Lack of knowledge annoyance

[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.
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…

[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...

[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.

[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...

Oh good god! Sorry about that, 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.

[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!

[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!

Muhammad? Turkic?

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*.

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

[Ibrahim]

It's soefi

nope. sufi is correct.

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

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