History questions not worth their own thread V

Status
Not open for further replies.
95% is a huge number, and if it were Amerindians crossing the Atlantic they'd just as likely die while still in Europe, or en masse on the return voyage.

You know, I completely forgot about that whole voyage home thing. I suppose in the 5-6 weeks it took them to sail home, they probably would have started dying off en-masse, and any that made it home probably wouldn't have traveled to far. Though I suspect they'd probably still infect the locals, who might then flee the area.
 
Yeah, that's the big problem. Most diseases that the conquistadors bought over remained in circulation only because there was a large pool of uninfected individuals - i.e. natives - to act as a disease reservoir. I believe measles for example made it to the mainland only because a porter contracted it before the trip and subsequently infected all of those who weren't already immune. This was then passed on. The reverse trip wouldn't have that.
 
Yeah, that's the big problem. Most diseases that the conquistadors bought over remained in circulation only because there was a large pool of uninfected individuals - i.e. natives - to act as a disease reservoir. I believe measles for example made it to the mainland only because a porter contracted it before the trip and subsequently infected all of those who weren't already immune. This was then passed on. The reverse trip wouldn't have that.

Don't forget the importance of animal and insect disease reservoirs. Sure, an entire crew can be cut down to just 5 on the return voyage, but if they are bringing a load of rats and fleas with them, the resulting outbreak can be just as bad as if the entire crew had made it back alive and infected.
 
Sure, there were population movements of people from what-is-now China (or thereabouts) in the Malay Archipelago around that time. These new comers added some things: new forms of cultural expression, new agricultural techniques and new (Austronesian) languages for example. But they didn't replace the existing population. The existing population over-time simply adopted what the new comers had to offer.

I'll write some more on this tonight.
So you are saying that there was a migration but the local inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago* absorbed the culture, technology and language of the Austronesian newcomers?

New Guinea itself seems like a case study against this idea, New Guinea is not so different topographically from other Indonesian islands like Borneo and yet Austronesians failed to conquer it. We know for a fact that Austronesians did visit New Guinea, as they went on to colonize the Pacific, and because the eastern lowlands of the island have communities that speak Austronesian languages, deploy Austronesian maritime culture and trade, and have Austronesian genetic features(such as straight rather than coiled hair), not to mention the introduction of pigs(I believe it was) and other domestic plants and animals that did not exist in the New Guinean highlands prior. The New Guinea lowlands seem indicative of what happens when the local inhabitants absorbed the Austronesian newcomers, rather than the reverse. Which is logical given that New Guinea uniquely from other Indonesian islands, independently adopted agriculture, have communities with dense populations, and probably had independently developed some of the diseases and immunities the Austronesians had.

The rest of the Malay Archipelago does not have dark-skinned people similar to that of the New Guinean lowlands, with the exception of isolated groups of Negritos such as the Filipino Negritos that lived in relative isolation. This to me seems indicative that Austronesians brought diseases with them similar to Europeans and displaced, conquered and assimilated the local inhabitants, similarly to Europeans. The Negritos living in isolated regions of Indonesian islands were introduced to diseases and developed/adopted immunities to them before contact with Austronesians.

The problem I have with what you say is if what you say is true, why did the local inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago uniquely absorb the newcomers contrary to elsewhere on the planet? Austronesian migration to the Malay Archipelago seems more similar to European migration to the Americas if anything.

* - Also on the side, what is the proper term for the region for future reference? I get the impression that the Malay Archipelago is an outdated or non-scholarly term.
 
Masada said:
What are the origins of Polish antisemitism?

Hard to say, but Polish antisemitism is a relatively young phenomenon. It is not "centuries old".

Danish 19th and early 20th century writer who worte a book about Poland - Georg Brandes (born as Morris Cohen) - wrote:

"(...) There are so many Jews in Poland, because the Poles gave them shelter when entire Europe was persecuting this nation. And Poland is free of the kind of xenophoby typical among the Germans, which is called antisemitism. (...)"

He wrote this in 1885 (he lived in period 1842 - 1927). He was considered as an anticlerical person, by the way.

German antisemitism is older than Polish but also not many centuries old, even though some guys like Goldhagen claim to have found an special racist german gene. Of course this is rubbish and a racist (anti-German) view in itself - there is no such thing like a "racist gene".

This is not the matter of genes but of ideological influences and theories developed over time and rooted in culture or state ideology. In Germany these ideological views were much older than Hitler, but also much younger than the history of Jews in Germany - racist antisemitism aka "scientific" antisemitism (the most destructive kind of antisemitism, which eventually led to Nazi ideology and its implementation in practice - the Holocaust) in Germany dated back to the 18th and 19th centuries and to various German thinkers of that era (Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the main developer of this ideology Huston Stewart Chamberlain, who was born British but lived and worked in Germany). Pogroms were not typical just for the Russian Empire - in the 19th century there were numerous antisemitic excesses in Germany - there were cases of murdering people with "non-Germanic look" commited by students costumed in old-Germanic clothes and armed with "skull and crossbones" daggers.

Poles did not have an opinion of anti-Semites at that time.

Polish 19th century and early 20th century literature was not antisemitic - it was philosemitic - as noticed by Polish-Jewish journalist, Mieczyslaw Grydzewski:

"(...) It was the only literature in the world, which not only from time to time created noble and upstanding Jewish characters, but also assigned the inspirational function to them. Jankiel of Mickiewicz, Judyta of Słowacki, Zygier of Żeromski, Rachel of Wyspiański - all these Jewish characters play the role of people who give patriotic inspiration, they are awakeners of Polishness. (...)"

Also for example in "Ziemia Obiecana" by Reymont, one of the three main and good characters is a Jewish businessman Welt Moryc.

The stereotype of Polish anti-Semitism was created mostly after WW2 and keeps living until modern times.

For example according to the tourist guide titled "Hiking Guide to Poland" - 40% of modern Poles are "militant antisemites".

If you subtract children and old women, it means that around 70% of adult Poles - men and women - are "militant antisemites".

According to Jewish historian Emanuel Ringelblum, between 10,000 and 15,000 Polish families in occupied Warsaw during WW2 helped saving Jews.

Warsaw included 900,000 Polish population (as of late 1941). How many members could each family have? - perhaps 6 on average.

So up to 10% of Polish population of Warsaw helped saving Jews, while being threatened by death penalty for doing this.

Ghetto Rising veteran Simcha Rotem mentioned surnames of 8 Polish men and women who helped him the most to survive (many more helped him to lesser extent). Of them two were executed for helping a Jew. To save one Jew, long-lasting and top-secret cooperation of many people was necessary.

To denounce 50 Jews, only one blackmailer was enough.

If the number of blackmailers really exceeded the number of those who helped - then no Polish Jews would survive the war, and many did.

But vast majority of the society neither helped, nor denounced - they were just trying to survive and feed their own families.

Most people when facing danger, instinctively save their lifes and lifes of their close relatives first and do not risk it for others, for "strangers".

Capacity for / predisposition to act like heroes, is a feature that only few percent of people have. The fact that majority of Poles were not heroes, gave birth to the myth of Poles being antisemites who observed with satisfaction or at best neutrality how Germans butchered Jews in their own homeland.
 
Hard to say, but Polish antisemitism is a relatively young phenomenon. It is not "centuries old".

So, one of the most Catholic countries in Europe missed the whole mediaeval thing about Jews killing Jesus?
 
This needs to be said. "Negrito" is an offensive term which the Spanish coined because some people in the Philippines had dark skin. The Spanish later elaborated on this idea and used this difference from surrounding peoples to justify killing of "Negrito". Subsequent to this, racialists picked up on the word and applied it to other Southeast Asian peoples who also happened to have dark skin. This similarity was then spun out into a grand narrative in which "black people" were exterminated and replaced by superior "whiter people". Thus contemporary European imperialism was justified in terms of a whiter people conquering a browner people.

There also remains little evidence that the people grouped under the "Negrito" banner are or should be considered related. Thus while the presence of some visible features i.e. curled hair might be interesting, these work to conceal recent works which have shown that "Negrito" have thus far proven to be more closely related to the "non-Negrito" peoples who surround them than to other "Negrito". Likewise, it also needs to be stressed that there is little evidence that the modern Negrito groups represent lineal cultural or whatever descendants of the peoples who pre-dated the migration of Austronesian speakers. I will discuss to this in further detail below and leave it up to the individual reading this to make the links in their own time.

TheLastOne36 said:
So you are saying that there was a migration but the local inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago* absorbed the culture, technology and language of the Austronesian newcomers?

Yes, all existing "Negrito" groups in Southeast Asia - so far as I'm aware of - speak Austronesian or Austroasiatic languages. Notable examples include the Aeta, Aiti, Batak and Lumad groups who speak languages that sit within the Philippine subgroup of the Austronesian group of languages. Also of interest are the Orang Asli who speak Asli languages which sit within the Austroastiatic (Mon-Khmer) language group. This would put the Orang Asli linguistically closer to modern Thailand and Lower Burma than Papua New Guinea. Similarly the Mani speak another Mon-Khmer language. I must stress that while these languages are related dto existing groups most are distinct and have some degree of longstanding. I'm not exactly sure of how old these languages are but I do know the general consensus is that represent adoptions that pre-date the Christian era.

The exception to this rule are the Andamanese languages. However, while these languages are not themselves Austronesian or Austroasiatic in origin, there is scant evidence of them having a linguistic relationship to the Papuan language group. It is also possible that the Ongan languages which are usually grouped with the Andamanese languages might be Austronesian in origin. This means that the narrative of Andamanese languages as complete linguistic isolates and hold-overs from the 'first migration' of people out of Africa might have some significant problems. Furthermore, even if the Andamanese languages were hold-overs there is little evidence or reason to connect them to the Papuan language group. Shared 'dark skin' does not in this case make a strong case for a linguistic relationship.

TheLastOne36 said:
New Guinea itself seems like a case study against this idea, New Guinea is not so different topographically from other Indonesian islands like Borneo

Irrelevant. Two words: Biogeographical boundaries.

TheLastOne36 said:
and yet Austronesians failed to conquer it...

I am intrigued. Most sources suppose that agricultural assisted population growth before Austronesian contact explains the continued survival of New Guineain languages. I have never seen a "failed" conquest mentioned in connection with this issue.

TheLastOne36 said:
This to me seems indicative that Austronesians brought diseases with them similar to Europeans and displaced, conquered and assimilated the local inhabitants, similarly to Europeans. The Negritos living in isolated regions of Indonesian islands were introduced to diseases and developed/adopted immunities to them before contact with Austronesians.
I am again intrigued. Could you please provide a citation for these ground-breaking epidemiological claims?

TheLastOne36 said:
The problem I have with what you say is if what you say is true, why did the local inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago uniquely absorb the newcomers contrary to elsewhere on the planet?

All the experts I am aware of concur with the broad outlines of what I have said. The question of how Papuan languages survived and expanded in geographic range after contact with Austronesian speaking people is an interesting one. (We know this because Highland Papuan languages, which would have had limited contact with Austronesian speakers, have Austronesian loan-words present in their languages. These have been argued persuasively to have been adopted in about 1500BC. This is strongly supports the view that the Papuan highlands were not inhabited until sometime after 1500BC.) However, I do not see how your point is meant to undermine the case for linguistic assimilation?

I also have zero idea what the second clause is supposed to be hinting at.

TheLastOne36 said:
* - Also on the side, what is the proper term for the region for future reference? I get the impression that the Malay Archipelago is an outdated or non-scholarly term.
It remains a scholarly term in current usage. Although, Bellwood for example prefers to use Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. I'm not sure what this adds, really. It also suffers from the fact that it only, kind-sorta, include the Philippines. :dunno:
 
Not only Germans - Gobineau was French, for example. Chamberlain was British, but lived in Germany.

And I was talking about racist (aka exterminationist, aka "scientific") antisemitism, not about antisemitism in general.

Regarding "Catholic religious antisemitism" - this has been blown out of proportion by Communist and anticlerical propaganda. Efforts of Pope Pius XII contributed to saving ca. 860,000 Jews during WW2 (as was proven by Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide in 1967) and even Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir said "thank you" to Pius XII for this great achievement. However, all these facts did not become an obstacle for accusing Pius XII of antisemitism, of staying silent and supposedly not doing anything to save Jews, by the NKVD propaganda machine and by pupil of Soviet security services, Rolf Hochhuth, in 1963.

There were many examples of Catholic clergy and Catholic nuns saving Jews in occupied Poland during WW2. I can describe some if you want.

Jews were being hidden in monasteries of Catholic nuns during the German occupation - there were at least several such examples.

I know that such claims are shocking for some Westerners, who got brainwashed to think that all Catholics are BBVs (Bloody Bigoted Vampires).

So, one of the most Catholic countries in Europe missed the whole mediaeval thing about Jews killing Jesus?

According to what the New Testament says, Jesus himself wanted to get killed - so what is the problem and why does it matter who killed him? It was his plan to get himself killed by others and then to resurrect for the sins of humanity, according to Christian teachings. Am I right?

In the Middle Ages Jews from the rest of Europe were escaping to Poland, where they found protection by the Crown, nobility and the Parliament.

Also I don't think that Poland was the most Catholic country of all European countries in the Middle Ages.

Polish knights participated in the crusades against Muslims only in very small numbers - there were no massive expeditions like that of Richard I of England. Western European propaganda called the Poles "false Christians" after the battle of Grunwald in 1410. Poles were supporting the Czech Hussite heresy in the 15th century. In the 16th and 17th century Poland was the place of religious tolerance for various followers of the Protestant Reformation.

Up to 1/3 of Poland's population were Orthodox Christians already in 1360 (while in England or France of that time, ca. 100% were Catholics).

In the 16th century very large part of Polish nobility adopted Calvinism or Lutheranism during the Reformation.

By year 1650 around 80% of global Jewish population lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
 
Not only Germans - Gobineau was French, for example. Chamberlain was British, but lived in Germany.

And I was talking about racist (aka exterminationist, aka "scientific") antisemitism, not about antisemitism in general.

Regarding "Catholic religious antisemitism" - this has been blown out of proportion by Communist and anticlerical propaganda. Efforts of Pope Pius XII contributed to saving ca. 860,000 Jews during WW2 (as was proven by Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide in 1967) and even Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir said "thank you" to Pius XII for this great achievement. However, all these facts did not become an obstacle for accusing Pius XII of antisemitism, of staying silent and supposedly not doing anything to save Jews, by the NKVD propaganda machine and by pupil of Soviet security services, Rolf Hochhuth, in 1963.

There were many examples of Catholic clergy and Catholic nuns saving Jews in occupied Poland during WW2. I can describe some if you want.

Jews were being hidden in monasteries of Catholic nuns during the German occupation - there were at least several such examples.

I know that such claims are shocking for some Westerners, who got brainwashed to think that all Catholics are BBVs (Bloody Bigoted Vampires).



According to what the New Testament says, Jesus himself wanted to get killed - so what is the problem and why does it matter who killed him? It was his plan to get himself killed by others and then to resurrect for the sins of humanity, according to Christian teachings. Am I right?

In the Middle Ages Jews from the rest of Europe were escaping to Poland, where they found protection by the Crown, nobility and the Parliament.

Also I don't think that Poland was the most Catholic country of all European countries in the Middle Ages.

Polish knights participated in the crusades against Muslims only in very small numbers - there were no massive expeditions like that of Richard I of England. Western European propaganda called the Poles "false Christians" after the battle of Grunwald in 1410. Poles were supporting the Czech Hussite heresy in the 15th century. In the 16th and 17th century Poland was the place of religious tolerance for various followers of the Protestant Reformation.

Up to 1/3 of Poland's population were Orthodox Christians already in 1360 (while in England or France of that time, ca. 100% were Catholics).

In the 16th century very large part of Polish nobility adopted Calvinism or Lutheranism during the Reformation.

By year 1650 around 80% of global Jewish population lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Citation needed. For all of it, especially the part about anyone on these boards believing that Catholics are vampires.
 
Why so few civilizations emerged in the Southern Hemisphere, compared to the Northern Hemisphere?

Is it because of a smaller landmass... , or because they were always upside down? :mischief:

Keep in mind that the Inca were in the southern hemisphere and there was Great Zimbabwe and the Kongo.

However, if you don't mind Jared Diamond's explanation, geography was actually very important in this. There were certain temperate zones where agriculture developed, where they crops suited for domesticibility that could grow well. It was difficult to spread very far north or south of that. Fortunately for Eurasia, it was really easy to spread on the east-west axis, so agriculture could spread across that entire area.

This is in contrast to, say, the Sahel zone where we got Sorghum as a cereal crop. Unfortunately, while this crop could grow in that area, it couldn't spread north because of the Sahara or south in the jungle (there was also some disease that killed the livestock that traveled from the Sahel Zone that I'm drawing a blank on).

That's at least a partial explanation. He uses a similar example with corn and North America. Gulf Coast civilizations (e.g., the Mississippian Mound Builders) could have access to Mexican (Aztec) corn. However, it took a long time for a strain to develop that could grow in the northeast. Out in the Pacific Northwest, which is extremely fertile, the Mojave desert blocked its spread so they never changed from hunter/gatherer societies.
 
Citation needed. For all of it, especially the part about anyone on these boards believing that Catholics are vampires.

Seriously? Your google doesn't work? Most facts quoted aren't exactly "secret knowledge", you know. (As for the vampires, I'll leave that to your account, as it should be.)
 
Google doesn't work if the source is in Polish. And the burden of proof when making claims, usually lies with the claimant. (Granted, there is an exception if the answer is obvious or easily provable).
 
Seriously? Your google doesn't work? Most facts quoted aren't exactly "secret knowledge", you know. (As for the vampires, I'll leave that to your account, as it should be.)
Most of the "facts" quoted are tainted by the distinct scent of bs. Hence, I'm asking for sources. If he can provide some decent ones, I'll admit that he's right. But somehow the idea of 80% of the world's Jews living in Poland screams bullcrap to me, since there were Jewish settlements as far afield as China and southern Africa.
 
Best I can found in 10 seconds of google is:
Again following Jacobs, Jacques Basnage at the beginning of the 18th century estimated the total number of European Jews at 1,360,000, but according to a census at the First Partition of Poland in 1772, the Jews of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth numbered 308,500. As these formed the larger part of the European Jews, it is doubtful whether the total number was more than 400,000 at the middle of the 18th century; and, counting those in the lands of Islam, the entire number in the world at that time could not have been much more than 1,000,000.
Which suggests Polish(-Lithuanian) Jews might account for ~75% of Jews in Europe, but less than half in the world. Define Europe

Your turn on the google machine!

Most hilarious thing in 10 seconds of Google: http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html (Scroll down to the chart where the population at the time of Noah's flood is estimated at 9 billion)
 
So, one of the most Catholic countries in Europe missed the whole mediaeval thing about Jews killing Jesus?

Jesus (pbuh) son of Mary is a Jew and it was the roman who hunt Jesus. :confused:
 
Jesus (pbuh) son of Mary is a Jew and it was the roman who hunt Jesus. :confused:
The "Jews killed Jesus" story comes from a few things: that it was Jewish religious leaders who ostensibly convicted him, and it was a crowd of Jewish subjects who supposedly "forced" Pilate to have Jesus crucified.
 
Jesus (pbuh) son of Mary is a Jew and it was the roman who hunt Jesus. :confused:
I'm well aware of that, hence why I used the word 'mediaeval'.
 
The "Jews killed Jesus" story comes from a few things: that it was Jewish religious leaders who ostensibly convicted him, and it was a crowd of Jewish subjects who supposedly "forced" Pilate to have Jesus crucified.

I see..

while those who come as his helper and loyal disciple also Jews at that time.

I think if the Roman Christian decide to blaming themselves for the event maybe it will have an interesting result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom