Historical Revisionism

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thanks!

I noticed his hair colour too, but put it down to an effect of the mummification or post-mortem aging process. I have no evidence of that, though. Time to do a bit of research ...

BTW, count me in the Red-Headed League, although these days, I wouldn't pass the entrance exam.

bPer

I'm still pretty sure Rameses had naturally red (or at least reddish hair).

And are you a redhead lover or a genetic anomoly with (or at least formally red hair)? Reminds me of the time I went to the Texas State Fair. My friend Jami has ass length red hair and as we were checking out a booth there, this guy's wife stopped us, and got hubby. He told Jami how much her locks reminded him of the ones he once had then removed his chapeau to reveal a completely bald pate.

And AS, kiss my @$$. I meant roll as in cinnomon or Kaiser, not what an actor plays. Please read for context next time.

 

[bPer]

And are you a redhead lover or a genetic anomoly with (or at least formally red hair)?

Well, I don't consider those choices to be mutually exclusive, but regardless, my answers would be 'yes' and 'no' respectively.

My family has many examples of red hair, but we also exhibit a common tendency to grey very early. In my case, I distinctly remember the day my father gleefully found my first grey hair, at age 21.

As for being a redhead lover, I'd say that there's a special place in my heart for redheads, but it didn't prevent me from falling in love and marrying a brunette (who is now just as grey as me).

Reminds me of the time I went to the Texas State Fair. My friend Jami has ass length red hair ...

Thanks, man, for the wonderful mental image. Made my day.

bPer

 

[Luciana]

This is an interesting topic and it's difficult to limit myself to just a few words on it.

Beautiful People Myth
I had never heard the term beautiful people myth, but I think it describes very well some popular notions of history. Something like, the native populations were living in a nature oriented, peaceful shangi-la until my terrible ancestors came along and stole their land. Even though it's not the intent of the people pushing this notion, there's a kind of racism inherent in this view because it assumes that the native populations are substantially different in nature than the invading populations.

I never participated in this thread, but I was enjoying it immensely. Finally, I have something to add.

I was reading just yesterday that, as we speak, Indian tribes living in the heart of the Amazon Forest are fighting against each other over territory. War, a bloody one, decimating their already diminutive population. I didn't read the details, but I could find the links if necessary.

So... if the "beautiful people myth" doesn't hold true in the 20th century - and we can safely say that those tribes have very little contact with the "white" men, mostly they're only given medicines once in a while - why would it be true in the 16th century?

Holocaust Deniers
Yes, this is a weird movement, but I have concerns that legitimate questions about the nature of the holocaust get blasted away because of a possible association with the holocaust deniers. One of the things that I have noticed over the years is tht there is almost no discussion of the non-Jews that were killed in the holocaust. As I understand it roughly half the people murdered in concentrations camps were not Jews. Why has history chosen to emphasize the Jewish victims so strongly over the other victims?

The Holocaust gets all the spotlights, it's so unfair! Let me add that just about any other war, in any other culture, will go through this same revisionism. I have been reading about the Paraguay War, the most important South American war of all times. At that time, in the 1860s, it was reported by the Brazilian press, that was mostly opposed to the war, that 2/3 of the Paraguayan population had perished, and that the male population of that country had all but gone.

Nowadays we hear that no information was available as to the population of Paraguay prior to the war, because there was never a census. Also, the numbers of the aftermatch were inaccurate because many Paraguayans moved to neighboring countries and returned after the war. Not to mention that those numbers had their own agenda behind it, and were actively used as a political tool for the following 30 years.

While all those arguments make sense, I too suspect that the most recent speculations - "just" 1/4 of the Paraguayan population died during the war - might be a case of historical revisionism. As a historian once said, "Paraguay is a Brazilian remorse", and, basically, people don't like this weighing in their own consciences.

It's one of the biggest difficulties, and yet a main source of fascination - the fact that you can't establish any historical "truth" withouth going deep into the matter and applying your critical skills always, to the risk of parroting misguided or intentional misconceptions.

Btw, USA, your avatar is rather intriguing. Suits you better.

 

[Mercutio]

I was reading just yesterday that, as we speak, Indian tribes living in the heart of the Amazon Forest are fighting against each other over territory. War, a bloody one, decimating their already diminutive population. I didn't read the details, but I could find the links if necessary.

So... if the "beautiful people myth" doesn't hold true in the 20th century - and we can safely say that those tribes have very little contact with the "white" men, mostly they're only given medicines once in a while - why would it be true in the 16th century?

Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but in your reading, did the authors claim that this was culture as usual? Or are they fighting over a shrinking area (like the "living in the desert" comment above)?

I know of the anthropological studies of the Yanomamo (sp) "the fierce people"; is this them? Or are formerly peaceable peoples (if such exist--again, please forgive my ignorance on this) being pushed into conflict by vanishing territory?

 

[davefoc]

Luciana,
Thanks for the interesting post.

After I saw your post, I read a little summary of the Triple Alliance War. The three allies being Brazil, Argentina and Urugway. They apparently waged a brutal war against Paraquay for five years that killed a large percentage of the Paraquayan male population. One of the results of the war was to leave Paraquay with a democratic government.

I understand why this would be the most important war in the history of Paraquay but why do you think it was the most important war in the history of South America?

On the subject of the Beutiful People Myth:
My feelings about this were strongly influenced by a book I read a long time ago. It was written by an anthropologist who lived with a primitive tribe. I was struck by how the tribe celebrated the killing of a member of another tribe by somebody in their tribe. It seemed that the tribe lived in a constant state of low intensity war. This seems like something that is common to many primitive tribes. Without being very knowledgeable about this, I think the answer to Mercutio's question as to whether a peaceful people exist is no.

 

[a_unique_person]

Michael Shermer is quite hot on the subject - particularly Holocaust deniers, but also Afrocentrists. I think "Why People Believe Weird Things" has a pretty good coverage.

From there I picked up Mary Lefkowitz' "Not Out Of Africa" which is also a great handling of the topic.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/12/1055220667712.html

Fossils find writes new chapter in our narrative
June 12 2003
By Stephen Cauchi Science Reporter


Skulls of the oldest modern humans have been uncovered in Herto, Ethiopia, showing that people looking remarkably like us were roaming the African plains 160,000 years ago.

The fossilised skulls of two adults and one child aged six or seven, all bearing signs of a grisly mortuary ritual, are the oldest to bear the label Homo sapiens. The previous oldest remains, discovered in Ethiopia and Israel, are about 30,000 years younger.

The modern-looking skulls, say some academics, offer further evidence that all Homo sapiens originated in Africa before spreading to the rest of the world and displacing older and more primitive human species like Neanderthal man and, possibly, Homo erectus.

....

"Homo sapiens sapiens is a very slippery concept," said Colin Groves, of the Australian National University's anthropology department. "The new specimen is exactly what we predicted for Homo sapiens before it starts to branch out and diversify, before it started to develop racial features."

Professor Groves said the skulls were further evidence that Homo sapiens evolved only in Africa before leaving the continent roughly 100,000 years ago - the Out of Africa theory.

The opposing school of thought, the multi-region theory, holds that Homo sapiens evolved simultaneously in Africa, Europe and Asia.

I thought the 'Out of Africa' theory was pretty well recognised. Are there two OOA theories, one about the actual human race and another about the development of modern culture?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I never participated in this thread, but I was enjoying it immensely. Finally, I have something to add.

The Holocaust gets all the spotlights, it's so unfair!

Btw, USA, your avatar is rather intriguing. Suits you better.

Thank you for your contribution Luciana.

The reason the Shoah gets all the attention is two-fold, first was the organized and systematic nature of Nazi extermination machine. The other is the influence of Jews in Holloywood and the media. I'm not saying - like the Holocaust deniers, and other anti-Jewish activists that the Jews "own Hollywood" etc. I am saying their influential and that's not a bad thing. Witness movies like Exodus, Raid on Entebbee, the recent Warsaw Ghetto TV movie and the mini-series Holocaust.

And therein lies the problem, again, two fold. First, the other genocides that have occured in the 20th Century are woefully underrepresented in well known western film making. The only one I can think of is Cambodia, and of the two films that address it, one is about the making of the other. (The Killing Fields and Swimming to Cambodia).

Second the clarion call to the ages from those want something positive to come from the horrors of the Shoah is "Never again." Unfortunately "never" has happened many times since 1945.

Never happened in Cambodia.
Never happened in Bosnia.
Never happened in Rwanda.
Never is happening in Congo.

What happened to "never again?"

 

[Tony]

bump

 

[Giz]

I think he also has the theory that while they older races didn't start off being respectful of nature, they came to when they realised they would die out if they didn't.

One thing in their favour, despite the undoubted hardships of their lives, is that their cultures have survived for such a long time, about 20,000 years in the case of the Australian aboriginals. Something must have been working right.

.

I think that a major and often overlooked reason that iniginous societies had relatively little impact on their environment is that they simply had far lower populations. "living in harmony with nature" wasn't necessary, there just weren't enough of them surviving to create a big environmental impact.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

bump

Thanks for the bump man.

 

[joobie]

rigt now, there are protesters outside the franklin institute in philadelphia.

it seems that there is no mention of king tut being black in the exhibit.

 

[CapelDodger]

And therein lies the problem, again, two fold. First, the other genocides that have occured in the 20th Century are woefully underrepresented in well known western film making. The only one I can think of is Cambodia, and of the two films that address it, one is about the making of the other. (The Killing Fields and Swimming to Cambodia).

I think The Year of Living Dangerously set in the Indonesian genocide qualifies. And there's a recent film set in the Rwandan genocide. I'm coming up empty otherwise, though.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think The Year of Living Dangerously set in the Indonesian genocide qualifies. And there's a recent film set in the Rwandan genocide. I'm coming up empty otherwise, though.

I forgot The Year of Living Dangerously and indeed your are correct about Hotel Rwanda but it was released after I made that post.

 

[CapelDodger]

Luciana,
I understand why this would be the most important war in the history of Paraquay but why do you think it was the most important war in the history of South America?

I concur with Luciana's opinion, and will interject with my take on it.

(I know, I swore off Politics, but the occasional innocent thread can't hurt. I have it under control.)

The War of the Triple Alliance saw the coming-of-age of the allies as nations. To maintain the war they had to create modern, effective administrations to collect and expend taxes - something which had been lacking previously. This was only a generation or two after the Wars of Independence, after all. These were initially nations in name only; the reality on the ground was essentially feudal. That changed significantly during the war. (It's never gone away completely, of course, but neither has it in Europe .)

The war also trained a sophisticated diplomatic corps, which gained them entree to the international scene as credible players.

At the same time, the War promoted national-awareness - patriotism, "us" - by that classic method, conflict with a "them". It helped that the Paraguay of the day would appear thoroughly alien to anybody normal.



So the war was, essentially, the making of modern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

 

[CapelDodger]

I forgot The Year of Living Dangerously and indeed your are correct about Hotel Rwanda but it was released after I made that post.

That explains the "bump" . (I've only just been referred here, having kicked Politics cold-turkey a while back.)

There are a few films set in Bosnia, or "Former Yugoslavia", but none from Hollywood that aren't action movies, I'm pretty sure. It could happen, though. Unlike Rwanda or Cambodia or Darfur, the Balkan atrocities occurred in a non-exotic, recognisable, modern setting. From mundane to nightmare, just like that.

 

[NeoRicen]

And therein lies the problem, again, two fold. First, the other genocides that have occured in the 20th Century are woefully underrepresented in well known western film making.

I don't think people go to the movies to witness genocide...

 

[CapelDodger]

One of the best books I have ever read on how revised even what we would consider 'Standard' history, is called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". I am at work and thus don't have it handy so I can recall the name of the author, though.

More insidious than lies, IMO, are the things you're not told, the subjects your attention is not drawn to. For instance, the history curriculum I encountered in the UK jumped from Elizabeth I and the Armada to to Clive of India, skipped across Trafalgar and Waterloo, and landed firmly in the Reform Acts. Nothing about the Civil Wars, Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution - the foundations of not only modern Britain, but of the US.

Fortunately for me I had an excellent, not to say inspirational, history teacher who could cover all that in half the time allotted, and then engaged in conversation with the few of us that were actually interested. The cue was "I'm not paid to teach you this, you know, but anyway ..." after which the proles could read comics or catch up on homework, stare blankly at the wall, write poetry, whatever. As long as they were quiet. Woe betide the oik that interrupted with "My Dad says [something crass and ignorant]" with nothing to back it up. Not because Mr White would crap on them from his perch of authority, but because we would.

The most effective and important education I ever got.

 

[Mycroft]

I think that a major and often overlooked reason that iniginous societies had relatively little impact on their environment is that they simply had far lower populations. "living in harmony with nature" wasn't necessary, there just weren't enough of them surviving to create a big environmental impact.

I think "living in harmony with nature" by definition means that nature kills off enough of your population that you can't get to the kind of numbers required to have an impact.

Which is true of all forms of life, if you think about it. Animals have a lot more babies than what survives to adulthood to procreate themselves.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The American Civil War: It wasn't about slavery.

That was always a Shanek classic.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't think people go to the movies to witness genocide...

There's a difference between going to movies to witness genocide and watching movies about genocide. People even watch clinical documentaries about genocide. What matters is whether the movie, mini-series, show, stage presentation, documentary or music video elicits the desire in people to do something about it, not how it makes them feel.

The American Civil War: It wasn't about slavery.

That was always a Shanek classic.

Was? You speak as if he's gone forever or that his posts/threads can't be resurrected. He'll be back to avoid the question and obvious answer - what state's right were Southern states so worried about protecting... oh, yeah, that's right slavery.