After this school year I'm going out to get my degree in Archeology

Moderator: Community Team
Guiscard wrote:Fircoal wrote:uh, guiscard I didn't mean it as spam. I'm serious. I'm not one that likes to look at history like empires and such, but I like history of MAfia, CC and video game series I've played. While you may not think of them as the history that you mean. I still find them more interesting. I just wanted to know if they counted.
No offence, but no. I'm meaning history in the sense of the academic subject.
Skoffin wrote: So um.. er... I'll be honest, I don't know what the f*ck to do from here. Goddamnit chu.
OnlyAmbrose wrote:Alright, I posted it in the majors thread and I'll post it here too...
I REALLY want to be a history major, but I've never been convinced of how it would be useful in life. Sure, I could be a history teacher, but I've always felt that a book could do the same job as a history teacher. So... why should I be a history teacher and what is the use of history except having some cool stories to tell?
b.k. barunt wrote:"History repeats itself" is not just a clever cliche. If we are able to learn from the mistakes of others in our past, then hopefully we won't repeat the same mistakes. If you study the history of the Islamic culture, you will see that any government forcefully installed by infidels will not be accepted, and you will have continual rebellion against it. Evidently Bush flunked history. Imagine that.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
AndrewLC wrote:My area of study is Ancient Greece and Rome. From the Early Republic to the Fall of the Western Empire.
After this school year I'm going out to get my degree in Archeology
edwinissweet wrote:NOWAY, troy was real. damn, i really need to hit those books. so wat is legend and wat is fact? like achiles..hector..watnot?
Titanic wrote:edwinissweet wrote:NOWAY, troy was real. damn, i really need to hit those books. so wat is legend and wat is fact? like achiles..hector..watnot?
Well a lot of legend is based on fact, just exaggerated in parts by the victors or the person in question.
Weird historical fact - It is thought that some African tribesman crossed the Atlantic in a canoe (or a similar type of vessel) and reached the Americas before Columbus (obviously still not the first people, the Vikings and Erik the Red were the original discoverers.)
Titanic wrote:edwinissweet wrote:NOWAY, troy was real. damn, i really need to hit those books. so wat is legend and wat is fact? like achiles..hector..watnot?
Well a lot of legend is based on fact, just exaggerated in parts by the victors or the person in question.
Weird historical fact - It is thought that some African tribesman crossed the Atlantic in a canoe (or a similar type of vessel) and reached the Americas before Columbus (obviously still not the first people, the Vikings and Erik the Red were the original discoverers.)
Guiscard wrote:nagerous wrote:Hi Guiscard I'm currently studying History at undergraduate level in Southampton focusing on history and historians, first world war and early jewish magic.
Do you mean history and historians in a historiographical sense? If so, good luckI've always found historiography a bit of a pointless warren, especially when you start getting into post-modernism and the like.
As for early Jewish magic, that sounds really interesting. Not something I've ever really come across! What do you mean by 'early'?
b.k. barunt wrote:I could be wrong, but i don't think the Muslims in India would be a good example of what i was talking about any more than the Muslims in Serbia or Croatia, in that they are not indiginous to that region, but are a leftover from Islamic conquests. Could you name any government established by infidels in the Middle East that was not violently opposed until finally overthrown? Didn't think so.
b.k. barunt wrote:I could be wrong, but i don't think the Muslims in India would be a good example of what i was talking about any more than the Muslims in Serbia or Croatia, in that they are not indiginous to that region, but are a leftover from Islamic conquests. Could you name any government established by infidels in the Middle East that was not violently opposed until finally overthrown? Didn't think so.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
edwinissweet wrote:Titanic wrote:edwinissweet wrote:NOWAY, troy was real. damn, i really need to hit those books. so wat is legend and wat is fact? like achiles..hector..watnot?
Well a lot of legend is based on fact, just exaggerated in parts by the victors or the person in question.
Weird historical fact - It is thought that some African tribesman crossed the Atlantic in a canoe (or a similar type of vessel) and reached the Americas before Columbus (obviously still not the first people, the Vikings and Erik the Red were the original discoverers.)
i thought th e chinese were the actual discoveres
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
ignotus wrote:As for your question: Jordan, Oman, United Arab Emirates... Just to name three.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Guiscard wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:I could be wrong, but i don't think the Muslims in India would be a good example of what i was talking about any more than the Muslims in Serbia or Croatia, in that they are not indiginous to that region, but are a leftover from Islamic conquests. Could you name any government established by infidels in the Middle East that was not violently opposed until finally overthrown? Didn't think so.
Ah so now you're changing your theory. You've gone through this one before and the example I've given is a perfect one to disprove it. The Muslims in India where (and are) more than just leftovers of conquests. Currently 16.4% of the population WITHOUT those in Pakistan, so in colonial India the figure was pushing much more towards the 50% mark. In Northern India they were by far the majority. The Muslim freedom movement in India wasn't a violent uprising against the Infidels, it was a political movement which developed alongside the secular and Hindu movements. Indeed, it could be argued that the Hindus were the more violent of the too. There was, of course, widespread violence but that was between Hindus and Muslims, the bubbling over of tensions which have always existed in Hindu society. One of my colleagues, Dr Will Gould, studies violence and rebellion in India (and is currently on a years research leave), and from numerous conversations it seems that my impression of violence in the Muslim community is actually too extreme itself. They worked with the Raj, enjoyed the benefits and the suffered because of it, but there was no mass violent religious uprising, and no call for one either.
In which case, you cannot prescribe the values you wish to Muslims as a religion... or are Indian Muslims not Muslim enough? If it happens in some areas and not others, we are forced to look to other factors. Ones which make those places where it does happen peculiar. If we're using reasonable historical method, and we are in this thread (please, else stop posting) then we have to look for reasons for religious violence in the Middle East other than it being ingrained in their religion. Perhaps it is ingrained in Middle Eastern culture, but then thats not Islam as a whole is it. You cannot judge Islam as a whole in the way you are trying to (and have done in the past).
b.k. barunt wrote:Actually this all started when i simply used Islam as an example of how history repeats itself. As usual this hits a sensitive nerve with guiscard, and elicits incredibly long winded posts. As usual, the fact that Islam is a violent and oppressive religion is countered by either guiscard or one of his lackeys with "oh yeah, so is Chistianity (actually Catholicism). Wtf? Catholicism and Islam are both violent and oppressive religions - so what else is new?
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users