Hillary Clinton displays astonishing lack of knowledge

[Thanas]

Actually, I was talking about the bit you said concerning law. It may be interesting for personal reasons, but there's no way you would actually make up for it in time savings learning law directly, and you can't cite Roman precedent in a court case.

I think you are thinking a bit too much about the English system of law right here. In continental law, the situation is a bit different. For example, german inheritance law is based on roman law and many of the same problems and answers that face us today have already been discussed in roman times (for example, who gets preference - the children or the wife etc). Therefore, it is very important to learn about the history of the law. In german law several arguments can be made to interpret a law, one of the four big groups is the historical argument, what laws it was based on, what are the general principles etc. In that context, knowing about roman law is important.

So that is what I meant. Of course, you can get by it without latin - I bet you can go through law school without ever learning latin - but it does help you, especially with your grades. Personally, it was worth the effort.

I dispute this from personal experience. How many foreign languages have you learned? And I mean "learned enough to read a standard novel in"? Do you speak a romano-language or have you ever learnt latin?

What part of it do you dispute? The part about how many people have learned multiple romantic languages without studying Latin? The part about how people get faster at it when they already have a couple of them under their belts?

No, those are all statements I have no issue with.

Admittedly, I'm taking the word of other people on this rather than having done it myself, but your appeal to personal authority is wearing thin. You aren't even saying what is wrong with my statement other than to vaguely imply that you must be right because you have learned Latin. You don't even have a control group so your personal authority is worthless: you don't know how quickly you would have learned those languages if you didn't know Latin.

I do have a control group, in fact, although it is a small one. For example - in school I took latin first and then learned french and spanish. My sister and my brother both took french first. Both had far more problems learning french and then spanish than me learning latin and then the two other languages simultaneously. And no, I am not smarter than my siblings and I know that my sister is pretty much the same as me in every other subject when it comes to learning things.

EDIT - Same things happened to my cousins, one learned latin first, the other did not. They had the same experience as me and my siblings did.

Everyone I know and work with speaks Latin and several foreign languages. However, they have all reported the same thing - learning Latin first and then the other languages they have had an easier time than outright starting with a romano language. Admittedly, that sample is very small (about 20 people) and it may be skewed since nearly all of them are excellent in latin, so I cannot really extrapolate too much of that. It does confirm the general trend I have witnessed in university myself - that people who learned romanized languages had a far easier time if they knew latin.

[Master of Ossus]

However, why should we give European history a greater weightage just because of the fact that most people have European ancestry as opposed to Asian or African ancestry?

A lack of study in regards to other cultures and region will only serve to reinforce a person's pride about his or her cultural background and have a greater disregard other people's ancestry as inferior so to speak.

Ray, I agree with you, but that's not the educational orthodoxy's view of history. Most educators view stoking people's cultural and ethnic egos as a central objective of teaching history--especially for children. That's why we get various ethnic studies departments in universities (well, that and to get the number of minority professors up), things like "Black History Month," etc. If you read some of the textbooks, it's clear that that is a central objective of the educational system.

A more compelling "defense" of the modern system might be based on educational momentum: very few teachers have significant experience or knowledge teaching about any groups outside of Europe and maybe the ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and even there their knowledge is pretty topical. It may just be that there aren't enough people qualified to teach those subjects and do them any justice in grade schools or high schools. For me, though, that's really just an additional condemnation of the current system than anything else.

[General Zod]

If you study Latin, not just to translate it but to understand the basics, you get a feel for the way language itself is constructed, and you learn the methodology to analyse a sentence in any language and understand its structure. It's general principles you can transplant onto any other language.

Then it's the methodology that's useful, not necessarily the language in and of itself.

[Eleas]

What part of it do you dispute? The part about how many people have learned multiple romantic languages without studying Latin? The part about how people get faster at it when they already have a couple of them under their belts? Admittedly, I'm taking the word of other people on this rather than having done it myself, but your appeal to personal authority is wearing thin. You aren't even saying what is wrong with my statement other than to vaguely imply that you must be right because you have learned Latin. You don't even have a control group so your personal authority is worthless: you don't know how quickly you would have learned those languages if you didn't know Latin.

I'd say that Latin, by itself, is neither better nor worse in that regard. However, given how it's taught in the context of providing a baseline model for all Romance languages, the study of Latin tends to properly be the study of a near-extinct language and how it lives on in spoken languages today. Which has its uses, I'd imagine.

Doesn't hurt that Latin grammar is rather complex, meaning you learn to analyse sentences in ways you wouldn't need in a more forgiving language.

[Akhlut]

So ... people just act as if they've never seen certain phenomena before because they're simply stupid, not because they're not being taught these historical precedents in school?

Most people learn a topic for a test and then immediately forget it to make room for the next topic, and so on until they graduate, and then they immediately forget and disregard everything they learned in history class, essentially.

And, of course, most of the time that what is being taught is being taught as a fact in isolation, not as part of a coherent 'narrative' where the past is important because how it influences the present. For instance, the Lousiana Purchase is just looked at in isolation instead of being related to the expansion of territories and states into that region and how the problems of trying to integrate them as either free or slave states/territories helped to lead to the Civil War, for instance.

[ray245]

However, why should we give European history a greater weightage just because of the fact that most people have European ancestry as opposed to Asian or African ancestry?

A lack of study in regards to other cultures and region will only serve to reinforce a person's pride about his or her cultural background and have a greater disregard other people's ancestry as inferior so to speak.

Ray, I agree with you, but that's not the educational orthodoxy's view of history. Most educators view stoking people's cultural and ethnic egos as a central objective of teaching history--especially for children. That's why we get various ethnic studies departments in universities (well, that and to get the number of minority professors up), things like "Black History Month," etc. If you read some of the textbooks, it's clear that that is a central objective of the educational system.

A more compelling "defense" of the modern system might be based on educational momentum: very few teachers have significant experience or knowledge teaching about any groups outside of Europe and maybe the ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and even there their knowledge is pretty topical. It may just be that there aren't enough people qualified to teach those subjects and do them any justice in grade schools or high schools. For me, though, that's really just an additional condemnation of the current system than anything else.

Which is sad really, that many people simply cannot understand why I view Chinese or East Asian history as important as Roman history, native American history being just as important as what happened in the cold war. What has happened in another part of the world is just as important as what has happened before in your hometown or homeland.

Sure you may find Roman history far more interesting than Asian history for example, but that does not mean Asian history is any less important than Roman history.

I mean the study of history is not a game of who is the best, but to understand the causes and effect of certain events in history. For example, a lack of action does not mean there will be no impact in the modern world. What happens if the Qing dynasty decides to further their technological improvement in the 18th century? What happens if USSR didn't collapse?

Then there is the annoying blame game we seen so often in History, especially in regards to the cold war, where we only have 3 main school of thought so far, the US is at fault, Russia is at fault or it is just a big misunderstanding.

By the way guys, I think I've just realise that we might have gotten off-topic by discussing over the usefulness of history as compared to current affairs.

[Broomstick]

you won't learn much about law by studying the history of ancient Rome

Perhaps nothing immediately practical, but it's still useful to know how and why things like written law arose. Knowing which systems failed in the past and why is still relevant knowledge today.

That statement would make more sense if written law originated with the Romans but it didn't - the Code of Hammurabi is MUCH older than any Roman legal document.

[Broomstick]

Forget inter-relationships, Latin makes learning any language related to it easier. Hell, it even makes learning non-related languages easier

What bullshit - are you telling me that learning Latin could be of ANY assistance in, say, learning Mandarin Chinese?

The only thing learning Latin does is exercise the language centers of the brain, and that could be done equally well by learning ANY modern language at least as distantly related to the learner's native tongue.

it's usually the first language people come across they don't understand intuitively

Maybe in Europe... not necessarily the rest of the world. I sure as hell didn't find French intuitive, and even less intuitive did I find Irish Gaelic. Still haven't studied Latin, and frankly have zero use for it. (I don't have a use for Gaelic, either, it was just something interesting to study for awhile).

and learning it teaches the methods and principles that apply to translating any language.

Right... and no other language on Earth could possibly do that...

But hey, don't take my word for it; I only studied Latin for six years on top of German and French. I'm sure I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say it has been extremely useful.

Useful for German and French, perhaps - having you studied any language from outside the Indo-European family? Until you have I question your assumption that Latin would be useful for studying such languages.

Study Latin if that's what you want, if you're curious, a scholar of history, you feel some cultural attachment to it, whatever - but stop fucking pretending it's anything other than a dead language, albeit one of historical significance. At least Hebrew has native speakers again, Latin doesn't even have that going for it.

[Broomstick]

Actually, that's not at all how Americans are taught history, now. Have you looked at recent AP tests or US history textbooks? Various American Wars account for MAYBE 5% of school materials. The vast bulk of the test is taken up by various rights movements (huge), legislative actions (and a few court decisions), economic shifts and changes, and the political process and federal structure.

While what you state holds true for Advanced Placement American History, very few students in the US study American History at that level. The rest of them will get wildly varying levels of US history strongly dependent on whether or not the teacher is an excellent educator or a burned-out idiot.

[Thanas]

you won't learn much about law by studying the history of ancient Rome

Perhaps nothing immediately practical, but it's still useful to know how and why things like written law arose. Knowing which systems failed in the past and why is still relevant knowledge today.

That statement would make more sense if written law originated with the Romans but it didn't - the Code of Hammurabi is MUCH older than any Roman legal document.

But unlike roman law, parts of the code of hammurabi is not in effect anymore, is it?

[Bounty]

That statement would make more sense if written law originated with the Romans but it didn't - the Code of Hammurabi is MUCH older than any Roman legal document.

The Code of Hammurabi is one legal document in a legal system that's not fully understood even to this day. Roman law, by contrast, is well-documented and has a clear lineage to present day.

Useful for German and French, perhaps - having you studied any language from outside the Indo-European family? Until you have I question your assumption that Latin would be useful for studying such languages.

It's a very convenient baseline language to get to grips with the field as a whole: it's complex, it places a great emphasis on word construction as opposed to word order (which is a godsend to understand languages that ignore word order completely), but it's still easy enough to teach to twelve-year-olds.

Study Latin if that's what you want, if you're curious, a scholar of history, you feel some cultural attachment to it, whatever - but stop fucking pretending it's anything other than a dead language, albeit one of historical significance. At least Hebrew has native speakers again, Latin doesn't even have that going for it.

The only way you can make a statement like that is if you have a profound ignorance of what studying languages entails. I won't claim to be an expert either because I'm not, but I at least recognize that there's more to a language than having the ability to order a sandwich in it. Latin provies a baseline both for nearly every Western language in wide use and for the udnerstanding of language as a whole, and that's ignoring the wealth of cultural and linguistic information locked in descendant languages which you will miss completely if you don't know what words they were based on. So no, it's not useless because it's a dead language. If anything, it's more useful.

[Broomstick]

That statement would make more sense if written law originated with the Romans but it didn't - the Code of Hammurabi is MUCH older than any Roman legal document.

But unlike roman law, parts of the code of hammurabi is not in effect anymore, is it?

There are plenty of parts of Roman law that are no longer in effect, either.

Nonetheless, such features of the Code of Hammurabi such as mandated alimony and child support and all heirs sharing equally in an estate rather than the eldest son getting the greater share or all of it if there is no other will specifying other divisions are common in the US. If nothing else, it is interesting that such concepts reach so far back in time.

[Stark]

Are you serious? Concepts like that will be as old as the concept of inheritance; it doesn't take thousands of years for magistrates to have to rule on such disputes after people own land. Indeed, this is why codifying the law into a single document is considered important, not the actual content of Hammurabi's legal system.

[Broomstick]

That statement would make more sense if written law originated with the Romans but it didn't - the Code of Hammurabi is MUCH older than any Roman legal document.

The Code of Hammurabi is one legal document in a legal system that's not fully understood even to this day. Roman law, by contrast, is well-documented and has a clear lineage to present day.

And yet we also wholly reject large portions of Roman law today, such as those dealing with the ownership of slaves. There is a historical interest, yes, but you'd be laughed out of court if you tried using the law of Imperial Rome as a precedent in a US courtroom.

Useful for German and French, perhaps - having you studied any language from outside the Indo-European family? Until you have I question your assumption that Latin would be useful for studying such languages.

It's a very convenient baseline language to get to grips with the field as a whole: it's complex, it places a great emphasis on word construction as opposed to word order (which is a godsend to understand languages that ignore word order completely), but it's still easy enough to teach to twelve-year-olds.

Wouldn't ANY language with similar features serve the same purpose? Why not use a modern, living language for that, with a similar emphasis on grammatical construction?

And how would learning Latin help with an unrelated language for which word order is of paramount importance, greater than word construction?

And ANY language should be "easy enough" to teach twelve-year olds. There isn't a language on Earth that isn't routinely learned by toddlers. The real test is if a language can be easily learned by adults who have a harder time learning a new language than children do.

Study Latin if that's what you want, if you're curious, a scholar of history, you feel some cultural attachment to it, whatever - but stop fucking pretending it's anything other than a dead language, albeit one of historical significance. At least Hebrew has native speakers again, Latin doesn't even have that going for it.

The only way you can make a statement like that is if you have a profound ignorance of what studying languages entails. I won't claim to be an expert either because I'm not, but I at least recognize that there's more to a language than having the ability to order a sandwich in it. Latin provies a baseline both for nearly every Western language in wide use and for the udnerstanding of language as a whole, and that's ignoring the wealth of cultural and linguistic information locked in descendant languages which you will miss completely if you don't know what words they were based on. So no, it's not useless because it's a dead language. If anything, it's more useful.

I did not say it was useless, I just reject the Latin-worship I all too frequently encounter on these boards. Learning ANY language is useful from the standpoint of increasing knowledge and stimulating the language centers of the brain. Latin is not some special case superior to all other languages. Yes, there is the Romance family of languages descended from it, but outside of that, learning Latin is not going to give much advantage to someone learning Finnish or Japanese other than the aforementioned stimulation of the brain which could be done equally well by any other language that is studied.

Latin study has historically been where a lot of grammar is taught, but that is a historical tradition and not required by the mechanics of Latin or any other language. If we taught the grammar of other languages as methodically as we have traditionally taught the grammar of Latin it would serve the same purpose. Not to mention the occasional stupidity born of Latin-worship, such as the pontification that one can not split an infinitive in English. OF COURSE YOU CAN! There is no reason English infinitives can't be split, other than a worship of Latin as some superior tongue and I urge those arguing otherwise to quickly go to hell where they can get to rudely fuck themselves with sharp, pointy objects. As just two examples.

Is the study of Latin useless? Of course not - the study of ANY language has a certain utility - but the study of a living, spoken language used in the world today is of far more practical use than teaching a dead tongue outside of the very, very few with a professional interest in dead tongues. The notion the it being dead somehow makes it more useful is just more bullshit.

[Broomstick]

Are you serious? Concepts like that will be as old as the concept of inheritance; it doesn't take thousands of years for magistrates to have to rule on such disputes after people own land.

And yet much of Europe for centuries practiced primogeniture and entailment, which would leave all but one heir destitute in many cases. There are cultures today where a divorced woman has legal claim on nothing and custody automatically goes to the man. You do not find it interesting that the inheritance laws of the US are closer to those of ancient Sumer than they are to more recent laws in medieval and renaissance Europe despite the much-vaunted relationship between Europe and the US and the claimed heavy influence of the former upon the latter?

If this question was settled thousands of years ago why did the laws of Europe and the US diverge? Why have they changed over the past several centuries on both continents? Inheritance and various other obligations are NOT immutable over time.

[TC Pilot]

Which is sad really, that many people simply cannot understand why I view Chinese or East Asian history as important as Roman history, native American history being just as important as what happened in the cold war. What has happened in another part of the world is just as important as what has happened before in your hometown or homeland.

I disagree. The nations of the continent of Europe have, quite obvoiusly, completely and irrevocably altered the world. The society we live in today is far more a product of European and Western civilization than, say, Native American or Asian civilization, which, it should be noted, were far more drastically altered by Europe than Europe was by them. The fact we're talking in a European language, using technology created by Western civilization, and indeed probably alive only thanks to Western medical developments rather nicely demonstrates the point I'm trying to make here.

Then there is the annoying blame game we seen so often in History, especially in regards to the cold war, where we only have 3 main school of thought so far, the US is at fault, Russia is at fault or it is just a big misunderstanding.

You have an alternative?

[Thanas]

There are plenty of parts of Roman law that are no longer in effect, either.

Depends on how you see it. Many legal theories in use today are Roman inventions.

And yet we also wholly reject large portions of Roman law today, such as those dealing with the ownership of slaves. There is a historical interest, yes, but you'd be laughed out of court if you tried using the law of Imperial Rome as a precedent in a US courtroom.

Stop seeing this purely in the american point of view. We are talking about Europe, where they still matter concerning the interpretation of law. So when you are talking about the american legal system you are right, but that is not true for the continental system. For example, for my exam thesis, which was about generational equality in constitutional law, I did use part of the constitution of the Roman Republic.

Also, you are making a basic mistake here - you are trying to say that we have to adhere to every single one of the roman legal principles. Which is not the case.

And yet much of Europe for centuries practiced primogeniture and entailment, which would leave all but one heir destitute in many cases.

Do you know the difference between common law and roman law and who practiced what? In case you do not, those things are not part of roman law.

There are cultures today where a divorced woman has legal claim on nothing and custody automatically goes to the man. You do not find it interesting that the inheritance laws of the US are closer to those of ancient Sumer than they are to more recent laws in medieval and renaissance Europe despite the much-vaunted relationship between Europe and the US and the claimed heavy influence of the former upon the latter?

As I suspected, you do not know the difference between common and roman law.

If this question was settled thousands of years ago why did the laws of Europe and the US diverge?

Because the USA is adhering to the common law legal system, whereas Europe does not (well, except for Britain)? Do you have any knowledge of the renaissance of roman law? Do you know about the glossators, the ius commune etc? If not, please read up on the matter before continuing to make assumptions.

Why have they changed over the past several centuries on both continents? Inheritance and various other obligations are NOT immutable over time.

Show me who claimed that.

[Master of Ossus]

Which is sad really, that many people simply cannot understand why I view Chinese or East Asian history as important as Roman history, native American history being just as important as what happened in the cold war. What has happened in another part of the world is just as important as what has happened before in your hometown or homeland.

Now you're just being a relativist. Native American history is not as important as Chinese or Soviet or American Cold War history because Native Americans did not alter or shape the modern world to nearly the extent that the Soviet Union did. (There's also far less to study of Native American history because, by and large, we know virtually nothing about it whereas history in places like China, Rome, Egypt, Europe, and even Mesopotamia is comparatively incredibly well-recorded--even the Maya only left an extraordinarily fragmented record and they're EASILY the best-documented of the pre-Columbian groups).

Sure you may find Roman history far more interesting than Asian history for example, but that does not mean Asian history is any less important than Roman history.

I mean the study of history is not a game of who is the best, but to understand the causes and effect of certain events in history. For example, a lack of action does not mean there will be no impact in the modern world. What happens if the Qing dynasty decides to further their technological improvement in the 18th century? What happens if USSR didn't collapse?

History isn't a game of who is best, and a major tenant is to understand cause and effect, but it still must be answerable to the present and the modern world.

[Stark]

And yet much of Europe for centuries practiced primogeniture and entailment, which would leave all but one heir destitute in many cases. There are cultures today where a divorced woman has legal claim on nothing and custody automatically goes to the man. You do not find it interesting that the inheritance laws of the US are closer to those of ancient Sumer than they are to more recent laws in medieval and renaissance Europe despite the much-vaunted relationship between Europe and the US and the claimed heavy influence of the former upon the latter?

If this question was settled thousands of years ago why did the laws of Europe and the US diverge? Why have they changed over the past several centuries on both continents? Inheritance and various other obligations are NOT immutable over time.

Sorry, to have inheritance laws, all you have to do is realise facts like 'more than one person wants the stuff'. That's it. Hammurabi's laws didn't 'settle' jack shit either, so what's your point? Since culture changes, is anything ever 'settled' in law? Amusingly your example even demonstrates this, where simple legal concepts (like inheritance) nevertheless change based on culture, politics, and other factors millenia after they were first grappled with by the guy who died with only one piece of flint and three kids. The point is saying Hammurabi's code is somehow magical and super-influential because it had basic stuff like inheritance law is absurd and broken, because all the non-codified legal systems before that would have ruled on those same issues for thousands of years.

I never claimed law doesn't change; I merely took issue with your characterisation of Hammurabi's code as more influential or original than Roman law. Did you know the concepts expressed in Hammurabi's code are not unusual for Mesopotamia? The noteworthiness is that it was codified into a document that could be referred to and found by historians.

[Edi]

As far as learning languages goes, here's the personal experience of someone whose native language belongs to an entirely different family of languages than even Indo-European languages (of which Latin and its offshoots are a part):

I've learned English well enough to have almost native fluency (obviously not in all specialized fields, of course) and I have studied both Swedish and German far enough that I could gain passable fluency in both in a few months to a couple of years.

Just on the basis of what I have learned of English and then later heard in passing from my girlfriend's Italian studies (she speaks fairly fluent Italian and can follow Rai Uno programming with little trouble), I am able to partially read Italian newspapers, enough to get the gist of relatively simple articles. I know some few words on my own and I know similar words from English. I even manage to partially follow some Rai Uno commentary myself. I have NEVER in my life studied the grammar of any Romano language, yet I've picked up that much. Spanish looks similar enough to Italian that learning it right off the bat after learning Italian would not be too difficult. I've had this confirmed by native speakers of both languages I've talked to.

Sure, learning Latin might give you a leg up if you wanted to learn ALL of the Romano languages, but unless you really want to go the distance or are learning Roman history, it's not going to do a lot. If the goal is to learn to speak the current Romano languages, it's just a waste of time. The only one it might really help on is French, but that language is fucked up from start to finish anyway, with utterly retarded spelling and worse pronunciation. Italian and Spanish are far easier to pronounce and match pronunciation to spelling, which makes learning them easier than French. For me anyway, don't know about the rest of you.

If you already speak a language that is closely enough related to have root words, grammar structure or anything else to speed you on your way, you may get more out of Latin, but the claim that it somehow makes a difference of leaps and bounds is preposterous on its face unless it's backed up by some serious data and statistical analysis. Otherwise we're reduced to tossing anecdotes at each other all day and most people here already speak a language related to Latin as their native language anyway.

As far as time spent studying languages, Swedish has been the worst fucking waste of time I've ever been saddled with. The reason why I've had to study it is because it's an official language in Finland and is required everywhere no matter if nobody within 500 fucking miles speaks a word of it. Sure, it helped in learning German, but it hindered as much as it helped because of the similarity. I'd much rather have learned Spanish or Italian in its place.

[Broomstick]

And yet we also wholly reject large portions of Roman law today, such as those dealing with the ownership of slaves. There is a historical interest, yes, but you'd be laughed out of court if you tried using the law of Imperial Rome as a precedent in a US courtroom.

Stop seeing this purely in the american point of view. We are talking about Europe, where they still matter concerning the interpretation of law. So when you are talking about the american legal system you are right, but that is not true for the continental system. For example, for my exam thesis, which was about generational equality in constitutional law, I did use part of the constitution of the Roman Republic.

Well, I was speaking about the US, where the legal system is, as we both know, different from that in Europe. Most of the US law derives from British common law, the big exception being Louisiana which adopted the French Civil Code. The fact that what I stated is true for the US in no way says that Europe isn't different - if you read my other posts in my thread I acknowledge that Europe in general has greater ties to Ancient Rome than we do, for reasons both legal and involved with the several Romance languages still spoken there. For that reason, Roman law and the Latin language may be more relevant, and most likely are, than in the US. The only reason I hesitate to state that more firmly is because I am American and not European and it would be pretty arrogant for me to make a statement like that about Europe without a shitload more backup than I feel like burdening this thread with.

Also, you are making a basic mistake here - you are trying to say that we have to adhere to every single one of the roman legal principles.

Never said that. Not at all. I am well aware that law has changed in Europe over the centuries, and differently in different places.

And yet much of Europe for centuries practiced primogeniture and entailment, which would leave all but one heir destitute in many cases.

Do you know the difference between common law and roman law and who practiced what? In case you do not, those things are not part of roman law.

Yes, I am aware of the difference. I was referring to the differences and changes in in inheritance law that have occurred over time in post that mentioned the US, Ancient Sumer, Ancient Rome, and Europe. That's hardly saying everyone followed the same system forever and ever, which seems to be what you think I said.

There are cultures today where a divorced woman has legal claim on nothing and custody automatically goes to the man. You do not find it interesting that the inheritance laws of the US are closer to those of ancient Sumer than they are to more recent laws in medieval and renaissance Europe despite the much-vaunted relationship between Europe and the US and the claimed heavy influence of the former upon the latter?

As I suspected, you do not know the difference between common and roman law.

Where in that quote do I say "Roman law"? Do you deny the practice of primogeniture and entailment in Europe at various times? At least some of the cultures I refer to that do not provide support for a divorced woman and who normally award custody to the father in disputes actually base that on Islamic law, not Roman. Ancient Greece followed similar practices prior to Ancient Rome. Does it escape you that there is more legal history that that of Rome and Europe?

If this question was settled thousands of years ago why did the laws of Europe and the US diverge?

Because the USA is adhering to the common law legal system, whereas Europe does not (well, except for Britain)?

The US "inherited" the British common law system, with the exception of Louisiana as previously stated, and because Louisiana is part of the US I would expect that it's original Civil Code and practices have been somewhat modified over time, particularly where it interacts with the Federal government.

Do you have any knowledge of the renaissance of roman law? Do you know about the glossators, the ius commune etc? If not, please read up on the matter before continuing to make assumptions.

If I'm commenting on the laws of Ancient Sumer why do I need to study Roman law?

[Thanas]

Well, I was speaking about the US, where the legal system is, as we both know, different from that in Europe.

It never occured to you that Bounty, as a Belgium, might be speaking about European law? Which, in its function as universal law, did originate with the Romans.

Most of the US law derives from British common law, the big exception being Louisiana which adopted the French Civil Code. The fact that what I stated is true for the US in no way says that Europe isn't different - if you read my other posts in my thread I acknowledge that Europe in general has greater ties to Ancient Rome than we do, for reasons both legal and involved with the several Romance languages still spoken there. For that reason, Roman law and the Latin language may be more relevant, and most likely are, than in the US.

Then why try to argue with primogeniture etc. agains my example which specifically dealt with Roman inheritance law? Furthermore, what purpose did your posts serve? What is the central point of your argument, which seems to escape my notice?

Yes, I am aware of the difference. I was referring to the differences and changes in in inheritance law that have occurred over time in post that mentioned the US, Ancient Sumer, Ancient Rome, and Europe. That's hardly saying everyone followed the same system forever and ever, which seems to be what you think I said.

Like I imagined, your perception is clouded with your lack of knowledge about the subject.

Here is the short history of roman law and the effect upon the Europen legal system:
- classic roman laws were finalized under Justinian
- with the destruction of the Roman Empire they fell in disuse and germanic or other practices took over for most people. However, that does not mean Roman law ever went out of use completely
- with the renaissance people started studying the roman laws more
- when nations codified their law (especially Napoleon, who was a big fan of Roman law), a lot, if not to say the vast majority was lifted straight from the Codex Iuris Civilis (cic), as scholars widely agreed that Roman law was infinitely superior to their own traditions. For example, the entire german civil code is often described as nothing more than a version of the Pandekten by Bernhard Windscheid, who started with the roman theory of legal action and then interpreted it.

And that is why Roman law matters more than any other legal tradition in continental law. Because in most cases in civil law, roman law was reintroduced. Modernized, yes, but at the core still with roman roots. Heck, when I went to a symposium on continental european private law, guess with what law we started? We went back to Justinian, took the general principles of sale and contract out of the cic and then European law based on that.

Where in that quote do I say "Roman law"? Do you deny the practice of primogeniture and entailment in Europe at various times?

No, but then again I await your argument that they influenced our modern laws the same as Roman law did. Let us look at the threat again, shall we:
I post that roman law is still relevant, especially in legal theory like inheritance law, you claim that the practices were discarded in favor of others. If not relevant to Roman law, then what the heck were you arguing about?

Does it escape you that there is more legal history that that of Rome and Europe?

Oh please. You were talking about western legal history.

If this question was settled thousands of years ago why did the laws of Europe and the US diverge?

Because the USA is adhering to the common law legal system, whereas Europe does not (well, except for Britain)?

The US "inherited" the British common law system, with the exception of Louisiana as previously stated, and because Louisiana is part of the US I would expect that it's original Civil Code and practices have been somewhat modified over time, particularly where it interacts with the Federal government.

Sorry, I can't figure out what you are saying here.

Do you have any knowledge of the renaissance of roman law? Do you know about the glossators, the ius commune etc? If not, please read up on the matter before continuing to make assumptions.

If I'm commenting on the laws of Ancient Sumer why do I need to study Roman law?

If you claim that it influenced our laws, I would like you to at least know something about the genesis of modern law...because then you wouldn't make such claims.

[Broomstick]

Well, I was speaking about the US, where the legal system is, as we both know, different from that in Europe.

It never occured to you that Bounty, as a Belgium, might be speaking about European law? Which, in its function as universal law, did originate with the Romans.

Roman law was never universal, unless you consider Europe to be the entire world.

Most of the US law derives from British common law, the big exception being Louisiana which adopted the French Civil Code. The fact that what I stated is true for the US in no way says that Europe isn't different - if you read my other posts in my thread I acknowledge that Europe in general has greater ties to Ancient Rome than we do, for reasons both legal and involved with the several Romance languages still spoken there. For that reason, Roman law and the Latin language may be more relevant, and most likely are, than in the US.

Then why try to argue with primogeniture etc. agains my example which specifically dealt with Roman inheritance law? Furthermore, what purpose did your posts serve?

You indicated uncertainty as to whether or not Britain has a common law system. I offered my comments as a clarification of where the US got its legal system not only for you but for anyone else who might be reading.

What is the central point of your argument, which seems to escape my notice?

I wasn't arguing - that's probably why you can't find the "point". I simply stated, very briefly and crudely, the origin of the US legal system. Not everything has to be an argument.

Like I imagined, your perception is clouded with your lack of knowledge about the subject.

....snip....

- when nations codified their law (especially Napoleon, who was a big fan of Roman law), a lot, if not to say the vast majority was lifted straight from the Codex Iuris Civilis (cic), as scholars widely agreed that Roman law was infinitely superior to their own traditions.

I have to wonder at the self-loathing that would lead a group of people to describe a code of law other than their own as "infinitely superior". Better? yes. Superior, yes. But "infinitely"....?

Where in that quote do I say "Roman law"? Do you deny the practice of primogeniture and entailment in Europe at various times?

No, but then again I await your argument that they influenced our modern laws the same as Roman law did.

Again, not everything has to be an argument. I find it interesting that some aspects of Ancient Sumer's legal code resembles that of the country I live in today. In other respects it differs radically. It's also interesting that in the part of the world in which Sumer existed there is a legal code far different from Sumer's, more different than that of a country halfway around the world. That wasn't an argument that they influenced modern law, it was a statement that I, personally, found it interesting. It was an observation, not an argument.

Does it escape you that there is more legal history that that of Rome and Europe?

Oh please. You were talking about western legal history.

Actually, this thread started with Hillary Clinton's diplomatic gaffs, moved to Obama's ineptness with gift-giving, and diverted into language learning - not everything here is about Roman Law or even legal history.

Do you have any knowledge of the renaissance of roman law? Do you know about the glossators, the ius commune etc? If not, please read up on the matter before continuing to make assumptions.

If I'm commenting on the laws of Ancient Sumer why do I need to study Roman law?

If you claim that it influenced our laws, I would like you to at least know something about the genesis of modern law...because then you wouldn't make such claims.

I wasn't discussing what you thought I was - I was commenting that legal changes over time that lead to the US and the Code of Hammurabit sharing some features was interesting to me. But then, I forgot you were a lawyer - your profession does tend to make everything into an argument, even when it's not.

[Thanas]

Well, I was speaking about the US, where the legal system is, as we both know, different from that in Europe.

It never occured to you that Bounty, as a Belgium, might be speaking about European law? Which, in its function as universal law, did originate with the Romans.

Roman law was never universal, unless you consider Europe to be the entire world.

Universal as in a nationwide system governing both civil, criminal and administrative law. I am sorry, I could have phrased that better.

You indicated uncertainty as to whether or not Britain has a common law system.

My statement wasn't meant to be a question, actually. I was merely saying that all of Europe with the exception of Britain has the continental system. Having studied British law extensively, I am quite well-read on the subject.

What is the central point of your argument, which seems to escape my notice?

I wasn't arguing - that's probably why you can't find the "point". I simply stated, very briefly and crudely, the origin of the US legal system. Not everything has to be an argument.

Yeah, this seems to have been a misunderstanding.

I have to wonder at the self-loathing that would lead a group of people to describe a code of law other than their own as "infinitely superior". Better? yes. Superior, yes. But "infinitely"....?

It was no self-loathing, it was just a determination made, within the style of that time were words were used a bit different than today. Like "my infinite gratitude to you" where nowadays we just say "thanks".

Does it escape you that there is more legal history that that of Rome and Europe?

Oh please. You were talking about western legal history.

Actually, this thread started with Hillary Clinton's diplomatic gaffs, moved to Obama's ineptness with gift-giving, and diverted into language learning - not everything here is about Roman Law or even legal history.[/quote]

The specific topics were about legal history, as were all the points you were replying to. My point is - roman law has a practical relevance today, the code of hamurabai does not. Therefore, law students should ideally devote time to the former, but not the latter.

I wasn't discussing what you thought I was - I was commenting that legal changes over time that lead to the US and the Code of Hammurabit sharing some features was interesting to me.

This was your first post:

you won't learn much about law by studying the history of ancient Rome

Perhaps nothing immediately practical, but it's still useful to know how and why things like written law arose. Knowing which systems failed in the past and why is still relevant knowledge today.

That statement would make more sense if written law originated with the Romans but it didn't - the Code of Hammurabi is MUCH older than any Roman legal document.

In which you were clearly arguing against Bounty's argument that roman law is still useful today.

But then, I forgot you were a lawyer - your profession does tend to make everything into an argument, even when it's not.

Oh please - stop deluding yourself about my profession (hint - which I do not even practice at the moment due to me being, you know, a historian who also holds law degrees?). Also, this is IMO the first time that I ever said on the record that I even hold a law degree, so I wonder how you could know that I was a lawyer beforehand?

So yeah, that might not have been the smartest thing to say.

[ray245]

Now you're just being a relativist. Native American history is not as important as Chinese or Soviet or American Cold War history because Native Americans did not alter or shape the modern world to nearly the extent that the Soviet Union did.

The lack of action has a direct impact in how the modern world is formed. We need to understand why the Native americans didn't build a technological civilization rivaling China or Rome, and be aware of the fact that if they did so, the modern world will be totally unrecognizable to us.

You cannot look at history in isolation.

History isn't a game of who is best, and a major tenant is to understand cause and effect, but it still must be answerable to the present and the modern world.

The only reason people don't bother to mention how a tiny event 4000 years ago can have a huge impact on what we are doing today is due to the fact that it is a hard if not impossible task.

To say any event that has happened in our history is not important is bull.

I disagree. The nations of the continent of Europe have, quite obvoiusly, completely and irrevocably altered the world. The society we live in today is far more a product of European and Western civilization than, say, Native American or Asian civilization, which, it should be noted, were far more drastically altered by Europe than Europe was by them. The fact we're talking in a European language, using technology created by Western civilization, and indeed probably alive only thanks to Western medical developments rather nicely demonstrates the point I'm trying to make here.

And what causes the European to rise to such a dominant position in the 18th and the 19th century? You cannot look at history in isolation at all. What happens in China or Japan can easily affect what has happened in Europe. For example, the production of silk and invention of gunpowder in China has a huge impact in Europe. Hell, the use of non-roman numerical also have a huge impact on the development of science as well.

The Mongol invasion of European also affected the course of European history as well. Western medicines is also affected by the interaction between the middle East and Europe during the middle ages and so forth.

What happens you think the people from central asia and the Arabs for instance never changed the world completely? Like I have said before, we cannot view history in isolation. To fully understand the history of the 20th century, we have to go back to the 19th century, and to fully understand the Renaissance, we have to understand the middle ages. To fully understand the modern world, we have to understand histories from all cultures and group.

You have an alternative?

Both sides are at fault.