China overtakes the US as the worlds biggest economy

[Lt_Anders]

It's not disgusting. Before the internet, only people who seriously studied history knew the facts. Everybody else took for granted what was in history books for elementary and high school or what their (biased) family told them. Mucho bullshit in most cases. Now every individual can dig as deep as he wants and analyze the data presented to him. People can see through obvious bullshit thanks to internet, you can't sell them stupid ideas as before. Life is not as simple and many things that were considered important aren't anymore.

That's what I'm talking about. I KNEW the facts, but they are, now, trying to pass it off in our school system as something...else. More like, instead of history, it's political activism and "blame game" history, so to speak. And, while you might say: "Can't sell stupid" most people who go to school just eat what they are fed(especially younger children) and don't bother looking it up. That's why it's so disgusting. They force it on people who can't "really" think for themselves and then they get older saying X, Y about history totally be ignorant of the nuances, for history can't be summed up in one sentence.

Also, spell check has made me shit at spelling words. Damn it.

[lombardsoup]

The internet is the world's biggest font of bullshit, with the stuff flowing from every orifice.  If you take ANYTHING typed here seriously, you're hopeless.

Its good for porn though.

[Xant]

It's not disgusting. Before the internet, only people who seriously studied history knew the facts. Everybody else took for granted what was in history books for elementary and high school or what their (biased) family told them. Mucho bullshit in most cases. Now every individual can dig as deep as he wants and analyze the data presented to him. People can see through obvious bullshit thanks to internet, you can't sell them stupid ideas as before. Life is not as simple and many things that were considered important aren't anymore.

Not quite.

There's the potential to dig as deep as you want, to learn as much as anyone about almost any given thing, to hear the opinions and facts from both/all sides... but there's still human nature to consider. Most people simply don't want to know, and if they even try looking shit up, they're doing it half-heartedly just to confirm the view they want to have. Confirmation bias is hard to overcome when you don't even know what it is.

People buy into stupid ideas all the time.

[Swaggart]

That's what I'm talking about. I KNEW the facts, but they are, now, trying to pass it off in our school system as something...else. More like, instead of history, it's political activism and "blame game" history, so to speak. And, while you might say: "Can't sell stupid" most people who go to school just eat what they are fed(especially younger children) and don't bother looking it up. That's why it's so disgusting. They force it on people who can't "really" think for themselves and then they get older saying X, Y about history totally be ignorant of the nuances, for history can't be summed up in one sentence.

Also, spell check has made me shit at spelling words. Damn it.

So what is this topic that's being twisted?

[Lt_Anders]

So what is this topic that's being twisted?

In my instance, it was Slavery in the US and American Indians.

[Leshma]

Real reason behind rapid decline of native American population is smallpox and other deadly diseases their immune system couldn't cope with. Being isolated didn't help the case. But they certainly weren't executed one by one as some like to imply. Although there are certain similarities between doings of some historical "monsters" and what happened to natives. That's because it always comes to extermination through isolation, instruments are less important (gas chambers, climate, famine, biological warfare).

What do they teach kids in USA these days?

[Umbra]

Real reason behind rapid decline of native American population is smallpox and other deadly diseases their immune system couldn't cope with. Being isolated didn't help the case. But they certainly weren't executed one by one as some like to imply. Although there are certain similarities between doings of some historical "monsters" and what happened to natives. That's because it always comes to extermination through isolation, instruments are less important (gas chambers, climate, famine, biological warfare).

What do they teach kids in USA these days?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
Hernan Cortes
Francisco Pizarro

The memoirs of the conquistador Bernal Diaze del Castillo is a good read that will probably change your mind about the bolded part. Here is it for free

It was textbook genocide, but since winners write history we dont talk about this

[Kafein]

Eh, Kafein questioned why, not when.

This. To argue that the US waited a bit before entering WWII in order to make Europe a ruin on purpose is incredibly dumb.

Hernan Cortes
Francisco Pizarro

The memoirs of the conquistador Bernal Diaze del Castillo is a good read that will probably change your mind about the bolded part. Here is it for free

While we are discussing books, here is the one you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Jared Diamond extensively discusses the case of Pizarro in that book. And yes, even though a few hundred Spaniards did kill thousands of Natives in "battles", the bulk of the killing in the Americas was made by Eurasian germs that the Natives had zero genetic resistance against. In most places, the Europeans arrived after the local Natives had been largely decimated by imported diseases.

It wasn't textbook genocide as the invader's end plan wasn't to wipe out the Natives. They did do mass killings, but as a result of trying to convert them to the Catholic religion, stealing their riches and stealing the lands which were good for European agriculture. I'd even argue that genocide would have been impossible anywhere, prior to at least 18th century genetic theory.

[lombardsoup]

This. To argue that the US waited a bit before entering WWII in order to make Europe a ruin on purpose is incredibly dumb.

While we are discussing books, here is the one you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Jared Diamond extensively discusses the case of Pizarro in that book. And yes, even though a few hundred Spaniards did kill thousands of Natives in "battles", the bulk of the killing in the Americas was made by Eurasian germs that the Natives had zero genetic resistance against. In most places, the Europeans arrived after the local Natives had been largely decimated by imported diseases.

It wasn't textbook genocide as the invader's end plan wasn't to wipe out the Natives. They did do mass killings, but as a result of trying to convert them to the Catholic religion, stealing their riches and stealing the lands which were good for European agriculture. I'd even argue that genocide would have been impossible anywhere, prior to at least 18th century genetic theory.

Owned this book myself once, it reads like an editorial completely glossing over certain facts (like the invaders documented bloodlust) because it might make sensitive modern readers feel uncomfortable.

[Kafein]

Owned this book myself once, it reads like an editorial completely glossing over certain facts (like the invaders documented bloodlust) because it might make sensitive modern readers feel uncomfortable.

No it doesn't. The book clearly refers to massacres of Natives by European invaders in the Americas, Africa and Oceania.

[lombardsoup]

No it doesn't. The book clearly refers to massacres of Natives by European invaders in the Americas, Africa and Oceania.

With modern bias

[Oberyn]

If anything the bias in GGS is anti-european, not pro. Jared Diamond thinks civilization is unnatural and bad and hunter-gatherer societies are more psychologically and physically healthy in every way, anyways. He's practically a frigging luddite. People need to read some of his other essays instead of always bringing up GGS.

[Kafein]

If anything the bias in GGS is anti-european, not pro. Jared Diamond thinks civilization is unnatural and bad and hunter-gatherer societies are more psychologically and physically healthy in every way, anyways. He's practically a frigging luddite. People need to read some of his other essays instead of always bringing up GGS.

I've read Collapse too, which was quite interesting as well. In my opinion it's really hard to tell whether he's trying to make a judgment of anything in his books really, and what exactly is that judgment if there is one. You could say that this neutrality in itself is anti-european bias, but then I'd argue that you should present your resume at Fox News. GGS essentially states that regional environments dictated the broad lines of history. And that which humans lived where was essentially irrelevant as by swapping environments you'd be simply reversing the scenario, but not fundamentally changing it.

To address another point, nowhere in GGS is it said that hunter-gatherer societies were better than modern societies, or the reverse. I think you could say that civilization is literally unnatural, because humans have been living and evolving as tribes for far longer, but that doesn't make it better or worse. Really, the more I think about that the more I realize that the book is as scientifically cold as it can get, and I've read actual papers.

[Oberyn]

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

You've read Collapse, how does he explain the difference between what the Haitians went through on Hispanola, and what happened to the Dominicans? Strange, how the book abandons the pretense of absolute determinism by geography, almost as if there are other factors. Maybe because he actually went into detail, instead of having a massively reductionist overview of the entire history of human existence? No, that couldn't be.
Incidentally, zebra can be domesticated. Russian researchers managed to domesticate a wild fox species in a mere 6 generations. There are plenty of domesticated zebra around. If the species had gone through the same process wild horses underwent throughout the world (except in America, where they were hunted to extinction), it would probably be just as docile and shaped to serve as the horse. Of course some zebra can't be domesticated, that's the point of breeding programs. You take those that are docile, breed them, and you progressively get a more domesticated species. zebras have been used as beasts of burden and to ride since the late 19th, mostly to show off, since the only benefit was that it was much more resistant to african diseases than horses. You can even breed them with horses!

[Kafein]

You've read Collapse, how does he explain the difference between what the Haitians went through on Hispanola, and what happened to the Dominicans? Strange, how the book abandons the pretense of absolute determinism by geography, almost as if there are other factors. Maybe because he actually went into detail, instead of having a massively reductionist overview of the entire history of human existence? No, that couldn't be.

There's no pretense of absolute determinism by geography. Hell, half the book is allocated to "but environmental determinism is a dirty word therefore...". The modern history of Haiti and Hispanola is pretty much too small to be relevant in the broad lines of history over the last 10k years. It is also too recent to be free of the idiosyncrasies of individuals introduced by modern civilization. Humans living in isolated tribes are much more predictable than unique civilizations. Each tribe is one isolated experiment, and the sheer number of tribes reduces the statistical influence of exceptional individuals. In modern civilization, an exceptional person can significantly alter the world due to centralization of power, which is why the influence of regional environments on history decreased over time. What could have been predicted was that Eurasians would invade the island at some point, and that's pretty much it. An overview of the entire history of human existence in print that you can carry is going to be massively reductionist. The point is that this reductionist theory does actually work.

Incidentally, zebra can be domesticated. Russian researchers managed to domesticate a wild fox species in a mere 6 generations. There are plenty of domesticated zebra around. If the species had gone through the same process wild horses underwent throughout the world (except in America, where they were hunted to extinction), it would probably be just as docile and shaped to serve as the horse. Of course some zebra can't be domesticated, that's the point of breeding programs. You take those that are docile, breed them, and you progressively get a more domesticated species. zebras have been used as beasts of burden and to ride since the late 19th, mostly to show off, since the only benefit was that it was much more resistant to african diseases than horses. You can even breed them with horses!

Some particular zebras can be tamed, but that doesn't make them domesticable. If we can successfully domesticate zebras today I don't know. But I do know that plenty of plants got domesticated very recently due to the challenge that they posed without modern technology.