History Myths and Misconceptions of History you Hate

Francis Urquhart

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,100
Are you talking about the foreign policies of their government, or about their entire population? :cautious:
Now that would be a good subject for a PhD thesis . . ..

The problem is that however pleasant people are as individuals, when they are assembled into groups, they begin to exhibit the worst common characteristics of those groups. The larger the group, the more pronounced that is. In some circles this is called "The tourist effect" since its most commonly seen with groups of tourists in foreign parts. It's not restricted to any particular nationality but it manifests in different ways. I will say I know of no military officers who participated in the Balkans Campaigns who have a favorable impression of the Serbians - and that includes the Russians. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the Serbs wouldn't have survived at all if they hadn't been obnoxiously aggressive and truculent. And, as has already been pointed out, Serbian politics always have been a snake-pit,
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling accountant
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
4,002
Location
Slovenija
Never had trouble with groups of Serbs, but I always avoid groups of Albanians, it's like they dial their ''clannish asshole'' setting to 110% the moment they leave their country.
 

Francis Urquhart

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
1,100
Never had trouble with groups of Serbs, but I always avoid groups of Albanians, it's like they dial their ''clannish asshole'' setting to 110% the moment they leave their country.
I suspect it might be a bit like the saying concerning the Saudi Arabians. "They get less likeable the closer they are to Saudi Arabia." Before you ask, that was in an unofficial State Department briefing issued to American women who were considering marrying Saudi men.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
1,993
There are actually competing theories as to the origins of the Aztecs, although there are some similarities in the cultures of the Southwest and Aztec culture there are also massive differences. For example, in the various Southwest cultures human sacrifice was not really a thing, instead they used, of all things, parrots as 'proxies' for humans and would sacrifice them (yes, there are parrots native to the Southwest US). The ball game also existed (we have ball courts throughout the Southwest, including the best preserved ones period in Snaketown) but again, unlike the Aztecs the losing team didn't get sacrificed but rather they paid a forfeit in goods to the winning team (apparently, there are no records so this is based on interpretation of artwork and tribal traditions). Southwestern ball courts at least lack the associated mass graves of further south in Mesoamerica.
Most if the meso culturesprsticed sacrifice. The Aztecs just cranked it way way up. So maybe they were outsiders and then converted and became zealots. After all fresh converts are often the most fantical.
 

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
2,399
I think it's important to understand Mesoamerican Amerindians had their own conception of how the universe operated,the nature and purpose of the gods, and human beings relationship with them. As I understand it, human existence and the gods were seen as far more tenuous than they are in say traditional western theology.

The gods themselves were not everlasting, they needed support and sustenance.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
1,993
I think it's important to understand Mesoamerican Amerindians had their own conception of how the universe operated,the nature and purpose of the gods, and human beings relationship with them. As I understand it, human existence and the gods were seen as far more tenuous than they are in say traditional western theology.

The gods themselves were not everlasting, they needed support and sustenance.
"The gods dont bleed" the road to eodorado. Still even among other sacrificing cultures. With the same conception ofthe God's. The Aztecswete considered extreme. I was just theorizing why they were so extreme.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
1,993
Nicer than Stalin. Though Trotsky was too, and look what it got him. Some fine gentleman went to axe him a question...



Well, I think you are forgetting the Whites were a diverse movement, so anger at the murder of the Romanovs probably was all they had in common. Even the ardent democrats probably weren't pleased by it, given that it was pointless brutality. And I find it amusing that you absolve the Tsarist regime of its role in starting this mess in the first place. To me it just seems like your own bias is leaking through, though everyone is biased about something. All I see is a corrupt and ineffectual regime, replaced by another. And then that is replaced by a much crueler and inhuman regime.



Remember who is talking, she is going to give a biased account on this matter, though just about anyone is going to give an account that is biased in one way or another. You should read for yourself instead of taking what anyone says on the internet as truth. Do as Brian says.
How exactly was trosky nicerthen Stalin? You don't think he would went ascrazy wjth power ad Joe?
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
1,993
The idea, presented largely in Ancient Aliens conspiracies and cyptids/"x entinct animal is totally not extinct" that ancient cultures both had no imagination and never stylized anything.
There were some pretty wild animals round pretty recently. The giant sloth was around a few thousand years ago still. There's also theories that pockets of neaderthals couldve been alive as recently as the middle ages. Both of those things aepretty crytid like. I agree with your overall point though.(Oh also mountain Goriallas we're a myth and thus a crytid until like 1900ish.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,213
There's also theories that pockets of neaderthals couldve been alive as recently as the middle ages.
Dr Duane Gish was fond of pointing out that if you took a Neanderthal man, gave him a shave and a haircut, and dressed him in modern clothing, he could blend into a crowd without any problem.
Hardly counts as "cryptid" if they can hide in plain sight.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
928
Dr Duane Gish was fond of pointing out that if you took a Neanderthal man, gave him a shave and a haircut, and dressed him in modern clothing, he could blend into a crowd without any problem.
Hardly counts as "cryptid" if they can hide in plain sight.
Neanderthals weren't really another species, they were just a race of man with a very distinct bone structure that eventually bred out of the population. If you have European ancestry, you have neanderthal ancestry.
 

CarlManvers2019

The Man-Empire
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Reaction score
7,274
Location
Philippines
Neanderthals weren't really another species, they were just a race of man with a very distinct bone structure that eventually bred out of the population. If you have European ancestry, you have neanderthal ancestry.
Say, were they really taller and physically more powerful than ordinary humans?
 

Dovahkiin

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Reaction score
79
Neanderthals weren't really another species, they were just a race of man with a very distinct bone structure that eventually bred out of the population. If you have European ancestry, you have neanderthal ancestry.
I mean, "species" is neither as strictly defined nor as much of a biological separation (necessarily) as it's generally perceived. But as far as it's applied, AFAIK the prevailing scientific opinion is that they were a separate species from us. Or less commonly, a separate subspecies, at least.
 

Shipmaster Sane

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Reaction score
2,735
I mean, "species" is neither as strictly defined nor as much of a biological separation (necessarily) as it's generally perceived. But as far as it's applied, AFAIK the prevailing scientific opinion is that they were a separate species from us. Or a separate subspecies, at least.
The way I understood it is that to be an entirely different species sustainable interbreeding had to be impossible.
 

Dovahkiin

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Reaction score
79
The way I understood it is that to be an entirely different species sustainable interbreeding had to be impossible.
Well, like I said, "species" in general is arguably more of a term of labeling convenience than of hard delineation. As I understand it, if two organisms are within the same genus, the whole thing can get quite murky and subject to personal interpretation, especially so for organisms we can't study directly anymore.

But in regards to us and Neanderthals, I recall reading somewhere that there does appear to have been substantial enough genetic differences that interbreeding generally wasn't viable, with most of the Neanderthal DNA in modern Humans having been traced to distinct, relatively short periods within the broader span of time in which we interacted. Which themselves occurred, IIRC, towards the front of that span of time, after which genetic admixture appears to have gradually decreased until it ceased entirely. Implying that we only diverged further away after our early first contacts.

Also saw somewhere that the degree of anatomical difference between them and us is just too substantial compared to that between modern ethnic groups, by contrast, for it to fit in well with the latter standards of measurement.
 
Top Bottom