quote:
Every reference to 'mercenary' or 'mercenary ally' is evidence. That is what 'mercenary' means. Look it up. I dare you. Again, I beg you to learn English.
I am well aware of what mercenary means. It seems, indeed, that you are ASSUMING a quid pro quo becuase that is what you associate with the word.
I can see other reasons for usoing the word. I would not use the word myself, becuase of the implications of exchange. I am not aware of any indication that a quid pro quo existed;l therfore I reject the term mercenary. That is not what they were.
Would you like to present some actual evidence that the Aztecs enjoyed a quid pro quo? If so, I will concede that mercenary is an acceptable description. If you cannot, I will continue to assert that it is a misleading description, carrying as it does implications which are not pertinent to the subject.
quote:
Sorry, no. You have chosen to insist upon describing a relationship that did not exist. Objecting to that is not 'semantic' except in so far as making the comment involves language. A purely 'semantic criticism' would be, for example, objecting that you used the word 'chunky' rather than 'chubby' as one old girlfriend of mine did.
This is rather amusing, considering that above you argue that you can succesfully divine the real historical scenario from the use of a certain term, i.e. mercenary. And yet, there is no indication tat the implications of the term apply to the scenario described. your argument is indeed purely semantic; the term I employed is demonstrably more accurate than your preferred term, emrcenary.
quote:
I won't argue that there were coercive relationships. There are ALWAYS coercive relationships. I can think of a hundred such relationships that ARE NOT slavery. How is it, then, that a coercive relationship equals slavery? It doesn't. You've redefined the term for some reason that isn't clear.
No no - but to be a MERCENARY or a CLIENT implies an exchange undertaken with some degree of mutual cooperation. That is why I wold not myself have used one of these terms.
quote:
No it might not. The term does not mean what you want it to mean. Using it as you suggest would be idiotic.
I'll be prepared to accept that as soon as you can detail the exchange that Aztecs enjoyed with their, umm, patrons. But I cannot see any evidence of such an exchnage - hence I venture to speculate that the authors use of "mercenary" is chosen to convey to the reader the direct nature of military service. I am not redefining the word at all - I am expostulaitng on why it might have been chosen, given my criticism of its appropriatenes.
quote:
Yet, if substantially descriptive, why interpret the terms as meaning something they do not?
Websters cites the etymology of Mercenary as: "[Middle English mercenarie, a mercenary, from Old French mercenaire, from Latin mercnnrius, from mercs, wages, price.]"
The term "mewrcenary" is explicitly a description of PAID service. I think this is an unfortunate term to employ in this scenario. The fact that one author has chosen to do so does not magically transform the historic relationship in any way.
Do you have anything at all that indicates that the Aztecs received payment for their service? If not, what reason do you think might have prompted an author to use this term?
quote:
Canonical? You mean insisting that a word be used to convey what it actually does convey to readers of the English language? Silly me.
Nope; but that you can pick a writers word and construe from it what history must have been. It works better when you do it the other way.
quote:
The conditions could be described by other terms, but why are they not so described by anyone but yourself? Because, those other terms don't apply.
Not at all; I have seen many terms including bondage, captivity, servitude and subjection. Mercenary is also one, among several. For the reasons above, I consider it weak.
quote:
As above, a mercenary is PAID for their service, whereas the Aztec's were PERMITTED to join an expedition as a concession.
Of course. And you can be paid in different ways. But seeing as there is no indication there was ANY quid pro quo, it seems tangential at best.
quote:
There are more ways than cash to be paid. I'd have thought you would have figured that out by now.
Of course. And you can be paid in different ways. But seeing as there is no indication there was ANY quid pro quo, it seems tangential at best (although note the explicit etymological link bewteen cash and the term mercenary specfiically. Remember we use mercenary to mean amoral far more frequently than we use it to mean combatant).
quote:
Nope. You claim was that "The Aztecs forged themselves an identity (and a persecution complex IMO) out of being slaves and mercenaries consigned to live in a swamp." You claim now is the much weaker one stated above.
And I have cited textual support for exactly that.
quote:
And, in fact, the objection is not irrelevant. You indicated that 'anything like slavery' is slavery. This is very sloppy thinking.
Not at all; given the range of historical slavery, asserting that a particular definition applies in all circumstances is sloppy thinking. It denies historical perspective.
quote:
What are you not following? In the discussion to which you first replied, the question was whether the Israelites could go from unidentifiable as a culture pre-captivity to identifiably Israelite while in captivity. You presented the Aztec as an example of this having happened.
And demonstrated that this is hardly a new thought in the body of Aztec literature. It is quite clear that their experiences contributed massively to their self-image and sense of place in the world.
quote:
These are your words. You used the very strong word 'forged' and did so in the context of a discussion of the possibility of the Israelites going from nothing to something while enslaved. You put these words into your own mouth, either intentionally or just by not paying attemtion to the thread to which you replied.
It is defensible, IMO, that captivity and slavery are major driovers in the structuring of a corporate identity. That was the some total of the point I made. Any extension of my argument you apply to creation of culture ex nihilo is your own imposition.
quote:
This, as everything in this thread should be, is a defense of your idea that "The Aztecs forged themselves an identity (and a persecution complex IMO) out of being slaves and mercenaries consigned to live in a swamp." My objection...
John writes:
That an event was written down does not prove that it 'formed a cultural identity.'
... is damned relevant and directly addresses your claim.
Granted. The fact that they recorded it in their national mythology, to be performed and recounted in public spaces, does not PROVE that it was adopted as a component of cultural identity. It merely STRONGLY IMPLIES that it did so. For supporting evidence, we can interrogate Aztec records and archeological investogation; and it is on that basis that we can confidently assert that it is not a coincidental recording, and it was indeed a trong component of their cultural identity.
quote:
It isn't semantic. 'Slavery' is not only 'not quite the word I'd use,' but it isn't even close.
I see. Even though you are totally unable to explain WHY it "isn't even close". I have challneged yo to provide a distinction (or at least explain the distinction you see) on several occassions now, and you have declined. I conlude you have nothing to show.
quote:
You claimed that the Aztec did what I was arguing that the Isrealites could not have done. By presenting the Aztec as a counter-example you DID make claims about whether they were previously identifiable.
Sorry, no. I did not address starting conditions at all. I only addressed the mechanism.
quote:
Otherwise, your counter-example would be invalid, as it wouldn't be analogous to the situation under discussion. I assumed that your counter-example was intended to be relevant. Sorry.
It remains relevant. It restricts your objection to the assettion that the Israelites were culturally identifieable before their period of bondage. That is a distinct argument to one in which the experience of captivity plays no role in culural identity. By seeing the Aztec analogy, we can eliminate a possible objection.
quote:
Right. What mechanism? That stuff effects other stuff? I'm pretty sure you are not a creationist. Stop acting like one.
That people often form an identity in response to persecution is an intersting and valuable anthropological insight. It is especially worthy when attacking claims to divine intervention, because we can construct a plausible scenario in which the tropes encountered are not bestowed but imposed. We can also attack the self-importance and myopia of those cultures which assert claims to cultural imperialism on the basis of their special destiny.
quote:
What you wrote, and the context in which it was written, is there for everyone to see.
Yes John. That it is.
™ Version 4.2