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.

(Buzzfeed)   Ten historical "facts" we think we know but actually don't   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 116
    More: Interesting, Colonial Williamsburg, Caligula, cohesiveness, Continental Congress, land areas, Quakers, literacy rates, Paul Revere  
•       •       •

18447 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Sep 2012 at 5:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-28 10:34:48 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: QT_3.14159: My own belief, though, is that there was a particularly devastating flood very early in human history, (heck, we may not have even been homo sapiens yet) that is the basis for the flood stories that are told worldwide. Of course devastating flood != worldwide flood, but it could certainly feel that way when they wind up floating for ages and eventually come to a landing in unfamiliar territory.

I remember seeing a program the topic, one of the Bibe meets science things on History or some such. Take it with a grain of salt, but some of the experts presented where professors at various pertigious universities so one hopes its not too far out there. Anyway, the conjected that there was a huge flood of the Fertile Crecent in antiquity that was the basis flood myths. The also toyed with the idea is was caused by a Comet strike.

The English, she is hard.


Yeah I don't edit as well as I should. Thankfully, given the number of responses relevant responses compared to your singular pedantic whine, my meaning was clear enough.
 
2012-09-28 11:15:57 PM  

nmemkha: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: QT_3.14159: My own belief, though, is that there was a particularly devastating flood very early in human history, (heck, we may not have even been homo sapiens yet) that is the basis for the flood stories that are told worldwide. Of course devastating flood != worldwide flood, but it could certainly feel that way when they wind up floating for ages and eventually come to a landing in unfamiliar territory.

I remember seeing a program the topic, one of the Bibe meets science things on History or some such. Take it with a grain of salt, but some of the experts presented where professors at various pertigious universities so one hopes its not too far out there. Anyway, the conjected that there was a huge flood of the Fertile Crecent in antiquity that was the basis flood myths. The also toyed with the idea is was caused by a Comet strike.

The English, she is hard.

Yeah I don't edit as well as I should. Thankfully, given the number of responses relevant responses compared to your singular pedantic whine, my meaning was clear enough.


Well, that's a valid point, and I'll take it. As for "clear enough," that may be debatable. I found it hard to read and figure out what you were saying. Editor's disease, perhaps. (Like, when a civil engineer drives under a bridge, all he sees is a big pile of cracking concrete.) If you can edit, though, it's really worth it, even if it takes more time and effort.
 
2012-09-28 11:24:11 PM  

GranoblasticMan: K.B.O. Winston: I get so tired of reading scripts where the screenwriter has decided authentic old English is just anything that is full of thee and thines.

[i16.photobucket.com image 278x240]

Old English (first three lines of Beowulf):

"Hwæt! we Gar-Dena in gear-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon."

What most people mean when they say "Old English" is "Early MODERN English" (as in, still intelligible to a modern English speaker who isn't a complete f*cking retard)

/ pet peeve


Those words mean exactly what I think they mean. They don't mean what the writers of the scripts I read think they mean, which would be my point.

/pet peeve
 
2012-09-28 11:28:34 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: QT_3.14159: My own belief, though, is that there was a particularly devastating flood very early in human history, (heck, we may not have even been homo sapiens yet) that is the basis for the flood stories that are told worldwide. Of course devastating flood != worldwide flood, but it could certainly feel that way when they wind up floating for ages and eventually come to a landing in unfamiliar territory.

I remember seeing a program the topic, one of the Bibe meets science things on History or some such. Take it with a grain of salt, but some of the experts presented where professors at various pertigious universities so one hopes its not too far out there. Anyway, the conjected that there was a huge flood of the Fertile Crecent in antiquity that was the basis flood myths. The also toyed with the idea is was caused by a Comet strike.

The English, she is hard.

Yeah I don't edit as well as I should. Thankfully, given the number of responses relevant responses compared to your singular pedantic whine, my meaning was clear enough.

Well, that's a valid point, and I'll take it. As for "clear enough," that may be debatable. I found it hard to read and figure out what you were saying. Editor's disease, perhaps. (Like, when a civil engineer drives under a bridge, all he sees is a big pile of cracking concrete.) If you can edit, though, it's really worth it, even if it takes more time and effort.


On boards that allow it, I often edit my posts to fix such mistakes. I am actually a poor proofreader of my own writing. I tend to "see" what I meant and not literally what I wrote until a few minutes later unless I force myself to read it slowly word for word. I also read extremely fast so that might be a part of it: I tend to glean the ideas without processing the semantics.

Sadly, Fark has no edit feature.
 
2012-09-28 11:44:24 PM  
"He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."
 
2012-09-28 11:47:22 PM  

Clash City Farker: If Noah's Ark is really up on Mt Arrarat, then thats about how high it would be in the Andes mountains. Fascinating. How could that much water have coverd the earth and how long ago could that have been?


My point is that I think that if there is any historical accuracy to a "great flood" it likely happened so early in human history that the story moved with the people as they spread out. Since the people in the Americas have been here (theoretically) for around 16,000 years, 8,000 years is a little too recent history for the story to be the origin of the worldwide flood myths.

Of course, ancient people did travel a lot more than we give them credit for and it's possible the story traveled with them, but it still seems to me like it's just not ancient enough.
 
2012-09-29 01:06:12 AM  

nmemkha: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: nmemkha: QT_3.14159: My own belief, though, is that there was a particularly devastating flood very early in human history, (heck, we may not have even been homo sapiens yet) that is the basis for the flood stories that are told worldwide. Of course devastating flood != worldwide flood, but it could certainly feel that way when they wind up floating for ages and eventually come to a landing in unfamiliar territory.

I remember seeing a program the topic, one of the Bibe meets science things on History or some such. Take it with a grain of salt, but some of the experts presented where professors at various pertigious universities so one hopes its not too far out there. Anyway, the conjected that there was a huge flood of the Fertile Crecent in antiquity that was the basis flood myths. The also toyed with the idea is was caused by a Comet strike.

The English, she is hard.

Yeah I don't edit as well as I should. Thankfully, given the number of responses relevant responses compared to your singular pedantic whine, my meaning was clear enough.

Well, that's a valid point, and I'll take it. As for "clear enough," that may be debatable. I found it hard to read and figure out what you were saying. Editor's disease, perhaps. (Like, when a civil engineer drives under a bridge, all he sees is a big pile of cracking concrete.) If you can edit, though, it's really worth it, even if it takes more time and effort.

On boards that allow it, I often edit my posts to fix such mistakes. I am actually a poor proofreader of my own writing. I tend to "see" what I meant and not literally what I wrote until a few minutes later unless I force myself to read it slowly word for word. I also read extremely fast so that might be a part of it: I tend to glean the ideas without processing the semantics.

Sadly, Fark has no edit feature.


Fark has a kind of edit feature, in that you can preview and modify before committing (including, as I sometimes do, just deciding I don't have anything worthwhile to say after all), but like you say, no edit-back. As Hoyle says, "Card laid, card played," and let the metaphors fall where they may. If it's any consolation, though, *everyone* has trouble proofing anything they've written recently. I'm sure it's different for everyone, but for me it's about two weeks, minimum, before something I've written is remote enough that I can read it objectively. (If it's long enough, it seems to me like someone else wrote it. Which is kind of true, I guess.) Editors are better at it, but we also see what we *think* is there, because we remember it, more than what *is* there. When I wrote for a paper, I proofed my own work, but then passed it to another editor, who *always* found mistrakes. And verce visa.
 
2012-09-29 01:08:50 AM  

KarmicDisaster: "He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."


I can't believe that woman hasn't stabbed hersef with a rubber spoon yet. More, though, I can't believe that anyone else on earth takes her seriously.
 
2012-09-29 03:03:08 AM  
If you really want to learn something valuable read the book "1491" - if that doesn't make you hate the Spanish then you have no soul.
 
2012-09-29 04:10:53 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: wyltoknow: WhyteRaven74: Oh sure any group of men could be made to drag a stone, but actually cutting it and smoothing it out so the corners are a nice 90 degrees and consistent stone after stone? That takes a fair amount of skill and knowledge.

Eh, on the other hand, it's not particularly unheard of to have a group of slaves who were treated somewhat better than the rest of the slaves and given extra training and treatment, due to factors like their inherent display of skill/knowledge or maybe who their parents were or, for example in the case of American slaves, if their skin color was perhaps leaning towards favorable to their captors. So you take this smaller group, feed them well and give them education and a better position both literally and figuratively than their peers and voila, they'll pump out specialized craft for you. And then you have the added benefit of the imposed slave hierarchy breeding inter-resentment and strife amongst the servile population and further inhibiting the chance of a full-on cohesive rebellion.

At its height, Ancient Egypt was easily the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, and likely the world's first true superpower. Having mastered agriculture and irrigation to an unprecedented degree, they were likely the first country in the world with essentially unlimited resources of the kind they needed to thrive and grow. That afforded them the largesse to do things like dedicate whole sectors of their economy to building huge beautiful things.


Which is interesting because I recently visited the King Tut exhibit, and while it was all quite fascinating. I found that the attention to preciseness and detail in the various artifacts to be quite lacking.

For instance, the bead work seen on some of the necklaces was far below the standard bead work seen by various Native American tribes. (I say this only because if given the choice most people would place the Egyptian culture far ahead of any of the Native American ones in terms of "advanced civilization" or whatever the measurement is for that sort of thing.)

Likewise, many of the structural items did not have straight sides. Like really noticeably off.

The intricate carvings in pottery were also sloppy in several areas. (And these weren't items to be found in the common person's house, these were artifacts from royalty, where you expect some of the highest quality.)

While all of this is completely believable of a human society (our last apartment didn't have straight stairs itself) it was a bit of a surprise after hearing for decades about how amazing the Egyptian civilization was in terms of production of artifacts and art.

/although I wondered if perhaps the other civilizations around them were just really really bad and so they looked amazing by comparison?
//still a great exhibit, really glad I saw it.
 
2012-09-29 04:15:10 AM  

QT_3.14159: nmemkha: jjwars1: DigitalCoffee: ~6000 years ago it did not rain continuously for 40 days covering the entire earth in 5000+ feet of rainwater.

I'm pretty sure Noah's Ark was not meant to be taken literally.

It makes more sense as a sci-fi sotry anyway with the ark being a UFO.

In any case, it not the only literary reference to such a story: The Epic of Gilgamesh parallels much of the early concepts found in Genesis.

There are quite a few flood stories throughout the world. Anthropologists think that this probably comes from the fact that early agriculture happened in flood plains and floods were a regular part of the yearly cycle. It would be normal for a story to come about with the flood being the work of God sweeping away the evil people. After all, the people who told the story were the ones who survived and must be favored by the gods.

My own belief, though, is that there was a particularly devastating flood very early in human history, (heck, we may not have even been homo sapiens yet) that is the basis for the flood stories that are told worldwide. Of course devastating flood != worldwide flood, but it could certainly feel that way when they wind up floating for ages and eventually come to a landing in unfamiliar territory.


There's a Native American story here (northwest coast) about a flood the reached the tops of the mountains and that they followed a bear to the top to avoid it and tied their canoes to the tops of the old growth douglas fir and cedar trees.

They weren't an agricultural people that I'm aware of.... (but I'm not certain either.)

/was quite fascinating to hear actually.
//got the short version
 
2012-09-29 05:02:02 AM  

MartinD-35: If you really want to learn something valuable read the book "1491" - if that doesn't make you hate the Spanish then you have no soul.


My main takeaway from 1491 is that the Spanish were far less (directly) responsible for the annihilation of Indian culture than contemporary history books generally indicate. Yes, the Conquistadors were still bastards, but the Aztecs had it coming, the Inca were in the process of self-destructing, and the smallpox pandemic that eradicated most indigenous Americans was entirely out of the Europeans' control. It was far more likely accidental exposure from Portuguese fishermen than intentional "plague blankets" nefariousness on the part of Europeans.

The real tragedy is more of an epidemiological and environmental one, and the European conquest of the Americas reads much more like an inevitable consequence, like a vulture picking at carrion.

/and dear god, the swarms of passenger pigeons....
 
2012-09-29 05:12:59 AM  
Robert Wuhl: Assume the position.
Link
 
2012-09-29 06:04:44 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: MartinD-35: If you really want to learn something valuable read the book "1491" - if that doesn't make you hate the Spanish then you have no soul.

My main takeaway from 1491 is that the Spanish were far less (directly) responsible for the annihilation of Indian culture than contemporary history books generally indicate. Yes, the Conquistadors were still bastards, but the Aztecs had it coming, the Inca were in the process of self-destructing, and the smallpox pandemic that eradicated most indigenous Americans was entirely out of the Europeans' control. It was far more likely accidental exposure from Portuguese fishermen than intentional "plague blankets" nefariousness on the part of Europeans.

The real tragedy is more of an epidemiological and environmental one, and the European conquest of the Americas reads much more like an inevitable consequence, like a vulture picking at carrion.

/and dear god, the swarms of passenger pigeons....


While I generally agree with you're overview, what I was actually thinking about at the time I wrote that was DeSoto's herd of pigs. Not only did that event cause an enormous crash of the SE natives, we're still having unbelievable problems all over the SE US with feral pigs. Some get as big as a frigging SUV and they are dangerous and destructive at an amazing level. I also think people should read that book for the real reason that it shows the infra-red revealed archaeological history that is so different from what most people learned in school. I'm currently doing research on what the lost human history might have been 10,000 to 30,000 years ago when the sea levels were so much lower than today. Man has always clustered at the edge of the sea and land. I think the first epidemic of "world island" and African strains of disease came much earlier than the Portuguese fishermen (or the Irish and "Vikings"). The Phonecians almost certainly rowed and sailed across the Atlantic and didn't make it back to the middle east but established a semi-permanent colony (see America's stone henge) about 4,000 years ago. That orchard in the Amazon Basin just blew my mind away.
 
2012-09-29 09:36:52 AM  

cuzsis: QT_3.14159: nmemkha: jjwars1: DigitalCoffee: ~6000 years ago it did not rain continuously for 40 days covering the entire earth in 5000+ feet of rainwater.

I'm pretty sure Noah's Ark was not meant to be taken literally.

It makes more sense as a sci-fi sotry anyway with the ark being a UFO.

In any case, it not the only literary reference to such a story: The Epic of Gilgamesh parallels much of the early concepts found in Genesis.

There are quite a few flood stories throughout the world. Anthropologists think that this probably comes from the fact that early agriculture happened in flood plains and floods were a regular part of the yearly cycle. It would be normal for a story to come about with the flood being the work of God sweeping away the evil people. After all, the people who told the story were the ones who survived and must be favored by the gods.

My own belief, though, is that there was a particularly devastating flood very early in human history, (heck, we may not have even been homo sapiens yet) that is the basis for the flood stories that are told worldwide. Of course devastating flood != worldwide flood, but it could certainly feel that way when they wind up floating for ages and eventually come to a landing in unfamiliar territory.

There's a Native American story here (northwest coast) about a flood the reached the tops of the mountains and that they followed a bear to the top to avoid it and tied their canoes to the tops of the old growth douglas fir and cedar trees.

They weren't an agricultural people that I'm aware of.... (but I'm not certain either.)

/was quite fascinating to hear actually.
//got the short version


My tribe bypassed all that, but they were holed up in some type of underworld at the time. We passed through a hollow log to this world. Maybe we were hiding from the Flood.
 
2012-09-29 12:11:13 PM  

K.B.O. Winston: 3.

3. 3. 3.

I get so tired of reading scripts where the screenwriter has decided authentic old English is just anything that is full of thee and thines.

OLD ENGLISH, MOTHER FARKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

Because if you don't, don't wing it. Just make them speak regular English. It's not like we're a mere step away from thinking we've traveled in time, what with the popcorn and the guy next to us playing Mafia Wars on his phone.

/not that many people would be able to follow old English dialogue
//but 'it sounds way old to me' English is still not an acceptable substitute


Thou speakith true.
 
Displayed 16 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report