In what context can we use the word ‘barbaric’

One article I found on LexisNexis is “Robbers jailed after they hurled corrosive fluid in women’s face in ‘Barbaric’ attack” by Chloe Chaplain, and this incident took place in the UK London. This article was about how robbers sprayed ammonia in women faces so they can  not fight back while thy are trying to rob them. In this specific article two women got attacked, one by the age of 51, and the other 49. These robbers were the age of 24, and 20. With the first woman they had trouble robbing her because, even though they sprayed her face with ammonia three times she still fought back. While she fought back they decided to punch and kick her on the floor, luckily she was able to press the panic alarm button to get some help. So the robbers fled the scene without getting anything. But on the other hand the second woman was attacked 10 minutes later and she was held to the ground while they continuously sprayed her. Her vision blurred as soon as the first spray got into her eyes so she did not fight back, the robbers managed to get away with her bag. After this successful robbery the men ran off laughing and rejoice that they were successful. The two victims were rushed immediately to the hospitals and rinsed out with water rapidly, even though they suffered minor burns on their faces, nothing was permanent. This ‘barbaric’ attack scarred the women so bad that they both decided not to work anymore.

In the second article “What is barbaric Mr. Obama?” by Paul Gadalla he was questioning whether President Obama understands what is barbaric and what is not. Only because President Obama he considered that the abduction of one of his soldiers in another country. The author totally misunderstood President Obama because he then counters Obama’s statement with saying so the genocide in Gaza is not barbaric. Just because President Obama did not mention the other genocides that goes on in another country does not mean that it is not barbaric. I feel that the author is too caught up in his feelings about other problems that he jumped to conclusions by saying that Obama does not know what ‘barbaric’ really is. This article took place in Texas.

But the ‘other’ in the first article was represented as the robbers. They were the other because they have done something so outrageous that their action is considered ‘barbaric’. The targeted audience for this article is everyone, not only to be informed of this tragedy but to be aware of your surroundings, because people do not care what your age is anymore, they will still beat you or rob you. In the second article I consider the author to be the ‘other’ because he totally took President Obama out of context and decided to write a whole article about other problems hat President Obama never said that their actions are not ‘barbaric’. President Obama was just speaking on a current situation that was brought forth, not just bringing up problems from across the globe at any given time. There is a time for him to talk about everything. Not just because he used the word ‘barbaric’ for the abduction of soldiers makes him think indifferent towards genocides that are happening in parts of Africa. Therefore barbaric is more towards the action and not because someone said something and you think it is wrong based off of your opinion you think it is barbaric.

Similarly to the Persians, they cannot be barbaric just because they appear different and they do not look similar to the Greeks, nor speak the same language. Barbaric ad to be an action or something said that totally goes against what is normal and goes against proper moral attitudes. Devils advocate: Some things can be barbaric because what can be normal to you may not be normal to me. There are different cultures all over the place and some things may come off barbaric because that is not what they are used to. Therefore that word has to be used in context to fully understand who is being ‘barbaric’ at the moment.


Chaplain, Chloe. “LexisNexis® Academic.” LexisNexis® Academic & Library Solutions, 8                                 Dec. 2017,

Gadalla, Paul. “What Is ‘Barbaric’ Mr. Obama?” LexisNexis® Academic: Sign In, 7 Aug.         2014,                          docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T26932203580&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo =1&resultsUrlKey=29_T26932203584&cisb=22_T26932203583&tree.

Barbarians throughout the ages

Spain saw one of its most violent days in recent memory as a series of incidents throughout the country appeared to be connected to a terror attack Thursday in Barcelona that left thirteen people dead and more than hundred injured. “The atrocity was the first successful attack on Spanish soil since 191 commuters were killed in the 2004 Madrid bombings” (Reilly). The deadly events began in the early evening with a van plowing through crowds on the renowned Las Ramblas avenue, a popular tourist section of Barcelona. There were at least 18 nationalities among the victims who came from countries as varied as France, Venezuela, Australia, Ireland, Peru, Algeria, Belgium and China, according to Spain’s civil protection agency. As police searched for the van driver, Spain’s Prime Minister called it an act of “jihadi terrorism.” Both articles contextualize the van drivers and their terrorist actions as ‘barbaric’. The first article gives a factual chronology, with no hidden bias or agendas, of what had happened in Spain these past few weeks. It also mentions quotes from world leaders condemning the accident and sharing their concern to the victims and their families. The second article offers a perspective of a witness, who shared his descriptive view of what had happened. Isaac, the witness, mentions, “streams of blood” and “panic stricken tourists”, expressing more emotion in contrast to the first article. Generally, most people could agree that foreigners inflicting terror and threats on citizens of a nation can be categorized under barbarians. These two articles manifest that idea and explicitly calls ISIS, the group who took blame for the crimes, barbarians, and in a sense treated as ‘other’. The targeted audience are the people who need to be informed of the atrocity and brutality of terrorists. The purpose behind this article is to instill in it’s audience that loyalty between one another and between the citizens and its government will ensure safety and combat terrorism. Loyalty is a social value under the provisions of the U.S constitution, a document that holds the foundation upon which this nation was constructed. Loyalty is embedded in the social contract, which is an agreement between the government and its people that states that as long as they don’t misuse their power we will remain loyal to them. In other words, the articles intention is to inform us on loyalty, a value that serves as a bedrock in preserving the tranquility of America and a value that if correctly practiced, can prevent terrorism anywhere. Over two thousand years ago, barbaric, as used in the newspaper articles, was used in Greece, but to a different extent. The Greek historian Herodotus divides the world into those who speak Greek and those who do not. Barbarians are the latter. Herodotus writes: “But the Greek stock, since ever it was, has always used the Greek language, in my judgment. But though it was weak when it split off from the Pelasgians, it has grown from something small to be a multitude of peoples by the accretion chiefly of the Pelasgians but of many other barbarian peoples as well”. Within English usage, the word ‘barbarian’ has a derogatory connotation, regarded today beyond its definition as an uncivilized savage. In 490 B.C.E in the age where Herodotus lived, the word barbarian held its own context and would often be defined as ‘different’. Herodotus is just an example of word that evolves over time almost to a completely different definitions.


” A woman left unconscious after a ‘barbaric’ late night sexual assault in Ipswich town centre, which has reopened the debate over police patrols.”- (Evening Star)

“According to the complaint registered against Tamber for this barbaric act, he did not allow nurses to enter the check-up room before asking the woman to remove her clothes.” (Free Press Journal)

“!Epar !Epar !Epar” is an anagram for “Rape! Rape! Rape!” and I didn’t want to title my blog that, but I wanted the idea of “!Epar !Epar !Epar” to sound like “Bar! Bar! Bar!” and signify the act of a barbarian, because it is my opinion that rape is committed by no one other than a barbarian, in the modern sense of the word.

These two quotes are taken from two separate  newspaper publications regarding the rape of two women, (both twenty and twenty-one) in different countries. The former quote from the Evening Star talks about a young woman who was raped and whose body was discarded in a car park on September 3rd in Ipswich, Suffolk UK.  The act was done anonymously and no one was charged or held responsible for the incident; it was not the first time and it will not be the last time something like this will happen.

The second quote talks about a woman that was raped by Patrik Tambe, a Thane doctor in Mumbai. She went for an appointment, where he instructed her to take her clothes off, and then proceeded to touch her inappropriately and eventually rape her. He threatened her to stay quiet and after he released her she reported the crime to authorities. Tambe was arrested and his crimes were made public, the girl he raped being scarred for life after entrusting someone to make sure that she felt physically better,  only to have him do the unthinkable and make her feel worse than she’s probably ever felt in her life.

Rapist are being treated as the ‘Other’ with probable cause in both of these articles. The act of rape is referred to as ‘barbaric’ so that we distance ourselves from the deed and notion of such a crime. The target for both of these articles are  the local community, its purpose is for them to come together and understand how atrocious such an act can be. It is supposed to draw empathy from the audience, the first one in particular because the rapist was never found. It was intended to alarm the public that someone this savage has not been caught and hopefully motivate the people to join the police and keep the area safe, especially for young females. This article is not supposed to make you feel safe and comfortable, but rather inspire you to band together for the good of the community. The target audience is supposed to feel a sense of togetherness and strife for what is right.

The term ‘barbarian’ is different from the way we learnt about it in class because it transcends the difference in language; it now explores the difference in person and the difference between man and beast, humanity and heinous. The term ‘barbaric’ now reduces a man or woman to less than human, having commit something that made them be viewed as a pariah of society. It’s similar to what we learnt in class because like the ancient folk, I no longer want to listen to anything a man like this would want to say because I refuse to understand him. Everything he says now may as well be “bar bar bar” because when I think of a rapist all I can think about is the fact that they raped someone, everything they say becomes “rape rape rape” and I personally refuse to look at any other contents of their character because as a young woman myself, it is despicable to me that a man can do that to someone.

“Croesus, son of Alyattes, by birth a Lydian- was the first of the barbarians who had dealings with the Greeks.” (Herodotus) In Herodotus’ Histories, the term “barbarian” is mentioned quite a lot. The term is much more loosely used and usually is not always referring to someone of lower human quality, but just someone that was not Greek or Roman; they are the ‘Other’, someone that is different and does not speak the same language. Herodotus is referring to Croesus, a Lydian king, as a barbarian so the term had nothing to do with poverty and lowliness. The articles are so different from Herodotus Histories’ because of what they are referring to as barbaric, something truly awful, while Herodotus’ Histories do not use the term in regards to any heinous actions.

Works Cited

 Free Press Journal. India. FPJ Web Desk. “Thane Crime: Doctor Asks Woman to Remove Clothes, Rapes Her” August 21, 2017. Lexis Nexis. Newspaper. September, 13th 2017.,1&docsInCategory=12&csi=404871&docNo=4

Evening Star. PR Script Managers. “Woman Left Unconscious in Brutal Sex Attack.” September 4, 2017. Lexis Nexis. Newspaper. September 13th 2017.,1&docsInCategory=12&csi=304101&docNo=2

Herodotus Histories’.  





Types of the Barbaric

Barbaric has many meanings. It has changed since it was first uttered by the Greeks. They used the word to describe others who weren’t Greek, since other languages sounded like gibberish to them. Nowadays, barbaric has a different meaning and is used to describe the primitive ways of life.

In “Don’t Romanticise Violence-Reject It” by The Sunday Independent, it says:

It does not matter who is the victim or perpetrator/aggressor, or the colour/pigmentation of the victim or perpetrator, violence is barbaric and should be abhorred by all of us.”

The subject being targeted as ‘the other’ is the act of violence. The author wants the audience, everyone in South Africa who reads the paper, that violence is a barbaric act which should not exist in civilized human beings. According to the article, South Africa has a deep past buried in violent acts which overshadows the fact that they condemn violence. The author wants to move past the barbaric ways and go toward a violence-free society. He outlined detailed steps, such as making the public representative someone who has no history of violence and doesn’t associate with criminals.  This social value should be accepted throughout the country for South Africa to prosper with other nations. This term is used differently from the Greeks version. For one, the Greeks used the word to describe others who didn’t know their language, but the author is using the word in order to show that using violence should be prohibited. However, the word was used to condemn violent behaviors in both models. The same way that the author used to describe people who use violence, the Greeks used the word to recount their war opponents because of their violent behaviors.

In “London Stands with Barcelona Against ‘Evil of Terrorism'”, it says:

“My thoughts are with the victims of this barbaric terrorist attack in the great city of Barcelona and with their brave emergency services.” 

The subject associated with ‘the other’ is a terrorist attack, which is also an act of violence. The target audience is the adults who read the paper in London and people who can sympathize with victims of terrorist attacks. The article was about the recent attack in Barcelona, where a white van went headfirst into a crowded sidewalk, injuring a ton of innocent people and killing thirteen. This was a shock to people and showed the barbaric tendencies of the terrorists. London’s mayor both sympathesizes and empathizes with the victims because his city also fell into the trap set by the terrorists. He reminds the public that these crime are inhumane and uncivilized, but also that the people of Barcelona has a friend in London. This situation shared similarities and differences with the Greeks’ version of the barabric. First, the word was used to explain the feeling of the situation. It was uncivilized and not common in others. To the Greeks, foreigners were not common and was considered uncivilzed because their ways of living didn’t conencile with the Greeks’ way of living.

In “Herodotus”, he writes:

“For Asia, with all the various tribes of barbarians that in habitit, is regarded by the Persians as their own; but Europe and the Greek race they look on as distinct and separate.”

This shows that the word barbarian had its definition trnsformed as time went on. We now use it to describe the ways a mannered person would act. We use this word to highlight that these people are different and are not the norms of society. In some ways, we use this word just like the Greeks, to show unfamiliarly in behavior and lifestyles.

Morrison, Sean. “London Stands with Barcelona against ‘Evil of Terrorism’, Sadiq Khan Says.”London Evening Standard, 17 Aug. 2017. LexisNexis Academic [LexisNexis],

“Don’t Romanticise Violence – Reject It.” The Sunday Independent, 27 Aug. 2017. LexisNexis Academic [LexisNexis],

-Fariah, Team Hermes

Barbaric Politics

India is currently under control by a communist party. The political party is using horrific crimes to stop activists from overthrowing them. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, activist, was brutally murdered with 89 wounds on his body. This crime was described to be barbaric in nature and a disgrace to humanity. Federal Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said, “It is cruelty of a barbaric nature…Even an enemy country wouldn’t do this kind of brutality but a political party did this.” In a third world country, having different political ideologies and opinions could very well get one killed. It is not uncommon that politics in India use lack of freedom of speech to instill fear among the masses. People with controversial opinions are censored by the government for having opposing and disagreeing opinions of the people in power.
In both articles, activists are seen as the “other” in which the government finds as a threat. The target audience is the rest of the world to raise awareness of what is happening in communist India. A social value that is clearly being affirmed as a shared value for the whole world is freedom of speech. Not only is it a given human right from birth, but in third world countries such as India, speaking out against the government results in the lost of a loved one. Similar to the readings in Herodotus, it states that, “No one is so foolish as to prefer war to peace, in which, instead of sons burying fathers, fathers bury their sons.” (1.87 Croesus is defeated by Cyrus) The government is represented as a father. It is supposed to be a civilized system that not only protects their people, but makes sure order is kept in place. How can the Indian population trust their government if they keep taking the lives of innocent civilians just for speaking out about a problem that they do not agree with? Everyone shares a different outlook on a matter, but endless killing to solve the government’s problem results in a corrupt and biased society. It makes the masses revolt against the people in power and makes them fear the society they live in.
The definition of barbarian seen in our readings is one that is ostracized for being different (in terms of culture, race, dialect, physical features, etc.) Barbarians in Greek culture were people who weren’t Greek. In terms of today’s society, barbarians are known as people who commit merciless and audacious crimes against another individual. There is never a time where hearing the word barbarian brings a positive outcome; barbaric is always associated with something negative that happens. In both articles, it exposes the barbaric and monstrous ways the communist Indian government copes with their problem. The death of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, along with many other activists, were made into examples of what would happen if the public did not comply with the government’s orders. Both articles represent the term barbaric as an underlying offense that continuously occurs. Murder of another man is always the easiest solution, yet it is an endless and inhumane cycle. The only solution to tame barbaric behavior is to work in numbers and rebel against a corrupted government.

“Kerala RSS Man’s Murder a Barbaric Crime: Jaitley.” Gulf Times (Doha, Qatar), 7 Aug. 2017,


“Jaitley flays RSS man’s ‘barbaric’ killing, visits kin.” Oman Tribune (Syndigate Media Inc), September 10 2017 21:54:47,,D,H&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T26471135694&cisb=22_T26471139530&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=31&nodeStateId=411en_US,1&docsInCategory=849&csi=407844&docNo=8


Are Yesterdays Barbarians The Same As Todays?

The word “barbaric” is best defined as “primitive; unsophisticated” or simply not in the norm. The definition best illustrates how the word barbaric and how someone or thing is constituted as such should be evolving and changing as we move forward. An example of this would be the difference in how the Greek viewed barbarism in ancient times and how we as modern 21st century view barbarism. During the time of the Greek a barbarian was one that did not speak their tongue. The Hellenic themselves saw barbarians just because of the change in speech. Ex: Book One of Herodotus: “The Hellenic race has never, since its first origin, changed its speech… It was a branch of the Pelasgic, which separated from the main body.” Where else us as the millennial in modern day constitute a barbarian as one that doesn’t share not our tongue but our views. One who thinks differently. Our views of barbarians shifted from people who didn’t share our language and our land to people who don’t share our belief and views. We could share almost everything: heritage, language or skin pigment, however if we do not hold the same views then we are seen as barbarians.

I came across a couple articles pertaining to barbarism while reading the newspaper this past week. The first article I read was about “Pulling Back on the Barbaric Use of Solitary Confinement.” It spoke about the consequences solitude confinement has on the mind and how the act of solitary confinement was and is barbaric. The article spoke on how these barbaric or out of the norm form of punishment affects our society and why they are “barbaric.” According to the article the barbaric act was found mainly in the consequences these actions made. The article noted that “based on research, isolation promotes mental illness and self-harm and the conditions of solitary caused or worsened depression, paranoia and outbursts of anger that often result in even more time in isolation.” In this article the act of depriving one the right to certain freedoms was what made it barbaric.” Just as how not speaking or assimilating with the Greek culture and custom was barbaric and inhumane as is with the isolation of human life in todays era.

The second article I read was on “Acid becoming weapon of choice among teens in London amid growing attacks.” This article spoke on the barbarity in which actions were displayed. The article addressed the way in which certain British citizens have fought back against the recent attacks with the use of acid. According to the article “A horrific wave of acid attacks have overtaken London, leaving victims gruesomely disfigured and suffering life-altering injuries.” Its important to understand that the greater majority of these people are committing these acts in defense but nonetheless doesn’t constitute that it’s not a barbaric act. In the article the thing that is barbaric is the action of these teens going out and attacking citizens. What is barbaric is not only just why but how they are attacking them. The fact that these children find it normal is what makes them the barbarians in this scenario. The article goes further in supporting why this is an unkind or inhumane act in stating: “The use of acid in attacks has even spread to children as young as 12 who have been arming themselves with substances “for self-defense.” For these teens to say that their actions are a result of self defense and thus are in some way are okay is what for me is barbaric. Not the action but the excuse. It shows a state of insanity.

In conclusion even as the definition of what being barbaric changes. Whether it’s the act or the excuse, I would best conclude it as something no logical person would think to do in his or her right mind. Just as those that were once for punishment by solitude isolation or exile by failure to assimilate, the act of is not confirming with the norm will always be barbaric.

Works Citied

Acid becoming weapon of choice among teens in London amid growing attacks

Pulling Back on the Barbaric Use of Solitary Confinement

All They Hear is ‘Bar’

Our views of barbarians shifted from people who didn’t share our language and our land to people who don’t share our belief and views. We could share the same ancestry, we could share the same language, however if we do not hold the same views then we are seen as barbarians or that our methods are barbaric and or uncivilized.  Even those in the same home or household would call each other barbarians from something like a political dispute.

Before I begin, first I must present what would be seen as barbaric then within ancient times in the Greek’s eyes. We can see an example of this within the first book of Herodotus: The History where the Hellenic are seen as barbarians just because of the change in speech. “The Hellenic race has never, since its first origin, changed its speech. This at least seems evident to me. It was a branch of the Pelasgic, which separated from the main body, and at first was scanty in numbers and of little power; but it gradually spread and increased to a multitude of nations, chiefly by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians. The Pelasgi, on the other hand, were, as I think, a barbarian race which never greatly multiplied.” Within the first book alone the term ‘Barbarian’ is repeated 8 times at the least, and at least 40 times throughout the whole collection.

Now to current time, there are many different sides to a wide spectrum of topics, and many sides that oppose each other. For the sake of simplicity, let’s take the common known generalization/label of the many groups, the Right and the Left. Generally the Right is more conservative and leans more towards structure and stronger government. The Left on the other hand is more on the liberal side and strives for opportunity and equality. Both would name each other awful things based on the extremists that lie on each side. The Left would see the Right as a group of neo-Nazis and supremacists while the Right would see the Left as bleeding hearts and keyboard warriors also known as SJWS (Social Justice Warriors). Now the names aren’t locked to those options obviously, as Kemi Badenoch would say. In her own experience her own side’s views were labeled barbaric.  As for who she feels is to blame, she feels the social media is to blame as can be seen per this quote in her article, “How did we get here? Who is to blame? Social media is a prime culprit. Online, disagreement is frequently expressed on a spectrum ranging from mere outrage to outright hysteria. The greater the disagreement, the more extreme the language. Keyboard warriors are thankfully armed only with their laptops and as much invective as their vocabulary permits, but this virtual behaviour is spilling over into the real world. At a hustings this year a 16-year-old boy approached me, trembling and with fists clenched, to snarl about the Conservative Party’s “barbaric” grammar schools policy.”

Now on the other side is Deana Uppal who feels that our ways of reforming criminals is barbaric and that in addition we should also focus on bettering our police and administration. “Second, instead of merely concentrating on barbaric and exemplary punishments – which too undoubtedly act as a deterrent by putting fear in the oppressors’ mind – we should also focus on reforming our police and administration, who, currently mired by their social stigmas, , who, currently mired by their social stigmas, increase the trauma of the victims.”

These are two different sides, two different views on the same topic. One feels people have become too fragile and will find themselves outraged way too easily and jump to conclusions way too quickly. In turn attempting to ruin careers and reputations which she elaborates more within her article. The other side feels that we aren’t doing enough, that there is too much bias floating around and our current methods are not working, that there needs to be change as stated within her quote and is elaborated more on within her article. They are both targeting to strengthen their own cause and give ideas as to what can be done to correct the issues they speak about. Although I will say the first one addresses a solution that deals more with the community that shares her view points while the second article mentioned tries to speak of a solution that stretches to officials.

Yekaterina Ignatyeva, Team Cronos



Herodotus. The Landmark Herodotus : The Histories. New York :Pantheon Books, 2007. Print.

Badenoch, Kemi. “The Tories must put an end to divisive identity politics.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 10 Aug. 2017, Accessed 10 Sept. 2017.

LexisNexis Link

Uppal, Deana. “No country for women? Sadly, yes!” The Pioneer, 11 Aug. 2017, Accessed 10 Sept. 2017.

LexisNexis Link


Barbaric Violence? Click to find out more..

          The ‘Other’ used the term in an article, “No justification for acts of violence in our country” is those who use violence. The government, political parties, and leaders that disunity the South African culture with “barbaric” violence. “We need to collectively set very high standards for ourselves and communicate these standards to the rest of the world without fear or favor.” This quote demonstrates that if we need to take action in regulating the county in a more formal and communicative approach. Their current system of violence is troubling more victims than helping them. The target in the South African newspaper is convincing its citizens as stated,“ We consciously and unconsciously glorify and promote violence in many ways. And the amount of graphic violence on our national television, social media, and other platforms is not helpful; it somehow continues to perpetrate acts of violence in many ways.” The way in which it is stated in “we” form is conveyed to the public. In order to change their perspective, she gives a form of personal/emotional connection to connect with her audience.The social value for the citizens is to become more aware of violence and to stop it. Hoping to stop the force of brutality in her nation, the editor hopes to make a change politically and economically. “Our violent past cannot be used as an excuse for us to fail to aggressively act against any acts of violence.” This quote reveals the type of change she hopes to change. In a form of confronting the citizens that there should be no excuse in the way they should behave because of their past experience, rather they should learn to act in an orderly manner.

        The ‘Other’ in article “Nation pays homage to Bangabandhu” are those who are bombed. The nation survived under the most barbaric carnage since 42 years ago. The target audience were outsiders. Since it is an attack on a different nation,, many were unaware of such trauma in Bangladesh. The editor left many survivors name in honor for their bravery.Nation pays homage to Bangabandhu” is trying to tell others that such carnage at that time, which was recent, barely happens. However, because of such tragedy, “ A munajat was offered seeking the eternal peace of the departed souls of the August 15 carnage” This quote offers a compelling sense of sorrow for those who died.

        During the Persian Revolt, 1.230, it states, “His own rank was too humble for him to hope to obtain vengeance without some barbarian help” I find that both usages of the word barbaric were used in the same context in the readings in class. However, they are not seen as outsiders, but rather a disgrace in the nation. The two articles use the word ‘barbaric’ in many similar ways. It is to show as a negative, inhumane word, and morally wrong. Both countries, Bangladesh and Nigeria, are trying to make their citizens aware of how barbaric their government system has changed the way of living.

Hasina, S. ” Nation pays homage to Bangabandhu.” The News Today[Bangladesh] 16 August 2017: 1105

“No justification for acts of violence in our country.” WeekendPost [South Africa] 26 August 2017: 522

The Barbarians’ Tendency to Delight or Horrify, No Matter What the Time.

Religion is a chaotically differing subject that everyone has their own unique perspectives on. Whether you’re a believer or non believer, Christian or Muslim, it stands true that no two people view the proposed sanctity of religion in the same way. Yet, there are acts done in the name of supporting or scorning of religion that most people would vehemently disagree with. That act is taking away the lives of others. Two examples of these horrific acts are of two religiously centered incidents that took place last month. In Spain, there were the infamous terrorist attacks and in Nigeria, there was a shooting that took place in a Catholic church. Both of these reprehensible acts have these ‘others’ that are blamed and despised. For Spain, there was ISIS who claim to be followers of Islam and for Nigeria, it’s those that stand violently stand against Christianity. Both of the articles I found detail these events in their own respective ways. In ‘The Advertiser’ (Australia), they seem to praise the attackers funnily enough. Though, they’re certainly not admiring them. From the tone they use, they’re questioning their own courage and faith when comparing it to ISIS who seem to hold the courage to place themselves in reckless abandon. The audience being targeted at this article is definitely those questioning their own determination and courage in their own religious and personal pursuits. As Bolt states, “Likewise with the Manchester bomber. He blew himself up with his victims. Evil, barbaric, depraved – yes. But cowardly?” he’s thoroughly trying to assess the strength and courage that these attackers must possess in order to commit such atrocious acts. In a sense, you can certainly say that humanizing these perpetrators by giving them positive feelings is a way to disgust the general masses into hardening their own steel, their own righteousness. For ‘The Sun’ (Nigeria), they seem to be reiterating a simple lesson that many tell over time. Don’t let your faith be shaken by those who seek to selfishly disrupt it. In fact, they blatantly quote that “In a condolence message to the government and people of Anambra State, the Bayelsa State Commissioner for Information and Orientation, Jonathan Obuebite, described the incident as most disheartening, shocking and barbaric.” Their message is simple yet effective and it’s obviously meant for those wavering in embracing their religious beliefs after such a horrific act. It is completely understandable as even if you weren’t physically affected, the agony it can cause you can become a permanent burden.

Despite the different messages these articles share however, they both share a common social value that’s being affirmed. That social value is the sheer importance of individual liberty. The two articles don’t at all downplay the sheer misery that these attacks caused. In fact, they emphasize it in their own respective ways. The utter despair that comes from having your faith trifled with and used in the name of acts you abhor is meant to strengthen the masses into leaning onto each other. This way, they can reaffirm the values of their beliefs with one another and have their individual voices be heard. It’s quite inspiring in a heart wrenching sense. Funnily enough, a vital ancient man seems to use the term ‘barbarian’ in a different way than how these two articles did. In the Preface of ‘Herodotus on the Persians’, Herodotus states that “What Herodotus of Halicarnassus has learnt by inquiry is here set forth: in order that so the memory of the past may not be blotted out from among men by time, and that great and marvellous deeds done by Greeks and barbarians and especially the ​reason ​why they warred against each other, may not lack renown.” With this, Herodotus refers to the ‘barbarians’ deeds as “great and marvellous”. That’s certainly different than the two articles. Even the Australian one didn’t outright praise those they called ‘barbaric’. They held cynicism and baited breath but Herodotus seems almost excited and delighted by the barbarians’ actions and the history that might unfold because of them and the Greeks fighting each other. That, and the Nigerian paper was completely bashing the attackers. It’s severely different in tone of usage. The two articles bash their barbarians but Herodotus almost seems to praise his. Lastly, when it comes to the two articles themselves, they both use the term ‘barbaric’ with much animosity and agony behind it. Neither of them go against the fact that the attacks were gruesome and despicable. There is solely ill intent, nothing more, and nothing less. As seen from the sorrow these two articles emit, religion can just be used as a tool and crutch to lean on for those who are cowardly enough to attack those that disagree with their line of thinking.

Atuma, Uche. “Pope Sad over Catholic Church Massacre.” The Sun News, 9 Aug. 2017,

Note: The second article has an issue with its origin site as it is subscription based. I found via the Lexis Nexis directory however, so in order to remedy this, I’ve posted the article information that was provided from what I’ve read there. The URL is there as well but I don’t think it works.

Bolt, Andrews. “IS terrorists aren’t really the cowards in this fight”. The Advertiser, 21 Aug. 2017,

Bailey Seemangal, Team 5, Hephaestus

Civilized World, Barbaric Tragedies

Barbarian, refer to people who are rude and uncivilized. This term originates from Greek in ancient time. The original meaning for barbarian was people who do not speak Greek. However, we use the term barbaric to describe atrocity now. Barbaric tragedy happens very often. Rape, murdering, kidnapping, countless violent actions happen every day.

According to the Nigerian newspaper The Sun, the author Uche Atuma points out that brain washed parents donate their child to be used as bomb suicide in North East, a geopolitical zone in Nigeria. Director, Army Public Relations, Brigadier General Sani Kukasheka Usman condemns that “The acts of these parents and guardians are not only barbaric, but condemnable and unacceptable.” In this news article, the “other” is referring to those people who do not have love and mercy for their own children. The target audience is all the people who read the article, appeal citizens to report any suspicious could have sent child for suicide bomb use. Those child’s human right is being token by their parents, nobody has the right to take another person’s life, no matter what relationship do they have. In this case, the author is affirming a sympathize value for the audience, those young children had no option to decide what they want and what to do in the future, they have no future, their life is manipulated and destroyed by their braid wash parent.

According to the England newspaper Nottingham Post, the author David Briggs indicates his opinion relating to fox hunting in the article “HS2 on CV will be embarrassing”. He claims that people who protest for fox hunting are behaving double moral because either they are respecting animal’s right. “PEOPLE who eat meat and then condemn fox hunting as barbaric are hypocrites.” People oppose fox hunting in the name of foxes’ right, but isn’t it is very unfair that they eat meat from other animals but defending the right of foxes? The term barbaric in this article is used to describe those people who enjoy meat in their meal but get offended that other people hunt fox. The target audience in this news is all the people who read the news. They said that they need to protect the right of foxes, but they forget that all those meat that they eat are pieces of other animals, then what about those animal’s right? The author is showing a social value of rational thinking to the audience. Also, don’t judge or claim to the other people if you cannot be an example of that.

In the book “Herodotus on the Persians”, the use of the word barbaric is different than the use of barbaric in those articles mentioned before. Herodotus wrote ““For Asia, with all the various tribes of barbarians that inhabit it, is regarded by the Persians as their own; but Europe and the Greek race they look on as distinct and separate.” At that time, any other non-Greek people will be considered barbarian because they do not speak the same language and Greeks cannot understand what they talk. The word barbarian is just a name for all these non-Greek people, however, the work barbaric that people use in nowadays is very different, as we can see from the news mentioned before, barbaric can be used as rude and ignorant.

Atuma, Uche. “Parents donating children for suicide bombing, Army raises alarm” The Sun[Lagos] 6 Aug 2017 1 Print

Briggs, David. “HS2 on CV will be embarrassing” Nottingham Post[Nottingham] 5 Sep 2017 1 Print

Barbarians in Barcelona

Back then in Ancient Greece the term “barbarian” was a little bit different from how it is today. The Greeks used this term to describe people who didn’t speak their language so they saw them as different and barbaric. However now a days when we use the words “barbarian” or “barbaric” we are usually describing something destructive, brutal and violent. Over time the words we use and their meanings have changed to fit society.

The news article called, “’Barbaric Act’: World Reacts to Barcelona Attack”, states,” “Revolting”, “cowardly”, and “barbaric” are some of the words leaders worldwide have used to describe the attack in Barcelona that killed 13 people.” Also another article called ” MASSACRE ON LAS RAMBLAS; 13 dead and 100 injured as van rams Barcelona tourists; Two suspects held, one shot dead after a barbaric Isis attack; Holidaymakers tell of horror amid scenes of carnage; Selfie sticks. Baby buggy wheels. .. and a scene of utter carnage” states, ” Broken bodies lay in pools of blood on the famous street, where shops, bars and restaurants are normally packed with tourists and locals.”.

These two articles talk about how terrorists drove a van into a crowd of tourists in a holiday hotspot, Las Ramblas in Barcelona. The ones being treated as the term, “Other”, in this case is the ISIS terrorists because they are the ones acting violently. I think the target audiences for these two articles are the ones who suffered any sort of pain from the events like loss of a family member or they 100 people that got injured from the van charging through the crowd. Besides the people who suffered in these events, I think the articles are also targeting the general readers as their target because it warns them to be careful and not to do such dangerous activities that cause others so much suffering.  One social value that’s being affirmed as a shared value towards the target audience is peace or the idea of it because in the articles, it shows that people were surprised that Barcelona would be a target of an attack. They were surprised because Barcelona is a beautiful city with a huge mix of different nationalities. Also another social value that is being expressed as a shared value towards the audience is sympathy. In the articles, many world leaders from various countries are showing sympathy towards the families of the ones who were killed and injured. An example of this is the Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announcing a three day mourning period for the victims. The way we use the word “barbarian” or “barbaric” is very different compared to its meaning from ancient Greece. Besides using it to describe someone who spoke a different language or an outsider, Greeks used the word barbarian to describe a group of people or tribes. This is shown in Herodotus’ Histories in (1.4), “For Asia, with all the various tribes of barbarians that inhabit it, is regarded by the Persians as their own; but Europe and the Greek race they look on as distinct and separate.” The term “barbaric” or “barbarian” are used the same to describe how violent the terrorists acts were.

“‘Barbaric act’: World reacts to Barcelona attack.” Al Jazeera America, 18 Aug. 2017. Infotrac Accessed 10 Sept. 2017.

“MASSACRE ON LAS RAMBLAS; 13 dead and 100 injured as van rams Barcelona tourists; Two suspects held, one shot dead after a barbaric Isis attack; Holidaymakers tell of horror amid scenes of carnage; Selfie sticks. Baby buggy wheels. .. and a scene of utter carnage.” Daily Mail [London, England], 18 Aug. 2017, p. 1. Infotrac Accessed 10 Sept. 2017.

Barbaric Terror

“This brutal, barbaric and disgusting act will rock Australians to their core. The bloody assault on an Australian child at the hands of these vicious Islamic extremists is more than just a tragic reminder of the time in which we live.” A quote from “Herald Sun” news paper in Australia posted on August 20,2017 in describing terrorist attack in the city Las Ramblas Barcelona injuring four of their own one seven year old Julian Cadman. “The targeting of an innocent Australian child by barbaric Islamic terrorists ” another quote from the ” Herald Sun” makes it clear that the Islamic extremist/terrorists are who are being treated as “other” by the use of the term barbaric in this article. I believe that the target audience for this article is Australian citizens because of the way in both quotes you can see the author continuously mentions the Australians involved in the attack more then the other hundred injured during the attack. The social value that is being affirmed as also a shared value for the audience is fear because now there are attacks and even though it was somewhere else is affecting their people. This situation is different to the use of the word barbaric compared to the use in “Herodotus Histories”. In “Herodotus Histories” the meaning of the word barbarian is some one who isn’t from the same place as you and doesn’t speak the same language. In “Herodotus Histories” chapter six it is stated “and the barbarians over came the middle part of the line” from this quote we can see the word is used in a different context different compared to the “Herald Sun”.

“My thoughts are with the victims of this barbaric terrorist attack in the great city of Barcelona'” a quote from ” The Western Mail” news paper also about terror attack in Barcelona. The terrorists are the ones being treated as “other” by the use of the term barbaric in this quote. I believe the target audience for this article is people everywhere,  the article gives more information about the attack what happened to inform people. The social value that is being affirmed as also  a shared value for the audience is pain, fear, and remorse for all injured, all involved, and fear for what will come next. This situation is different to the use of the word barbaric compared to the use in “Herodotus Histories”. As said before in “Herodotus Histories” barbarians are a group of people not from the same place and do not speak the same language. Another quote from “Herodotus Histories” that show barbarians are a group is ” the Athenians marched back with all speed to defend their city and outstripped the barbarians in their coming.” Both articles had the same use of the term barbaric, both used it as a way to describe disgusting and unjust actions to describe the actions of the terrorist attack in Barcelona. Although both articles are from two different countries they both depict the word the same way.


Herald Sun, August 20,2017

Herald Sun Australia Article

The Western Mail, August 18,2017

The Western Mail Article

Dina Becaj Group Athena

Barbarians Then and Now

Barbarians was a term used to describe people who did not speak Greek because all they would sound like to the Greeks was “bar bar bar”. That sounds a little ridiculous but if you did not speak Greek then that is what you were considered. This has definitely changed as years have gone by where a barbaric person is seen as one who is uncivilized or known as a savage. As time passes by, the meaning of words just like ‘barbaric’ have changed drastically and it may even continue to change.

A newspaper article on Lexis Nexis called “Don’t romanticise violence – reject it” quotes “We must be very careful and not fall into the trap of becoming a society that romanticises violence. Violence is ugly and barbaric, and no amount of spin-doctoring of the according of diplomatic immunity could ever justify it.” In this same newspaper article, it also says “It does not matter who is the victim or perpetrator/ aggressor, or the colour/ pigmentation of the victim or perpetrator, violence is barbaric and should be abhorred.” In this article, the one who is being treated as “Other” are people who try to speak for violence as in giving excuses for people who do violent things. I think the targeted audience for this article is victims who have been hurt before in South Africa. The social value that is being affirmed as a shared value is that no matter the race or gender of anyone, any act of violence should never be the answer to problems. The word barbarian is used differently in this article compared to “Herodotus” that we have read for this class since the term ‘barbaric’ is used in this article as violence being cruel and something humans should not do even for revenge. While in Book 1, in “Herodotus”, “For Asia, with all the various tribes of barbarians that inhabit it, is regarded by the Persians as their own; but Europe and the Greek race they look on as distinct and separate.”, the word ‘barbarians’ is used to describe different types and groups of people.

Another newspaper article on Lexis Nexis called “London stands with Barcelona against ‘evil of terrorism’, Sadiq Khan says” quotes “My thoughts are with the victims of this barbaric terrorist attack in the great city of Barcelona and with their brave emergency services.” That was quoted by Sadiq Khan where he sees these victims who have been hurt by terrorist attacks as very brave. In this article, the “Other” refers to the terrorists who are the ones planning these attacks. The targeted audience for this article is the victims and the families of those victims who may have been affected by the terrorist attack. The term barbarian is used differently in this article than in “Herodotus” since barbarian is used more like an inhuman attack and a brutal attack on innocent people. The two newspaper articles use the term ‘barbarian’ very similarly since both articles used that word in a negative sense to portray the bad in society.

-Raine, Team Jupiter

MLA Citations:

“Don’t romanticise violence – reject it.” The Sunday Independent(South Africa) 27 Aug. 2017. lexisnexis Web. 8 Sep. 2017 <

Morrison, Sean. “London stands with Barcelona against ‘evil of terrorism’, Sadiq Khan says.” London Evening Standard 17 Aug. 2017. lexisnexis Web. 8 Sep. 2017 <



No justification on barbaric shootings!

The subject of my articles is barbaric shootings. The first article called “outrage, condemnation greet church shooting” describes shooting on St. Philips Catholic Church in Ozubulu in Anambra State. The article explains that shooting was caused by the feud between brothers who live outside of the country, who are the barbarians. According to the article, “Dogara described the attack as abominable, barbaric, inhuman and the height of wickedness.” The second source, published by Belfast Telegraph, called “This isn’t justice’: Police in Derry condemns ‘barbaric’ shooting” show the shooting situation in Northern Ireland. According to the article, 33-years old man was shot by “four coward masked men”, who are the barbarians. The author said, “Police in Foyle has condemned the incident as “barbaric.” I think that the target audience for each article is everyone because that something what has no justification! Shooting is a hazardous form of attack, and all articles in newspapers are shown to inform the worst consequences of these attacks and warn people about things that are going on around the world. I believe that one social value that was affirmed as a shared value for the target audience is protection for all inhabitants of the city and assure them about sufficient protection for the future. By the danger, which in those countries was shooting, some people who have kids, might consider moving out, because they might be afraid of their kids’ safety. Meaning of word barbarian in these situations and reading in our class are different because in class we define barbarian as a person who lives outside the country, who don’t speak the same language and have secret knowledge. In the article, one of the shooting was caused by brothers, who we can definitely call barbarians because they lived outside of the country, where a shooting happened, however they did terrible thing, but in our story barbarian in uncivilized person. They also had feud which they brought to Nigeria, and cause this outrage. In the second article, the barbarians are, as the author of the newspaper said, “four cowards masked men”, and I believe that they must be from outside because the journalists defined them as “coward”, which means that someone has lack of the courage to take a guilt of actions. However, there is no confirmation of this fact. In the Herodotus, the barbarian role played Croesus, son of Alyattes, who was a lord of all the nations to the west of the river Halys.

Quote from Herodotus:
“So far as our knowledge goes he was the first of the barbarians who had dealings with the Greeks, forcing some of them to become his tributaries and entering into alliance with others” (1.6)

The two articles that I found are very similar to each other because both of them shows the situations of shootings, barbaric shootings in two different countries – Nigeria and North Ireland. In both articles, the authors explained that there is no justification for what happened. The only difference between those two sources is that in the first, there was a shooting in the church, and the second, the 33-years old man was shot.

Citations of the articles:

       Buhari, Muhammadu. “Outrage, Condemnation Greet Church Shooting.” The Sun, 7 Aug. 2017,

“’This isn’t justice’: Police in Derry condemns ‘barbaric’ shooting” Belfast Telegraph, 9 Aug. 2017,

Edyta, Team Aphrodite