non sense

nun es   Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:50 pm GMT
Brennus,


"««Secondly , the aboriginal cultures that the Romans found in Spain (both Iberian and Celtic) were more primitive than those they found in Gaul. The same was true of Britain. Therefore, it was eaiser for Spaniards to make the transition to Romanization than for Gauls.»» "

What you say is completely amazing, how can you write this without realizing it is a pure nonsense.
What do you mean by "Primitive", technologies?

It does not mean these peoples did not have their own society with their own rules, language.

That's silly.


If we follow what you say, why aren't the aborigenas integrated to the actual white australian society.

Why the american indians aren't integrated in the us society.

# Anthropology. A person belonging to a nonindustrial, often tribal society, especially a society characterized by a low level of economic complexity.
# An unsophisticated person.
# One that is at a low or early stage of development.
#

1. One belonging to an early stage in the development of an artistic trend, especially a painter of the pre-Renaissance period.
2. An artist having or affecting a simple, direct, unschooled style, as of painting.
3. A self-taught artist.
4. A work of art created by a primitive artist.


About the Gauls, it was the opposite, the societies were very similar between between inhabitants of Gauls and Romans. Because of buziness, similar religion (composed of different gods: one for wine, one for war...), Mediteranean sea and natural communications: foundation of Nice and Marseille by the greeks.

Posters should really be trying to relate their posts to language as much as possible. In this particular case, my argument is that peoples with higher levels of culture or civilization have a better chance of keeping all or some of their language than people in more primitive societies. For example, European colonialism never eliminated Hindi, Chinese or Japanese but did lead to the demise of many tribal languages.

---Brennus
Guest   Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:44 pm GMT
"If we follow what you say, why aren't the aborigenas integrated to the actual white australian society. "

"Why the american indians aren't integrated in the us society. "

Indians from U.S. and Canada were eliminated by the British and something similar happened to natives in Australia. Never there was an interest to mix with them. They were seen as inferior people.

Spaniards and Romans were cruel as well but they never thought about an extermination as British did.
nun es   Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:29 pm GMT
For example, European colonialism never eliminated Hindi, Chinese or Japanese but did lead to the demise of many tribal languages.

---Brennus


I think those who have been "destroyed" were those who were not unified. When a "society", a land is ruled by clans, tribes, the result cannot be the same in comparison of the japanese/chinese society system.

Why the iberians, gaulish have been conquered? Because they did not have only one identity but several. As we say in french "rêgner par la division". I cannot translate it but it is something like: "Make the disorder and you will be the master".

"higher level of culture in pre-Roman Gaul than in pre-Roman Spain. "
I don't think so, the oldest human traces in Western Europe are in Spain and France. Both primitive arts, societies.
a.p.a.m.   Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:33 pm GMT
At the time of the Roman conquest of Gaul, it was reported that the Gauls were quite advanced. They were only slightly behind the Romans and the Greeks. The Gauls were far more civilized than the Germanic peoples by the first century B.C.
nun es   Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:35 pm GMT
"What you are saying was true 100 years ago maybe even 50 years ago to some extent but American Indians in the year 2006 have been largely assimilated into U.S. society."

Really, so why are there some reservations??

"my argument is that peoples with higher levels of culture or civilization have a better chance of keeping all or some of their language than people in more primitive societies."

So what you mean is the fact that in a primitive society the language is poorer. I don't think it works like that. You can a rich language in a primitice society.

On the opposite, on a developped country like USA for example, you will meet some people with a poor knowledge of language. Are they integrated?