What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[Arakhor]

There were still people like Avicenna who were extremely skilled scholars, even if they predated the Scientific Method.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed. The Muslim world also contributed a great deal during that period. There were many great scholars prior to the scientific method and modern science.

 

[El_Machinae]

The largest? Probably the falseness of the myths regarding the origin of the historical Israel. Lots of people believe the Exodus actually happened.

 

[abradley]

The opinions of someone nobody has every heard of before are not facts.

The simple truth of the matter is that there was no real "science" until the likes of Sir Francis Bacon, Decartes and Galileo came along much later and set the stage for the scientific method. Even then, it was considered to be "natural philosophy" where all sorts of utter nonsense was believed, including alchemy. Modern science didn't even come into being until even far later in the 19th Century.

Now knowledge is an entirely different matter. During the dark ages, the only advancements in knowledge in Western civilization really all came thanks to the Roman Catholic Church. But they also greatly constrained it through religious dogma which didn't allow anything they considered to be heretical to even be studied because they had complete and total control of institutes of higher learning.

This is where Galileo later ran afoul.

What you now need to do is to start thinking critically so you can discern which websites promulgate utter nonsense and those which do not. Which contain a great deal of facts to support these opinions and those which engage in sheer speculation instead.


Pray that prayer has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Malarkey. Are you going to discount someone because you haven't heard of them, you probable would but it's bad practice.

"Start thinking critically", is that what you do here?

O'Neil's review, did you bother reading it? What does he say, do you even know what the anti O'Neil piece sez? Or did you link it because it was anti-O'Neil.

Did you know O'Neil and Fitzgerald corresponded discussing the review.

You definitely need the internet, use it for critical research, not just research to back your views.

 

[Zkribbler]

Here is my own selection for the most misunderstood historical event:

The Emperor Hirohito would disagree with you.

From Wikipedia:

Hirohito recorded on August 14 his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.[217]

In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:

Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.[218]

In his "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" delivered on August 17, he stressed the impact of the Soviet invasion on his decision to surrender, omitting any mention of the bombs.[219] Hirohito met with General MacArthur on September 27, saying to him that "[t]he peace party did not prevail until the bombing of Hiroshima created a situation which could be dramatized." Furthermore, the "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" speech he told MacArthur about was just personal, not political, and never stated that the Soviet intervention in Manchuria was the main reason for surrender. In fact, a day after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Hirohito ordered his advisers, primarily Chief Cabinet Secretary Hisatsune Sakomizu, Kawada Mizuho, and Masahiro Yasuoka, to write up a surrender speech. In Hirohito's speech, days before announcing it on radio on August 15, he gave three major reasons for surrender: Tokyo's defenses would not be complete before the American invasion of Japan, Ise Shrine would be lost to the Americans, and atomic weapons deployed by the Americans would lead to the death of the entire Japanese race. Despite the Soviet intervention, Hirohito did not mention the Soviets as the main factor for surrender.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Malarkey. Are you going to discount someone because you haven't heard of them, you probable would but it's bad practice.

Tim O'Neill is obviously a blowhard who has no actual credentials. But go right ahead and continue to pretend that he is some acknowledged expert when he clearly is not.

O'Neil's review, did you bother reading it? What does he say, do you even know what the anti O'Neil piece sez? Or did you link it because it was anti-O'Neil.

The question is did you read it? Apparently not as you continue to trot out these personal opinion pieces as being "facts" you found on the internet.

You definitely need the internet, use it for critical research, not just research to back your views.

Perhaps you should use it to look up "irony" and "hypocrisy".

The Emperor Hirohito would disagree with you.

You know this with absolute certainty because you went back in time and asked him? Or because whoever wrote that particular wiki entry has bought into the myth themselves and is merely quoting and paraphrasing his official statement made at the time?

You should also provide URL when you quote web pages.

It also wasn't me who wrote the article I quoted. Merely because I posted it doesn't necessarily mean I completely agree with every single statement made.

However, I am firmly convinced, along with many of the senior military officers at the time, that the bombings of Japan were entirely unnecessary. That they never should have occurred, and that they quite likely would not have if an incompetent boob hadn't taken over the presidency after Roosevelt died.

 

[abradley]

Tim O'Neill is obviously a blowhard who has no actual credentials. But go right ahead and continue to pretend that he is some acknowledged expert when he clearly is not.

The question is did you read it? Apparently not as you continue to trot out these personal opinion pieces as being "facts" you found on the internet.

Perhaps you should use it to look up "irony" and "hypocrisy".

Exactly as I expected, just opinions, no facts.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, this is what you actually stated:

The internet is a wonder, why? Because when I was young (40's-50's) there wasn't a way to check whether things you heard were factual or not.

These aren't facts. They are personal opinions of someone with no actual credentials who is just writing an internet blog and posting it on some web server.

 

[abradley]

Again, this is what you actually stated:

These aren't facts. They are personal opinions of someone with no actual credentials who is just writing an internet blog and posting it on some web server.

What aren't facts?

 

[Ajidica]

Most misunderstood historical event? If I had to choose one I'd go with the Congo Crisis of 1961. (The "Belgians in the Congo" line from "We didn't start the fire".) Because people apparently have to view the entirety of the Cold War through East-West dynamics and struggle to grasp the concept that the "natives" have their own goals and agency.
Although the entirety of post-colonial Africa probably fits also.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

The Islamic revolution of 1979.

I've been curious about this.

Persepolis is one of my favorite movies/graphic novels/stories, and it paints a picture of a revolution by secular people that later got hijacked by muslim extremists. Though I saw a documentary saying a lot of the protesters supported Khomeini during the protests. I have a tendency to think that Marjane Satrapi's view maybe off since her family seemed to be communist sympathizers, which would make her assume her family's views were what the country went with, but I honestly could be way off on that.

I've been meaning to look more into this, maybe I will tomorrow.

 

[Ajidica]

I've been curious about this.

Persepolis is one of my favorite movies/graphic novels/stories, and it paints a picture of a revolution by secular people that later got hijacked by muslim extremists. Though I saw a documentary saying a lot of the protesters supported Khomeini during the protests. I have a tendency to think that Marjane Satrapi's view maybe off since her family seemed to be communist sympathizers, which would make her assume her family's views were what the country went with, but I honestly could be way off on that.

I've been meaning to look more into this, maybe I will tomorrow.

It is important to remember that the educated Iranian "middle class" (although by Western standards they were upper class, they just didn't fit the traditional definition of upper class because they weren't aristocratic or landowners) was not very big and a lot of them were, in the eyes of the majority, tainted by their association with the Shah's regime.
It is my understanding that the revolution was only 'hijacked' if you view it as a western secular revolution from the start and not as a generic "ditch the Shah" revolution that defaulted to an Islamist bent due to mass action. It is worth remembering in Iran that secularism was tied up with the Shah's regime as he really pushed a secular Iranian identity, emphasizing Iran's Achaemenid, Median, and Sassanid heritage to the almost complete exclusion of its Islamic heritage. When push came to shove the bulk of the Iranian population didn't feel that a bunch of wealthy secular modernists (much like the Shah) could lead what they wanted Iran to be.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The actual "revolution" started out with student protests. They merely wanted a return to a democratic form of government along with stopping Western companies from stealing their natural resources.

They were pure evil personified. If Reagan had already been president instead of Carter, they likely would have been blown into oblivion for being communist sympathizers. Instead, Carter gave the silly impression he respected human rights more than maintaining a brutal puppet dictatorship favored by US and British oil companies.

Naturally, all the Shah sycophants who had cushy jobs under his dictatorship had to immediately leave the country or face harsh repercussions. The rest of the country perceived this as being a very good thing for the most part.

Iran is another classic example of how really terrible US foreign policy frequently is. Back in the 50s, it used to be a model for the rest of the region as a secular democratic country. But they also stupidly wanted to control their own natural resources and profit from them instead of us, so we naturally had to overthrow their legitimate sovereign government. So now we get to deal with a theocratic republic which doesn't care much for the US government instead.

 

[Ajidica]

They merely wanted a return to a democratic form of government along with stopping Western companies from stealing their natural resources.

It is more complicated than that. The Tudeh and the secular pro-west 'middle class' (I'm completely blanking on their political party name) also claimed to be in favor of democracy but had vastly different ideas on what 'democracy' mean when compared to the supporters of the Ayatollah and the Islamic revolutionaries.
Setting up the Iranian Revolution of '79 as "Democracy vs. The Shah" is rather inaccurate.

Instead, Carter gave the silly impression he respected human rights more than maintaining a puppet dictatorship.

It's like I've said before, Carter was probably the more moral person we've had a president.

 

[Gucumatz]

I might as well add that the war of 1812, which is taught from the American perspective of being a result of impressment [which while still the major factor in American concern], was partly a result of British anti-slavery raids trying to end the British international slave trade and impressment was a secondary concern that the British also took advantage of when we were trading with the French

 

[Formaldehyde]

Setting up the Iranian Revolution of '79 as "Democracy vs. The Shah" is rather inaccurate.

Failing to mention there was a distinct secular element that even came first is rather inaccurate.

 

[TimONeill]

Tim O'Neill is obviously a blowhard who has no actual credentials. But go right ahead and continue to pretend that he is some acknowledged expert when he clearly is not.

I can't speak for the person who posted links to my articles, but I didn't get the impression he was presenting them as being by "an acknowledged expert". He also gave a summary of my credentials, for those who may have been interested, but seemed to be presenting my articles because he considered them good summaries of scholarship on the relevant questions. Note, for example, that the first article had a bibliography of suggested reading on the subject of Galileo and the myths associated with his case, which is a who's who of leading scholars on that subject and the history of early science generally:

Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard University Press: 2010)

Richard J. Blackwell, "Galileo Galilei" in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction Gary B. Ferngren (ed.) (John Hopkins Press: 2002)

David C. Lindberg, "Galileo, the Church and the Cosmos" in When Science and Christianity Meet, D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds.) (University of Chicago Press: 2003)

William R. Shea & Mariano Artigas, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, (Oxford University Press: 2003)

Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press: 1955)

Maurice A. Finocchiaro (ed.) The Essential Galileo, (Hackett Publishing: 2008)

Richard J. Olson, Science and Religion, 1450-1900: From Copernicus to Darwin, (John Hopkins Press: 2006)

James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Regenery Publishing: 2011)

Given that what I had to say is fully supported by these leading scholars, your rather weak attempts at sneering at me while skipping around the actual arguments I make looks pretty pathetic. Unless, of course, you think Numbers, Lindberg and Finocchiaro are also "blowhards" who "hardly anybody has ever heard of".

Then we get your claim that I create "a bunch of nonsensical strawmen" - a claim you back up with precisely nothing. You move on to some weird statement that I argued that "Galileo was not persecuted for standing up against rabid Catholic dogma at the time", when I did not such thing. Finally we get your revelation that Galileo "invented" the telescope, which would have been news to the Dutch guys who actually did so. Or news to anyone ... with a grasp of the history of astronomy.

Your sneering over my critical review of the incompetent Jesus Myther is even more amusing, given that there I also have pretty much every scholar on the planet on my side. The Jesus Myth thesis is upheld by a smattering of fringe contrarians and nobodies who can be counted on the fingers of two hands. And, just to top off your effort, after having chided the other guy for linking to a "person hardly anybody has ever heard of", you turn around and do ... exactly that. This time citing the aforementioned incompetent Jesus Myther and his flaccid defence of his terrible little self-published book. Though your Googling didn't get you as far as my detailed demolition of his reply (after which he fell completely silent).

So your replies have been big on weak scorn and general incompetence but light on ... anything remotely resembling substance. Feel free to try to remedy that now if you like. Let's see who is the "blowhard" here. This should be fun ...

 

[abradley]

I can't speak for the person who posted links to my articles, but I didn't get the impression he was presenting them as being by "an acknowledged expert". He also gave a summary of my credentials, for those who may have been interested, but seemed to be presenting my articles because he considered them good summaries of scholarship on the relevant questions. Note, for example, that the first article had a bibliography of suggested reading on the subject of Galileo and the myths associated with his case, which is a who's who of leading scholars on that subject and the history of early science generally:

Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard University Press: 2010)

Richard J. Blackwell, "Galileo Galilei" in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction Gary B. Ferngren (ed.) (John Hopkins Press: 2002)

David C. Lindberg, "Galileo, the Church and the Cosmos" in When Science and Christianity Meet, D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds.) (University of Chicago Press: 2003)

William R. Shea & Mariano Artigas, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, (Oxford University Press: 2003)

Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press: 1955)

Maurice A. Finocchiaro (ed.) The Essential Galileo, (Hackett Publishing: 2008)

Richard J. Olson, Science and Religion, 1450-1900: From Copernicus to Darwin, (John Hopkins Press: 2006)

James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Regenery Publishing: 2011)

Given that what I had to say is fully supported by these leading scholars, your rather weak attempts at sneering at me while skipping around the actual arguments I make looks pretty pathetic. Unless, of course, you think Numbers, Lindberg and Finocchiaro are also "blowhards" who "hardly anybody has ever heard of".

Then we get your claim that I create "a bunch of nonsensical strawmen" - a claim you back up with precisely nothing. You move on to some weird statement that I argued that "Galileo was not persecuted for standing up against rabid Catholic dogma at the time", when I did not such thing. Finally we get your revelation that Galileo "invented" the telescope, which would have been news to the Dutch guys who actually did so. Or news to anyone ... with a grasp of the history of astronomy.

Your sneering over my critical review of the incompetent Jesus Myther is even more amusing, given that there I also have pretty much every scholar on the planet on my side. The Jesus Myth thesis is upheld by a smattering of fringe contrarians and nobodies who can be counted on the fingers of two hands. And, just to top off your effort, after having chided the other guy for linking to a "person hardly anybody has ever heard of", you turn around and do ... exactly that. This time citing the aforementioned incompetent Jesus Myther and his flaccid defence of his terrible little self-published book. Though your Googling didn't get you as far as my detailed demolition of his reply (after which he fell completely silent).

So your replies have been big on weak scorn and general incompetence but light on ... anything remotely resembling substance. Feel free to try to remedy that now if you like. Let's see who is the "blowhard" here. This should be fun ...

Mr O'Neil, thank you for your input, I apologize if I accidentally misrepresent anything you wrote or your conditionals.

Do enjoy your articles.

Thank you for your time.

Yours

Andrew H. Bradley

 

[abradley]

Lord, lord, lord.

The Man Himself.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So your replies have been big on weak scorn and general incompetence but light on ... anything remotely resembling substance. Feel free to try to remedy that now if you like. Let's see who is the "blowhard" here. This should be fun ...

Oh look. It is the person who concocted some "myths" hardly anybody actually believes, and then shot them down knowing full well they were already full of holes.

Bravo!

Galileo did indeed invent the telescope he used. I never claimed it was the very first one. Now did I?