History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[daft]

Always like stirring up a discussion.
My opinion about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki conducted by the US in 1945 is as follows:
There can be absolutely no rationally justifiable explanation of purposeful killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
However, the bombings occurred during a state of world war which differs greatly from the relatively peaceful era we enjoy today (at least within the Western Civilization), although I'm not sure this justifies the above events.
Ps. Shouldn't the US be a militaristic nation in the game Civilization? Quite possibly the greatest number of possible historically significant/ground breaking unique military units (first developed by the US), of all nations, of all time, think about it.

----------------------
The latest events in Israel/Palestine made my come up with the following question:

How come is the Israeli army so well equipped with such excellent state of the art US military gear of all sorts? (including planes and tanks)
As far as I know Israel produces virtually no oil, how can they afford to have such excellent military? Is this a politically incorrect question?

----------------------
Was the destruction (burning) of the Great Library of Alexandria (founded by Ptolemaic Greeks) a single worst act of purposeful destruction of Cultural knowledge of all time? Do the book burnings which took place in Nazi Germany compare to that event in the slightest?
----------------------
another question:
Darwin's theory of evolution as applied to humankind:
Is there an obvious gap between the Neanderthal and the Homo Sapiens? Why did the Neanderthals die out/disappear relatively so quickly?
Shouldn't there have been an additional species of humans in between the two? am I completely off?
Is this a material for a new thread? Not sure, decided not to post new threads in order not to get LOL'ed at by such history masters as The Genius (although I think he is quite brilliant)

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: Daft: Please use the edit feature to add content to your post rather than making multiple consecutive posts. I have merged 3 of your posts (numbers 882, 883, and 884) together into post #881. Please feel free to edit that post as you see fit to separate your questions (I just used a line.)

 

[say1988]

Darwin's theory of evolution as applied to humankind
Is there an obvious gap between the Neanderthal and the Homo Sapiens? Why did the Neanderthals die out/disappear relatively so quickly?

Shouldn't there have been an additional species of humans in between the two? am I completely off?

Humans are not descended from Neanderthal, they were a separate species and a parallel branch of the Homo genus (there are some arguments that they are actual a separate subspecies of Homo Sapiens alongside humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)

As to why they died out, nobody knows. The three most prominent theories are climate change ending the ice age, competition with humans, and absorption into the human race via interbreeding. It is likely that all three had parts to play (i.e. climate change created an environment where humans had an advantage in competing and the outnumbered neanderthal were absorbed) and potentially other factors.

 

[Plotinus]

Was the destruction (burning) of the Great Library of Alexandria (founded by Ptolemaic Greeks) a single worst act of purposeful destruction of Cultural knowledge of all time? Do the book burnings which took place in Nazi Germany compare to that event in the slightest?

No, because as far as we know, the Library was not destroyed in a single act of cultural vandalism, but was simply gradually lost over the centuries in a series of incidents connected to the decline of the city of Alexandria itself. A library like that takes a great deal of effort to maintain, and I think that what happened is that people just weren't able to make the effort any more.

 

[PhroX]

Speaking of the Great Library, I remember reading somewhere that only circumsised men were allowed to enter. Is this true?

 

[History_Buff]

The latest events in Israel/Palestine made my come up with the following question:

How come is the Israeli army so well equipped with such excellent state of the art US military gear of all sorts? (including planes and tanks)
As far as I know Israel produces virtually no oil, how can they afford to have such excellent military? Is this a politically incorrect question?

Politics. Support for Israel was generally pretty strong amongst American Jews I believe, and then the relationship became particularly close during the Cold War, as Israel buddied up with America, and nearly everyone else was aligned with the Soviets.

As for why they continue to receive such strong support, it's a little bit because of American Jewish support for Israel, and a whole lot because all that military aid gets built in the US, by US defence contractors. Support for Israel is effectively a hand-out to American companies at this point.

 

[Kyriakos]

Speaking of the Great Library, I remember reading somewhere that only circumsised men were allowed to enter. Is this true?

Uh..................

Wat?

 

[PhroX]

I won't deny that was my reaction when I first read it, but I was curious if there was any backing for the claim.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, what do you think? The Greeks and Romans were not circumcised, so why would the main library of the world for some centuries not allow the people there to enter? :\

Anyway, one of the head librarians was Eratosthenes (a main mathematician of the 3rd-2nd century BC). He wasn't circumcised, obviously.

 

[Masada]

They had a dude with a knife waiting at the entrance.

 

[Earthman]

Race. I've never heard of Luther mentioning a Jewish race, Slavic race etc, but that's neither here nor there. Again, the modern concept of race is late 19th century and closely linked to the pseudoscience of eugenics (not the modern eugenics, which is an actual science) and ideas about social Darwinism. That's where we get our notions of a 'white' race, 'yellow' race etc. These aren't races, biologically. Scientifically there is no reason to distinguish between people with different skin pigmentation; the physiological differences are negligible. If you were colourblind you wouldn't even notice them.

Racism dates back to much older times than the 19th century. One of clear evidences is this Medieval Norse poem, Rígsþula:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rígsþula

Rígr was walking along the shore and came to a farm-hut owned by Ái (great-grandfather) and Edda (great-grandmother). They offered him shelter and poor, rough food for a meal. That night Rígr slept between the pair in their bed and then departed. Nine months later, Edda gave birth to a son who was svartan (dark). They named him Þræll (thrall, serf, or slave). Þræll grew up strong but ugly. He married a woman named Thír (slave girl or bondswoman), and they had twelve sons and nine daughters with names mostly suggesting ugliness and squatness. They became the race of serfs.

Traveling further, Rígr came across a pleasant house where a farmer/craftsman, Afi (grandfather), lived with his wife Amma (grandmother). This couple gave him good food and also let him sleep between them. Nine months later, a son, Karl (churl or freeman), was born, who had red hair and a ruddy complexion. Karl married a woman named Snör or Snœr (daughter-in-law; sometimes anglicized as Snor), and they had twelve sons and ten daughters with names mostly suggesting a neat appearance or being of good quality. One of the names is smiðr (smith). These became the ancestors of free farmers, craftsmen and herdsmen.

Traveling further, Rígr came to a mansion inhabited by Faðir (Father) and Móðir (Mother). They gave him excellent food served splendidly and, nine months later, Móðir gave birth to a beautiful baby named Jarl (earl or noble), whose hair was blond and who was bleikr (bright white in color). When Jarl grew up and began to handle weapons and to use hawks, hounds, and horses, Rígr reappeared, claimed him as his son, gave him his own name of Rígr, made him his heir, taught him runes, and advised him to seek lordship.

Through warfare Jarl became lord of eighteen homesteads with much wealth besides. He also gained the hand of Erna (Brisk), daughter of Hersir (lord). Erna bore twelve sons to Ríg-Jarl but no daughters. All the sons were given high-sounding names, mostly meaning "son". They became the ancestors of the warrior nobility.

So in this Germanic poem there are clear notions of hierarchical "dark" (lower), "ruddy" (middle) and "white" (higher) races.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's a pretty tenuous reading.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Particularly since there doesn't seem to be an ethnic component. The father's the same in each one, for example.

It's important not to just cherrypick things that are familiar to us to say that those things are exactly the same back then.

Anyway, racisms ancestor in ethnic stereotyping is indeed ancient. Carthage being effeminate and greedy like a Persian and cruel and savage like a barbarian was something Rome perpetuated in plays, propaganda, etc. They also had beliefs about "otherness" related to how far from the Mediterranean you originated. It wasn't prejudice that correlated highly with skin tone, but it was prejudice based on birth nonetheless.

Certainly equating race with slavery has two origins. One is with the Eastern Empire and Slavic peoples (which probably began as convenience more than anything else), the other (more important for our purposes) is the Muslim world and the African slave trade (which had to do with religion, not race).

 

[Earthman]

Why do you want to have an ethnic component in racism?

Racism doesn't require an ethnic component.

Is the father the same? I'm not sure, the text is not clear about this.

 

[Agent327]

Racism dates back to much older times than the 19th century. One of clear evidences is this Medieval Norse poem, Rígsþula:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rígsþula

So in this Germanic poem there are clear notions of hierarchical "dark" (lower), "ruddy" (middle) and "white" (higher) races.

You're good at reading things into things, that's for sure. Notions of race is not the same as racism. The only black people known in ancient and medieval Europe would have been black slaves. Slave trade had been going on for centuries where North African inhabitants (or Beduins, to be more precise) went out on raids to catch slaves below the Sahara.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why do you want to have an ethnic component in racism?

Racism doesn't require an ethnic component.

Is the father the same? I'm not sure, the text is not clear about this.

I'm not sure you can have racism without some ethnic component. Otherwise it's just bigotry. No one is racist against short people, for example.

Isn't Rigr the father?

 

[Domen]

I'm not sure you can have racism without some ethnic component.

So White Frenchmen / Americans can't be racist against Black Frenchmen / Americans because both groups are Frenchmen / Americans ???

Hitler could not be racist against disabled Germans (and sending them to gas chambers with German Jews), because they were Germans ???

I think I agree with Earthman here. But maybe explain what do you mean by "ethnic component".

Isn't Rigr the father?

I think he is more like the metaphorical ancestor of all humanity. But each time there were 2 men and 1 women in bed so we don't know who is the father. Anyway, the fact that all humans have common origins doesn't stop racists from claiming that some groups have evolved better than some other groups.

So I think that having some common ancestor is not an obstacle for racism.

To me it seems that the key part of this poem is not that the 3 guys had (perhaps) one father, but that each of 3 sons became ancestor of one race.

Certainly equating race with slavery has two origins. One is with the Eastern Empire and Slavic peoples (which probably began as convenience more than anything else), the other (more important for our purposes) is the Muslim world and the African slave trade (which had to do with religion, not race).

Various Celts were popular in role of slaves or war booty among those Germanic guys who wrote such poems like that mentioned by Earthman.

Genetic data shows that quite a lot of modern inhabitants of Iceland, especially on female lines, have descent from Ireland, Wales, etc.

=========================================

BTW - this Norse texts of course claims that light hair and light skin are the best, because this is how most of Scandinavians looked.

There are Arabic texts from Early Middle Ages which say the opposite - that white hair and light skin are inferior. Example:

Al-Ğāhiz (early 9th century Arabic thinker, known for his theory of social communication) wrote:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=524794

"(...) Tell me friend, after how many generations a Zang became black, and a Slav became white? (...) Among Slavs, abominable and ugly are their smoothness of hair and delicateness, as well as blonde or ruddy colour of their hair and beards, and also whiteness of their eyelashes (...)"

So I guess everyone judged by their own standards. But that Germanic poem was clearly racist if we apply modern standards.

 

[timtofly]

I'm not sure you can have racism without some ethnic component. Otherwise it's just bigotry. No one is racist against short people, for example.

Isn't Rigr the father?

Is Rigr a god, the God, or even human? Was he a human manifestation? Or was that fact that he visited humans a metaphor?

If Rigr was a god, or God, biologically from a human perspective could he reproduce or was this a fact that he had such control of nature that biological experience could not fail in a human sense?

The telling is generational and progressive. Pointing out that each encounter added some value to the human race. That Rigr declared the last step was his son, does not have to be biological. It just means that he claimed as his own the highest progressive human form, the lord.


When it comes to the ethnical aspect, the story never pointed out that Rigr abandoned nor condemned the other steps of the progression. Nor does it say that the progression was done on purpose. I suppose one could say that Rigr was a learning god and finally came up with the best "product". Perhaps the story teller thought it was a fancy way to explain the different types of humans?

It could also be said that humans made their own way, and that Rigr was just enhancing what the humans had to work with.

 

[Agent327]

So White Frenchmen / Americans can't be racist against Black Frenchmen / Americans because both groups are Frenchmen / Americans ???

I think you misunderstand the meaning of ethnicity:

Hitler could not be racist against disabled Germans (and sending them to gas chambers with German Jews), because they were Germans ???

Indeed. That's not racism.

To me it seems that the key part of this poem is not that the 3 guys had (perhaps) one father, but that each of 3 sons became ancestor of one race.

Again, mentioning race is not the same as racism.

Various Celts were popular in role of slaves or war booty among those Germanic guys who wrote such poems like that mentioned by Earthman.

Genetic data shows that quite a lot of modern inhabitants of Iceland, especially on female lines, have descent from Ireland, Wales, etc.

So what?

BTW - this Norse texts of course claims that light hair and light skin are the best, because this is how most of Scandinavians looked.

Actually, it doesn't. You're just reading that into it.

There are Arabic texts from Early Middle Ages which say the opposite - that white hair and light skin are inferior. Example:

Al-Ğāhiz (early 9th century Arabic thinker, known for his theory of social communication) wrote:

"(...) Tell me friend, after how many generations a Zang became black, and a Slav became white? (...) Among Slavs, abominable and ugly are their smoothness of hair and delicateness, as well as blonde or ruddy colour of their hair and beards, and also whiteness of their eyelashes (...)"

Calling what you don't know very well ugly still isn't racism.

So I guess everyone judged by their own standards. But that Germanic poem was clearly racist if we apply modern standards.

Let's not then, because these 'modern' standards seem to be quite shoddy.

 

[Louis XXIV]

So White Frenchmen / Americans can't be racist against Black Frenchmen / Americans because both groups are Frenchmen / Americans ???

I think you are confusing ethnicity with nationality. I chose ethnicity over race because race is an extremely fluid concept (ethnicity is fluid, but not quite as much). I guess believed national origin might be a helpful way of thinking about it with an emphasis on origin. Plenty of people in the United States are of American nationality, but Chinese ethnicity. That's a useful way of thinking about it. The black Frenchman, for example, would be of African ethnicity.

The reason I used ethnicity is because race has barely any meaning and some kind of simplistic black/white divide is seldom helpful. To bring Hitler into the conversation (because why not), Hitler could be racist against Polish people because of their Slavic ethnicity even though both are "white" by most definitions. The same could be said about Jewish people living in Germany. However,...

Hitler could not be racist against disabled Germans (and sending them to gas chambers with German Jews), because they were Germans ???

Disabled Germans are still German. Hitler was not racist towards them. He was bigoted, hateful, prejudiced, etc., but not racist. Racism is the narrower word to use. It doesn't cover all bad things.

Is Rigr a god, the God, or even human? Was he a human manifestation? Or was that fact that he visited humans a metaphor?

Well, wikipedia says that Rigr is another name for Heimdall who, as we know from the Thor movies, looks like Idris Elba.

More seriously, you are correct that the mothers in question could be of a different race or ethnicity. However, I thought it was interesting that the poem emphasizes the shared common heritage of all of them through their father. Certainly, modern racism of the likes of Hegel would have sought to downplay, not emphasize this fact.