Pet History Peeves

[_random_]

In terms of regnal dates, I really can't think of anything in the Bible that's unreasonable. Most of the absurdly long lifespans are found in Genesis, before the Jewish monarchy was established.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It's in other ancient Middle Eastern texts, though, as he implied, notably the Sumerian King List. Compared to that, the Old Testament is quite restrained.

Yeah, I somehow got confused and assumed the Sumerian King list was part of the Bible.
I blame Methuselah.
My point remains valid.

 

[Wrymouth3]

1. People who like Uhlans, seriously, stop with that !

2. No, Sturm was an awful CO for Black Hole.

3. Daniel Goldhagen, you are the reason why people read popular history. You really suck man.

4. People who talk about Portugese history. Just stop! Nobody cares about Joao I or whatever the hell his name is, Battle of Aljubarrota? Why hey, we definitely need to mention Aviz and Braganza here. Portugese history is overrated.

5. Oh yeah, the Tet Offensive wasn't a disaster.

6. Oh yeah T'savong Lah, you and your Vong goons can go rot in a hole. The Vong aren't unstoppable.

 

[Wrymouth3]

7. The introduction of the stirrup to European societies was a world-historical event that completely changed the way militaries and cavalry in particular worked.

Who are you to question Josef Chrząszcz, the 7th generation cavalry officer who took out 32 PzKpfw III's with his anti-tank rifle in September 1939?!?!?!?

 

[W|M]

4. People who talk about Portugese history. Just stop! Nobody cares about Joao I or whatever the hell his name is, Battle of Aljubarrota? Why hey, we definitely need to mention Aviz and Braganza here. Portugese history is overrated.

People talk a lot about Portuguese history? I live in Brazil and I've heard very little of it, especially from before 1415. And it's Bragança, not Braganza.

 

[Wrymouth3]

People talk a lot about Portuguese history? I live in Brazil and I've heard very little of it, especially from before 1415. And it's Bragança, not Braganza.

A lot of Iberian history texts I have read go into great detail about Spain, but rather give only special attention to specific eras of Portuguese history. For example, I have yet to pick up a book that mentions anything about the rather important Kingdom of Galicia, and influence of the "barbarian" kingdoms on Portugal more so than other Western European states. This might be because they don't actually exist, but I think it might also be because only specific examples have been essentially covered because of extreme fetishes of certain historians. (read: ethnic historians of mostly non-western states in most cases)

 

[W|M]

I'd imagine there's more information about Galicia from the mid-12th Century and earlier, seeing as Portugal was part of Galicia until then.

 

[Icaria909]

Myth #1: Native Americans are portrayed in American history classes as helpless victims to the cruel Europeans.

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that the American colonial empires between the 1500-1700s were partnerships between Europeans and Natives. The Spanish Empire was largely constructed between some Native groups against other Native groups under Spanish leaders and these Native communities enjoyed special advantages and benefits in the new colonial society that was created. It was not until much later that the monarchs were able to extend real central power over these areas (I would suggest reading 7 Myths of the Spanish Conquest by Matthew Restall) .

On the other hand, the European Empires of North America from the 17th to the 18th century were largely fortified trading outposts that strategically used Native military alliances that were cemented by trade to leverage power. Different Native groups benefited materially by their interactions with Europeans (although many suffered as well). Prime examples would be the Iroquois relationship with France and England(and eventually Britain) or the Osage in the French colonial empire. (One historian who advanced similar theories is Richard White in Middle Ground).

I am not suggesting that many Native Americans did not die from European diseases and interactions or that American colonial history was harmonious. However, to label Colonial American history as the simple story of cruel Europeans indiscriminately killing helpless Native Americans is to deny the incredible complexity of this period and the deep contentious debates that still rage about the post-Colombian contact on Native societies and colonial history.

 

[Lord Baal]

Weren't there also several South American native groups that maintained an armed independence until the early-20th century? I'm thinking of a particular group I read about who controlled a pretty sizable portion of Argentina and Chile at one point.

 

[aronnax]

Alright, what exactly is wrong with that?

Well the statement itself. Nothing really.

But often some people use that statement and run with it as if some great effect of the wise and impressive rule of a monarch.

I remember Bast using this exact phrase as one of the attributes to why Queen Anne of Great Britain was such a great monarch.

I'm sure 'X' monarch invited and paid patronage to many great artists to write music, paint, build, sculpt and invent. Handel, Leonardo, Minar Sinan, Hadyn, various Jesuit missions to Qing China etc.

But often it is just a blank statement with no real significant impact. It also steals away credit from the people who did do the great pieces of engineering, science, arts and cultures.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not saying that anyone's totally unbiased. I'm simply saying that being less biased is both possible and desirable. That's all. The fact that bias always exists in some form is not an excuse to make no attempt to mitigate it.

Sure. But that's not something inherent to any specific mode of historical methodology, which is what the claim being made was.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Weren't there also several South American native groups that maintained an armed independence until the early-20th century? I'm thinking of a particular group I read about who controlled a pretty sizable portion of Argentina and Chile at one point.

You are probably thinking of the Mapuche/Araucanians.

As far as Native Americans go, those guys are complete badasses. Nevermind the Sioux or Apache.

 

[Lord Baal]

You are probably thinking of the Mapuche/Araucanians.

As far as Native Americans go, those guys are complete badasses. Nevermind the Sioux or Apache.

I'm pretty sure I was thinking of the Araucanians.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Weren't there also several South American native groups that maintained an armed independence until the early-20th century? I'm thinking of a particular group I read about who controlled a pretty sizable portion of Argentina and Chile at one point.

There are indigenous groups through out the Americas who are still maintaining armed independence.

 

[Lord Baal]

There are indigenous groups through out the Americas who are still maintaining armed independence.

Against attempts by governments to bring them to heel? I'm sure there are isolated tribes in the Amazon and other areas who are mostly independent, but I don't know of anywhere that would actually be trying to bring them to heel at the moment.

 

[Lone Wolf]

EZLN, well sort of?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yeah, EZLN is an example.

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah, EZLN is an example.

Cool, I will have to look them up.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Against attempts by governments to bring them to heel? I'm sure there are isolated tribes in the Amazon and other areas who are mostly independent, but I don't know of anywhere that would actually be trying to bring them to heel at the moment.

One might argue the present Bolivian government as an example turned on its head.