Cartoon History of the Universe III published!

[Mojotronica]

If you haven't had a chance to read Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe series, now is a great time to pick it up. All three volumes cover history f/ the Big Bang until 1492AD, as Columbus sets sail for the New World...

I can't recommend it enough.

 

[Vrylakas]

You're right Mojotronica; I already have Larry Gonick's first two History of the Universe books and they're great for giving someone a basic overview. History is not just collecting and understanding information; it's presentation as well and Gonick has created a great medium. I picked up the 3rd volume as soon as I saw your thread, M! Good show!

 

[thedirk]

Interesting. I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[The Godfather]

That sounds really interesting, I haven't read any of them, but now it seems like I will have to get all three.

Thanks a lot for the recommendation.

 

[Vrylakas]

OK, now that I've bought it and read it, I must ammend my recommendation somewhat. I am a bit disappointed, I must say, at least with the European section. The sections on Arabia and Africa are brilliant and make the book still very worth buying, but the sections on Europe are one long train of Political Correctness. In fact, Gonick gets so mired in Political Correctness that unlike the other civilizations, he doesn't describe how Europe formed and developed - he just lists European "evils" from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. The Church just sort of springs from nowhere inexplicably and does nothing but suppress Jews, Moslems, scientists and peasants. (It annoys me that early on he says something like "The Church was really just the Catholic Church..." and so he refers to the Church as Catholic from the beginning in the 4th centrury under Constintinius.)

There are also a small litany of annoying factual mistakes (Poland was created by the Teutonic Knights in the 14th century?!? The Polish state was already 400 years old by that point and a Polish duke had invited the Knights to take the Prussian coast in the 13th century to tackle some maurauding pagans there!); there is also the Russian example of a medieval Russia springing suddenly from old Rus. Sloppy research....

All in all a disappointment, I must say. The first two books - especially the first one, in my opinion - are nothing short of brilliant. I would still recommend the 3rd book, but only for the Arabian and African sections.

 

[Maccabee2]

You are right that his statement about the Catholic Church is in error.
The "Church" for its first 70 to 100 years was simply a sect of Jews who believed that their prophesied Messiah had already come. The split between synagogue and "Church" did not occur until sometime around the Jewish Revolt (Masada, etc.) and the Destruction of the Temple by the Romans.
Also, had it not been for Celtic Christian clerics, who were even more faithful in preserving Greek and Roman classical works than the Vatican, many of the texts that inspired the Renaissance and modern science, would have perished with the fall of the Roman Empire.
It is a disturbing trend among book publishers to overindulge in bashing Western culture. I suppose they think that their cultural self-flagellation somehow makes them morally superior to others.

 

[wtiberon]

As far as the modern Church, when the Roman Empire split the church split into two main groups...the Orthodox and the Catholics. The split was based mainly on the ideology of the holy trinity and its nature although there were other factors. The west became Catholic, although at the time they did not call themselves Catholic or Roman Catholic, that came later...and the East became Orthodox. For much of western Europe the Catholic church was all they knew (except for spain which was controlled by Muslims) so this statement isn't completely inaccurate.

 

[Maccabee2]

I think the earlier post was taking exception to the concept that the Catholic Church was "The" Church through the Renaissance. The Great Schism did not occur until (my memory fails me) either the third or fourth century A.D., although rifts and sharp theological disagreements existed between East and West as early as the second century.
Someone correct me with more specific dates if I am mistaken.
At any rate, to portray any religion as predominantly intolerant is in itself intolerant, and shows the hypocrisy of the academia who still adhere to the already threadbare political correctness that began its reign on campi as early as the '50s.
In short, this new book is beating a worn out drum.

 

[wtiberon]

Originally posted by Maccabee2
The Great Schism did not occur until (my memory fails me) either the third or fourth century A.D.

The Great Schism occured from 1378-1415 and it dealt with the seperation of the Palpacy between Rome and France.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by wtiberon


The Great Schism occured from 1378-1415 and it dealt with the seperation of the Palpacy between Rome and France.

He's thinking of the schism between the eastern and western churches. Out of that schism came the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations of Christianity.

 

[Maccabee2]

My mistake. The Great Schism I was thinking of did not take place until 1054. A quick search reveals that both events (separation of East from West in 1054 and then later between Roman and French popes in fourteenth century) are referred to as "The Great Schism," albeit designated by their respective years. Thanks Switch, and thank you Wteberon for reminding me of the other one.
Actually, you underscored my point further -- that far from there being only "One Church" , there has at many times in history been more than one Church. Therefore it does not stand up to logic when some so-called advocates of pluralism want to blame most of history's worst sins on "the Church."

 

[wtiberon]

I concede that other divisions of religion did exist within the realm of the catholic church after the East and West split...however the point I was trying to make was the influence amoung western European cultures was directly related to the Catholic Church. So those other divisions were mainly local groups of people and did not have the great influence or power that the Catholic Church weilded...in fact one risked being labeled a heretic if they practised any other religion. So "technically" you could call it "the" church and still be correct since for along time it was the main and sometimes only religious influence in the west.

 

[Maccabee2]

Wteberon, you are correct when you say there were times when the Catholic Church abused its power, and labeled non-Christians as heretics. (Actually, they usually labeled them as pagans, infidels, etc. It was Christians who were a little too far from the mainstream who were labeled "heretics.")
Still, my point is that for any book to sum up the history of the Church in Europe as something to the effect of "The Catholic Church persecuted anyone who didn't scrape before their omnipotence," is inaccurate and over-simplified. It ignores Eastern Europe entirely. It denies the many minority groups who were not just local, but spread across Europe and who endured the peaks and troughs of persecution, such as Franciscans and , say, Jews. It denies the fact that ecclesiastical power rose and fell. While it was sometimes abused, sometimes it acted as a check on the power of monarchies in the abuse of their power, and visa versa.
Persecution was wrong and evil, but it was not constant and unabated. There is more to Europe's religious history than that.

 

[Maccabee2]

BTW, Wteberon, sometimes my tone in my writing comes across as a little aggressive. I enjoy this exchange, and your very valid points force me to think out what I want to say and express it, as best as I can, clearly and logically. It's a great exercise, sort of like running with someone else helps you pace yourself.
I guess I miss the debates and discussions in my college classes. Sometimes I starve for a little intellectual conversation, and this is where I find it.
Thanks, Wteberon.
By the way, do you know of any good sources about the Minoans? My local library is pathetic, and I'm finding very little on the Web. If I had at least a title, I could request my library to get it on loan from another city.

 

[Maccabee2]

Yeah, I know...only 16 posts...
It's been a long time, and all my previous posts were erased apparently.

 

[Vrylakas]

Maccabbee2 wrote:

I think the earlier post was taking exception to the concept that the Catholic Church was "The" Church through the Renaissance.

Yup - Maccabbee understood my original point, that even above and beyond the Great Schism and various other internal splits in Christian church history, it is a gross mis-statement to claim that the pre-Reformation church was effectively Roman Catholic Church. For better or for worse (speaking as one raised Catholic), the Catholic church was a very different beast from the one that existed before Luther, Wycliffe and Hus. It is a serious misrepresentation, and one (given the general tone that I described in my orginal post) that makes me further suspicious about Gonick's intent and potential anti-Catholic bias.