Nerdy History Rant.

[4too]

Have You Heard ...

Have You Heard ...



Have you heard the joke about ....

No. Not an 'Irish joke".

Are you familiar with the book by Thomas Cahill:

""How The Irish Saved Civilization"".

Just picked it up at library because of this thread,

Irreverent style should 'read' better than sanctimonious classic-ests wishing to return to the womb.

At least sample chapter 1, and pour all that academic "Garden Of Eden" , Ancient Greece -Roman hysteria, out and throw down 3 fingers of 'Irish Spirits'.

Do it neat, and Saint Patrick may bless you all the more ...

Haven't finished this historical adventure, so NOBODY ruin this one with spoilers!


4too

 

[Jebus]

Re: Have You Heard ...

Haven't finished this historical adventure, so NOBODY ruin this one with spoilers!

The Irish get butfucked by the English!









Spoilers above.

 

[4too]

And ...

And ...


And it took an Irishman to teach the English the difference between ""that"" and a hole in the ground ...



4too

 

[John Uskglass]

What's the diffirence between an Irish Wedding and an Irish Funeral?

One less drunk Irishman.

 

[Elric]

Malkavian was referring to John, who has a bit of a reputation when it comes to debates here.

Yeah, I noticed that.

We claim that the Greco-Roman culture is uniquely ours. If we claim "this is the base of our civilization", we're claiming it is a part of our civilization. The most important part, in fact.

No. Kids...

That is contradicted by the fact that Greco-Roman culture, especially Greek culture, had more influence on Eastern Europe and the Middle East than it did on us. As such, Greek culture would be the base of Eastern culture.

No. Btw, you realize you're not making any sense? I assume you say such things to amuse yourself, right kid? Trying to impress your playmates?

Really, and I thought the West had a democratic institution before the French revolution? The USA! Duh!

Man, that's awesome! I didn't know that! Hey, wait, it's wrong.

America never was about democracy, but about independence from the british empire. DUH!
There's been no american revolution and if someone says so it's because they read it in a cheap paperback written by a frustrated journalist. Seriously. And all those guys that wrote those american papers? They stole all the ideas from french illuminists. DUH!
Learn what you are talking about before playing the smartass, Jojo.

Not to mention Poland's constitution, which was made before the French Revolution (and only a year before the third (?) partition, poor Poland)

Ah, Poland! So influential, so important for democracy! The world would sink into tyranny and oppression without the monstrous legacy of polish democratic and pioneristic legiferators!


Now, seriously, and without offense... Look, dude, either way you're too ignorant and insane to know what you're talking about or you're trying to mock history. Anyway I don't care, they'll love ya just the same. But don't think you're right, and don't try to convince me, cause I know the subject well enough to tell you you're wrong.

It's so annoying to keep explaining history to kids all the time, I should make a living out of it. Oh wait, that's what I'm studying for!
Crazy, crazy me!
Please, please, please forgive my blatant arrogance, sir. I tend to forget that bullshit always finds its way to the top; knowledge on the other hand, bites the dust. And so do I. Indeed I do. Life's a bitch and then you eat these sort of shit for years, because kids wanna teach you Stuff-They-Read-Somewhere, while what you really know because you spent years on the subject doesn't count a flying fuck...

That's sad...

It's time to sleep again, kid. Go spread your lies, lies, lies.

There, you made me do it again. Sigh, sob.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

This oughta be good...

*casts spell: summon Kharn*

 

[The Vault Dweller]

This oughta be good...

*casts spell: summon Kharn*

If your so smart why dont you argue with him?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Jebus]

America never was about democracy, but about independence from the british empire. DUH!
There's been no american revolution and if someone says so it's because they read it in a cheap paperback written by a frustrated journalist. Seriously. And all those guys that wrote those american papers? They stole all the ideas from french illuminists. DUH!
Learn what you are talking about before playing the smartass, Jojo.

That goes for you too.
While the American revolution was in a large part indeed a 'conservative' revolution against the USA, you cannot deny the democratic elements that creeped in during the revolt itself, and in the declaration of independence. While it was, and is, indeed not truly democratic; focussing too much on the Philosophes gives the American revolution way less credit than it eventually deserves.



And that's about the only thing worth replying to. And even then.


You're not impressing anybody with that kind of attitude, Elric. You're a history student, great. So am I.

You know, there's a known problem with history education in Southern Europe. You're from Italy, right?
Over here, among historians, historical education (even on an academic level) in southern Europe has a very, very bad name. If you thought historical education in France, Germany or wherever were Eurocentric, than you ain't seen nothing yet. I've heard from an assistant that did an Erasmus in Southern Europe (that was before doing history Erasmusses in Southern Europe were actively discouraged) - that to historians over there, there is no rest of the world.

And I can imagine that in Italy, it's the worse of all. The need to indentify oneself with the Roman Empire would appear most stressing and most 'logical' there...

So, it appears to me your view is somewhat distorted. You adhere and furiously defend your Eurocentric and Greco-Roman-centric views, angrily biting off everyone who would attack them.
It's understandable, though. Because if you were to agree with us, you would have to agree that, basically, your education has been lacking too. And for somebody on the verge of graduating, strong emotional reaction when it comes to this aren't all that suprising.

Also - your education is nice; but that doesn't put you above anybody else. You're not the only one studying history here, and you don't need to study history in the first place to have the neccesary insight in sociological patterns in history. Erudition would suffice, too. Therefore, replying to Kharn with the arrogance you have used isn't going to win you any respect, not for you nor your views. Using only pars pro toto, strawman and ad homine arguments isn't either. You might downplay Polands contitution all you will, but by doing that you have disproven none of my points or theorems. Especially considering you didn't even reply to me at all.

Also, forgive the crappy typing, I'm still only half awake.

 

[Brother None]

No. Kids...

...

Why is it that the people who claim to be history-students are completely incapable of forming a proper logical base for their arguments? Hint; "No. Kids..." doesn't make sense as a statement in the English language plus it does not constitute an argument.

No. Btw, you realize you're not making any sense? I assume you say such things to amuse yourself, right kid? Trying to impress your playmates?

I would think your lack of manners shows you're the child here.

If I'm not making sense than, I know it's lame, this is perhaps because you're incapable of grasping what I'm saying.

Let me outline it again for you. The Greco-Roman civilization is often claimed to be uniquely Western. Notice the word uniquely. That element is just one part of the whole rhetoric surrounding the tales of us descending from the Romans and it is an important part. It's also a historic falsehood.

America never was about democracy, but about independence from the british empire. DUH!
There's been no american revolution and if someone says so it's because they read it in a cheap paperback written by a frustrated journalist. Seriously. And all those guys that wrote those american papers? They stole all the ideas from french illuminists. DUH!
Learn what you are talking about before playing the smartass, Jojo.

Quite. Apart from Jebus debunking this, I have to add that the statement was about the West having democratic institutions before the French revolution. Putting aside things like the small Dutch democratic institutions, both the USA and Poland were constitutional and democratic institution before the French revolution happened. Period (Genua also claims to be, but I don't believe them). Hell, the French Revolution is a consequence of the King's spend-thrift on the American Revolution, if anything else.

Ah, Poland! So influential, so important for democracy! The world would sink into tyranny and oppression without the monstrous legacy of polish democratic and pioneristic legiferators!

You should be careful about accusing people of being ignorant before displaying such boundless ignorance yourself. Poland-Lithuania was one of the most important states in post-Middle Age Europe before it lost it's shine by pressure of Austria, Prussia and Russia.

Hell, even afterwards the Polish revolutionary movement was one of the more widely sympathized with, bar the Greek revolution, and only lacked support out of political motives (after all, Austria-Hungary, Prussia/the German Reich and Russia all had vested interest in the country).

And now Poland is one of the big five (France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain and Poland), the most influential countries of the EU. Neither Italy nor Greece has as much influence as them, fuck the Greco-Roman roots.

Now, seriously, and without offense... Look, dude, either way you're too ignorant and insane to know what you're talking about or you're trying to mock history. Anyway I don't care, they'll love ya just the same. But don't think you're right, and don't try to convince me, cause I know the subject well enough to tell you you're wrong.

And yet you're incapable of forming a proper counter-argument against anything I say. If you want to accuse me of being wrong, let alone insane or ignorant, it might be useful if you could actually support your views with historic facts.

It's so annoying to keep explaining history to kids all the time, I should make a living out of it. Oh wait, that's what I'm studying for!

You're studying to be a teacher? Good on you.

Please, please, please forgive my blatant arrogance, sir.

I won't, it'd be more useful if you just stopped being arrogant. Forgiveness is for pussies and Jesus (who was not a pussy).

I tend to forget that bullshit always finds its way to the top; knowledge on the other hand, bites the dust. And so do I. Indeed I do. Life's a bitch and then you eat these sort of shit for years, because kids wanna teach you Stuff-They-Read-Somewhere, while what you really know because you spent years on the subject doesn't count a flying fuck...

Your arrogance is disproportionate to your knowledge, you think your bullshit is knowledge. Stop being an idiot. As amusing as the imbalance between you know and your arrogance is, it is against forum rules to attack someone just because you're an arrogant prat with an inferiority complex.

That's sad...

It's time to sleep again, kid. Go spread your lies, lies, lies.

There, you made me do it again. Sigh, sob.

You're a childish little prat. Learn some manners.

That, and admins pretty much get to say whatever the hell they want.

Malky is not an admin.

 

[Jebus]

Why is it that the people who claim to be history-students are completely incapable of forming a proper logical base for their arguments?

Fuck you. I'd like to know where my logical base in this argument or any other argument relating to history is missing, then.

 

[Brother None]

Actually, that wasn't directed at you, but in hind-sight it looks like that. Sorry about that.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

<snip>

Your sig is broken, VD.

 

[Jebus]

Also - your education is nice; but that doesn't put you above anybody else. You're not the only one studying history here, and you don't need to study history in the first place to have the neccesary insight in sociological patterns in history. Erudition would suffice, too.

^^^^^^

Me saying this is quite funny, because it's the exact opposite of what I said in that thing-Kharn-searched-for-in-that-thread-over-at-the-order.

I guess that's what I get for typing when I've just woken up... My brain betrays me :'(

 

[Elric]

it is against forum rules to attack someone just because you're an arrogant prat with an inferiority complex.

Is it clearly stated that way? I don't find these rule anywhere. Plus, I wasn't attacking you, I was insulting you. I think that your ideas about this subject are stupid and silly AND that you didn't make any sense (because you were talking about something completely different from what I pointed in my post). History isn't based on logic. It's a sequence of events on which other events, thoughts, characters etc. have influence. That's it. If you know the facts, good. Otherwise, fuck you. Yeah, Fuck YOU. What you wrote is, IMHO, out of context, manipulated and shows how your notions are superficial. Add the fact that I know modern history more than you (I can tell from what you wrote) and you were trying to imply you know more than me...

Anyway, don't waste your time posting bullshit. This is no place for posts like yours or mine, PM if you have an issue about this. Fuck you, I don't care. You know what? Whatever, bye.


EDIT:
Jebus, my teachers are for the most part strangers: English, South American, Polish, French, and so on.
We are in any case more focused on non-italian history, having much more interest in something not so over-studied and boring as our country's past.
Anyway, I'll graduate in History of Political Doctrines and Thought, which is mainly a study of foreign authors, statemen, constitutions and the likes. The matter of democracy and its history IS what I study and have been studying for years (5 years). And some guy (not talking about you or Kharn, just in general) on some board won't teach me anything 'cause in general I wouldn't even consider what he's saying, if not for the sarcastic stupidity of his arrogant hypothesis or answer, unless he's saying something I haven't already heard before.
I've seen how history is taught in norther European countries, and it's not so different from the way it is here, at least in the university. I've seen how they teach it in the USA and ouch! - that's not pretty. I'm half Greek so I know about there too, and you might say there's something wrong with the general perception of history that the average person in Greece or Italy has, but isn't it like that anywhere?
I met many Erasmus students from the Benelux, or Scandinavia or Eastern countries, and some were ok, others were not, but in general, they would spend most of their time getting drunk and telling horrible racist jokes about jews and germans. So my general opinion of the average erasmus student is not really good. As it's not very good my opinion of the average italian student, who has to find a political reason to every single word he reads in a history book.

If anyone of you finds I'm arrogant, ignore me, but don't ask me to waste pages on explaining "why I just said what I said". Everyone seems so obsessed with getting the sources, the detailed explanations, the objective truth. Hell, I say what I want, and I don't need to justify what I say. If I feel offended I answer, but I don't need to tell anyone who disagrees with me "you insulted me! that's not fair!", if you can't take some violent discussion you can hide under your beds.

 

[Jebus]

You'll make a fine, supportive history teacher one day.

 

[Jovan]

Holy shit what is this? a "nerdy history rant" or a FFA bash day?

quit being little pompeous pricks.

 

[Brother None]

Is it clearly stated that way? I don't find these rule anywhere. Plus, I wasn't attacking you, I was insulting you. I think that your ideas about this subject are stupid and silly AND that you didn't make any sense (because you were talking about something completely different from what I pointed in my post). History isn't based on logic. It's a sequence of events on which other events, thoughts, characters etc. have influence. That's it. If you know the facts, good. Otherwise, fuck you. Yeah, Fuck YOU. What you wrote is, IMHO, out of context, manipulated and shows how your notions are superficial. Add the fact that I know modern history more than you (I can tell from what you wrote) and you were trying to imply you know more than me...

Anyway, don't waste your time posting bullshit. This is no place for posts like yours or mine, PM if you have an issue about this. Fuck you, I don't care. You know what? Whatever, bye.

Wow. That was amazing. You totally convinced me by your carefully structured rhetoric and historic examples.

You asswipe.

First off, I don't know if you noticed by I am an administrator here. I don't know why you're presuming to tell me how to run this board, but just be glad it's me you're doing this to and not Rosh, because he bans people outright for that. I'm also glad to point out you started mudslinging, not me, and I have no idea why I'm not counting out strikes for that.

But more importantly, you just showed conclusively you indeed had no idea what you were talking about. You completely ignored the posts of both me and Jebus (also, if I was talking about something else than you were, that might just be because you tried to sideskip my original point and I was dragging it back), by which merit I can only conclude you have nothing to say in reply to those posts, which leads me to conclude you don't know what you're talking about. In case you're wondering, "you're an idiot" is not actually a counter-argument, it might be more useful if you had something to say on the US or Poland-Lithuania.

Thanks for surrendering, that's a good sport.

You'll make a fine, supportive history teacher one day.

I don't know, most supportive history teachers I know aren't awarded for calling people idiots.

quit being little pompeous pricks.

Heh. No.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Oh, for god's sake Elric, remind me to put on some sandals before walking into your vagina. This is for once an interesting topic, stop mangling it like a diseased baby.

To get things slightly on track, I'd like to comment on some things Jebus said a while back:

When in modern times people began to cry out for democracy, they never pointed back to, for instance, Athens (except perhaps for some, marginal, exceptions). If anything, the cry for Western democracy was based on the Christian teachings of all men having a soul and the presumed equality of the Garden of Eden, the eyes of God, and in the afterlife.

While Christianity could be of an important factor due to its initially being a sort of proto-communist jewish sect (no I'm not making this up, early christians lived in communities strongly resembling communes), by the time of the late medieval times this way of living had been substituted with an absolutist monarch supported by the local clergy who promised the downtrodden a wondrous afterlife in exchange for being a loyal and devoted servant during their physical existence. Christian influence was rather of a reactionary un-democratic nature (let's not forget the pope forbade christians in italy to vote until well into the 20th century).

What's more likely to have sparked the emergence of modern democracies is the rapid growth of the bourgeoisie and their subsequent increase in political and economic leverage. Because of the fact that the bourgeoisie was not an inherently hereditary class like the nobility, a limited democracy was the most logical way for government to evolve. Now I say limited because this was still to be an all upperclass party, you dig? Therefor it isn't at all strange that, before the 1848 revolutions made concessions inevitable, several democracies had suffrage limited to male citizens with a minimum amount of wealth.


EDIT: Oh, and also you said just before that part I quoted that democracies in classical times were of a temporary nature and therefor to be ignored. Athenian democracy lasted for two and a half centuries, well over any modern democracy, including the US. That doesn't mean it is more important or anything but still.

 

[Brother None]

To get things slightly on track, I'd like to comment on some things Jebus said a while back:

I applaud the effort.

by the time of the late medieval times this way of living had been substituted with an absolutist monarch supported by the local clergy who promised the downtrodden a wondrous afterlife in exchange for being a loyal and devoted servant during their physical existence.

Wait, late medieval absolute monarchs? That's wrong, man, there were no absolute monarchs in the late Middle Ages. "Absolutism" is a relatively new concept that barely came to surface in some countries (like England or Holland (one absolute king, William I, from 1815 to, uhm, 1846?), it's not a widespread midieval thing. Fuedalism, man, fuedalism.

Christian influence was rather of a reactionary un-democratic nature (let's not forget the pope forbade christians in italy to vote until well into the 20th century).

Catholicism isn't the only Christianity around. Luther and his cohorts are some of the most powerful men that the history of democracy knows

What's more likely to have sparked the emergence of modern democracies is the rapid growth of the bourgeoisie and their subsequent increase in political and economic leverage. Because of the fact that the bourgeoisie was not an inherently hereditary class like the nobility, a limited democracy was the most logical way for government to evolve. Now I say limited because this was still to be an all upperclass party, you dig? Therefor it isn't at all strange that, before the 1848 revolutions made concessions inevitable, several democracies had suffrage limited to male citizens with a minimum amount of wealth.

Hell, all countries still had non-universal male suffrage after the revolutions of 1848-1850. The earliest universal male suffrage on the planet was France in 1871, with Britain not until 1918, Switzerland 1874, Belgium 1893 (with plural voting for the men of property!), the Netherlands 1917, Spain 1890, Norway 1898. Heh, Finland and Sweden were the first for female suffrage in 1907. Democracy, so young...

It is questionable, in fact, how directly the revolutions of 1848-1850 were tied to expansion of suffrage. Hell, don't forget that democracy was often used by the state as a form of conservation. University-folk and other intellectuals often had wild reform ideas, but the people of the country usually didn't and asking for their vote was a sure way to get a recalcitrant government, as France oft found out in the 19th century.

Your theory about the bourgeouisie is also only partially defendable. The bourgeouisie grew and were accepted as a force to be reckoned with. They joined ranks with the nobility and church over time, replacing the nobility if you will. There's no need for democracy just for that.

 

[John Uskglass]

Catholicism isn't the only Christianity around. Luther and his cohorts are some of the most powerful men that the history of democracy knows

And, of course, the obvious: Democracy was dead when Christ was born.