Conquer Club

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

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.

ok then. very well, you just said history in the thread title.

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?

"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.

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.

Not so. Northern India being a prime example.

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.

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

Everyone loves this topic, Doing a small 40 pager on it this year.

My biggest study is on Ancient Egypt and the Early Cultures of Mesopotamia and Africa.

That red shit creeps my eyes out.


Honibaz

this trhead is sweet. history is awesome. somoene tell me a random history fact that you think is cool

A random fact? Well, The City of Troy was thought to be no more then legend until Heinrich Schliemann discovered it in Turkey during the 19th century, and I had to explain that to EvilPurpleMonkey when I first joined.

NOWAY, troy was real. damn, i really need to hit those books. so wat is legend and wat is fact? like achiles..hector..watnot?

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.)

That's what I meant. And one reason why I rarely go to wikipedia. He used it and it said that Troy was only legendary. Believe it or not, that thread started out as a Christian vs Atheist thread basically.

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.)

Yeah

Weird historical fact: there was traces of tobacco(only grown in South America) in a mummy in Egypt

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

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 luck I'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'?

I do mean history in a historiographical sense and I agree it is a bit of a drag lol but unfortunately that was a compulsory module. The early jewish magic module essentially means the study of ancient rituals in Greece, Persia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia and many other civilisations. These ancient rituals include things like supposed magic in medicine, incantantions and bible stories and is shaping out to be quite an interesting course to study. I'm currently preparing a presentation on The Survival of Magic Arts: The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity .

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.

We have some Muslims in Croatia, but they are not leftovers from Ottoman conquests. Muslims came to Croatia mostly during 20th century, especially from Bosnia and Herzegovina as refugees and Croatia took them. Islam is one of the recognized religions in Croatia, but beside a couple (2 or 3) of Mosques and one High School in Croatia we really don't have that much Islamic population in Croatia (they are less than 1% of total population).

In Serbia Muslims population is mostly concentrated in Kosovo and Muslims there are really Albanians of Muslim faith (there are Orthodox and even some Catholic Albanians, but their percent is small). In Kosovo region which would like to become independent there is 90% of Kosovans (Albanians) and just 10% Serbs so their claim is based on natural law, and Serbs claim their historical law, because thats "old Serbia".

But in Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania - Muslims live there for 500 years. They are mostly ingenious population that accepted Islam during the centuries as their own religion.

As for your question: Jordan, Oman, United Arab Emirates... Just to name three.

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).

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

No-one knows really. Everyone other than Europeans cannot be 100% proven, but it looks like the Vikings have a fairly good case, atr least of reaching the northern islands. Haven't read anything about the Chinese, though. Most claims seem to come from a few words in a long-forgotten document. You can get a lot of money out of a new-world discovery book, it seems.

Guiscard wrote: You cannot judge Islam as a whole in the way you are trying to (and have done in the past).

QFT! That will be like judging the Christianity on just one example (like inquisition)...

ignotus wrote:As for your question: Jordan, Oman, United Arab Emirates... Just to name three.

These are all perfect examples.

So, if not Middle Eastern culture as a whole, what else?

Are we forced to consider the specific social, economic and cultural factors of the countries which DO exhibit these tendencies?

Either way, the original accusation against Islam as a whole has been proven well and truly wrong.

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).

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?

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?

OK. Care to stay out of the thread from now on, then?

Ancient, medieval, American Civil War. Still maintain interest in all three after majoring in history at Tulane probably before you were born. Graduated at top of class in '74 only to enter real world to make money and support the family. No regrets but interest is still there