Pet History Peeves

Does weaboo glorification of Katana count? I basically just explode in rage every time somebody tries to explain how their favorite sharpened metal thing was clearly superior to some other sharpened metal thing.
 
Does weaboo glorification of Katana count? I basically just explode in rage every time somebody tries to explain how their favorite sharpened metal thing was clearly superior to some other sharpened metal thing.

Well, swords are actually rather complex and not just crude pieces of sharpened metal, but yes, katana-worship is even worse than longbow-worship. The longbow, at least, was tactically useful in formations. The samurai never even used the katana as their primary weapon, instead preferring the bow or the yari depending on the time period. Not to say the katana is bad- it isn't. But it's nothing spectacular and doesn't deserve half the attention it gets.
 
We're going to have to fight.

How can we be on the same page on MacArthur yet you seem to like the completely illegitimate leader of what could barely be called a rump government?

Pretty much any debate that even tangentially touches on the American Civil War. The subject is fascinating and certainly worthy of discussion but on this site (at least) as soon as the subject comes up stupid people rush in to white knight the confederacy. Yes, I truly think you are a stupid person if you're going to waste massive amounts of time trying to justify succession on any grounds other than slavery, or say the North was worse than the South in any way or say that Jonny Reb was 'fighting to save his home throughout the whole war'. Facts be damned, people are going to repeat the same tired, ******** and well-rebuked arguments over and over and I'm just fed up with the entire subject.

Ok you got me confused on that last one. If the average confederate wasn't fighting for his home that what was he fighting for. Do you really think that every soldier who fights ever always agrees with the central authority or holds the same values? Not every German solider in WWII fought for Nazi imperialistic idealism. Not every solder today in the U.S. military joined up for big deal nationalistic principles or to fright terror. Despite what all the ads say, studies by the military itself have shown that most people in the military today joined for a little thing called a steady paycheck, family tradition, or to pay off college.

Now I'm not saying that none of the Southern fighting men during the war were fighting for the preservation of antebellum norms, because many indeed were. However many others' reasons to fight did include fighting for ones home/neighbors or some very vague sense of Southern Nationalism (which was actually stronger after the war than before, this is actually one of my favorite topics about the ACW atm). Letters written at the start and during the war enumerate this. (I don't like to include writings from after the war due to what was just said in the last parenthesis) John Singleton Mosby is an example of this as he clearly accepted that the war was started over slavery, and while he opposed the institution he felt a sense of "Virginia nationalism" that compelled him to fight. A.P. Hill was in the same boat. My point is that there is no one reason that people go off to shoot at each other and that you shouldn't just write off one reason because it doesn't fit in your narrative.

BTW, I have no problem with your first two points.

Well, swords are actually rather complex and not just crude pieces of sharpened metal, but yes, katana-worship is even worse than longbow-worship. The longbow, at least, was tactically useful in formations. The samurai never even used the katana as their primary weapon, instead preferring the bow or the yari depending on the time period. Not to say the katana is bad- it isn't. But it's nothing spectacular and doesn't deserve half the attention it gets.

but but but folded steel man folded steel!
 
Most of what Dachs said on the first page, actually, with a few additions:

1) Confusing any sort of separatism or breakaway movement with nationalism. Double points when it's identified before the development of nationalism as an ideology.

2) 'The Feudal System' and 'the Dark Ages'.
 
How can we be on the same page on MacArthur yet you seem to like the completely illegitimate leader of what could barely be called a rump government?
I'm flexible. Ask the ladies.

Seriously, since I don't see how anyone could claim that France during the '50s and '60s was a "rump government," I'm going to assume you mean the Free French. De Gaulle was the only member of the French Cabinet who escaped France. He then went on to start a government-in-exile in opposition to Petain's Vichy regime. Now, you can easily argue that De Gaulle's complicated constitutional argument that he was the legitimate ruler of France was codswallop - mostly because it was but I don't see how that makes him unlikeable. It's not like the Polish government-in-exile in London had any more legitimacy. De Gaulle at least had some French territory to operate from - Chad declared for him almost immediately - and was seen even by the Communists as the leader of the French resistance.

Seriously, there are plenty of reasons to dislike De Gaulle - Churchill described him as "the most obstinate man I have ever met," and Sir Winston wasn't exactly an agreeable fellow himself - both personally and politically. But you didn't actually offer any arguments above other than that he was the illegitimate leader of a rump government. I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing. Half the governments-in-exile during WWII would fall under that category. Does that mean you dislike them all?
 
It's more recent politics than history, but anyone who claims that Reagan won the Cold War :rolleyes:
 
Oh. The myths metric crapton of myths surrounding Galileo - that he was some sort of intrepid unrecognized genius bastion of the scientific method fighting singlehandedly against a repressive, anti-intellectual, antilogical Catholic Church.

Hey! Wait a cotton-picking minute!



In addition to ones above, any claim that President X would or wouldn't have supported Y, when Y is some modern issue and people are projecting their personal politics on poor X who might have directly disagreed with them in writing but they can't be bothered to look it up.

I guess this is kind of like the historical figure on a pedestal mentioned above, so I still haven't really added anything to the thread. :(
 
Hey! Wait a cotton-picking minute!



In addition to ones above, any claim that President X would or wouldn't have supported Y, when Y is some modern issue and people are projecting their personal politics on poor X who might have directly disagreed with them in writing but they can't be bothered to look it up.

I guess this is kind of like the historical figure on a pedestal mentioned above, so I still haven't really added anything to the thread. :(

That's especially annoying when it becomes a full-fledged ideology like in Venezuela. :blush:
 
I seem to have fallen victim to that one. So what was undecent about him?
He had an annoying manner of resenting more capable people who surrounded him (BTW, another pet peeve: Pyotr Stolypin, while definitely more capable then Nicholas, wasn't a Saviour or Old Russia), and his overall political views were quite autocratic and repressive - he just lacked his father's will and demeanour to really give off such an impression.
 
Here's a good, short, answer: equatism. No appreciation for the nuance. Like Napoleon's decision to invade Russia and Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being called the Same Thing.
 
Here's a good, short, answer: equatism. No appreciation for the nuance. Like Napoleon's decision to invade Russia and Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being called the Same Thing.
whereas when the Third OHL does it, it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT
 
Associating yourself with Bolivar has been a long-standing Latin American tradition, not just in Venezuela. There was a decent op-ed on this in the NY Times a few days ago.

Indeed, though Chavez and now subsequently Maduro, have brought it to all new laughable extremes. But they don't do it for no good reason, the people eat the populist rhetoric up sadly.

That NY Times article was a nice quick little read, thanks. :)
 
Indeed, though Chavez and now subsequently Maduro, have brought it to all new laughable extremes. But they don't do it for no good reason, the people eat the populist rhetoric up sadly.

That NY Times article was a nice quick little read, thanks. :)

Only comparison I can think of to the United States is the reverence for The Founding Daddies, but even then it's more generalized and more common with one of the two major parties.
 
And it tends to pick out just a few examples of those Founding Daddies, not recognize the group for being, you know, a group.
 
Indeed, though Chavez and now subsequently Maduro, have brought it to all new laughable extremes. But they don't do it for no good reason, the people eat the populist rhetoric up sadly.

That NY Times article was a nice quick little read, thanks. :)

Indeed, those stupid people, always believing propaganda! And to think we trust them with the power of democracy! Idiots need someone to rule them for their own good.
 
Also, all the stuff about Islam being the natural enemy of science, and all of the myths surrounding their supposed destruction of the Great Library, abhorrence of scholars or destruction of non-Quranic texts, and such. People don't realize that nearly all of our knowledge of the ancient philosophers and writers (particularly Greek ones) comes from Arabic transcriptions of those texts, for example, to say nothing of their contribution to math, biology, chemistry, astronomy (2/3 of the stars in the sky have Arabic names), and medicine.

Agreed, but don't confuse "Arabic" with "Muslim". An awful lot of those Arabic translations of ancient works were made by Christians.

Plus, I think one can exaggerate the importance today of the Arabic transmission of ancient texts. They were historically important in terms of (re-)introducing Europeans to ancient texts, the obvious example being those works of Aristotle that were forgotten in the west and then rediscovered in Latin translations of Arabic translations of the Greek. But of course we do now have the original Greek and aren't reliant on Arabic translations. The same goes for most Greek texts that we still have at all. This is why classicists today learn Greek, not Arabic, if they want to study ancient Greek literature.

Also agree about Galileo. It's a mystery to me how he can plausibly be presented as a case of a heroic scientist standing up to religion, when (a) Galileo was himself religious, (b) most of the people disagreeing with him were scientists, and (c) Galileo was wrong anyway about the actual point of disagreement, which was whether or not one could deductively prove a cosmological model.

Anyway, I would like to throw into this pretty much everything anyone has ever said on the Internet about religious history, starting with the notion that Christianity took all its best ideas from paganism and Jesus probably never existed anyway, or if he did, he was a married Buddhist vegetarian who founded the Merovingian dynasty. And my annoyance at this goes double for anyone who actually sacrifices trees to put this stuff in print.
 
Agreed, but don't confuse "Arabic" with "Muslim". An awful lot of those Arabic translations of ancient works were made by Christians.

Plus, I think one can exaggerate the importance today of the Arabic transmission of ancient texts. They were historically important in terms of (re-)introducing Europeans to ancient texts, the obvious example being those works of Aristotle that were forgotten in the west and then rediscovered in Latin translations of Arabic translations of the Greek. But of course we do now have the original Greek and aren't reliant on Arabic translations. The same goes for most Greek texts that we still have at all. This is why classicists today learn Greek, not Arabic, if they want to study ancient Greek literature.

Also agree about Galileo. It's a mystery to me how he can plausibly be presented as a case of a heroic scientist standing up to religion, when (a) Galileo was himself religious, (b) most of the people disagreeing with him were scientists, and (c) Galileo was wrong anyway about the actual point of disagreement, which was whether or not one could deductively prove a cosmological model.

Anyway, I would like to throw into this pretty much everything anyone has ever said on the Internet about religious history, starting with the notion that Christianity took all its best ideas from paganism and Jesus probably never existed anyway, or if he did, he was a married Buddhist vegetarian who founded the Merovingian dynasty. And my annoyance at this goes double for anyone who actually sacrifices trees to put this stuff in print.

I'm agree with you in the terms that not all arabic text must be Islamic in the same time, the same logic can be apply also that not all English text of today is appear to be non-Islamic, as Arabic backthen was used as international or academical languages also as today English used as international languages.

But as I already address a year ago perhaps in this forum, I will also want to address it again today, the notion that the Islamic world only act as a canal for the Western world to recognize Greek Philosophy it also bit minimizing and be little Islamic world and contribution itself, In this terms I agree with Cheezy the Wiz.. There many invention and discovery that been trigger in the Islamic world, as in Islam the knowledge on God creations is an important aspect to understand God existence and see the traces of God evident through God creations as it address in Ali Imran :

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire. (190-191)


In Islam disbelieve mostly is a results of lack of observation, contemplation, reasoning, of our surrounding, or it is a results of knowing but denying. In Surah Al Fatiah the passage that tell :

The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray. (7)

The part of those who evoked the anger of God, are for those who know the truth but they deny it. While the part of those who categorize ashtray are for those who ignorance, they are the one who don't know the truth and never seek about it and they just following what their parents, grandfather, etc used to follow and worship.

I can point out many passage and teaching inside the Islam that encourage thinking, observing, seeking knowledge, even in Quran it said, those who have knowledge are a degree higher than those who don't have knowledge and understanding :

"Allah will raise up, to (suitable) ranks and (degrees), those of you who believe and who have been granted knowledge. And Allah is well-acquainted with all you do."

(Qur'an, Al-Mujadilah 58:11)


We also connected true knowledge with the sign of piety :

"It is only those who have knowledge among His servants that fear Allah."

(Qur'an, Fatir 35:28)


While this kind of nation that the Muslim world only contribute on delivering greek philosophy to be known to the rest of western world it is the same notion that Bertrand Russel express which is incorrect in my opinion.

The invention that independent from Greek world is far more majority then the one it dependent, infact greek philosopher only popular among the Muthazilah. In Islam the meaning of life, meaning of creation, the nature of God, and all of these kind of questions it's done, so many ulama from the early ulama was against philosophy, but they more push the muslim to practical and applicable knowledge not in knowledge on searching truth and question the meaning of creation, because all of that question already answer.

This is also the answer Aristotle logic can be more popular in islamic world than Plato metaphysics or Heraclitus.

Inventor like Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), the "father of optics" and pioneer of the modern scientific method, invented the camera obscura and pinhole camera. Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber), the father of chemistry, invented the alembic still and many chemicals, including distilled alcohol, and established the perfume industry. Al-Razi invented the following chemical processes in the 9th century:

Dry distillation
Calcination (al-tashwiya).
Solution (al-tahlil), sublimation (al-tas'id), amalgamation (al-talghim), ceration (al-tashmi), and a method of converting a substance into a thick paste or fusible solid.
Other chemical processes introduced by Muslim chemists include:

Assation (or roasting), cocotion (or digestion), ceration, lavage, solution, mixture, and fixation.
Destructive distillation was invented by Muslim chemists in the 8th century to produce tar from petroleum.
Steam distillation was invented by Avicenna in the early 11th century for the purpose of producing essential oils.
Water purification

Or Muslim inventor that invent Laboratory apparatus like :

Alembic and still by Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber) in the 9th century.
Retort by Jabir ibn Hayyan.
Thermometer and air thermometer by Abu Ali ibn Sina (Avicenna) in the 11th century.
Conical measure by Abu Rayhan al-Biruni in the 11th century.
Laboratory flask and pycnometer by Abu Rayhan al-Biruni.
Hydrostatic balance and steelyard by al-Khazini in 1121.
Muslim chemists and engineers invented the cucurbit and aludel, and the equipment needed for melting metals such as furnaces and crucibles.
Al-Razi (Rhazes), in his Secretum secretorum (Latinized title), first described the following tools for melting substances (li-tadhwib): hearth (kur), bellows (minfakh aw ziqq), crucible (bawtaqa), the but bar but (in Arabic) or botus barbatus (in Latin), tongs (masik aq kalbatan), scissors (miqta), hammer (mukassir), file (mibrad).
Al-Razi also first described the following tools for the preparation of drugs (li-tadbir al-aqaqir): cucurbit and still with evacuation tube (qar aq anbiq dhu-khatm), receiving matras (qabila), blind still (without evacuation tube) (al-anbiq al-ama), aludel (al-uthal), goblets (qadah), flasks (qarura or quwarir), rosewater flasks (ma wariyya), cauldron (marjal aw tanjir), earthenware pots varnished on the inside with their lids (qudur aq tanjir), water bath or sand bath (qadr), oven (al-tannur in Arabic, athanor in Latin), small cylindirical oven for heating aludel (mustawqid), funnels, sieves, filters, etc.

I cannot list all of that invention that is pure contribution from Islamic world it will be overwhelming, and there many book that translated from Islamic author to Latin without credited the work to the muslim inventor but the translator claim the works.
 
But as I already address a year ago perhaps in this forum, I will also want to address it again today, the notion that the Islamic world only act as a canal for the Western world to recognize Greek Philosophy it also bit minimizing and be little Islamic world and contribution itself, In this terms I agree with Cheezy the Wiz.. There many invention and discovery that been trigger in the Islamic world,...

Yep, totally with you. Muslim's have certainly contributed a lot to the modern world far beyond preserving and translating Greek knowledge.

...as in Islam the knowledge on God creations is an important aspect to understand God existence and see the traces of God evident through God creations...

:lol:

Oh man, not to be mean, but you devoutly religious types crack me up. That's an openness that's sort of rare here, since most of the more dogmatic Christians like to dress up their belief systems as 'traditional values', and it just strikes me as so incredibly silly.

It's so strange to me to see somebody somebody talking about how Muslims have contributed so much to modern science, and then spin right around and talk about how a deity totally created the world and everything in it, and that this book we have totally tells an accurate story of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom