or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 276

post #4126 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


On the "upside" the black unemployment rate is down to about 9%, but with the decline in the labor force participation it's probably pretty close to a wash.

C'mon turk, Confederate Flags are just about banned and all is well in Black America.
post #4127 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

On the "upside" the black unemployment rate is down to about 9%, but with the decline in the labor force participation it's probably pretty close to a wash.
It's something like 20% if you consider the number of blacks in jail.
Quote:
Things are worse for blacks today than at the lowest point of the recession, when Obama took office:

They don't really present any evidence that this is caused in any way by any particular policies of Obama's. The correlation between Presidential actions and economic performance, positive or negative, is always overblown in the near term. I'd have to imagine that's at least as true for individual groups. There are 50 years of economic policies still in motion and affecting Black America, whatever Obama has done is probably nibbling around the edges.

It would at least show that Obama hasn't done any better for the black community than any other President, first black President or not.
post #4128 of 5129
Sorry to detract from the political battles of this year, but I found this fascinating:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
Quote:
Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle
By Andrew CurryMar. 24, 2016 , 9:30 AM

About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic Sea. The confrontation can’t be found in any history books—the written word didn’t become common in these parts for another 2000 years—but this was no skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military technology.

Struggling to find solid footing on the banks of the Tollense River, a narrow ribbon of water that flows through the marshes of northern Germany toward the Baltic Sea, the armies fought hand-to-hand, maiming and killing with war clubs, spears, swords, and knives. Bronze- and flint-tipped arrows were loosed at close range, piercing skulls and lodging deep into the bones of young men. Horses belonging to high-ranking warriors crumpled into the muck, fatally speared. Not everyone stood their ground in the melee: Some warriors broke and ran, and were struck down from behind.

When the fighting was through, hundreds lay dead, littering the swampy valley. Some bodies were stripped of their valuables and left bobbing in shallow ponds; others sank to the bottom, protected from plundering by a meter or two of water. Peat slowly settled over the bones. Within centuries, the entire battle was forgotten.

Way more at the link.
post #4129 of 5129
Yeah, it's amazing that for a time (maybe even to this day), the popular idea was that pre-historical people were mostly peaceful, that their weapons were ceremonial, that they'd get out and posture and beat their chests instead of engage in warfare, etc., despite the historical accounts, habits of contemporary stone age people, and other overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
post #4130 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Yeah, it's amazing that for a time (maybe even to this day), the popular idea was that pre-historical people were mostly peaceful, that their weapons were ceremonial, that they'd get out and posture and beat their chests instead of engage in warfare, etc., despite the historical accounts, habits of contemporary stone age people, and other overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Is that really a popular conception? Never really heard that (not saying you're wrong, just not something I've ever heard).

Fairly popular literature like the Iliad and the Bible are drenched in blood, would have figured that people would have picked up on the idea that conflict was a routine part of life back then.
post #4131 of 5129
Thread Starter 
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
post #4132 of 5129
Well, the Iliad and the Bible aren't prehistorical, for the most part, as they are, or at least they purport to be, actual histories. Even then it was (and still is, for the most part) the popular understanding that the accounts are grossly exaggerated and that all the grand battles were really just scattered skirmishes.
post #4133 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Well, the Iliad and the Bible aren't prehistorical, for the most part, as they are, or at least they purport to be, actual histories.

So does that article, no? The Bible and the Iliad as cultural artifacts obviously aren't "prehistorical". But they don't purport to be contemporaneous accounts. If Genesis, for example, is not "prehistorical" then nothing is.
And I can't speak for Homer (doh!) but I think the Iliad is presented more in the vein of "based on real events" contemporaneous fiction that of a documentary.
post #4134 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


So does that article, no? The Bible and the Iliad as cultural artifacts obviously aren't "prehistorical". But they don't purport to be contemporaneous accounts. If Genesis, for example, is not "prehistorical" then nothing is.
And I can't speak for Homer (doh!) but I think the Iliad is presented more in the vein of "based on real events" contemporaneous fiction that of a documentary.

 

Me fail English?  That's unpossible.

post #4135 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

So does that article, no? The Bible and the Iliad as cultural artifacts obviously aren't "prehistorical". But they don't purport to be contemporaneous accounts. If Genesis, for example, is not "prehistorical" then nothing is.
And I can't speak for Homer (doh!) but I think the Iliad is presented more in the vein of "based on real events" contemporaneous fiction that of a documentary.

I'm not sure if you're technically correct about the definition of prehistory, but the vast majority of ancient histories were written decades or centuries after the fact.
post #4136 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Well, the Iliad and the Bible aren't prehistorical, for the most part, as they are, or at least they purport to be, actual histories. Even then it was (and still is, for the most part) the popular understanding that the accounts are grossly exaggerated and that all the grand battles were really just scattered skirmishes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm not sure if you're technically correct about the definition of prehistory, but the vast majority of ancient histories were written decades or centuries after the fact.

FWIW too re: the Bible: the OT/Talmud surely doesn't purport to be a pure history. On the other hand, the NT claims to be almost exclusively historical.
post #4137 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm not sure if you're technically correct about the definition of prehistory, but the vast majority of ancient histories were written decades or centuries after the fact.

Not sure if I am either. Didn't mean to suggest I know some established technical definition. Maybe I misunderstood your point about the Bible and The Iliad, then? Or what you meant by "prehistorical"? If a subsequent (purported or actual) history gives an accounts of events in the past, does that mean the events aren't prehistorical? On a broad level, paleontologists try to create a persuasive and accurate narrative of what happened in the Flintstones days based on the limited evidence/data currently available to us? Whether you tend to be more of the Stephen Jay Gould/Richard Dawkins school (not exactly equating the two, of course) or of the Mike Huckabee/Ken Ham (same) school, your preferred narrative describes events that I think would generally be regarded as prehistoric.

Again acknowledging that I don't know if there's an accepted definition either generally or within certain fields, it's hard for me to see how it's a useful term unless it refers to whether history was being recorded contemporaneously.
post #4138 of 5129
Thread Starter 
You arseholes are fucking up my threak.
post #4139 of 5129
My understanding of "prehistoric" events was things that happened to early to survive in recorded history. So, Adam and Eve wouldn't be prehistoric because, assuming they actually existed, the knowledge was preserved long enough to be recorded.

According to google, however, the word usually means things that happened before the development of writing. That seems odd to me, given my point about ancient histories almost never being contemporaneous accounts, but whatever.

Also, the Iliad was thought of as being more or less historical for a long, long time. Plus, the timeframe it supposedly happened was definitely after writing had been developed in Greece, though, IIRC, there are no examples of it from the Greek "dark ages" around when the Trojan war was supposed to have happened.
post #4140 of 5129
I get what your saying, 'turk. But per the thread-starter's request, let's try to get this back on topic.

Do we think George Soros still knows how to write in Greek, or has he successfully shed all trappings of his dubious background?






And note to self: if there's ever a possibility I might want to escape prison and become a fugitive, don't get a cross tattooed on my forehead.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/ohio-north-carolina-prison-escapes/index.html

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob