|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Nov 4, 2015 15:05:21 GMT -5
Remember they sewed their own clothes back then. They didn't need wealth to buy cloths. They had it made for them. That took labor. I'm also speaking more about Middle Ages Europe. When chivalry was the norm. Pre Renaissance. Obviously you stated your social position. Yes, everyone made their own clothes and if you were rich, you made it out of the really expensive stuff, so no, you didn't need money to make clothes, but you needed a lot of it to make really nice clothes and those who had wealth wore the best they could afford and weren't ashamed to do so. In the Middle Ages the simplicity of dress had more to do with the lack of availability of luxury goods than notions of equality. The divide between the classes was even deeper then. As they came in contact with the Middle East through the Crusades their taste for spices and fabrics such as silk grew, not to mention jewels. Fashion was very much dictated by class and once again the name of the game was, if you have it, flaunt it.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Nov 4, 2015 15:38:21 GMT -5
My only point was that money wasn't a big factor between classes in old Europe. The same story in the American old south. It was how much land you had and how many soldiers you had. What your fiefdom could produce. Jews weren't allowed to own land.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Nov 4, 2015 18:44:33 GMT -5
My only point was that money wasn't a big factor between classes in old Europe. The same story in the American old south. It was how much land you had and how many soldiers you had. What your fiefdom could produce. Jews weren't allowed to own land. My point is hell yeah it was important. They didn't have paper money, but they did have coins and promissory notes, which were the forerunners of paper money. You are right that wealth was derived from land and what the land produced and that produce was exchanged for gold coin, as in the coin of the realm. Their wealth was not derived from business ventures as it is today, that for the most part didn't exist then. There was a very small merchant class and as time went on, the merchant class began to rival the aristocracy in wealth and power. Much of European history was a tug of war between the landed aristocracy and the emerging merchant class. So yes, they did have it and lots of it. Everyone had coin purses. Remember the tales of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. What do you think he was stealing, chickens? What do you think they paid those soldiers with? It was the business of working with money that was considered dirty business which is why they appointed Jews to do it. It was all very illogical, but bigotry most often is illogical isn't it? These people would quite literally wear their money as their clothes were woven with gold threads and studded with jewels. They had it and were not shy about showing it. It was a reminder to the lower classes to stay in their place. So when you get right down to it, the things they said about Jews and the ways they treated them were rather hypocritical because they were the ones pulling the strings of the Jews and when they no longer needed them, or they felt they were getting too rich, they kicked them out and confiscated their wealth. But you see this was also a diversionary tactic, because they would put Jews in the bad position of collecting taxes and rents for the landlords from the common people. So they used them as a buffer class. The common people would resent them the most because they were the ones coming in contact with the population. As I said, they used the Jews to do their dirty work so it could appear that their hands were clean and when people would get fed up and revolt, who do you think they would go after first? The Jews of course. It was the beginnings of the divide and rule tactics that they would later employ in the runnings of their colonies around the world. They would always find a minority group to do the dirty work for them. In the Caribbean it was the mulattos, then East Indians and Chinese, in Africa they would use one ethnic group against the other. This is what was at the heart of the tensions between the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. In Ireland they pitted Catholics against Protestants. Different players, same game.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Nov 4, 2015 19:53:51 GMT -5
Ok. I agree. But not anywhere near as important as it is now with capitalism. In Ancient China the Shang (merchant class) were considered lower than even peasants. Because they didn't produce anything. No matter how much money they made they were always the lowest tier. Now of course, Shanghai for example, they are the most prestigious class. Same concept in Europe. The Jews who were considered the lowest, are in our present day some would argue the highest. All these theories about the illuminati etc. People believe that Jews rule the world. I wish that was the case than I would be on top. Lol. I don't know. Maybe I am. I've had both ends of the spectrum. I've been homeless. I've been in jail. And I've lived all over the world. Paris. Beijing. All over the U.S. I owned property in France. Been to top universities. Right now I'm not doing as well as I used to. As can be seen by my lack of a computer. I've never had to work but I have to now. I'll probably need to start at like McDonald's or something.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Nov 4, 2015 20:12:18 GMT -5
The upper classes in Europe would marry rich jewesses from America and the jewess would get the name that comes with that. Obviously money has always been important. But look at it this way Robin Hood in America would be seen as a criminal. The upper class in Europe is extremely exclusive. In America all one needs is money to be upper class. Jay Z could never be considered upper class in Europe. Unless he can procure evidence that he is the direct descendant of a Pharaoh. Which because of the recent evidence could be a real possibility. With all that nonsense of him being in the illuminati who knows. Royalty has ways of surviving the trends over the ages.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Nov 5, 2015 0:20:10 GMT -5
The upper classes in Europe would marry rich jewesses from America and the jewess would get the name that comes with that. Obviously money has always been important. But look at it this way Robin Hood in America would be seen as a criminal. The upper class in Europe is extremely exclusive. In America all one needs is money to be upper class. Jay Z could never be considered upper class in Europe. Unless he can procure evidence that he is the direct descendant of a Pharaoh. Which because of the recent evidence could be a real possibility. With all that nonsense of him being in the illuminati who knows. Royalty has ways of surviving the trends over the ages. But Robin Hood was an outlaw. The English aristocracy only started marrying American heiresses in the 19th century because of the shift in capitalism away from agriculture to industry. Therefore a lot of English aristocrats found themselves low on cash. The majority of women they married were not Jews but Protestants. There was still strong antisemitism in Europe at the time. If you want to see the dynamic played out in drama the last season of Downton Abby had a Jewish family in one of the story lines. Americas class structure is not as rigid as Europe's but there are still boundaries between the old money and the new money. The aristocracy is a whole different thing altogether. They are a world onto themselves. Things are beginning to change a bit, but no one can buy their way into the aristocracy. Even if one is knighted, I think producer still plays an important role as to who is in and who is out.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Nov 5, 2015 1:05:12 GMT -5
Do you watch Game of Thrones? If you do you can see how these systems ran in Europe. The Lannisters are supposedly the richest house in westeros. But their are some houses who have great power but no wealth because of their connections to the King etc etc. The Starks aren't wealthy. But they have (had) great power because of their alignment with King. And of course Daenyris is poor as shi t (was poor) but marrying Khal Drogo gave her immense power. Also her name Targaryen the oldest bloodline of royalty gives her power. When he died of course she lost that power. Khallisar are supposed to represent the Mongols. They had enormous power by their military might alone. But they had no wealth. Because they were nomads. The dothraki in game of thrones don't believe in money at all. If they want something they take it. They don't need money to have their needs met. But everyone in westeros fears them. Thus they are not rich by any means. But they have enormous power because of the fear they instill in people. Now Daenryis has dragons and she has immense power because of them. She doesn't even need the dothraki anymore. She builds an army from slaves that she freed. Obviously she becomes rich. But because she is a Targaryen she has power with or without money. I hope you know what I am talking about. I'm really tired and it's hard to recount Game of Thrones story. If you haven't watched it. I recommend you do. It's a great political story with lots of intrigue. Very nuanced. The characters personalities develop through out the series.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Nov 5, 2015 1:21:17 GMT -5
In case someone is reading this 100 years from now or two days from now. Game of Thrones is a show on HBO. It's a lot like reading Egyptian and feudal European history. Some families are more like the Egytians. Others like feudal Europe. There are three storylines in it. There's two main religions in it. One being the worship of the seven. Seven gods that help in human affairs. And the other one is more like tree worship. One of the storylines is about this girl who is the daughter of the last Targaryen king who was defeated by an Usurper. Sort of like the father of Ramses the 3. She has been hunted since she was born by assassins trying to kill her to destroy the rightful heirs to the throne. Second storyline is about an army of in dead creatures trying to come from the north and how people go about solving this problem.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Nov 5, 2015 1:29:16 GMT -5
Third storyline is about a house that is very honorable (house Stark) but loses a great deal because of that honor. The series deals a lot with real history metaphorically. I think that's the word. There are no good guys bad guys in it. Everyone has good parts to them and bad parts. You see this while viewing the series. You see certain characters grow from childhood to adults. And others starting off weak but gaining power as they grow in personality and through suffering.
I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Nov 5, 2015 7:26:42 GMT -5
Samuel can you pls get back on topic ,make a thread about Game Of Thrones in the culture forum if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Nov 5, 2015 9:53:41 GMT -5
Third storyline is about a house that is very honorable (house Stark) but loses a great deal because of that honor. The series deals a lot with real history metaphorically. I think that's the word. There are no good guys bad guys in it. Everyone has good parts to them and bad parts. You see this while viewing the series. You see certain characters grow from childhood to adults. And others starting off weak but gaining power as they grow in personality and through suffering. I highly recommend it. Game of Thrones may be a great program, but honestly, not an accurate source for historical events, dynamics and circumstances in the real world. I would suggest watching period historical dramas such as Downton Abby, Upstairs Downstairs, any of the movies made about the Elizabethan Court, The Borgias to get an understanding of how European class system functioned. There are also great documentaries such as Secrets of the Manor that explain in great detail how things really were. All of the programs I mentioned were well researched by historians to give an accurate reflection of the times. Programs like Game of Thrones are fantasy and although they may take inspiration from real life in certain aspects, they are not bound to any need for accuracy. They rely very heavily on artistic license.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Nov 14, 2015 12:56:38 GMT -5
So sad what Islamic State did in Paris last night. I liv d there for 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Dec 1, 2015 1:17:07 GMT -5
Just observing the Ancient Egyptian gods should tell anyone which cultures they are most similar with. HIPPHPATOMAS are almost exclusively in sub Saharan Africa. Why did they worship so many animals? Did they eat meat?
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Dec 1, 2015 8:19:10 GMT -5
Just observing the Ancient Egyptian gods should tell anyone which cultures they are most similar with. HIPPHPATOMAS are almost exclusively in sub Saharan Africa. Why did they worship so many animals? Did they eat meat? Answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Dec 1, 2015 15:14:21 GMT -5
What is the second picture?
|
|