specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The focal point of this paper is to compare the Zack Snyder-directed movie ‘300’ (2007) with the political policy of the First Empires and Common Cultures in Afro-Eurasia during the 1200-350 BCE. This was a classic case of clash relating to political and cultural differences between King Leonidas against the Persian ‘God-King’ Xerxes. It can be stated that to understand and evaluate the aspects of political and cultural differences it is important to understand the true nature of establishment in a given state or nation. The given issue of the Greek and Persian conflict is the clash of two successful political and cultural civilizations that operated in two different nations at the same period of history.
It can be stated that once the majority of a country or region is identified, it would be logical to understand the reason behind the social strata of the majority. Emerson noted that race is the fundamental influence and ingredient of success, and in a way, it is relevant to the imperial thought process of the Persian Emperor (Emerson, p. 1). This is particularly applicable while the conflict between the Spartans and the Persians is taken into consideration. This issue of race and political and cultural differences was vital in the context of this conflict. Emerson feels that the most influential human group in a given society are the ones who are the most racially powerful and distinct. Therefore, it can be stated that the ultimate dominance of democratic nationalism of the Spartans over autocratic imperialism of the Persians, as shown in the movie, holds the fundamental truth of the political and cultural differences.
If the two cultures were compared in this context, we would find that the Spartan political and cultural position and arguments for freedom are induced by a sense of humane appeal and suggest that all human races have the chance to be powerful and influential at a given condition. Thus, it suggests that every human race has a fair chance to dominate at a given point of time and at a given point of space. On the other hand, the Persian political and cultural arguments are more fundamentalists in nature and at times, it appears that their only intention of war was to prove Persian superiority as a race.
However, if we take the two arguments together we would find an interesting observation that we could not by approaching them each individually. If that is done we would find that there are some specific notions of success for a race and if the situation and surroundings are in complete alignment with each other there are possibilities that any race can become the dominant race of the world, at least for a period. This is the fundamental revelation of these two arguments that have not been mentioned once in these views.
This is because such conditions came and went for most of the races of the world. There were the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. The Romans, Huns, Mongols, and French all had their days in the sun. The Greeks and the Persians were at a high during the conflict and both their ideologies as political and cultural manifestations were successful for the period. Thus, it can be stated that none of the political or cultural ideologies can be regarded as absolute and are only applicable in the context of time and space. There is nothing right or wrong in history. There are only opportunism and application of a specific mode of political and cultural influence in the relation of the historical situation demanded.
- Emerson, Ralph Waldo; Race; The Complete Works Of Ralph Waldo Emerson; www.davemckay.co.uk; (2006);
- Snyder, Zack; 300; 2007