Lack of knowledge annoyance

[The Fuzz]

I searched for a whinge thread where people can lament others' lack of historical knowledge, but came up with nothing.

Just had to get this off my chest.

I was flipping through one of those little collections of Sufi poetry, and I noticed each chapter had a bit of Arabic calligraphy. I can't read Arabic, but I instantly recognized one of the symbols. It was Mahumd II's tughra. I found a book on Ottoman history to double check, and lo and behold, it was.

At that point I put the former book down. It was pretty apparent they just shoved random pretty things in there.

I mean, that kind of ignorance is sorta astounding. The poetry in that chapter was from Hafiz. Hafiz was Persian and was dead before Mahmud II was born. I couldn't be stuffed to look up the other chapter calligraphy but I assume they were also just thrown in. You'd think someone would double check these things.

/sigh

[Brandy Blue]

Publishing is a business, with deadlines and costs, like any other. Maybe the publisher felt that there was no time or budget to hire an Arabic expert to figure out what the symbols mean. (I am assuming they used an old translation rather than hire a translator. Otherwise, how did this happen?)

Could be amusing, though. Suppose that one of the symbols means ... well, there's a whole range of amusing possibilities.

I get tired of people saying America was discovered by Christopher Columbus, Lief Ericson, St Brendan, or whoever. As far as I'm concerned,

1: Obviously the Native Indians got there before any named explorer

2: We have no way of knowing if the Indians got there first

so

3: Trying to say who discovered America is about as silly as trying to say who discovered Europe or Australia. Or trees.

4: Anyway the important thing is that when Columbus "discovered" America, it changed the whole world. The previous discoveries (except maybe by the Indians) are historically insignificant by comparison.

I'm also tired of people saying that Galileo got into trouble for saying that the earth went around the sun. He got away with that. He got into trouble when he suggested that the Catholic church did not know how to interpret scripture correctly. Was he oppressed? Yes. But its not a simple matter of faith vs. science. He had many supporters within the Catholic hierarchy.

Dear me, I could go on and on ... but enough about my troubles.

Happy whinging!

*******************************************************************

Forgot to mention in connection with Galileo. People say that the geocentric view of the solar system was comforting because earth was in the middle, and that Galileo was hated because he threatened that comforting view. Rubbish. Read Dante's Divine Comedy, and you will find that believers in the geocentric view considered earth the worst place to be (except hell) precisely because it was in the center! The center was believed to be as far as you could get from God, because heaven was the outermost ring.

[Don Esteban]

I reserve a special level of distain for people who don't know the history of their own country.

Example:- A Spanish colleague of mine the other day (just back from a trip to Marrakesh) who said that she was suprised by the influence Spanish cooking had had on Morrocan food.....Errr thing it might just be the other way round dear, or do we not know that most of Spain was conquered bu the Moors :inquisitive:

[Noncommunist]

Though part of Morocco was conquered by the Spanish at the turn of the last century so they might have a bit of an influence.

[caravel]

Though part of Morocco was conquered by the Spanish at the turn of the last century so they might have a bit of an influence.
Indeed. It's most likely a crossover of influences rather than a simple case of one influencing the other.

:bow:

[Brandy Blue]

I suspect that what was really annoying about the Senora was that she wasn't just ignorant. She was also complacently and self-congratulatory parochial. Clearly those stupid Arabs and Berbers (if she's heard of them) didn't know how to cook until the Spanish showed them.

To be fair, she's probably no worse than most. Everyone assumes that their culture is superior in every way until they learn otherwise. It is the default mode for the human race. That doesn't make it less annoying, of course.

Now and then parochialism can be amusing. I remember giving guests of mine a drink of blackcurant juice. I consider it to be an English drink because I learned about it from my English mother. My Jordanian guest was surprised and pleased that I had given him a Jordanian drink, and my American guest (who had been to Egypt) wondered where I had got an Egyptian drink from. I have since then been told that it is an Indian drink. Well, I don't know who started it, but I suspect that the British and their empire is the common thread.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1: Obviously the Native Indians got there before any named explorer

2: We have no way of knowing if the Indians got there first

so

3: Trying to say who discovered America is about as silly as trying to say who discovered Europe or Australia. Or trees.

I would agree and disagree. On one hand, you are factually correct. On the other hand, we did discover the continent for Europe, and we did discover that (from our perspective) there were other people living there. If they had come to Europe, they would have likewise discovered us.


4: Anyway the important thing is that when Columbus "discovered" America, it changed the whole world. The previous discoveries (except maybe by the Indians) are historically insignificant by comparison.


Yes, indisputable.

[Brandy Blue]

I'm not sure that we disagree at all, Evil Maniac. The word "discover" can be used in different ways. I was using it in a particular context, i.e. to refer to ignorant people who assume that America could only be discovered once and then try to tell you who got there first. You use the word another way, and I quite agree that, in that sense, Columbus did discover America.

For that matter, I discovered the world. I just didn't discover it first. :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm not sure that we disagree at all, Evil Maniac. The word "discover" can be used in different ways. I was using it in a particular context, i.e. to refer to ignorant people who assume that America could only be discovered once and then try to tell you who got there first. You use the word another way, and I quite agree that, in that sense, Columbus did discover America.

For that matter, I discovered the world. I just didn't discover it first. :laugh4:

:bow:

[Brenus]

It is because History/history is just a representation for a country of itself.
It is a myth, a construction of identity.

E.g.: English, you didn’t win Waterloo. A coalition under the command of an English general did. Trafalgar didn’t prevent England to speak French because the Grande Armée was yet marching to Austerlitz… And Nelson destroyed “only” half the Franco-Spanish fleet… Advantage which was lost immediately after because the storm…

French: Joan of Arc was not a maid from Lorraine, and didn’t lead armies to victories… She was most probably the natural daughter of the Duc of Lorraine and was invented by the future King of France PR. La Hire and Gilles de Rais were in charge of the armies…

And we can find a lot of example like these…

It is less a lack of knowledge than a self-centre attitude, encouraged how our history is taught.
Who really realise when we study Egypt that it is in fact African’s history? Who just realise than when we speak of Alexander the Great, the Chinese had a full history of great kingdom builders?:beam:

[Don Esteban]

Though part of Morocco was conquered by the Spanish at the turn of the last century so they might have a bit of an influence.

Yes it was, but the type of food such as Almond based dishes (ALmendras - anything beginning with AL tens to be of arabic origin) was imported by the moors since most of the plant types were not indigneous to the Iberian peninsula before that.

Spanish cooking had very little influence on Morocco and the period of conquest was way shorter than the moorish occupation of Spain.


I'll give you a similar situation for the UK. Would you say English cooking has had a big influence on Indian cooking? Or more the reverse?

[Don Esteban]

I suspect that what was really annoying about the Senora was that she wasn't just ignorant. She was also complacently and self-congratulatory parochial. Clearly those stupid Arabs and Berbers (if she's heard of them) didn't know how to cook until the Spanish showed them.


Indeed. And this is a fairly common outlook here in Spain unfortunately.....

[Don Esteban]

It is because History/history is just a representation for a country of itself.
It is a myth, a construction of identity.

E.g.: English, you didn’t win Waterloo. A coalition under the command of an English general did. Trafalgar didn’t prevent England to speak French because the Grande Armée was yet marching to Austerlitz… And Nelson destroyed “only” half the Franco-Spanish fleet… Advantage which was lost immediately after because the storm…



And we didn't really destroy the Spanish armada, more got lucky that a strom brew up:laugh4:

See also:

Americans: You were not the saviours of Europe during the two world wars. Many countries were fighting way before you got involved and lost far more men. That said your help is appreciated, just stop telling us that you were the ONLY reason we one! The war did not run form 1942 - 45 but from 39 - 45 and arguably (if you are Czech) from before that when the first invasions took place.

French: You did not win the war in Algeria no matter what your government might try and tell you. They didn't choose to leave!!!

Spain: The British did not steal Gibralter, you gave it to them as one of the conditions after loosing a war. Also why is it ok for you to hold on to Ceuta and Melilla but not for the brits to hold Gibralter?


Think i'll stop now before I piss off every nationality :beam:

[CountArach]

It is less a lack of knowledge than a self-centre attitude, encouraged how our history is taught.
Who really realise when we study Egypt that it is in fact African’s history? Who just realise than when we speak of Alexander the Great, the Chinese had a full history of great kingdom builders?:beam:
That is so true. I hate when people think with Nationalism to re-write history in the image they find convenient. The Waterloo example you cited is so true - without Blucher's help there was no way Wellington would have won, at least not so convincingly.

[Incongruous]

It is because History/history is just a representation for a country of itself.
It is a myth, a construction of identity.

E.g.: English, you didn’t win Waterloo. A coalition under the command of an English general did. Trafalgar didn’t prevent England to speak French because the Grande Armée was yet marching to Austerlitz… And Nelson destroyed “only” half the Franco-Spanish fleet… Advantage which was lost immediately after because the storm…

French: Joan of Arc was not a maid from Lorraine, and didn’t lead armies to victories… She was most probably the natural daughter of the Duc of Lorraine and was invented by the future King of France PR. La Hire and Gilles de Rais were in charge of the armies…

And we can find a lot of example like these…

It is less a lack of knowledge than a self-centre attitude, encouraged how our history is is taught.
Who really realise when we study Egypt that it is in fact African’s history? Who just realise than when we speak of Alexander the Great, the Chinese had a full history of great kingdom builders?:beam:

I think you will have a hard time of it, proving to anyone that the British (not the English) claim sole responsability for the defeat of Nappy, in almost (a few exceptions) every book I have read about the battle due credit is given where it is merited by all sides.

As to Trafalgar, true the actual battle was only part of the full story, but it was the climax. France had been teetering on verge of naval collapse for some time before Trafalgar, even before the Nile due to the stupidity of the Revolutionaries and Napoleon, who somehow beleived that wars in Europe were still won on the continent alone. But the Nile and Trafalgar did illustrate the superiority of the British navy and its officer class once and for all over those of its contemporaries, this "advantage" was not lossed after the storm. It reaffirmed Britains naval supremecy and condemned the continental efforts (with the aid of the Russians) of the French to failure, if Russia and Britain could not be brought to heel, then it was always a lost cause.

On Egypt, well no not in the way most people undertsand Africa. Egyptian civilization belongs to that group of Eastern and latter Hellenistic civilizations rather than those of sub-sahharan Africa, Hellas, Asia minor and Mesopotamia were far more important to Egypt, in terms of both being influenced by and influencing the country, thus I find it hard to call it African history.

[Brenus]

Just watch History Channel, read or watch Sharp. History books don't count because they don't built the National Identity...:beam:
YAbout Egypt your answer prove my point.:beam:
And the othhers are Minor Asian history...

[caravel]

Indeed. And this is a fairly common outlook here in Spain unfortunately.....

Albahaca, Aceitunas, Aceite, Berenjena, Arroz. Lots of words for foodstuffs in Spanish have arabic origins, including such staples as basil, olives, aubergines and rice.

:bow:

[Incongruous]

Just watch History Channel, read or watch Sharp. History books don't count because they don't built the National Identity...:beam:
YAbout Egypt your answer prove my point.:beam:
And the othhers are Minor Asian history...

I said books not history books, all are included and are you saying that because Egypt is in fact more akin to Levantine, Mosopotamian, Anatolian and Hellenistic cultures I am blinded by history?:juggle2:

Asian history? You mean Mesopotamia? Again a rather poor choice of words, I would put Mesopotamia in its own catagory, closer to Anatolian and Levantine culture that most of those populating what we term Asia.

Just as I would seperate southen, Hellenistic and Italian cultures from European ones of the same time.

[Brandy Blue]

Whatever you watch or read, there is a bias and that's how it is. I have been badly disappointed with the History Channel before.

On Egypt, I am (mostly) with Bopa. True, Egypt is geographically in Africa. To that extent Brenus is correct. But there is more to a culture than its geographical location. Ancient Egypt was not in significant contact with other African cultures AFAIK, with the important exception of Nubia and maybe Axum. Depending on the period you are thinking about, it is more culturally accurate to consider Egypt part of Mediterranian or Arab culture. So it is down to whether you think geography or culture is more important.

But however one looks at it, Bopa is not displaying an annoying lack of knowledge about Egypt. He is showing that there is more than one way of presenting and categorizing the truth. Brenus is not wrong about Egypt being in Africa, but he is wrong if he thinks that this is the only way to catagorize Egypt.

[rotorgun]

My beef is with average High School history textbooks. They are usually very biased towards the WASP viewpoint, and generally omit or gloss over anything negative that impacted United States history. At the same time, I dislike the half-hardhearted attempts at revision, that usually take their lead by whatever is politically correct, depending on whichever fashionable theory is in vogue at the time of their writing. Verily I say unto you, give us the facts please and let us draw our own conclusions. :wall:

[Brenus]

“Asian history? You mean Mesopotamia? Again a rather poor choice of words, I would put Mesopotamia in its own catagory, closer to Anatolian and Levantine culture that most of those populating what we term Asia.” That is geography, sorry.
I don’t choose theses are facts.
You choose so you manipulate and how can I say, in doing this, you “Europeeise”…:beam:

[Don Esteban]

Albahaca, Aceitunas, Aceite, Berenjena, Arroz. Lots of words for foodstuffs in Spanish have arabic origins, including such staples as basil, olives, aubergines and rice.

:bow:

Exactly, and not just the words, usually the foodstuffs themselves (although not in the case of aceitunas or rice).


A huge general annoyance I have is the assumption that Europe has always been the most advanced culural area in the World - this is blatantly false at many points Asian or Arab culture has been more advanced.

[caravel]

Well rice originates in the far east, but was introduced to the Middle East and India before it came to Europe. So I would have thought that rice would have been introduced there by the Arabs?

[Don Esteban]

Well rice originates in the far east, but was introduced to the Middle East and India before it came to Europe. So I would have thought that rice would have been introduced there by the Arabs?

Could be. I'm not sure if rice was introduced to Spain and then to Italy and France or from Italy to Spain. I assumed it might have been a Roman importation like olives but equally it could be moorish. It is mainly found in Andalucia and Valencia so that WOULD fit in with your theory but it could just be that these are the only regions with the right conditions. Also Paella is flavoured with Azafran which WAS a moorish import so on balance you are probably correct.

[caravel]

Azafran (Saffron) use in Europe goes back at least to the pre christian era. I would say that it would have been introduced to Iberia by the Romans, and then perhaps reintroduced somewhat by the Moors.

[Don Esteban]

Azafran (Saffron) use in Europe goes back at least to the pre christian era. I would say that it would have been introduced to Iberia by the Romans, and then perhaps reintroduced somewhat by the Moors.

"In Europe, saffron cultivation declined steeply following the Roman Empire's fall. Saffron was reintroduced when the Islamic civilization "Al-Andalus" spread to Spain, France, and Italy"

Apparently we are both correct on this one :laugh4:

Although I have a problem with the Islamic civilization being called "Al-Andalus" as this was only the name of the province on the Iberian peninsula but that's a different argument....

[scipiosgoblin]

Think i'll stop now before I piss off every nationality :beam:


ROTFLMAO. Thank you for the dose of reality check. As an American, I always have to defend every idiotic position my country takes to all of my wife's relatives and friends. While I love my country and its ideals, I don't agree with everything it does.

Of course my wife has a different trial with Americans. She is South African. Convincing some of my relatives, friends and coworkers that she didn't grow up in a mud hut surrounded by lions and spear wielding natives is difficult.

I grew up on a farm ten miles outside a town of 1500 people. She grew up in Johannesburg, population 2 million or so. It's funny what preconceptions people have about other cultures.

SG

[Brenus]

“On Egypt, I am (mostly) with Bopa. True, Egypt is geographically in Africa. To that extent Brenus is correct. But there is more to a culture than its geographical location. Ancient Egypt was not in significant contact with other African cultures AFAIK, with the important exception of Nubia and maybe Axum. Depending on the period you are thinking about, it is more culturally accurate to consider Egypt part of Mediterranian or Arab culture. So it is down to whether you think geography or culture is more important.

But however one looks at it, Bopa is not displaying an annoying lack of knowledge about Egypt. He is showing that there is more than one way of presenting and categorizing the truth. Brenus is not wrong about Egypt being in Africa, but he is wrong if he thinks that this is the only way to catagorize Egypt.”

I don’t disagree with all that.
But the subject was the lack of knowledge in history. Samara, Obeid, Ras Amra (sp?) civilisations are part of our civilisation. However, no real effort is done to highlight their geographical belonging to our European child.
I do agree that during the Middle-Ages, and the Renaissance and a huge part of the Modern Ages the world was the Mediterranean sea…
But who really clearly teach that Phoenicians, Carthaginians are in fact Africans?
That is the key of this debate, not what you or I know.

The view ours societies have (especially on Africa) would change if this was clearly explained.
Do we have to celebrate the Empire was a debate on a Radio Station there. And the commentator to carry on the civilisation duty of England ands how English built bridges, schools and railways and so on.
Now, if he would have a simple idea of what was India before, perhaps he wouldn’t dare to say things like this…
He passed on the slaughters of population and various traps and tricks… This “democratisation process” was imposed by force and blood.
And that is a clear construction of Identity, a clear interpretation of history for a building of a clear conscience… Not a word on the rebellions and unrests…
We killed them but it was for their good…:beam:

Don’t worry; I had the same for the French. We invaded Vietnam to protect the Catholic Minorities from the evil Emperor of Annam (nowadays we say minorities rights for self determination), we invaded the Congo to free the slaves (human rights protection), and we hastely democratised countries (before the English got time to do it) and killed all the tyrants in others part of Africa in order to spread the Enlightenment…
The fact that few years after priest, soldiers and private companies were ruling through the heirs of these tyrants is not really important to be mentioned…
10 Africans died for each km of rail tracks (and 1 European.)
Forced labour was enforced, with full agreement of the French government…

I know that is a digression from the original debate.
However, the refusal to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to recognise the geographical reality about ancient civilisations is just a part of the all process.:sweatdrop:

[Brandy Blue]

Thanks for the clarification and sorry I missed the point, Brenus.

On a related point, I view geography history with some suspicion anyway. Sometimes we Americans equate Africa with black, and claim that Egypt and Carthage were black civilizations. (I am not suggesting that you think that. This is just another historical inaccuracy that some people believe.) Now I know that ancient Egyptian art includes pictures of blacks, so I suppose some of the Egyptians may have been black, but most of them look more brown than black to me. They probably had some black blood, I suppose, especially as they were once ruled by the Nubians and traded with them constantly. But to say they were all 100% black seems a bit unfair on their Coptic descendants. Why should they not get the credit for what their ancestors did just because they are not black?

I'm happy to say that Axum, Nubia, and Congo were black kingdoms, but no one has yet shown me the evidence for the claim that Hannibal, Cleopatra, and Socrates (who wasn't even an African) were black.

[Paradox]

Although I have a problem with the Islamic civilization being called "Al-Andalus" as this was only the name of the province on the Iberian peninsula but that's a different argument....
That's what we call it here in the middle east. It's commonly known as a genuine culture, not a province.

[rotorgun]

Another thing that I've noticed is the constant attempt by historians to "dress up" historical events, as if history were some sort of lady of ill repute we are taking to the ball, with all sorts of political reasons and just causes. Mostly the reasons why nations go to war is almost purely economic. France went into Viet Nam to protect its control of the Rubber plantations, despite what is claimed. Just as the United States was protecting the interests of the Michelin Tire Company and the Auto industries interests in the same. Did rome go to war with Carthage to spread the ideals of the republic, or was it mainly to insure control of the valuable trade to Sicily? Did England go to war with France in the 1800s merely to stop the Tyranny of Napoleon, or was it that she feared a resurgent France getting in on their little trade monopoly of the major trade routes?

[Brenus]

“France went into Viet Nam to protect its control of the Rubber plantations, despite what is claimed.” In 1945, the re-conquest after the Japanese attack, yes (but coal and iron mines as well), in 18something no.
It was for opium, coal and iron and to counter the English expansion in China…

“I'm happy to say that Axum, Nubia, and Congo were black kingdoms, but no one has yet shown me the evidence for the claim that Hannibal, Cleopatra, and Socrates (who wasn't even an African) were black.” It is a typical process of Creation of Identity and representation of itself.

Our history isn’t always glorious, so we just change the perception of it.:beam:
Apologies to my English friends, but in always referring to Agincourt or Crecy, the English population (generally speaking) just don’t know England/English King lost the war. And not because the English just decided to re-embark and never come back, but because several defeat obliged them to do so…
Like the heroic charges of the French Cavalry in Waterloo can not change the fact that the French lost the battle. The fact that even if Napoleon would have won at Waterloo, he would have lost at the next one.

The creation of Heroic Myth is important in nation building process… The 300 just is one of the examples of how it works, especially when relies by movies…
Why do we relate ourselves with this?
Well, good PR from the Spartans…
But we all know that Sparta for very far for a democratic state, which it lived on a permanent state of war and the slavery of an entire population… That to be a Spartan you had to kill one of these slaves…
But the interpretation of the fact is more important that the fact.
The importance of Richard Lion heart is one of the best example of this. This guy, who just said he would happily sell London, who in fact was speaking French, probably considered himself as French (if nationality made sense at this period) if in all movies and mind seen as the English Hero and THE nice and just King… Amazing…:beam:

[Don Esteban]

That's what we call it here in the middle east. It's commonly known as a genuine culture, not a province.


Interesting to know.

My justification for referring to it as a province:


Al-Andalus (Arabic: الأندلس‎) was the Arabic name given to those parts of the Iberian Peninsula governed by Arab Muslims, at various times in the period between 711 and 1492. As a political domain or domains, it successively constituted a province of the Umayyad Caliphate, initiated by the Caliph Al-Walid I (711-750); the Emirate of Córdoba (c. 750-929); the Caliphate of Córdoba (929-1031); and the Caliphate of Córdoba's taifa (successor) kingdoms.
In succeeding centuries, al-Andalus became a province of the Arab-Berber dynasties of the Almoravids and Almohads, subsequently fragmenting into a number of minor states, most notably the Emirate of Granada. For large parts of its history, particularly under the Caliphate of Córdoba, Andalus was a beacon of learning, and the city of Córdoba became one of the leading cultural and economic centers in both the Mediterranean basin and the Islamic world.

Oxford Dictionary of Islam

- obviously this doesn't negate the fact that it could also refer to a civilization but I would have expected the civilization to be referred to as the Almoravid, Almohad or Marinid civilization depending on the date in question.

[Jolt]

Publishing is a business, with deadlines and costs, like any other. Maybe the publisher felt that there was no time or budget to hire an Arabic expert to figure out what the symbols mean. (I am assuming they used an old translation rather than hire a translator. Otherwise, how did this happen?)

Could be amusing, though. Suppose that one of the symbols means ... well, there's a whole range of amusing possibilities.

I get tired of people saying America was discovered by Christopher Columbus, Lief Ericson, St Brendan, or whoever. As far as I'm concerned,

1: Obviously the Native Indians got there before any named explorer

2: We have no way of knowing if the Indians got there first

so

3: Trying to say who discovered America is about as silly as trying to say who discovered Europe or Australia. Or trees.

4: Anyway the important thing is that when Columbus "discovered" America, it changed the whole world. The previous discoveries (except maybe by the Indians) are historically insignificant by comparison.

If he go like that, we can say who discovered America were the plants! Or Devonian florae.

Obviously it is refered to the European discoveries. As everyone (Ok, maybe most people) know that there were people in the Americas before Columbus. People also say the Portuguese discovered India and China, and you know what the answer to that is...

[Brandy Blue]

If he go like that, we can say who discovered America were the plants! Or Devonian florae.

Obviously it is refered to the European discoveries. As everyone (Ok, maybe most people) know that there were people in the Americas before Columbus. People also say the Portuguese discovered India and China, and you know what the answer to that is...

Jolt, I already addressed the point you raise here in post #8 of this thread. I see no need to adress it again. I thought that what I was talking about was obvious from the context, but apparently not, so I added post #8 to clarify it.

By the way, manners don't cost anything. Much the same point you made was raised in post #7, but politely. Its not polite to make someone sound dumb just because you disagree with him.

[Incongruous]

“I'm happy to say that Axum, Nubia, and Congo were black kingdoms, but no one has yet shown me the evidence for the claim that Hannibal, Cleopatra, and Socrates (who wasn't even an African) were black.” It is a typical process of Creation of Identity and representation of itself.



Sorry, what does that sentence mean?
The Egyptians were clearly not black and very likely more akin to Arabs and Levantines than sub-Saharan Africans culturally, no spin on history can hide that fact. The Carthaginians, were not Africans but from the Levant as was the culture and language, thus Carthage has far more in common with the Levant than Africa.

This is not some kind of racist, European spin on history no matter how much you want it to be, it is fact.

[Brandy Blue]

Mostly the reasons why nations go to war is almost purely economic.


Some people would say that any important event in history happens for more than one reason. Would you disagree? You sound like you think that economics is the only issue that makes a difference.

[Don Esteban]

Some people would say that any important event in history happens for more than one reason. Would you disagree? You sound like you think that economics is the only issue that makes a difference.

I agree. Actually economically wars rarely make any sense at all - both sides end up worse off. Most wars are fought partly for economic reasons but there are so many more factors - relgion, culture, pride, need to create an external enemy to encourage internal stability, pure madness on occasions, pre-emptiveness......

[Jolt]

Jolt, I already addressed the point you raise here in post #8 of this thread. I see no need to adress it again. I thought that what I was talking about was obvious from the context, but apparently not, so I added post #8 to clarify it.

By the way, manners don't cost anything. Much the same point you made was raised in post #7, but politely. Its not polite to make someone sound dumb just because you disagree with him.

Sorry if I offended you in any manner. But the argument behind saying "Columbus discovered America" (If you read my post about Portugal discovering Brazil in 1343, you'll see that's wrong as well) is that the Europeans, discovered America, and that is inherently understoodable by anyone who says such a thing. I therefore see no reason why anyone should get a nerve when people say such things.

[Brenus]

"This is not some kind of racist, European spin on history no matter how much you want it to be, it is fact." No it is not. What I was saying is the is a re-construction from some Ethnic Group (Black African in this case) to built a image of themselves. Sorry for the mis-understanding...:shame:

[Brandy Blue]

the argument behind saying "Columbus discovered America" (If you read my post about Portugal discovering Brazil in 1343, you'll see that's wrong as well) is that the Europeans, discovered America, and that is inherently understoodable by anyone who says such a thing.

1: It is not true that "that is inherently understood by anyone who says such a thing." I have met people who instisted that Columbus discovered America first, not just first for Europe. (Yes, its true he didn't discover it first for Europe either, but that's a another story.) Just because you have not met anyone who thinks that Columbus was the really the first, how do you know that I haven't?

2: If you do not understand someones post, you can say what you don't understand and ask for clarification. If you do not agree with someones post, you can say why you don't agree. But it is rude to present a deliberately distorted version of someone's opinon which makes what he says look dumb. I think you know perfectly well that I am not going to make a case that America was discovered by plants. Nor does it follow logically from anything I have said here. That was a cheap shot.

3: Apology accepted. I'm sure I've said worse things plenty of times.:bow:

[Incongruous]

"This is not some kind of racist, European spin on history no matter how much you want it to be, it is fact." No it is not. What I was saying is the is a re-construction from some Ethnic Group (Black African in this case) to built a image of themselves. Sorry for the mis-understanding...:shame:

Oh good god! Sorry about that:laugh4:, complete misunderstanding on my part and no harm done.

[Jolt]

1: It is not true that "that is inherently understood by anyone who says such a thing." I have met people who instisted that Columbus discovered America first, not just first for Europe. (Yes, its true he didn't discover it first for Europe either, but that's a another story.) Just because you have not met anyone who thinks that Columbus was the really the first, how do you know that I haven't?

True, people tend not to rationalize, but people know at heart that what their saying is implicitely the European discovery, since if you speak about the Native Americans there, the person will agree with you that Columbus wasn't the first person to step into the Americas. It is like logic or love, and any difficultly aspect to define. People can't explain what logic or love is, but they implicitely know what it is.


2: If you do not understand someones post, you can say what you don't understand and ask for clarification. If you do not agree with someones post, you can say why you don't agree. But it is rude to present a deliberately distorted version of someone's opinon which makes what he says look dumb. I think you know perfectly well that I am not going to make a case that America was discovered by plants. Nor does it follow logically from anything I have said here. That was a cheap shot.

My Spanish teacher once said to me "You have to exagerate to make your opinion clear". It is simply what I have done, and I do that often. As I said, it wasn't to offend you.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I searched for a whinge thread where people can lament others' lack of historical knowledge, but came up with nothing.

I mean, that kind of ignorance is sorta astounding.... You'd think someone would double check these things.


I cite my nation's media in general as an annoyance due to ignorance.

"Now, lets begin with assuming everyone on earth has had the same life experiences as we have. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with us is clearly wrong. Next, lets assume that we, as journalists, have an innate ability to view all circumstances (with which we have no personal experience) from a perfectly objective point of view. So anyone who doesn't subscribe to our opinion is evil."

I mean, their job is to report on such a wide range of subjects that they cannot possibly have much experience with many of them. Therefore they spend 75% of the time polluting the system with uninformed opinions, as sincere as they may be.

Where is the balance? Well, I can hardly presume to know the answer. :rolleyes:

[KarlXII]

My turn to rant.

I hate it when pan-nationalist, or nationalist in general, groups try to twist history to give them some sort of casus belli or some justification for advocating radical beliefs. For example, I was reading a pan-Turkic thread that claimed peoples like Mohammed, or Genghis Khan, were Turkic, and that many civilizations were the result of Turkic peoples, including Roman! :furious3:

[Ibrahim]

My turn to rant.

I hate it when pan-nationalist, or nationalist in general, groups try to twist history to give them some sort of casus belli or some justification for advocating radical beliefs. For example, I was reading a pan-Turkic thread that claimed peoples like Mohammed, or Genghis Khan, were Turkic, and that many civilizations were the result of Turkic peoples, including Roman! :furious3:

Muhammad? Turkic?:laugh4:

so that's why he had white skin, dark, coal black wavy hair (well, in ringlets, as per 7th century style), wide forhead, wide eyes, and moderate hight...sounds just like the early turkic peoples..sounds very mongoloid to me*.:clown:

and I was under the impression that Chingis khaan was mongolian; afterall, his birth name and title are both mongolian (Timujin and Chingis khaan, respectively).

I agree. nationalism is stupid-It f***ed us over in the 20th century, and same for Iran....It screwed the Germans over, the French over. heck it screws everyone over.

*I've just described an Arab actually. yes this really was his described apppeareance.

[Fragony]

I
I was flipping through one of those little collections of Sufi poetry

It's soefi :beam:

[Ibrahim]

It's soefi :beam:

nope. sufi is correct.

I am arab, therefore I am right (about the sufis).

unless there is a hidden joke I don't get.:inquisitive: