Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   The 100 most influential people in history and their religions   (adherents.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

38768 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2006 at 2:31 AM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



427 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-05-23 05:11:18 AM  
sorry. been at sea to long. need some down time, and a bottle of whiskey. a woman would be nice too.
 
2006-05-23 05:13:57 AM  
Dadoo: Now who's being revisionist? NAs learned scalping from us.

you are.

According to historian James Axtell, there is no evidence that the early European explorers and settlers in the Americas were familiar with this practice of the Scythians, or that they ever taught scalping to Native Americans. There is clear evidence, says Axtell, that the practice of scalping existed long before Europeans arrived, primarily in North America. The theory that Native Americans learned the practice of scalping from Europeans first appeared in the 1690s and is still professed by some writers and activists, but this belief is not supported by most academic scholars.

but if you're going to criticize someone for being revisionist, at least get your own facts straight.


pot, meet kettle. kettle, meet pot.

pawn: By tacking on "who attacked us" you make it look like the native tribes were the agressors, when in fact that is quite the opposite.

... The Amalek attacked our old and our young that were trailing behind when we got out of Egypt. They attacked us.

The Native Americans were attacked by the Settlers and they lost. We were attacked by the Amaleks and they lost.
 
2006-05-23 05:14:13 AM  
pawn, i like how you seem to keep them going.
/wonders if your the ref, or the instagator.
//loves your style.
 
2006-05-23 05:14:19 AM  
Tatsuma: it's not hearsay, but where am I supposed to try and explain it to him?

You point him to a website that states what you just asserted: namely that native americans did naught but butcher the Euros.
 
2006-05-23 05:14:50 AM  
Muhammad is number one? WTF?
 
2006-05-23 05:18:04 AM  

And no Dale Earnh-

Oh, wait- this is a list for people with brains.

/Never mind.

 
2006-05-23 05:18:05 AM  
pawn: You point him to a website that states what you just asserted: namely that native americans did naught but butcher the Euros.

did you read the rest of my post?

He isn't interested in this discussion, he's interested on ripping on me and the jews.

A few threads ago, we were having a discussion about the money sent to Israel. I linked him to a CONGRESS file where they explained how the money was spent, which fully contradicted him.

The next day, he started the same debate all over again. There's no point. I avoid generally debating with him since he won't budge under any occasion. At least, when I'm presented valid proofs otherwise, I'll switch positions.
 
2006-05-23 05:19:52 AM  
Kazuya

Except for the moons of Jupiter and founding modern science, why shouldn't Galileo be on the list? Granted I'd put Avicenna on the list, but I wouldn't begrudge Galileo.
 
2006-05-23 05:25:25 AM  
I believe he just used the list from another source, and did the research on their religions ...

That being said, I find it interesting that the only person listed as believing in Islam, in a list of 100 very influential people in the way of the world.. is the founder of it.
 
2006-05-23 05:30:14 AM  
ekdikeo4

Well, al-Khwarizmi, inventor of alegebra, Avicenna, general megagenius, emperor Saladin, and a fwe others get very short shrift in the west. Most people never encounter the names in hisotry classes. Each one merits a place on the top 100 list. But when you're knowledge of non-European history is limited to what's in Trivial Persuit? You miss people.
 
2006-05-23 05:30:49 AM  
well, since I've been asked to put off proofs of what I'm advancing, even if it won't matter, here, I'll put up:

Ok, well let's start off with the obvious. Mohawk is the algonquin term for "eaters of men" since Mohawks practiced cannibalism. An alternative theory is that the name is the combination of the Narraganset word for "man-eaters" (Mohowawog) and the Unami term Mhuweyek ("cannibal-monsters"). They had ritualized cannibalism and torture, where they often ate the hearts of their victims. The Aztecs did the same thing too. They kidnapped the children and women of their enemies to make them theirs to marry. They killed every single men of fighting age and absorbed the women in their tribes, effectively destroying the other tribe completly

So, to start off we have a cannibal tribe who ritually tortures people and eat their hearts, kidnap children and committed the genocide of a few enemy tribes.

And they were not exactly the worst ones around either.
 
zz9
2006-05-23 05:31:40 AM  
So Hitler and Stalin make the list but Winston Churchill doesn't?
 
2006-05-23 05:32:30 AM  
Tatsuma: ...James Axtell...

I'd suggest you find another source. His "findings" are hardly undisputed.
 
2006-05-23 05:33:10 AM  
ekdikeo4: That being said, I find it interesting that the only person listed as believing in Islam, in a list of 100 very influential people in the way of the world.. is the founder of it.

well there certainly is a focus on modern science and, unfortunately, dictatorships in the middle east made it very hard to develop a foistering intellectual scene these last centuries
 
2006-05-23 05:35:15 AM  
Tatsuma: So, to start off we have a cannibal tribe who ritually tortures people and eat their hearts, kidnap children and committed the genocide of a few enemy tribes.

And they were not exactly the worst ones around either.


It is strange to me that you, of all people, appear to be trying to justify genocide.
 
2006-05-23 05:35:58 AM  
Ishkur: From about 700 to 1100, Islam was the wealthiest and most civilized nation on the planet. A society that cherished freedom, compassion, religious tolerance, and was at the forefront of technological and scientific achievement. While Europe was still struggling with the infantile task of literacy, the muslims raced forward with radical new concepts and ideas in mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and nearly all areas of technological and civil progress. So many ideas and words that we commonly use today have their origins in Islam.

So, what's happened in the 900 years since then?
 
2006-05-23 05:36:26 AM  
Dadoo: I'd suggest you find another source. His "findings" are hardly undisputed.

Christ, Jacques farking Cartier in 1535 said that one of the first thing he was presented when he set a foot in North Americe were five scalps stretched like parchment

So, are you one of the activists he was talking about?

Are you telling me people before Jacques Cartier explained to them how to scalp people?
 
2006-05-23 05:36:53 AM  
Except for the moons of Jupiter and founding modern science, why shouldn't Galileo be on the list? Granted I'd put Avicenna on the list, but I wouldn't begrudge Galileo.

I think he probably should be on the list but he'd be down as catholic which would be ridiculous becuase he got tortured by the pope and forced to recant.
/list is a load of sac
 
2006-05-23 05:38:15 AM  
WhyteRaven:

I oddly enough, am aware of that a lot of great things have in fact come from the middle east.. just that you do have to draw lines when you're making a top 100 .. and no one's going to like where those lines are, i guess.. of course, that's obvious from reading the posts here :)
 
2006-05-23 05:38:38 AM  
MinkeyMan: It is strange to me that you, of all people, appear to be trying to justify genocide.

How is that justifying genocide?

I said that getting killed with a bullet in the head was more proper than mauled to deah by wild dogs while someone sets your face on fire.

You're still dead in the end.

Justifying genocide??
 
2006-05-23 05:39:14 AM  
tarith: You failed to cite a single resource in your claims about Muslims between 700 and 1100, and your simplistic explanation about the fall of islam as a parallel of the fall of Rome is simplistic and ridiculous.

Well, they are all 10 year old history notes, compiled by me from two of my professor's lectures. I must admit I haven't taken a history class since then, so I may have missed something. Has the history of Islam changed significantly since I've been in school?

Here're some cites:

Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300-1475. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992

Ernle Bradford, The Sword and the Scimitar: The Saga of the Crusades. Milan: GP Putnam's sons, 1974

Video series: Crusades. (BBC TV production in Association with A&E NETWORK, Hosted by Terry Jones, 1995)

If you're going to insult me, on Fark of all places, you're going to have to try harder, because Greece and Rome are not Western Civilizations but Mediterranean Civs (of which I never said anything desparaging about), and quite distinct from their nordic neighbours. The Mediterranean and Levant never really declined, but preserved centuries of culture and learning. The West, for all its heralded origins, really did nothing at the outset except "five centuries of camping out"

Revisionism? Hardly. I'm just stating facts. It's you who can't bear to stand them.
 
2006-05-23 05:39:34 AM  
If Stevie Ray Vaughan isn't on it, it's not a valid list.

...wait a minute...
 
2006-05-23 05:40:23 AM  
It's obvious that this list is going to be very ethno-centrist, it was made by people from the West. I'd wager we'd have a 100% different list if it was from the Chinese. I'm not even sure one of these name would still be on there, actually.
 
2006-05-23 05:42:28 AM  
Ishkur: Greece and Rome

Aristotle thought that infanticide was a good thing (and it was widespread throughout Greece and Rome) and Socrates said there was nothing more beautiful than a man buggering a teenage boy

So it's not like we have that much in common with these societies, unless you're from NAMBLA
 
2006-05-23 05:43:15 AM  
ekdikeo4
So, what's happened in the 900 years since then?

The Ottoman Empire.
 
2006-05-23 05:44:37 AM  
the "five centuries of camping out" quote is from AJP Taylor, btw.

Oh, were you expecting links? Sorry, I don't do Wikipedia. I have a history degree that proves it.
 
2006-05-23 05:53:56 AM  
ekdikeo4: So, what's happened in the 900 years since then?

A hell of a lot of fighting.
 
2006-05-23 05:55:08 AM  
Tatsuma: Justifying genocide??

You stated that if they could have, the NA would have wipe out the settlers to a man. You then went on to list in some detail the atrocities perpitrated by the NA, without a single acknowledgment of the horrors visited apon the natives by the settlers (unless I missed that bit).

I interpret such one-sided views as at least an implied justification of the actions of the settlers... which were, at best, an attempted genocide of the NA.
 
2006-05-23 05:58:16 AM  
Tatsuma: Aristotle thought that infanticide was a good thing (and it was widespread throughout Greece and Rome) and Socrates said there was nothing more beautiful than a man buggering a teenage boy

I know you're trolling, but what the hey. The concept of homosexuality was alien to classical cultures--love was love to them--and didn't exist as a distinct form of sexuality until about 150 years ago....introduced by....you guessed it: The Church.

Affluence and equitable distribution of resources was another thing ancient cultures had to take careful consideration of that we take for granted today. A controlled population is not a starving population.
 
2006-05-23 06:02:48 AM  
The original author may have put the Jesus at #3, but the breakdown by religion is quite Christianity-centered. The Christians are split up by denomination, but the Jews are Jews, the Muslims are Muslims, and the Buddhists are Buddhists. Why not break those guys down? Should Einstein really count as Jewish, with no qualification?

The list author wildly overestimated the technologists. Who gives a fark about Nikolaus August Otto and Guglielmo Marconi? How are those guys above Hitler and Mao?

And where the hell is John von Neumann?
 
2006-05-23 06:04:49 AM  
I doubt anyone is interested, but we *do* have quite a few individuals from Ur whose names are known. Puabi, for one.
 
2006-05-23 06:07:10 AM  
jOoZ Representin'!

As a sign of thanks i will sacrifice a gentile baby!
 
2006-05-23 06:07:58 AM  
Ishkur Ancient Egyptians made a clear distinction between hetero- & homo-sexuality. Homosexuality was considered a sin.
 
2006-05-23 06:09:03 AM  
Newton should be first, since gravity influences everyone.
2.1 billion christians
1.3 billion muslims
Who's more influencial? Oh yeah, that's right, if Mo isn't #1, then whoever put the list together gets a fatwa on their head. So I guess he really IS #1 on this list.
 
2006-05-23 06:09:55 AM  
haven't read the article or the comments, but my first thought is that a good portion are Jewish.

(What's that word?... Not "majority", but the minority that has more than all the other minorities. THat's what I mean by "good portion".)

/Not Jewish, but I my Jewish friends say I look like one
 
2006-05-23 06:12:24 AM  
HobblingContractor [TotalFark]
ekdikeo4
So, what's happened in the 900 years since then?
The Ottoman Empire.


The Ottoman's ruled the entire world for 5 centuries. Even teh U.S.A. acknowledged Ottoman power and payed them taxes.
Your turn..
 
2006-05-23 06:17:57 AM  
Tatsuma: Christ, Jacques farking Cartier in 1535 said that one of the first thing he was presented when he set a foot in North Americe were five scalps stretched like parchment

Fine, but I find it interesting that, whenever I find an account about how the NAs invented scalping, it was written by your James Axtell. Not one other person I can find says that.

By the way, interesting character, that Jacques Cartier. He kidnapped the chief and his sons? No wonder we had trouble with the natives.
 
2006-05-23 06:22:22 AM  
MinkeyMan:

The settlers committed even more atrocities, but I don't think that's disputed, right? So what's the point of trying to bring moral relativism in it?


Benue: Newton should be first, since gravity influences everyone.

gravity would still be there without Newton. Christianity and Islam wouldn't be there without Abraham

Ishkur: I know you're trolling, but what the hey. The concept of homosexuality was alien to classical cultures--love was love to them--and didn't exist as a distinct form of sexuality until about 150 years ago....introduced by....you guessed it: The Church.

Affluence and equitable distribution of resources was another thing ancient cultures had to take careful consideration of that we take for granted today. A controlled population is not a starving population.


how is that trolling? I knew all that, but buggering boys and killing infants is still wrong in my eyes
 
2006-05-23 06:25:27 AM  
Still looking... Haven't seen Jerry Garcia yet.

Therefore, the list is bad.
 
2006-05-23 06:28:02 AM  
Tatsuma

Um, duh. It just occurred to me: you're talking about scalping like it's the most horrible thing imaginable. Compared to what Europeans were doing to each other, at the time, scalping was almost humane.

C'mon - let's get a little perspective, here.

Besides, imagine if the Chinese decided to invade the US. You don't think we'd react the same way as the NAs did, back then?
 
2006-05-23 06:32:17 AM  
DamnYankees

Washington's not just there because of his military prowess (which does rank with those others, by the way), but because of his handling of civilian government. Find me any other brilliant general who was also so damn good at governing and political philosophy, and you may have an argument.

Washington's contribution to U.S. government was as a humble and respected leader, not a philosopher. He made no direct contribution to the ideas in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers. (He did keep the nation on course when a lesser man might have betrayed those ideas. As a general, he deferred to civilian authority, and as first president, he refrained from adopting the pomp, majesty, and elaborate etiquette of European monarchs.) As a general, I don't really know much about him, but this is the first time I've heard anyone call him more than "solid" or "competent."
 
2006-05-23 06:39:13 AM  
Dadoo: Um, duh. It just occurred to me: you're talking about scalping like it's the most horrible thing imaginable. Compared to what Europeans were doing to each other, at the time, scalping was almost humane.

Tatsuma: The settlers committed even more atrocities, but I don't think that's disputed, right? So what's the point of trying to bring moral relativism in it?
 
2006-05-23 06:52:25 AM  
Tatsuma

how is that trolling? I knew all that, but buggering boys and killing infants is still wrong in my eyes

It wasn't just buggering boys, and not all Pederasty involved a sexual relationship. It involved a complex relationship... an older man would essentially take on a younger boy and act as his mentor. It was an educational institution in Greece as much as it was a sexual one, and it had nothing to do with exploitation. In fact, many prominent Greeks that you failed to mention did nothing but decry the sexual aspect of Pederasty. And it wasn't just the Greeks who adopted that sort of man/boy relationship.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just want to point out that it's not as simple as "buggering boys," and that having sex with boys was not all that uncommon back then--heck, it must have been common enough that most people didn't consider it indecent.

So, our values say it was wrong, theirs didn't. I think that's generally what you've been trying to say throughout this thread, right? That our particular point of view on history is often to in contrast to the values of those we're studying, and thus we try to put a moralistic spin on things that took place in a completely different world.

As for killing infants, some think it's funny, some think it's awful, but like I said (and you yourself have), it simply... happened, wrong doesn't enter into it unless someone tries to bring infanticide back into the mainstream (and I hope you don't consider it the same as abortion, or else what I just said is inaccurate from your point of view).
 
2006-05-23 06:52:56 AM  
Dadoo Well, there's always Amenhotep II's way of dealing with the losers: he had their penises cut off. The Ancient Egyptians usually cut off a loser's hand and presented the pile of hands at a temple. Amenhotep added the penises for more blessings.
 
2006-05-23 06:56:12 AM  
Interesting and slightly biased list.
Just two women?
 
2006-05-23 06:59:12 AM  
coretnor: It wasn't just buggering boys, and not all Pederasty involved a sexual relationship. It involved a complex relationship... an older man would essentially take on a younger boy and act as his mentor. It was an educational institution in Greece as much as it was a sexual one, and it had nothing to do with exploitation.

I know all that, but at the end of the day, with 20th century morals and ethics, bringing candy and a history book to a 7 year old before having sex with him is not seen as "courtesy".

So, our values say it was wrong, theirs didn't. I think that's generally what you've been trying to say throughout this thread, right? That our particular point of view on history is often to in contrast to the values of those we're studying, and thus we try to put a moralistic spin on things that took place in a completely different world.

pretty much, yes

As for killing infants, some think it's funny, some think it's awful, but like I said (and you yourself have), it simply... happened, wrong doesn't enter into it unless someone tries to bring infanticide back into the mainstream (and I hope you don't consider it the same as abortion, or else what I just said is inaccurate from your point of view).

of course I don't consider it the same as abortion! I am pro-choice, but infanticide is too much for me


My point was that we should remove those rose-tinted glasses that people wear when they reflect on their particular history and realize that yes, horrible and gruesome things happen.

I'm saying, the only thing we can do is to move forward with society and not do them again. But to do that, it's very important not to bury or forget these crimes. We must not be like the old egyptians. I'm sure you are fully aware that when they really disliked a pharoah, they'd blot his name out of history books and everywhere in society right after his death. They didn't like him, that's like he never existed

Lots of people do this with current history. I expect the same deal to happen to germany vis-a-vis WW2 in 50 to 100 years
 
2006-05-23 07:12:16 AM  
Where are the "Smarter than thou" atheists and practitioners of the spaghetti monster?
 
2006-05-23 07:17:39 AM  
No Kitty Pryde? WTF?
 
2006-05-23 07:18:38 AM  
Atheism is not a religious affiliation.
 
2006-05-23 07:22:50 AM  
Man... I can't believe they left "Big Trouble in Little China" off that list.

Wait, what is this about?
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report