to support your wildly unqualified claims. That's the problem: you make outrageously wide claims, then purport to support them with the slimmest evidence. It's embarrassing. At best, you can say (based on your evidence) that some schools have modified their civics requirements. That they still have to take high school civics class (one semester) for graduation in California, however, rebuts your broader claim. Here's the evidence for that:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrtable.asp

Evidence. It's a good thing.

and Riverside School district

I talk to educators...

No it has not collapsed yet, but it is well on its way... and on target.

The POLITICAL GOAL of NCLB is to defund public eduction, but I am sure you will deny this too. Afer all I don't work in in education therefore I do not have any clue,

And you knwo what, it does not matter what evidence I show you... after all my evidence to you is not valid and I will say this, interseing that kids are still taking Latin... what schools, good districts, well funded districts right?

My statemetn of a well rounded education still stands, or are you going to shoot that one too?

Oh I forgot, I am not offering a link... sorry... will NOT play your game, how many times from now till Tuesday do I have to tell you this. (Oh it is Tuesday)

I believe that a good many students continue to receive a well-rounded education, or at least no less than in the past.

Are there problems? Of course. There are severe problems in the education system at all levels. I've put my money (that is, my livelihood) where YOUR mouth is working to address those problems. You just rant about them. Good luck with that. You've "talked to educators." Yeah. You're talking to one right now.

and in the past I have been one too

See you make your assumptions and right at the moment I am this close to just blocking you

You talk down, you demean and you act like some of my really grouchy profs

phil- (phileîn) = love
sophia = wisdom

phil- (phileîn) = love
anthropos = human

philanthropy = love of human kind (i.e., charity)

All of these are from the Greek, not the Latin.

cauught, anybody else wants to chime in?

by the way, so you know, I blocked your thread.

Passive AND aggressive.

Nice mix.

I don't intend to continue to play your game?

Passive aggressive my ass

And I will add, if you cannot see the willfull ignorance all around you, in spite of the evidence, I cannot help you there

What a mean-spirited game! When someone says something, I actually ask them to provide some support for their assertions. Ouch.

Do I see ignorance around me? Sure. Do I think it is more severe than in other times in history, or in other places in the world? No, not really.

I also see brilliance and engagement around me, in students, and in people. I have students who probably don't give a damn about Thermopylae (and probably don't care all that much for the required class they're in), but make beautiful pottery, and conduct sophisticated experiments in microbiology. I see students who build houses for Habitat for Humanity, and took two years of Latin, and care about the environment, and go out and party every weekend (and Thursday quarter beer nights). I know total burn-out students who know Heidegger cold at age twenty. I know students who are utterly apathetic, but can organize a cookout like nobody's business. I know students who are old beyond their years for study in advanced number theory, but also love reading chick lit novels. I know students who work two jobs and go to school full time, and struggle with the work load, but spend their spare hour on Tuesdays in my office, talking about what they "sorta missed" because they were "really sleepy in class." There's a world of richness out there, this generation of students no worse than the last, and in many ways, a lot better. Your blanket assertions of ignorance are not only ignorant themselves, they are insulting and mean-spirited. When you're on the ground with actual people, it's harder to make casual assertions about how dumb everybody it. Primarily because they're NOT dumb at all. They just aren't into the same things you are.

By the way, look around... i

but here yuo go

http://kapio.kcc.hawaii.edu/upload/fullnews.php?id=52

I expect you to say it is not good

http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2005/09/30/News/U.s-Falls.In.Education.Rank.Compared.To.Other.Countries-1005055.shtml

Not scholarly so I am sure it is not good enogh

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/20/37392850.pdf

Perhaps this will be good enough since it is scholarly

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3389816.html

Nice xhart in here by the way

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

http://www.oecd.org/country/0,3021,en_33873108_33873886_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Do you need more? Or will this serve?

Oh and NCLB

http://epx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/71

http://www.urbanedjournal.org/articles/article0020.pdf

My dad's high school curriculum included Latin and agriculture.

Mine did not, but did include physics and chemistry.

My kid's elementary school includes computers. And he's been doing 25 book reports a year since 3rd grade (I believe my first book report was in 8th grade). And it's a sure bet he'll study things in high school I never did.

Knowledge expands. Unless you're adding years to primary/secondary education, then you have to delete something to make way for the new.


I also learned in school that Roman Catholicism was *not* the world's first religion which led to some very intense arguments with my mom who learned otherwise when she was in school.

Graduates of the Realschulen (the vocational high schools) are well educated in politics and history compared to working-class Americans. People of all stations are politically involved, know and constantly discuss the issues of the day. The public media present a far greater variety of views. A university student will on average have a greater knowledge of the humanities and history than an American counterpart. The left party and the Greens took about 20 % of the vote in the last election and the conservatives are secular (notwithstanding the name Christian Democrats) and support the social welfare state (though they're often busy at dismantling parts of it). Proportional representation means all interests have some representation. That being said, it's still a corporate-controlled society with a propaganda system to maintain it and a big problem with racism. It's just not as easy to sucker and plunder the people and the state understands a need to provide for their interests. These statements roughly apply to the rest of Europe.

And India is poor, so this is not an apt comparison either.

Is a better media a result of better schooling, or is some other factor involved. A more educated populace demands something other than Britney, ANS, and Bennifer?

I mentioned India because I got the impression, from my roommate from Calcutta, that they have excellent schools, and he was from a poor family and village, but apparently lots of less scholarly people drop out of it.

as well as corporate policy

When we had a fairness doctrine we had better news covrage, since 1986 the objective has been to dumb down the population and you can seee that people have bought the anti intellectual message, hook, line and sinker.

I mean education, who needs that? :sarcasm:

Every state has its own "third channel" and these combine into ARD (the first channel). It's financed by a TV tax, commercial free, and available universally. News actually relates to the news, even when it's propaganda (i.e., at least they're lying to you about Iran instead of telling you the truth about Anna Nicole). Excellent movies from all the world. Many documentaries, historical and current, in-depth news magazines, a variety of advocacy programs from different points of view. In election campaigns, all parties on ballot get TV time for spots of 5-15 minutes (weighted toward the bigs but everyone gets a share). Every private channel must provide a few hours every week to independently produced public-interest programming.

Not to idealize. Plenty of empty entertainment shows produced by these channels, many just reproducing the national ideologies about crime or whatever. Quality has been dropping off in last 15 years, mostly due to introduction of private TV networks that are even junkier than the American and very right wing. (A lot of obnoxious ad techniques like shock cuts to the ad, the lower-screen ads during the actual program, and animated channel "bugs" were introduced by European corporate TV first, far as I know.) The public channels must compete for ratings to justify their budgets, so there we are. The system has been under moderate assault from the right (at one point Kohl actually wanted to de-fund Channel 1!).

Struggle is the price of liberty and quality TV, too.

I wonder why they elected that awful woman, if they're so knowledgeable.

And she's not that awful. Also it's a grand coalition. No party or standard combo of parties got a majority, so it's an SPD-CDU government and both sides have to agree to do shit. (Actually, that's the worst part of it: SPD & CDU together can do whatever they like much more easily.)

the radical lefty German I know thinks she's Thatcheresque/Reaganesque... I hope he's wrong!

She'd like to be Thatcheresque, little doubt, at the same time the system has real checks and balances built in. Anglo-American politics turn the head of state into a practical dictator. That's not the case with German parliamentarianism, so far. History would suggest a big bonanza for the parties who aren't in the Grand Coalition come the next election.

historical literature can be used (and frequently is used) for political purpose even if it is not contemporary

But I agree. I think the telling fact is that both neocons and progressives are claiming the movie is propaganda for the other side.

seein it.

movies with a grain of salt these days.

Frankly, I think it's shameful that so many Americans are ignorant about issues of criminal justice in the 60's. Why won't they watch more Batman?

You're killing me.

:rofl:

that here, faithful to her laws, we fell."

It doesn't have to be about Iraq or anything else. It's always been about courage and loyalty as far as I can see. Someone else called it Greece's Alamo. I like the comparison. Both involved brave men dying for a cause that is very flawed but that has helped form our notion of liberty.

otherwise we'd all be speaking in Persian instead of the fluent Greek that helps us communicate so effectively in these forums.

Oh waitaminute...

thank god for the defeat of the spartans or the idea of democracy might have gone up in flames.

It wasn't perfect... far from it... but the idea in the western world emerged there first.... but I am sure you knew that

but I can't see it as being so important - it's not like there's been an unbroken chain of 1000's of years of democracy since the Athenians.

from the era if the Persians defeated the polities

Chances are they would have taken the cream of the society (and anybody with a critical skill set, such as metal work) back home in chains

They would have burned more than just a city (Athens and the Acropolis) and chances are they would have salted quite a bit of land

That was war back then

Now that elite they took... best case preserved its traditions in captivity and the course of history would have been a little different but the concept would have come to us anyway

Worst case, all documents would have been destroyed, those people assimilated and the concept (in the western world) would be gone

The ideas of the classical period influenced Enlightenment thinkers in a radical way, and the concept of democracy was one not practiced for thousands of years but survived to our days thanks to the Persinans not winning, some of them surviving and passed down the line due to the diligence of Monks in the Middle Ages

But there is a direct casualigty chain from the Enlightenment and our times to Pericles

Granted he is not the great man we used to think he was (Great men in history model has been trashed anyhow) but the idea goes that far.

Lord... my frustration is clear, they don't this in schools any more

to some extent re-discovered by islamic scholars during the European "Dark Ages" and in some way passed back to the West to contribute to the Renaissance..?

My point is, I don't think civilizations are fixed as "enlightened" or "barbaric", they wax and wane and cross-fertilise
(not that I'm an expert - it's just until this movie came along nobody ever told me I should be grateful for the Spartans!)

some were preserved by monks

And it is not that you should be "grateful" to Sparta.. but it seems many folks don't even know the connections that tie us to them, and exactly how

by the way Spartan society was not one I'd like to even visit... it was far from "Enlightened"

Now as to the Enlightenment that is a Historical period, covering from the early seventeenth century to the late eighteenth, followed by the Romantic period in the 1800.. and all the founding Fathers are a product of that period, the Enlightenment and OUR political system is informed heavily by chiefly the Roman Republic with some Greek elements... you may even say that our move to Empire parallels Rome's

The democratic ideals in the United States originated in Great Britain. Those in Britain originated with the Anglo-Saxons who were electing their kings long before their immigration to Britain.

Did the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and other Germanic and Nordic peoples get their concept of democracy from the Greeks? Or did this notion develop independantly?

Native Americans were electing chiefs long before Columbus. Were they and the Greeks the only societies to originate this independantly?

Democracy isn't really that difficult a concept. Put a bunch of kids together and they're either going to do what the biggest guy says, or what the majority says. Any society has a fifty-fifty chance of spontaneous democracy.

Certainly the individuals who wrote the US Constitution had a "classical education". And that did influence them. But I imagine their English culture did more so. British Parliament and Magna Carta pre-date the US Constitution by centuries. And Magna Carta was the Anglish forcing the Normans to accept the democratic rights the Anglish had known for centuries before that.

did influrence the british political development (that is modern London)

It has a definite influence

So it may have influenced them, but was it *the* progenitor of democracy?

there was quite a bit of cross breeding...

Look I know this is amazing for some people but this event is important in the history of the western world.

Now I will also repeat what my teach said at one point

You remember that wonderful Western Civ class RIGHT? That course was a product of the cold war.

That said, the ideas that link US to them go straight to Greece through the Enlightenment

I can't do a thing about it, Jefferson was classically trained, and influenced by both Roman and Greek theories of government AS WELL as Magna Carta.

Some concepts are clearly Roman (The Senate), some others are claerly saxon, (Bring the body)

had democratic institutions before reaching Londinium?

I only ask, because the Romans were the ones who "founded" Londinium. And the A-Ss, Jutes, etc. were not there until 500 years after Romans had left. Yet the Romano-British (basically ruling class of Romans that may have stayed on and their assimilated Celtic-Britons) continued to rule during the Dark Ages (the time between the leaving of the Romans and the arriving of the Germanic tribes).

So, I'm just wondering at what point the Anglo-Saxons, etc would have come into contact with these ideas, either through their own development or through cultural exchange with the Romans before their invasion of (or migration if you want to call it that) Britain OR did through cultural exchange with the Roman legacy once they got to Britain.

I presume it's a typo, but I can't tell what for.

Londinium

Since Londinium had no political power in the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The powerful ones had their capitals elsewhere. What influence from Greece there might have been before the reconnection via Muslim scholarship would have come through the Catholic church - and democracy wasn't high on their list.

they were classically trained after all, through Magna Carta to Rome and then Greece.

It is a DISTANT connection, but it is there

Because it seems more based on asserting old Anglo-Saxon rights than ideas of Greek democracy (which didn't exactly last unbroken in Greece anyway).

due to the Enlightenment, but you know what? I guess it is dubious

I don't know what to tell you, since Jefferson and company cited Cicero quite extensively and that is just for starters...

They also cited the Classic Greek Writings such ss Herodotus and Pericles Funeral Oration

Here

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2680(199522)35%3A2%3C200%3ATFATCG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Classics-Greece-American-Enlightenment/dp/0674314263

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0820318396&id=DAwneAAfWvAC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&ots=seYvs7zSak&dq=the+American+enlightenment+and+Greek+Classics&sig=AXgVmBa0p9ceM2hq-uihv-PV4gg

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1932792325&id=5yRGz_EeslQC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&ots=xO2ote005O&dq=the+American+enlightenment+and+Greek+Classics&sig=dQ1BAdstRdzieDlgC-l7zGZkSeQ

(since post #115 brought that up). Yes, by the Enlightenment, Greek ideas had been recovered, as you said above. But it is reasonable to think that our democracies don't depend entirely on the survival of 5th century BC Athenian democracy - ideas had fed in from other cultures as well.

because of the cross pollination. They went away and many concepts we use TODAY in the US (Senate, House) would not be here

Yes, in some ways it is that simple.

those concepts go back to the Greco Roman period

There are other elements that come from the Anglo Saxons

The graphic novel is a work of art, not a history book. The movie is an excellent cinematic adaptation of the graphic novel. The graphic novel is a beautiful work of art based loosely on a historic event.

you know that, but read on for your amusement

It is at best, a secondary source, the graphic novel that is, and I am being VERY generous

And the graphic novel is NOT a commentary on current events EITHER

And if it is, perhaps the oracle of Delphi has moved to Mr. Miller's studio

I didn't really see any modern day political point to it. Other than freedom isn't free. I thought the movie was beautifully rendered. Cinematography was awesome. I love Frank Miller's noir Style in his graphic novels and that translates well on the screen.

All in all I give it two thumbs up!!

"300" isn't a historically correct recreation of a battle that occurred almost 2500 years ago (that would be impossible), it's a movie based on a 10 year old graphic novel. Big difference.

Buy some popcorn and find a good seat.

No, 300 isn't a historic reenactment of the Battle of Thermopylae but it IS based on a real battle, the events of which were similar to what is depicted in the movie.

The fanatic political ideologues of both sides that are trying to use this movie to make a political point about present day Iran/America are frankly, as you said, willfully ignorant of history. I guess its now impossible to discuss the history of ancient Europe/Greece/Persia/the Middle East without devolving into tortured present-day analogies... which is a shame.

I tried to recommend this but I was too late. Pity.

and we enjoyed it. I could even handle the graphic scenes but I can totally see where a stupid repuke could use this movie as a depiction of the current quagmire in the middle east. "We're fighten em over dare, so we don't fight em over hur" bullshit and I can imagine lee greenwoods' song playing at the end if a repuke was watching it.

Both Frank Miller and the director have both stated its LOOSELY based on the same historical battle. As a fan of graphic novels in general, I'm happy to see the genre translated to film. I thought it was a beautiful movie, blood and gore not withstanding.

I don't expect a history lesson out of it

But the way both the right and the left treats movies these days... and that is what the rant is all about

even those very loosely based on actual events, is that people interpret them in different ways and debate is sparked.

ends by BOTH sides... and it is not just this movie... hell this is the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial back

Since the Last temptation of the Christ you have seen the increased politization...

The Rights mantra has been for years, Hollywood is liberal, and now you have the left saying the same thing, just replace left for right.

And this is very dangerous territory

In particular to this movie, loosely based on the actual events, the fact that both sides are willing to look at this as if the actual event never happened is very worrisome. For god sakes this is NOT lord of the rings, or SW... the battle actually happened, and both Leonidas and Xerxes were real.

Oh and by the way none of us would feel at home in the world and societies these two men lived and came from... for the record.

For ancient Greece, the great drama "Oedipus" and both great historical dramas, The Battles of Marathon and Thermopylae, have one common theme that is the essence of any lessons gained by future generations of any culture.

Superstition and sorcery is fatal to any culture serious about advancement and survival.

The origin of the drama in Oedipus, the fuel for the narrative, is the abandonment of reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus
Long before the play opens Laius, Oedipus' father, kidnapped the young boy Chrysippus and was then cursed by Chrysippus' father, Pelops. The weight of this curse bore down onto Oedipus himself. An oracle prophesied that he would kill his father and marry his mother, Jocasta. Seeking to avoid such a fate, Laius was very careful with his wife Jocasta and did not touch her. Since Jocasta did not know of the prophecy, she felt she must have a child, for the only way for her to gain honour was to get pregnant.

When Oedipus was born, Laius had the infant's ankles pierced with a brooch and had him exposed on Mount Kithairon (placed in the wilderness to die). His soft-hearted servant, however, could not carry out Laius' order and instead handed the boy to a shepherd who presented the child to King Polybus and Queen Merope (or Periboea) of Corinth, who raised him as their own son.

In "the 300" - Thermopylae - delays due to an oracle, with a surprising "Persian bias" (bought in other words).

Marathon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon

More stupidity:

"They sent the courier Pheidippides to the Spartans and probably messengers to other cities. Pheidippides arrived in Sparta on the next day, the ninth of the month. According to Herodotus, the Spartans agreed to help, but being superstitious, said that they could not march to war until the Carneian festival ended on the full moon (September 9). "

The lesson - when you allow blatant superstition into your culture, you become a victim of it as often as you are a beneficiary. The lesson was in Oedipus, the practical application of the lesson is the limitation on Spartan action, Thermoplyae, and assistance to Athens, Marathon, in fighting off an invader. Those at the top of Greek culture at this time knew well that the "oracles" were a joke and could be bought for the right price. Yet the rulers failed to take on this harmful folly and became the victim of "oracles" that severely limited action.

What does this mean for us - look at how the superstitions generated around religion trap us right her, right now. Beyond that, look how the flawed logic that superstitions allows, put us in a position to liten to all sorts of "experts" who are really no better than the "bought off" oracles of ancient Greece.

I'm glad the film came out if for no other reason than to generate an exploration of history and what this all means.

but they won't even go to fight and defend America in a supposedly extremely safe war in Iraq.

see their partisan ends in a movie....

And when you confront them with the actual history they look at you as what this actually happened?

No not the comic version but there was an actual battle of thermopile and both Leonidas and Xerxes were living, breathing human beings at one time.

you kidding me right?

:rolleye:

Or the other extreme... less common since it requires a bit of education... lets examine why the film came out now and at this moment and what it tells us.

Lofty goal but when you have a level of willful ignorance of history that seems a good idea in a college setting... if you know what I mean.

But the far more common is... this battle actually Happened?

I guess I shouldn't be shocked, in a nation that loves American Idol and believes that is a Honest contest... I guess the fantasy that this never happened should not be too shocking

;-)

In the following thread - and I'd be honored by your readership!

"Tell the Spartans They Died For Your Sins"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x413207