History you find interesting (Random) - Social Anxiety Forum
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-05-2019, 03:00 PM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122

History you find interesting (Random)


Events, periods, places, people, mysteries, quotes, images, whatever you like.

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-05-2019, 03:07 PM
loser
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Gender: Male
Age: 36
Posts: 298
I'm very interested in early humans. I love the film "Quest for fire". I'd like to believe that is a very good depiction of times before civilizations came to be.

History in general is fascinating for me
conantheworthless is offline  
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-05-2019, 04:27 PM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 546
I love all history. I am especially fascinated with countries that used to be dictatorships, but via reforms or uprisings turned into successful prosperous nations. It is always interesting how humans manage to deal with the issues of the past and move forward.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-05-2019, 04:37 PM
The Meditator
 
Suchness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Planet Namek, Australia
Language: Enlgish
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Posts: 5,079
I find ancient history the most fascinating, like pre dynastic Egypt and ancient Sumerian times. I'm big time into Zechariah Sitchin and believe our history goes back hundreds of thousands of years, I love reading his work and others like Mauro Biglino and Lloyd Pye. It's fascinating to me how ancient texts, the Bible, megalithic sites and our genes tell us a different story than what we've been told by the mainstream.
Suchness is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-05-2019, 05:03 PM
bipolar
 
harrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 13,076
I'm quite interested in Victorian times. I think it's partly because I've come across some rare books from that period - old books by Dickens etc. I'm very glad I didn't live during that time though.
harrison is online now  
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-06-2019, 01:38 PM
Senior Thread Writer
 
Cool Ice Dude55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Essex, UK
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,365
My Mood: Worried
I'm interested in how countries became to be how they are today i.e colonialism, ancient civilisations etc.

I'm also interested in revolutions such as the French and Russian ones.

Also I'm interested in WW2 and WW1 history.

I'm also interested in the history of America (civial rights, colonolism etc).


Cool Ice Dude55 is offline  
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-10-2019, 01:28 PM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122
I've developed a peculiar interest in transitional periods in history (for my own country anyway).

I think I started out wanting to know 'what really happened' because we never really studied any details in school. And people tend to have really biased opinions when it comes to anything Islam-related (it's either mindless evil, or flowers and roses).

I'll probably post some stuff about the Islamic period later, but I want to start with Greco-Roman stuff.

---

The death of ancient Egyptian culture probably started during the Ptolemaic period (323 BC - 30 BC), and accelerated during the Roman times (30 BC - 641 AD). Though the original decline in relevance had to be earlier than that. (*)

I like to read about the tensions between those cultures at the time, and how they tended to view one another, with native Egyptians being third class, after citizens of Greek cities and Roman citizens of course.

The relationship between the Greeks and the natives seems the most complex, since they did have more interest in the history and culture. Ptolomaeic Egypt is my favorite (though that's mostly for "the library" than anything else).

And upper-class natives were treated well, apparently. Which means that given enough centuries, the differences would've probably faded away.

Quote:
Generally ignored in older studies of Ptolemaic society compiled by classicists, the Egyptian elite was sharply distinct from the rural fallahin, and hardly a second-class citizenry cowed by the perception of a Greek "master race." Taking these privileged Egyptians into consideration, the very notion of official ethnic discrimination becomes quite dubious for the Ptolemaic period. Upper-class Egyptians often were fluent in the administrative language of Greek, an expediency that should not be mislabeled "assimilationist," as the same individuals did not need to forsake either an Egyptian identity or a fluency with native Demotic, also accorded official recognition as an administrative language.

Mixed marriages between Egyptians and Greeks were increasingly common, particularly in the countryside, and the resulting families maintained conscious connections to both ethnicities, often expressed in the form of double names (one Greek, one Egyptian) accorded their children. By late Ptolemaic times, a number of such Hellenized Egyptians - or Egyptianized Hellenes - had risen to prominence in civil and military positions, and the accelerating process would surely have continued but for the harsh decrees of social separation imposed by Octavian himself.

[The Cambridge History of Egypt]
That decree is sort of interesting in itself. It gives you a good indication of three classes of people and their relative worth (from the Roman point of view, at the very start of Egypt's career as a Roman province):

Quote:
§43. If Egyptians after a father's death record their father as a Roman, a fourth (of the estate) is confiscated.
§44. If an Egyptian registers a son as an ephebe [of a polis], a sixth is confiscated.
§45. If an urban Greek marries an Egyptian woman and dies childless, the fisc appropriates his possessions; if he has children, it confiscates two thirds.
But if he has begotten children of an urban Greek woman and has three or more children, his possessions go to them . . .
§49. Freedmen of Alexandrians may not marry Egyptian women.
§53. Egyptians who, when married to discharged soldiers, style themselves
Romans are subject to the provision on violation of status.
But even in Ptolemaic times, there were obviously tensions too, and revolts, and the Greeks were considered foreign invaders definitely, by some anyway.

One particular piece I like was a prophecy called "Oracle of the Potter" created during Ptolemaic times and kept circulating even during the Roman period:

Quote:
And then the Guardian Spirit will desert the city which they founded [Alexandria] and will go god-bearing Memphis and it will be deserted. That will be the end of our evils when Egypt shall see the foreigners fall like leaves from the branch. The city by the sea will be a drying place for the fishermen's catch because the Guardian Spirit has gone to Memphis, so that passers-by will say, "This was the all-nurturing city in which all the races of mankind live."
Ancient 'propaganda' is sort of cute ...

I find it ironic that even though Alexandria did end up falling, culturally (to Christianity), and militarily (to the Arabs). By the time those things happened ... whatever Memphis represented at one point was probably long gone.

Also somewhat related, I was reading this paragraph and I almost laughed out loud, but then I realized that this was something that probably actually happened. Poor cat.

Quote:
The historian Diodorus records that he personally witnessed an unfortunate member of a Roman embassy lynched in Alexandria by an angry mob after having accidentally killed a cat.
These quotes are pretty random though, just stuff that got caught in my memory while I was reading. I like knowing how cultures interacted in the past, even though it's not always easy, especially if one side became more dominant.

---

The way the Egyptian, Greek and Roman religions intermixed is sort of confusing to me, so I won't even talk about it. My favorite place to represent this is the Philae island where there three different eras left their temples.



There was also a church apparently:

Quote:
The temple was closed down officially in AD 537 by the local commander Narses the Persarmenian in accordance with an order of Byzantine emperor Justinian I. It then became a church of Saint Stephen. Ruins of a church have been discovered and more than one adyton bore traces of having been made to serve at different eras the purposes of a chapel of Osiris and of Jesus. [Wikipedia]
---

The second big shift was the spread of Christianity, and this also seems so complicated, and you could divide it different phases.

The third is the Arab conquest (646 AD) and the fourth and final significant contact with the outside world only came with Napoleon's campaign (1798 ).

I could talk in more detail, but I don't want to make this super long. I'll probably post some more quotes I find interesting later.

---

(*) The last Egyptian dynasties were sandwitched between Nubian and Persian conquests. So it's not like they were doing very well at the time Alexander came anyway.

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-10-2019, 07:53 PM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 546
I find it interesting how the perception of Pharaohs in Egypt changed over time. In ancient times, Pharaohs were essentially regarded as gods, had virtually unlimited power, and their authority was so universally accepted that people didn't even know how to criticise them - it would have been like criticising gravity or numbers.

Over time, as Egypt started interacting with foreign cultures and people were exposed to different world views, especially with the Israeli people who showed them a different, mercantile way to look at things - as opposed to a more spiritual outlook - the perception shifted, and while Pharaohs were still seen as gods, they weren't really the "supreme gods" and, rather, were merely representatives of the gods from the sky.

Finally, when Egypt entered the Roman sphere of influence and, in effect, became its satellite, people had views more akin to how the Japanese see their Emperor nowadays: a powerful being connected to the gods of the past through history, but not really the absolute authority in him/herself. As a result, when the Roman army entered the Egyptian territory and started rampaging it, few people united under the Cleopatra's banner, and the war ended swiftly.

Makes one wonder if, perhaps, Egyptians' views evolved too rapidly, and that they might have avoided being conquered otherwise.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-11-2019, 11:40 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122
@Shadowweaver

I don't think there's evidence for the Israelites being in Egypt, but yeah, I assume interaction with the outside world had to change their culture and religion in some way. (and there was a lot more interaction in the New Kingdom than in the Old Kingdom). Actually the New Kingdom was established after expelling the invading Hyksos. Which might explain why the New Kingdom was more expansionist / aggressive towards its neighbors.

I'm still not actually sure how best to think of the Ptolemaic era. Since almost every invasion before the Romans had their rulers crowned as "Pharoahs" ( Hyksos, Libyan, Nubian, Persian ). So Alexander presenting as son of Ra, wasn't exactly new, I assume. (Even though he probably did have a more interesting vision than any other invader). But was Cleopatra even legitimate in the eyes of the majority? Did Egyptians even serve in the army? I'm not sure, I'd have to read some more.

I guess Religion was so tied to the political structure. By the time of the Arab conquest, the identity of the people was to their church (not even to Christianity as a whole since there was huge internal conflict).

My personal speculation is that the Roman setting was just new for the people. Their old gods failed them, so they gravitated towards a new one that seemed more relevant, and wasn't intertwined with an assumed political structure that no longer existed. Of course it's not clear to me how much made the choice and how much were just oppressed into oblivion.

Finally, I don't think the king's power as a god was absolute. He still had to "maintain Ma'at (balance)". If they didn't do that, chaos would insue obviously, which was probably what happened in the first intermediate period (between the Old and Middle Kingdoms):

Quote:
It is believed that during this time temples were pillaged and violated, artwork was vandalized, and the statues of kings were broken or destroyed as a result of the postulated political chaos.
The "Ma'at / Izfet" (balance / chaos) was a core theme in their religion, and even the king was subject to these opposing forces.

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
post #10 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-14-2019, 04:38 PM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myosr View Post
I like knowing how cultures interacted in the past, even though it's not always easy, especially if one side became more dominant.
I was doing some reading on how the language evolved, and I came across this really old book (9th/10th century) that absolutely made my day.

I have been curious for some time about how exactly the Arabs originally perceived the Hieroglyphs, since the language was dead by the time they arrived, and I've read some stuff here and there, but nothing really detailed. This book is kind of cute, it's got all sorts of real and possibly fake languages.

I'm gonna post a complete chapter about the hieroglyphs, because I just find the whole thing interesting.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N68...ew?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TuP...ew?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kad...ew?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1425...ew?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ypk...ew?usp=sharing

First thing:

this idea that each group of people descended from a single person was kind of prevalent in the past (I think it's also the way the bible tends to explain different peoples).

Anyway "Hermes" is also kind of interesting. He's a Greek God, tied in some way to the Egyptian God "Thoth". Apparently, for some,, "Hermes" is also tied to the Islamic prophet "Idris" who, as far as I know is no one but the Old Testament figure "Enoch" ... who's interesting in his own right, because there's actually a "Book of Enoch" that's non-canonical and isn't part of the Christian bible. (though I've always wanted to skim through it)

And now my head hurts because I want to know how these figures were even connected (I need to shut up now and do some reading on these connections before I say anything more)

Second thing I noticed:

His understanding of the different types of languages are okay I guess (for his time anyway). He's wrong though about the Hieroglyphs being [just googled the word :] logographic. That is, the symbols don't always represent "things", sometimes they represent sounds. But he couldn't have known that, so yeah.

Third thing:

It's interesting how his own monotheistic worldview colored his interpretation of the glyphs. So instead of seeing different gods, he/they saw "the attributes of the one god". Also, most of these aren't even hieroglyphs, some could be demotic? but I wouldn't know.

Also, skimming through the rest of the book, I'm aware that they used to divide the history into an older era where people worshiped the one god, then the later era where we get "pharaohs" and pagans and such. So, they had their own different idea of ancient history.

---

Update: Also, one more thing. The author was also into magic, so that's pretty cool too. I wonder if I can find any of his magic books.

He does mention "THE MOST SUBLIME SECRET" on page 22 though. Not sure if it's magical though or what to do with it exactly. :''D

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-15-2019, 05:13 PM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myosr View Post
I did some more digging, and this author (Ibn Wahsheya) turned out to be more interesting than I thought.

I started reading a book called "The Last Pagans of Iraq: Ibn Wahshiyya and his Nabatean Agriculture" just this morning and I'm on page 100-something already, so yeah, I'm sort of hooked.

Same with the Egyptian post, I like to understand how the remnants of the old Mesopotamian cultures got to die out after being dominated by other different cultures (in this case: Persians, Christianity and Islam / Arabs).

A lot of stuff I want to quote, but I'll start with this which kind of gives you a feel for the time the author grew up in (as someone with Pagan ancestry who's people are being treated with prejudice as unsophisticated peasants) (Nabateans=Mesopotanians in this context):

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAAKKO HÄMEEN-ANTTILA
In general, the Nabateans were a favourite target of scorn. The Arabs have always been very proud of their own historical past and their own genealogy. When the conquering Arabs came in the seventh century to the old cultural areas of the Near East they clashed with several nations who were very clearly aware of their national identity, such as Byzantines, Persians and even Jews, whose intense feeling of religious identity compensated for their lack of an independent state.

In Iraq, things were different. In a (certainly fictitious) tradition found in a genealogical work, the second Caliph, 'Umar, is made to say to some Arabs that they should remember their genealogy and not be “like the Nabateans of the sawàd: when one of them is asked who he is, he responds that he is from such-and-such a village.”

In this anecdote, this is seen as the peak of shameful ignorance of one’s own roots, as the Arab writer is unable to see any patriotic feelings one might have for the agricultural land of one’s ancestors; for the Arabs, firmly rooted in their Bedouin background, fatherland is a less crucial concept than tribe or nation, which is perpetuated in the Islamic concept of umma, the universal and geographically undefined community of believers.

The same close identification of Nabateans with their home village is a favourite topic in many anecdotes. Thus, e.g., al-Kàmil al-Khwàrizmì (d. after 510/1117) parodies an unlettered Nabatean peasant:

"I am but a foster son of dales and marshes, the inhabitant of reedhuts and shacks, grown up among Nabatean peasants and base boors, a mixed lot and a vile mob, in a region, where I would cry: “Oh, how alien I feel!” if I went past its walls or cross its bridges. If I saw a foreign face, I would cry: “Daddy!” I do not know any language except Nabatean, I have had no teacher except my father, and I live amidst people who are not used to travel and who have never sat on the back of a horse or a camel, who have never left their walls, shady places and hills."

Also, the urban / rural angle is sort of interesting, and I never really thought about it in this context:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAAKKO HÄMEEN-ANTTILA
For the majority of mediaeval Muslim authors, peasants were totally invisible, be they pagans, Christians or Muslims. Arabic literature is urban in character, which has contributed to a distorted view of mediaeval Near Eastern society.

The cities were soon Islamized— Christian and Jewish communities excepted—and accordingly, the literature may give an illusion that the whole area dominated by Muslims was free of paganism. Ibn Wahshiyya is one of the very few authors to write about the largely non-Islamic, or at most only nominally Islamic, countryside of Iraq.
---

As for the book itself. It's a huge book with agriculture as the main topic (yeah, impractical to actually read). Supposedly it's a translation of another unknown book form his pagan ancestors' tradition (there's a whole lot of drama about the date and identity of the original author, but that's kind of irrelevant to my interest).

The book I'm reading (The last pagans) takes some excerpts from the original that have some significance to them and discusses them. I still haven't read enough of it to form an opinion. (just writing my impressions so far).

---

I'm not sure if I'll stay interested enough to finish the book (I still have 300 pages to go), and my interests generally fluctuate. So maybe I will and maybe I'll never think about this book again.

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-24-2019, 04:45 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122



Yay, this is probably one of my favorite historical places in Cairo.

The Hindu architecture is so out of place in this region it begs for you to look up the history of the exception. And the history has a very nineteenth century vibe to it, which I like.

Also, it doesn't help that the place was closed and abandoned since the owner's death in 1929, and was never opened for tourists, even after its nationalization in the 60s.

Its out-of-placeness probably explains why it's developed its ghost stories and was apparently used by Satanic groups in the 90s.

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-27-2019, 11:25 AM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 18
Edward Mandell House and Leo Stennett Amery are an exceptional pair of gentlemen to read about. I suggest going further afield than Wikipedia, however, as its version of their activities is somewhat incomplete.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Myosr View Post
Anyway "Hermes" is also kind of interesting. He's a Greek God, tied in some way to the Egyptian God "Thoth". Apparently, for some,, "Hermes" is also tied to the Islamic prophet "Idris" who, as far as I know is no one but the Old Testament figure "Enoch" ... who's interesting in his own right, because there's actually a "Book of Enoch" that's non-canonical and isn't part of the Christian bible. (though I've always wanted to skim through it)

And now my head hurts because I want to know how these figures were even connected (I need to shut up now and do some reading on these connections before I say anything more)

I think I can help you with this. There is a way of looking at things which is not the same as the scientist's point of view, with its theorised linear and mechanistic progression of history, so I'll explain it in a non-linear way.

Philosophical idealism says that everything is a mental phenomenon--consciousness--and the honest scientist may agree that this is supported by quantum theory. Consider a mind thinking and feeling things into existence; deity, the universe, the self. Imagine a web of meaning, like Akashic neural pathways, the godly train of thought, or degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Hermes is a god of markers; of drawing arbitrary lines on a map, saying "This is this", and "That is that." Thoth is said to have dreamed up numbers in the form of maths and science. Mercury is also known for his unusually shaped sword. Can you see how a wand, a pen, and a sword are used for cutting--in the philosophical sense--and how that can be helpful, or harmful, depending upon the designs of the wielder? Is this making sense to you?

Essentially they are gods of science: a reductive profession that seeks an ever elusive truth, by taking things apart, not putting things together. The God Particle is found by not looking for it, since submitting something for testing is an exercise in disbelief. Science is anti-faith, and faith (a.k.a. belief) is what creates all of this so-called reality. By choosing to look for something, one has faith that there is something to be found; that is the force that gives birth--both metaphorically and somewhat literally speaking--to the thing that is discovered. Taxonomy, classification, and sorting things into types, are the practice of noticing patterns which feel meaningful--ergo they spring forth from belief: faith! So you see I am not saying that what is commonly understood as the broader field of science is bad, as opposed to faith being the good thing.

These forces of belief and unbelief are both important. They can be named as yes and no, like Noel and Yahweh (whose monikers can seem the wrong way around, considering their respective attitudes on permissiveness--but it's like yin and yang: one thing made up of two things, that might appear differently but are actually the same.)

The strict, intellectually-honest scientist, who refuses to believe anything without evidence of the empirical variety, naturally becomes a solipsist: more or less self-deification, which is funny, as that is a form of deism rather than atheism. The person who has stubbornly said no is amazed to recognise that, somewhere along the way, they said yes to being everything. That person--now armed with the knowledge of the No and the Yes--surely knows free will.

No to protect against the things one doesn't like, and yes to defend everything else.

Being everything comes with moral responsibility though. One only has oneself to blame, or to thank, for everything that is. Changing the world requires working on the self. Concepts such as karma and Jesus' teachings can seem vitally important when a person recognises that helping another is literally helping oneself.

I hope this helps! LOL!

Why am I saying these things? I don't perceive other people, but I have the idea of people whom I perceive, so perhaps I can help more effectively if I have the idea of lots of people with similar goals to mine, working to make the world a better place.

One of the posts in this thread has reflected my anxieties about sharing what I know, like a voice saying "Don't tell them anything Adora!"

I had this idea about helping and the velocity of money, but it's not fully formed yet. Perhaps simply mentioning it will help me to make sense of it.
XebelRebel is offline  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 12:43 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122
@XebelRebel

I sort of got a little lost in your comment. Sorry, I hope this still works as a response

---

I lean more towards 'cold' materialist explanations. They tend to continue making sense the more I look something up (or they just become more like 'it's complicated' than a nice story, but they never completely break down, the way more 'mystical' explanations tend to, if I ever look closely at them [that's my experience anyway]).

I mean I understand that belief is a very powerful force in people’s lives, but I see it as product of the material world, I don’t see it any more or less meaningful than any other sociocultural force.

I don’t think I believe in anything divine (definitely not myself, even though that probably would make my life better if I could make that leap, lol). I find beliefs to be generally arbitrary. Different ideas of divinity tend to impress me at times but never for long [I mean like certain ideas, from a narrative and aesthetic point of view, but because they don't come from any logical place, I can't really use them to convince myself of anything].

And even if there are some similar archetypes in all belief systems, there're also a lot of contradictions (they can't all be true, or even deeply meaningful).

Also, history is pretty brutal, and a very POV experience. There really isn’t a meta-narrative to be found (IMO).

I mean I like ancient gods and all, but I don’t want my doctor thinking she can Serqet the poison out of me. (And yes, I recognize that if I had to die from poison, it would be less agonizing to believe that there really is some human personality and purpose to the absurd death or illness that comes from snake bites).

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 01:16 AM
I'll reply you all later
 
SorryForMyEnglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Language: Bad English
Gender: Agender
Posts: 1,115
My Mood: Dead
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myosr View Post
@Shadowweaver

I don't think there's evidence for the Israelites being in Egypt
What do you mean no evidence? Well how about this https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120794/ ?

But seriously, I watched this documentary https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3464018/ and maybe there are nuances in historical science that make the assumptions in it doubtful, I don't think it disproves anything because it looks like people don't know much about ancient history, as Suchness said. I watched a couple of other so called ''controversial'' documentaries about Ancient Egypt too. One of them was ''The Pyramid Code''. And even though it may seem weird and too controversial, I still believe that scientists support one point of view and label others as false because there's one mainstream ideological agreement among them (influenced by conventional beliefs and stereotypes in society) so they brush other hypothesises off. For example, the convention is that abrahamic religions are mythical, God doesn't exist and science is atheistic. So it must be that all those Old Testament events weren't even remotely true at all, not a single one of them. Mind you, I'm someone who's skeptical about the majority of events described in Bible. But to me it's about bias and it's not scientific to deny that it could happen completely based on this yet another belief/convention just like it wouldn't be scientific to say that they were true just based on your religious beliefs. Also, as far as I understand, the tools to find out what was back then are not perfect and so the extent of what we can actually know (with 100% proves) is very limited.

Also often people themselves have myths about their nation's past all the time because of politics. I don't think it's bad, for example, with Ukrainians who search for their independent identity outside of Russian influence. I mean some of these facts are, of course, actually historical, but they get exaggerated and new myths are created (that are perceived as true). Sometimes it gets to the point where they look for genetic proof that they're the real Slavs and Russians are genetically something else that is considered inferior to them so they use it as an insult.

Sorry for not currently replying to your posts addressed to me. I will do that later (hopefully in a few days) because now I can't Please, don't take it personally because you have nothing to do with it.
SorryForMyEnglish is offline  
post #16 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 01:30 AM
I'll reply you all later
 
SorryForMyEnglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Language: Bad English
Gender: Agender
Posts: 1,115
My Mood: Dead
I'm also interested in Celts right now. They used to think of them as genetically homogeneous group, but turns out it's just that their culture was so widespread in Western Europe.

Sorry for not currently replying to your posts addressed to me. I will do that later (hopefully in a few days) because now I can't Please, don't take it personally because you have nothing to do with it.
SorryForMyEnglish is offline  
post #17 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 06:38 AM
.
 
Mondo_Fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by SorryForMyEnglish View Post
Also often people themselves have myths about their nation's past all the time because of politics. I don't think it's bad, for example, with Ukrainians who search for their independent identity outside of Russian influence. I mean some of these facts are, of course, actually historical, but they get exaggerated and new myths are created (that are perceived as true).
I noticed Ukraine has been occupied many times and many cultures left their marks there. Can see it with the architecture. It is a country of many cultures.

From what I understand, Russia's arguement is a lot of slavs live there in Crimera, etc, so it becomes part of Russia (annexed). Also Ukraine was part of USSR?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SorryForMyEnglish View Post
Sometimes it gets to the point where they look for genetic proof that they're the real Slavs and Russians are genetically something else that is considered inferior to them so they use it as an insult.
I learnt in one documentary which can't remember the näme of, that the Russian people descend from Scandinavian countries and there are rocks beside a road leading out towards Russia to prove this. In addition, this is backed up by Russian cities that were named after Viking names. So it seems like the Russian people are the modern day descendants of the Vikings.

What is even more interesting is the star in Soviet times is reflected on the ground in how one of the cities was designed. From what I can remember, it was mentioned in a documentary called Russia From Above (might be on Youtube, but I think I saw it on TV). Rare aerial footage from cities to country side that normally was prohibited from being taken.

Basically Russia's history, animal life in the country side is quite fascinating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SorryForMyEnglish View Post
I'm also interested in Celts right now. They used to think of them as genetically homogeneous group, but turns out it's just that their culture was so widespread in Western Europe.
They took on the Vikings in battle. There is actually a painting of the great battle in Ireland showing Viking ships in the bay, etc and the clans of Ireland uniting to defeat the Vikings on the shore, etc.

But the Vikings when retreating after being defeated stumbled on the Celts leaders tent and was killed by the Vikings. Thére is many stories about how this occurred.

Zera.
Mondo_Fernando is offline  
post #18 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 07:21 AM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Maryland
Language: English
Gender: Male
Posts: 588
America at the beginning. Would love to go back and talk to the founding fathers. Also prehistoric history. I would love to see the prehistoric animals and how we evolved into humans
chrisinmd is offline  
post #19 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 07:42 AM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Maryland
Language: English
Gender: Male
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by conantheworthless View Post
I'm very interested in early humans. I love the film "Quest for fire". I'd like to believe that is a very good depiction of times before civilizations came to be.

History in general is fascinating for me
Never seen Quest for fire. Will have to check it out. I enjoyed the documentary "Mankind. The story of all of us". Highly recommend.
chrisinmd is offline  
post #20 of 23 (permalink) Old 08-29-2019, 04:02 PM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Myosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: black land
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SorryForMyEnglish View Post
What do you mean no evidence? Well how about this https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120794/ ?
I never managed to watch that movie for some reason. I was too religious to watch it when it came out.

Quote:

But seriously, I watched this documentary https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3464018/ and maybe there are nuances in historical science that make the assumptions in it doubtful, I don't think it disproves anything because it looks like people don't know much about ancient history, as Suchness said. I watched a couple of other so called ''controversial'' documentaries about Ancient Egypt too. One of them was ''The Pyramid Code''. And even though it may seem weird and too controversial, I still believe that scientists support one point of view and label others as false because there's one mainstream ideological agreement among them (influenced by conventional beliefs and stereotypes in society) so they brush other hypothesises off. For example, the convention is that abrahamic religions are mythical, God doesn't exist and science is atheistic. So it must be that all those Old Testament events weren't even remotely true at all, not a single one of them. Mind you, I'm someone who's skeptical about the majority of events described in Bible. But to me it's about bias and it's not scientific to deny that it could happen completely based on this yet another belief/convention just like it wouldn't be scientific to say that they were true just based on your religious beliefs. Also, as far as I understand, the tools to find out what was back then are not perfect and so the extent of what we can actually know (with 100% proves) is very limited.
I'm aware that history's more prone to postmodernist criticism (that's how I think about it anyway). The historians beliefs about the world would have some influence on their conclusions.

But I just don't know more than they do. So, I mostly stick with the consensus, unless it's something I know really well.

I think oral traditions are generally considered unreliable, and that's irrespective of culture. So, I'm not sure if historians have a specific bias against the Old Testament. I mean it does make sense for the later stuff to be less reliable than the earlier.

---

Of course, I'm no expert on the history of the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible. I just watched this one course over a decade ago.

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145

I don't remember much of the course (it was mostly following this theory if I remember, I may be wrong, lol, I have really bad memory), aside from the fact that it changed how I view religious texts in general.

If I recall correctly, the professor was very respectful of the text, even as she analyzed and criticized it.

---

I don't really hate the Hebrew bible, reading it is sort of an exploration, you get the sense of multiple writers and multiple time periods, and because you can speculate about the origins of the different stories (Are they taken from other more ancient cultures? Are they distortions of actual events that happened in the past? Are they completely fabricated? Are they real? etc.)

I like doing the same with the Quran too. Looking for the origins of different stories. Are they from the Bible? Are they from Jewish / Christian folklore? Are they just ancient Arab myths? If the story sounds too magical, or too convenient as a narrative, I think it's natural to be skeptical of it. This shouldn't be considered bias.

A lot of the stories in these books contain magical elements (it's hard to believe them, if you don't think the books themselves are divine). Plus, there are so many religious texts from ancient times and different regions telling all sorts of stories. It's tempting to take the bible more seriously because it's had such a huge impact on the world.

---

Maybe the Israelites were in Egypt, maybe there was an exodus, I never really looked into the topic that much. At the same time, I can't assume it happened the way described in the bible because of all the magical elements.

---

All that being said, I do watch a lot of "alternative ancient history" channels on youtube :') (Mostly because they're the only ones available : / ). I mostly do it for entertainment though. I mean maybe some of their ideas will turn out to be right, but I just don't trust my own knowledge of the different disciplines to decide that.

Quote:
Also often people themselves have myths about their nation's past all the time because of politics. I don't think it's bad, for example, with Ukrainians who search for their independent identity outside of Russian influence. I mean some of these facts are, of course, actually historical, but they get exaggerated and new myths are created (that are perceived as true). Sometimes it gets to the point where they look for genetic proof that they're the real Slavs and Russians are genetically something else that is considered inferior to them so they use it as an insult.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm not familiar with Ukrainian history or the politics of the region, but I can relate.

Ma 'alena
Myosr is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome