History questions not worth their own thread IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
On Diamond, I think that his work typifies a lot of popular history/anthropology/etc. in that appears to present radical or non-conventional explanations, but ultimately functions as a defense of, or at least resignation to, the existing social and global order.
This is known as the Niall Ferguson Effect.

EDIT: Damn, should have read the whole thing before making this joke.
 
What are the status of his books in China?
 
What are the status of his books in China?
He has received money from lobbying groups connected to the CPC. Some Australians regard him as a mouthpiece for the Politburo.
 
Strange how they would exalt the imperialistic achievements of the Ming Dynasty.
Not strange at all. He's a historical figure connected in some vague way with the idea of China. He can therefore be linked to the supposed achievements of the Chinese nation regardless of whatever actually happened. Menzies' books are pseudohistory anyway - and now they're pseudohistory with titles like "The Year China Discovered the World" and "The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance".

So who cares if Zheng He was a Muslim Hui who was establishing a sphere of influence for an old monarchy that used to rule part of China? These are nationalists and pop history readers we're talking about; they get "China doing amazing things" out of this narrative, along with maybe "eunuch". It's as nonsensical as the Athenians making Harmodios and Aristogeiton into champions of liberty, but it still works.
 
I've recently heard about King Madocs supposed voyage to some foreign land [most state the America], he was an 11th century Welsh king. Can someone give me more info on this.
 
I've recently heard about King Madocs supposed voyage to some foreign land [most state the America], he was an 11th century Welsh king. Can someone give me more info on this.

The Welsh never had a king. You're thinking of Madog ab Owain Gwynedd of Wales. The legend states that Madog was an illegitimate child of Owain Gwynedd, a prominent figure from Welsh history. Madog lost out in one of the thousands of succession struggles that riddled Welsh history and he sailed with (according to some stories) a fleet of coracles to explore the Atlantic ocean. He hit a storm and ended up in modern day Georgia State. Really the only basis for this is that some words and cultural aspects of the Mandan tribes native to Georgia were found to exhibit Welsh characteristics. Some popular retellings of the story have later English settlers finding Mandan natives speaking the full Welsh language, leading some to believe that Madoc set up a civilized society in the region. This story doesn't have much basis in reality. The story was popularized in the 16th century under the (nominally Welsh) Tudor queen Elizabeth, when the story was expropriated by the English to legitimize claims on American colonies.

Today the story is often brought up by Welsh nationalists to bolster claims of Welsh exceptionalism. It is admittedly a fun story.
 
Are there any theories on why circumcision came about?
 
Are there any theories on why circumcision came about?
In desert-dwelling communities blowing sand gets stuck in the foreskin, causing infections which can be extremely painful, even lethal. Removing the foreskin avoids this. I couldn't tell you about female circumcision.
 
Has the US ever utilized summary executions on its own soldiers? By summary execution I'm talking about the Enemy at the Gates style shoot your own soldiers in the head/machine gun them down to force them to fight.

And while we're on that topic, that's mostly not accurate right? In what actual historical instances was that sort of thing used?
 
And while we're on that topic, that's mostly not accurate right? In what actual historical instances was that sort of thing used?

From what I understand, execution of troops for unauthorized retreat was not uncommon, even indiscriminate machinegun fire into a body of men occurred. But not genereally mass slaughter as depicted. It was mostly done to make examples so that others wouldn't retreat.
However standard practice would be to round up the men and press them back into the line or throw them into a penal battalion (which would then be sent on what was effectively a suicide mission).
 
Has the US ever utilized summary executions on its own soldiers? By summary execution I'm talking about the Enemy at the Gates style shoot your own soldiers in the head/machine gun them down to force them to fight.

And while we're on that topic, that's mostly not accurate right? In what actual historical instances was that sort of thing used?
According to my Grandmother, her relatives that were at Normandy in 1944 were informed that they would be shot immediately if they turned around to get back on the boats. No idea how much of this actually happened.
 
Yes. It is rather sad, in what it says about man's ability to be trained for servility, that the opposite is not the more common thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom