OT: Living Conditions for Athletes and Media in Sochi

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

Teachers at my high school make sure to point out he didn't "discover" America and he treated the natives terribly.

Disease was unavoidable, but he, as well as others, did some pretty awful things to natives.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Yes, I think the spread of disease has historical consequences, but does not deserve the indictment that is often leveled against early explorers. I find it very doubtful it was intentional. I remember reading a year or two ago that medical researchers have found evidence that while syphilis was present in the "Old" world, Amerinds more than likely passed a far more virulent strain of syphilis to early explorers. Any discovery of an isolated population is very likely to include the transferal of microbes and viruses that will be devastating to that population. 

[mdn82 25,510]

Reb, I can't stand the Byzantine Empire and Asian History.  Beyond that, I am good.  I generally avoided those two when I went to school. 

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

As far as our teaching of history in school, I think most of what is taught is either from traditional interpretations that don't hold up to any real research, or its just basically simplified to a point that its pretty much useless. The other part I find irritating, is the attempts by special interest groups, to change history to reflect their viewpoint, even though their version is no more reliable than what is currently accepted. 

 

Personally, I think if you want to really understand history, you have to explore a number of theories, accept very little of it as fact, and realize that the truth is probably a curious mixture of all of them. 

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

Reb, I can't stand the Byzantine Empire and Asian History.  Beyond that, I am good.  I generally avoided those two when I went to school. 

I have books on both, but can't say that I have spent much time on either. If I was Asian, I would probably be more interested in Asian history. But being of European descent, I find myself most interested in American/European history. However, I do find arguments that Americans view of history is too Eurocentric to be very credible, and do try to at least study enough of Asian, African and Middle Eastern history and culture to temper that. I think that globalization has spread cultural influences at a far faster rate in modern times, but that even in distant history, the influences on European culture were fairly significant and widespread.

[mdn82 25,510]

Reb, the thing I like about IU's History Dept is if you can't read historical documents like journals from ordinary people backing up the claims, we weren't taught it.  That is why a large part of our grades were the Historical Journals and our papers on them.  You would get a feel for the environment, mood, and people.  Obviously they would sensationalize that to a degree, but that is what we have for history.  So, I would agree you have to take into account a large number of things.  Hell, during the Dark Ages (A phrase historians hate) most of the historical documents come from the church.  I don't think anyone is believing the Church during those times.  But, their word with the journals of common people give you a better understanding of time.  Not really the truth, but an understanding. 

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

Reb, the thing I like about IU's History Dept is if you can't read historical documents like journals from ordinary people backing up the claims, we weren't taught it.  That is why a large part of our grades were the Historical Journals and our papers on them.  You would get a feel for the environment, mood, and people.  Obviously they would sensationalize that to a degree, but that is what we have for history.  So, I would agree you have to take into account a large number of things.  Hell, during the Dark Ages (A phrase historians hate) most of the historical documents come from the church.  I don't think anyone is believing the Church during those times.  But, their word with the journals of common people give you a better understanding of time.  Not really the truth, but an understanding. 

Yes, publicized popularly published accounts were more often vehicles for an agenda, and as such had as many lies and half-truths as they did truth. Some things never change.

[mdn82 25,510]

Sorry Reb for not being able to quote you from work, but I agree with you on Globalization.  That started with Nationalization in Europe.  That started with the Industrial Revolution.  When people are making more money than they ever seen, they wanted ways to produce more.  How do you do that?  You branch out and either make people slaves, or you steal their land.  In the process you begin to mix backgrounds, and stories.  I think in Greek and Roman times Globalization was less due to everyone outside of the empire was viewed as uncouth.  You weren't a human unless you were part of the Empire.  So, for the most part everyone was very similar from that aspect.  Not until travel by horse or boat did you see colonies "mixing". 

[mdn82 25,510]

Is it bad as a mod this has been one of my favorite discussions on this board lol?  I enjoy talking to people about stuff like this, because I think people can learn so much from each other.  Not just in History.  I enjoy History so that is why I enjoy this.  But, IU basketball as well.  So much knowledge we can learn from each other to make places like this more fun. 

[Hovadipo 56,499]

[quote name="mdn82" post="35789" timestamp="1391780812"]Reb, I can't stand the Byzantine Empire and Asian History. Beyond that, I am good. I generally avoided those two when I went to school. [/quote]

Asian History is so awful to learn about. Everything sounds the same, the religions all mash together. I took a World Civilization class and it focused a lot on Asian History and trying to remember all of those names was terrible.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

Reb, the thing I like about IU's History Dept is if you can't read historical documents like journals from ordinary people backing up the claims, we weren't taught it.  That is why a large part of our grades were the Historical Journals and our papers on them.  You would get a feel for the environment, mood, and people.  Obviously they would sensationalize that to a degree, but that is what we have for history.  So, I would agree you have to take into account a large number of things.  Hell, during the Dark Ages (A phrase historians hate) most of the historical documents come from the church.  I don't think anyone is believing the Church during those times.  But, their word with the journals of common people give you a better understanding of time.  Not really the truth, but an understanding. 

They may hate it, but at least in those areas of Europe that were under Roman Catholic influence, the phrase had validity. As far as the rest of the world goes, there were a number of cultures that were advancing knowledge and culture. This is not a indictment of the Roman Catholic church in particular, as much as it is a indictment of too much power centralized in too few hands. It doesn't really matter what the institution is, if it becomes to powerful, there are always individuals and groups who will make it a vehicle for personal use. 

 

Related to some of the posts in this thread, is how in our history of Columbus, we continue to perpetuate the theory that pre-Columbian sailors were scared to sail to the edge of the "flat earth" and then fall off. It is more than likely that the major proponents of a flat earth in those times, were people who never left land. Sailors were probably the least influenced by this theory. 

[All_Hoosiers 873]

[quote name="HoosierReb01" post="35788" timestamp="1391780331"]Yes, I think the spread of disease has historical consequences, but does not deserve the indictment that is often leveled against early explorers. I find it very doubtful it was intentional. I remember reading a year or two ago that medical researchers have found evidence that while syphilis was present in the "Old" world, Amerinds more than likely passed a far more virulent strain of syphilis to early explorers. Any discovery of an isolated population is very likely to include the transferal of microbes and viruses that will be devastating to that population. [/quote]

If the early explorers had been perfectly peaceful, they still would have wiped out the native population. Natives were in a lose-lose situation.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Hovadipo 56,499]

[quote name="HoosierReb01" post="35785" timestamp="1391779479"]I think very few of those who sailed to the Americas for the first century or two should be looked on as "heroes". Most of them were here for no other reason than personal gain. Even those who came for missionary reasons, were very often harsh ideologues who wanted to convert the natives by force. The best reason to celebrate Columbus would be for his daring. The biggest problem I have with the anti-hero Columbus, as I often see it represented, is the glamorization of the "noble savage" theory. The atrocities that early European explorers committed against the Amerinds, was reciprocated in kind, and pre-dated Columbus. That's not a argument to excuse those actions, I just don't believe the viewpoint that it was one-sided. As far as Columbus not discovering America, that may be true in even bigger ways than presented in previous posts. There are theories that Columbus was aware of the presence of a landmass to the west of Europe. This is not unlikely, as archaeologists have shown the presence of Norsemen in the northern US, Canada and Greenland. This was not lost in ancient history at that time, as Norse settlements in Greenland were probably not completely destroyed/abandoned until sometime in the 14th century. IIRC, the Roman Catholic Church still had a bishop in Greeenland until the late 13th century. Evidence of any particular group is very rare, but there is enough archaeological evidence in the Americas, to suggest that there were many voyages to the Americas were made prior to Columbus. Theories of pre-Columbian exploration, which are often backed by scant evidence, suggest that the Chinese, Japanese, Malians, Phoenicians, Irish, Welsh, Templars, and others, all had a limited presence in the Americas prior to Columbus. Some of these theories are backed more in myth than substance, and there are too many "scholars" promoting one theory or another (and sometimes all of them), that its hard to take a objective look at them and make any claim as too truth. However, there is a body of isolated evidence that would suggest that there were a number of groups that had at least limited contact with the Americas before Columbus, probably dating back into the pre-Christian era. I find it entirely reasonable to at least accept the possibility that Columbus was proceeding on some knowledge handed down from earlier explorers. If all of that is true, then the only distinct accolade Columbus is due is that his voyage rekindled, confirmed and publicized the existence of lands to the west. [/quote] Totally agree on your first paragraph. All of those early explorers were just glorified pirates at the time. Look at most of their stories. Looking for the fountain of youth. Guys looking for cities made of gold. Columbus was trying to get rich in Asia basically. Also, it seems like whenever a new land is explored, especially by Europeans, any population that already existed in the explored area is pushed out, killed off, whatever you like. You have your explorers like Columbus and Vespucci, but then you look at Native Americans and what happened when "we" got to America and in the ensuing 100-200 years. We fought with the natives, murdered them, and ultimately displaced them where we thought was convenient. It really is embarrassing how we handled that situation. It was much the same when the British landed in Australia and pushed the Aboriginals back to places in that country that are nearly impossible to live in. I guess people have just never handled exploration properly, or how you would hope they would. Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Dalton26 16,892]

I'm just sitting back and reading/enjoying this.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

Totally agree on your first paragraph. All of those early explorers were just glorified pirates at the time. Look at most of their stories. Looking for the fountain of youth. Guys looking for cities made of gold. Columbus was trying to get rich in Asia basically. Also, it seems like whenever a new land is explored, especially by Europeans, any population that already existed in the explored area is pushed out, killed off, whatever you like. You have your explorers like Columbus and Vespucci, but then you look at Native Americans and what happened when "we" got to America and in the ensuing 100-200 years. We fought with the natives, murdered them, and ultimately displaced them where we thought was convenient. It really is embarrassing how we handled that situation. It was much the same when the British landed in Australia and pushed the Aboriginals back to places in that country that are nearly impossible to live in. I guess people have just never handled exploration properly, or how you would hope they would. Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Not necessarily just Europeans. Anytime a more advanced, or more populous, civilization advances on another, the effects are usually detrimental to the less advanced/populous civilization. Study any area of world history it is the same. I think this is another Eurocentric viewpoint, although reversed. That so much is focused on European explorers misdeeds and atrocities, that we forget that this is found across cultures and centuries. Among the pre-Columbian Amerinds, the same misdeeds and atrocities were practiced against other tribes and cultures. I can easily accept that based on their supposed acceptance of Christianity, with its emphasis on mercy and brotherly love, that the early explorers should have been inclined to peaceful trade and alliance with the native tribes. It is a easy enough expectation, practice what you preach, right? However, I suspect most of them were Christian only as far as it was convenient, and for the most part as a matter of political and social acceptance or advancement. Again, I am not defending what happened, its just against the broad panorama of history, this is typical human behavior. I admit, I only feel the need to point this out, because it seems that when I see news articles or popular history about this topic, there almost seems to be such a focus on vilifying the early explorers that the natives are almost perceived as pacifists and the originators of world peace. Lol, that may just be my perception, but I find it irritating.

 

There is a real need for historical revisionism, but the pendulum seems to swing to far the other way

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

I'm just sitting back and reading/enjoying this.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Its probably not to every-bodies cup of tea, but its a great conversation for those of us that are interested.

[HoosierReb01 7,511]

Its probably not to every-bodies cup of tea, but its a great conversation for those of us that are interested.

And Jaybob and Natty may not appreciate this conversation, as they will have to spend too much time looking up words in the dictionary!  :laugh:

[mdn82 25,510]

To further your point in your second to last statement Reb, it was convenient because the church typically scared them into thinking they were the only way to get you into heaven.  You were a Christian, because that was the only way to get eternal life.  If you did not believe in them and precisely what they fed to you, you would spend an eternity in hell.  The natives on the other hand would have and tried to kill early Americans any chance they get, when they realized we were trying to take what was theirs.  The Mexicans feared the Europeans were Gods that was foreseen for hundreds of years to come and take back what was theirs.  If they weren't so superstitious, it might have ended slightly different, but not much.  Too much firepower. 

[mdn82 25,510]

Seriously, some good stuff on this thread.  See, and my mom thought my interest in History from coming home piss drunk only to watch the History Chanel would get me nowhere.  Who is laughing now mom? 

[Hovadipo 56,499]

[quote name="HoosierReb01" post="35802" timestamp="1391787972"]Not necessarily just Europeans. Anytime a more advanced, or more populous, civilization advances on another, the effects are usually detrimental to the less advanced/populous civilization. Study any area of world history it is the same. I think this is another Eurocentric viewpoint, although reversed. That so much is focused on European explorers misdeeds and atrocities, that we forget that this is found across cultures and centuries. Among the pre-Columbian Amerinds, the same misdeeds and atrocities were practiced against other tribes and cultures. I can easily accept that based on their supposed acceptance of Christianity, with its emphasis on mercy and brotherly love, that the early explorers should have been inclined to peaceful trade and alliance with the native tribes. It is a easy enough expectation, practice what you preach, right? However, I suspect most of them were Christian only as far as it was convenient, and for the most part as a matter of political and social acceptance or advancement. Again, I am not defending what happened, its just against the broad panorama of history, this is typical human behavior. I admit, I only feel the need to point this out, because it seems that when I see news articles or popular history about this topic, there almost seems to be such a focus on vilifying the early explorers that the natives are almost perceived as pacifists and the originators of world peace. Lol, that may just be my perception, but I find it irritating. There is a real need for historical revisionism, but the pendulum seems to swing to far the other way[/quote] I totally understand what you're saying. Even when Europeans came here and ran into the natives, it's not like they were incompetent without a way to defend themselves. Just from reading certain accounts, some of the things that natives did to people are, relative to today's standards, completely messed up. Same with Asian history. When Genghis Khan went on his conquests, the Mongols performed some atrocities that are really just hard to comprehend. I really can't think of any major cultures that weren't total savages at some point in their history. (Rastafarians? Haha) I see what you're saying that we mostly just focus on the European side of things like this, but I think it is because that's who we (for the most part) identify with, but it's definitely a universal thing.

[Dalton26 16,892]

[quote name="HoosierReb01" post="35803" timestamp="1391788045"]Its probably not to every-bodies cup of tea, but its a great conversation for those of us that are interested.[/quote]

Like I said earlier I love history but I'm not knowledgable enough in Euro history to add much to the discussion. I know quite a bit about American history and I could probably jump in there but with euro I've got a bit of learning to do.

It does amaze me how distorted some things taught in history classes are. I've heard people say "it's history, it's done and over". I've always believed if you forget your history you can't better your future or are doomed to repeat it.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app