The History Thread

[hw88]

11 hours ago, Padge said:

Have you read the article, it isn't about the animals, its about a calendar. 

 

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I know you're being flippant but this is a reason *for so much prehistory (in particular) analysis* that I think more people should consider more of the time.

 

 

Yes, I have read the article and the chap in question maybe 100% correct. On the other hand these paintings were done thousands of years ago and no one can be certain why they were painted. The painter may have just been passing the time on a cold winter's night for all we know. There may also have been many hundreds more paintings that are now lost to history and may have led to a completely different theory.

It's like in 500 years time when humanity is just a memory and some being from another planet lands and tries to put meaning to a mindless piece of graffiti on a wall. No matter what theory they speculate and decide upon it is still mindless graffiti with no deep inner message.

[Tommygilf]

14 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Yeah that's a great thought. A case of the animal drawn appears in that area in whichever month is marked next to the picture.

In many ways that would explain the hunter-gatherer nature, in that they moved from place to place because they knew certain species would be in certain places at certain times of the year. 

And they'd draw the pictures in the caves so they wouldn't be destroyed by the weather over the years. 

One Swallow doesn't make a summer, but maybe it does?

[The Hallucinating Goose]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

One Swallow doesn't make a summer, but maybe it does?

Certainly makes it better. 

(I know that was a rubbish joke and I'm ashamed of myself but it just felt necessary.)

[Oxford]

4 hours ago, hw88 said:

No matter what theory they speculate and decide upon it is still mindless graffiti with no deep inner message.

I could be wrong on this one but, in anthropological and archaeological  terms starting from "mindless" as your criteria would be a theory in itself.

Most human activities are meaningless, mindless and pointless which is probably why we're so passionate about them.

[hw88]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

I could be wrong on this one but, in anthropological and archaeological  terms starting from "mindless" as your criteria would be a theory in itself.

Most human activities are meaningless, mindless and pointless which is probably why we're so passionate about them.

How so?

In the great scheme of things I would agree with you but at the time they are done probably not.

[Oxford]

On 06/01/2023 at 15:47, hw88 said:

How so?

In the great scheme of things I would agree with you but at the time they are done probably not.

That is the difference between how we feel about the things we do and their ultimate importance I suppose.

I was reading a social science project the other day about how issues become important and who drives that level of importance and why. It also included what was ignored and why and how some disappeared from the limelight never to be seen again. Fascinating stuff.

[Number 16]

Wrong thread!!!!!!

Edited March 8, 2023 by Number 16

[Oxford]

I was wondering what future historians would make of this period we're living in, socially, behaviourally and even politically assuming , of course, that we've managed to leave any more evidence than the prehistoric ancestors  in the first place.

Will they applaud the generally selfish right wing approach of societies? Will they wonder what the hell was going on? What on Earth could anyone in the future make of the whole concept of woke especially if the evidence they find is that people who used it the most had no idea what it meant in the first place?

Will we be the generations that most typified the "Madness of Crowds and Popular Delusions" because of how much effort we put into discussing and reacting to complete nonsense."?

[The Hallucinating Goose]

31 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I was wondering what future historians would make of this period we're living in, socially, behaviourally and even politically assuming , of course, that we've managed to leave any more evidence than the prehistoric ancestors  in the first place.

Will they applaud the generally selfish right wing approach of societies? Will they wonder what the hell was going on? What on Earth could anyone in the future make of the whole concept of woke especially if the evidence they find is that people who used it the most had no idea what it meant in the first place?

Will we be the generations that most typified the "Madness of Crowds and Popular Delusions" because of how much effort we put into discussing and reacting to complete nonsense."?

I think it's hard to assess your own time period because you see it as the most advanced time period in history. People in the middle ages would not have been able to comprehend the Internet for example just as there will be technologies developed in 500 years that we simply cannot even imagine right now. 

Despite saying this however, I do think our era will be seen as a potentially 2nd Industrial Revolution with the enormous advancement in information and electrical technology in the past 20 years and the advancements we've made in renewable and carbon neutral technologies. We're finally casting off the use of Victorian technology that we've relied on for 150 years. We've finally reached another period of distinct technology and this does not happen very often in human history.

It is an ongoing debate between historians as to whether the middle ages can be seen as a separate period to the dark ages and the early modern period because most everyday technologies did not actually change massively but were merely the same technologies being refined. This is essentially what we've been doing from the Victorian period to now with things such as the internal combustion engine and our power production methods. These have been refined but have essentially stayed the same. Yet now we are finally creating completely new technology on a mass scale and more importantly disgarding older technology. 

The 21st century is a distinctively new period of technological evolution. 

I think another very important development to have taken place is this being the first real period in history where religion is so irrelevant and unimportant to ordinary peoples' lives. Religious practices have virtually no influence on people's lives in the western world despite their teachings being deep rooted in our society through our legal systems. Of course we live our lives based on religious teachings but what is different now is that people don't associate our societal practices with having their origins in religion so much as people just being so used to living in a certain way that it is taken for granted. I think we'll be seen as the very first non-religious society. As I say of course, that is much more relevant in western society than others but even so many other societies are revolting against religious practices and teachings. 

I think these are the two most distinct differences to now compared to the past. A 2nd technological revolution and the complete irrelevance of religion in society. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by The Hallucinating Goose

[Oxford]

3 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

I think it's hard to assess your own time period because you see it as the most advanced time period in history.

That's an interesting start to an interesting post HG.

I have my doubts about whether this is the most advanced period so far, I see far too many signs of regression and re-emergence of what people would in all conscience translate as outdated and fundementally unsound & bereft ancient ideas.

Your focus on Tech as advancement is interesting given all the supposed drawbacks and outwardly poor outcomes it has arguably produced.

Your interpretation of religious decline is interesting and it is as you point out a largely western approach or situation.

In any case thanks for replying to my post I did think it was doomed to be left lonely on the forum, and I enjoyed reading whatyou think.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Oxford

[The Hallucinating Goose]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

That's an interesting start to an interesting post HG.

I have my doubts about whether this is the most advanced period so far, I see far too many signs of regression and re-emergence of what people would in all conscience translate as outdated and fundementally unsound & bereft ancient ideas.

Your focus on Tech as advancement is interesting given all the supposed drawbacks and outwardly poor outcomes it has arguably produced.

Your interpretation of religious decline is interesting and it is as you point out a largely western approach or situation.

In any case thanks for replying to my post I did think it was doomed to be left lonely on the forum, and I enjoyed reading whatyou think.

Could you elaborate a little on the bit about the re-emergence of ancient ideas? I think I know what you mean. 

The thing about the advancement of tech is having to look at it from a future historians point of view. If we take Georgian and Victorian innovators, they were developing the most advanced technology in history and thought that it was massively improving society. They thought any progression in tech was for the better which is why Victorians were so obsessed with destroying anything they saw as old and primitive. They were oblivious to the destruction of the environment that their technological advancement was causing. We know about this now and thus have had our own tech revolution to counter the negatives of tech 200 years ago. 

Or were they oblivious? History only exists in the evidence we have from the time period and once thing about the past is that most written evidence was compiled but the upper classes who were literate and could write and so we only have the point of view of a very small section of society. It could be that the working masses were very aware of the damage tech was doing but were unable to do anything about it. We know the tech was certainly hurting jobs and people's ability to earn a living because we know about the luddites, but the luddites were portrayed as terrorists at the time because it was the factory owners who were documenting the period. Similarly in the middle ages only monks and clerics could write and so all we know about that period is what the religious community told us about it. 

My point is that while there are people such as yourself and me that are educated enough to see the negatives of modern technology, history suggests it is unlikely that the voices of the ordinary man or goose in the 21st century street will still be remembered in 500 years time. The evidence that will still exist will come from the tech giants and the upper middle classes that revel in the accumulation of consumer goods such as modern tech and so will offer a much more positive view of this period. 

[Futtocks]

1 hour ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Could you elaborate a little on the bit about the re-emergence of ancient ideas? I think I know what you mean. 

If it means the increasing rejection and suspicion of science and logic, in favour of shouty modern-day shamans, snake-oil merchants, wellness gurus, fitness freaks and a thousand other varieties of sleazy windbags who only want your money, then yes.

This species really is doomed.

[Padge]

The 'computer' revolution started to take place around 1980*, I worked in electronics around then and modern equipment until then had been large circuit boards with transistors, capicitors and resistors performing fixed function control.

The advent of the microprocessor and probably more importantly reprogrammable memory chips that meant the functionality of a piece of electronics could be changed by changing code rather than components. This was a technological breakthrough when it entered the industrial world and changed industry, as the programmable equipment took over. The mass production of chips for this resulted in domestic computing becoming available as prices tumbled.

We have been in the modern 'computer' era for over 40 years.

* not when it started but when it accelerated.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Padge

[Tommygilf]

7 hours ago, Oxford said:

I was wondering what future historians would make of this period we're living in, socially, behaviourally and even politically assuming , of course, that we've managed to leave any more evidence than the prehistoric ancestors  in the first place.

Will they applaud the generally selfish right wing approach of societies? Will they wonder what the hell was going on? What on Earth could anyone in the future make of the whole concept of woke especially if the evidence they find is that people who used it the most had no idea what it meant in the first place?

Will we be the generations that most typified the "Madness of Crowds and Popular Delusions" because of how much effort we put into discussing and reacting to complete nonsense."?

I think all those concerns have been had, continuously, throughout human history. We aren't unique in this sense of doom some have; those thinking that way have always existed. 

Can they have been right all the time?

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Could you elaborate a little on the bit about the re-emergence of ancient ideas? I think I know what you mean. 

The thing about the advancement of tech is having to look at it from a future historians point of view. If we take Georgian and Victorian innovators, they were developing the most advanced technology in history and thought that it was massively improving society. They thought any progression in tech was for the better which is why Victorians were so obsessed with destroying anything they saw as old and primitive. They were oblivious to the destruction of the environment that their technological advancement was causing. We know about this now and thus have had our own tech revolution to counter the negatives of tech 200 years ago. 

Or were they oblivious? History only exists in the evidence we have from the time period and once thing about the past is that most written evidence was compiled but the upper classes who were literate and could write and so we only have the point of view of a very small section of society. It could be that the working masses were very aware of the damage tech was doing but were unable to do anything about it. We know the tech was certainly hurting jobs and people's ability to earn a living because we know about the luddites, but the luddites were portrayed as terrorists at the time because it was the factory owners who were documenting the period. Similarly in the middle ages only monks and clerics could write and so all we know about that period is what the religious community told us about it. 

My point is that while there are people such as yourself and me that are educated enough to see the negatives of modern technology, history suggests it is unlikely that the voices of the ordinary man or goose in the 21st century street will still be remembered in 500 years time. The evidence that will still exist will come from the tech giants and the upper middle classes that revel in the accumulation of consumer goods such as modern tech and so will offer a much more positive view of this period. 

In the broad and very general sense, there has been no better time to be alive than right now for the vast majority of the human race. Food scarcity and poverty is extremely low compared to even just a century ago. Medical and economic advances are happening around the world to improve the lives of people. 

Many in the west are shocked at the poor conditions in some places, but forget that 150 years ago that was the norm here. Likewise not much more than 50 years ago, much of the world still lived like medieval peasants.

I love the past. History is by far and away my favourite passion and there is so much I would want to do if I could travel in time. The very last thing I would ever want to do however, is live in the past.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

In the broad and very general sense, there has been no better time to be alive than right now for the vast majority of the human race. Food scarcity and poverty is extremely low compared to even just a century ago. Medical and economic advances are happening around the world to improve the lives of people. 

Many in the west are shocked at the poor conditions in some places, but forget that 150 years ago that was the norm here. Likewise not much more than 50 years ago, much of the world still lived like medieval peasants.

I love the past. History is by far and away my favourite passion and there is so much I would want to do if I could travel in time. The very last thing I would ever want to do however, is live in the past.

Now there's a question, which event in history would you most like to be witness to? 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Now there's a question, which event in history would you most like to be witness to? 

That is an incredibly tough question.

I think battles or disasters would be hard to look beyond for events in history to witness. Most other things I fear would underwhelm! What do you think?

I suppose the natural succesor to that question is which historical figure would you most like to have a coversation with and/or go for a pint with?

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That is an incredibly tough question.

I think battles or disasters would be hard to look beyond for events in history to witness. Most other things I fear would underwhelm! What do you think?

I suppose the natural succesor to that question is which historical figure would you most like to have a coversation with and/or go for a pint with?

Probably should add, anything religious is worth seeing. 

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think all those concerns have been had, continuously, throughout human history. We aren't unique in this sense of doom some have; those thinking that way have always existed. 

Can they have been right all the time?

I think the difference now to this point is that the sense of doom has a very essence of being true and getting closer.

 

 

[Oxford]

8 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Could you elaborate a little on the bit about the re-emergence of ancient ideas? I think I know what you mean. 

Okay HG now you're making me think.

The dominant social and political ideas at present are little more than a rehash and recurence of the poorest notions of how to fix things and the pretense of improvement. In fact they're the kind of ideas that are meant to sound like they're there to help whilst doing the exact opposite. I see this as a marked contrast to the awful Victorians who shared many of these ideas but at least tried to do things for the right reason. And this kind of outlook lasted until well into the 20th century. Before then any changes that had good results were almost entirely made up of happy accidents. From the late 20th C right up to the present the most dominant ideas, actions and policies are concerted and meant to be intentionally bad for most people. They are of course dressed up in political discourse and social niceties but their only aims are control and ensuring that growing numbers of if not most people live abject lives.  I suppose that sums up what I mean. I think the UK is now a world leader in this respect and is probably a model for what is taking place in the rest of the world. In terms of tech alot of the time the best things about the tech is the marketing.

Your point about historians seeing this period in a better light, to be honest I think that one of their main jobs is presenting the periods that interest them in a good way.

[Oxford]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think battles or disasters would be hard to look beyond for events in history to witness. Most other things I fear would underwhelm! What do you think?

So really Tommy you'd be slowing down your time machine to gawk at the pile ups and causing a temporal traffic jam for all those behind you.

[The Rocket]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

That is an incredibly tough question.

I think battles or disasters would be hard to look beyond for events in history to witness. Most other things I fear would underwhelm! What do you think?

I suppose the natural succesor to that question is which historical figure would you most like to have a coversation with and/or go for a pint with?

 Those accounts of armies of 200 000 + basically fighting hand to hand during the Persian invasions of Greece used to blow my mind. Caesar`s siege of Alesia would have been incredibly dramatic as well.

Some of those ancient sea battles with the triremes, like the battle of Salamis, would be hard to beat as well.

Characters to meet: any of the great explorers would be fascinating, people who saw the world as it had existed for thousands and thousands of years before we spoilt it.

[gingerjon]

58 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 people who saw the world as it had existed for thousands and thousands of years before we spoilt it.

This may not be true of Australia - I genuinely have no idea - but it remains true here: you will really struggle to find someone to talk to (let's assume the babel fish is working for this time travel) where their milieu will have been identical fifty years before their birth and will be identical fifty years after their birth.

[gingerjon]

If you can get past the endless repetition (the books could be half as long and be better for it) then Connie Willis's Doomsday Book and To Say Nothing of the Dog are pretty good stories where historians are able to go back and observe the past.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

I think the difference now to this point is that the sense of doom has a very essence of being true and getting closer.

 

 

You say that as if they haven't always thought that sincerely.

Even Jesus was motivated by eschatological urgency.