US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[The Mad Viking]

Nicki, I value my friend's time too much to inflict you, and perhaps other Apolytoners on him. Giving out personal coordinates on a forum? Nah.

And it that really was an accusation thay I lied - well, **** off.

A few sites indicative of the growth in relevance of oral history:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/oral.htm

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/oral/

http://www.dohistory.org/on_your_own/toolkit/oralHistory.html#ACCURACY

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/

http://fas-history.rutgers.edu/oralhistory/orlhom.htm

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/oral/

http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~cohadm01/

It is increasingly accepted that many old written documents that are considered "facts" by men such as Nicki are simply oral history that was recorded, often a generation or two after the fact. Centuries later, in the absence of other documentation, it takes on an appearance of veracity (to some people) that is simply not justifiable from an objective point of view.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Nicki, I value my friend's time too much to inflict you, and perhaps other Apolytoners on him. Giving out personal coordinates on a forum? Nah.

Reading impairment is really your thing baby.

I asked for the place of learning he teaches this at, so as to see if what you say is indeed what it teaches.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
And it that really was an accusation thay I lied - well, **** off.
.

Context is just not your thing is it baby. Helps if you thing of M Myers as you read it....


I asked repetadly for a simple link to this Uni or other place of learning, and asumed that your inability to provide it ment it would not support your claim.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

A few sites indicative of the growth in relevance of oral history:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/oral.htm.

Ok, sets out procedure and technics for how to obtain oral history, purpose is set out as to "again emphasizing the importance of supplementing the written record with oral interviews".

Not at all supporting your posistion. Buit does as i said in my earlier post do as i said it to do, would you like me to re post that portion of the post?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/oral/

.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/oral/how.html

Is how this is advocated for use, again does not support your posistion, its about personal memorys being retained that put a fuller perspective on the already existing data.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

http://www.dohistory.org/on_your_own/toolkit/oralHistory.html#ACCURACY

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/

.

As above.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

http://fas-history.rutgers.edu/oralhistory/orlhom.htm.

Quite clear as to its purpose.

The Rutgers Oral History Archives of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Cold War, directed by Sandra Stewart Holyoak, is an enterprise to record the personal experiences of the men and women who served on the home front and overseas.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/oral/

I hate to keep mentioning this, but everyones agrees that oral history supplements history, what done of these links do is support your posistion.

Philosophy behind the Collection
Increasingly our work has focused on the life history or autobiographical approach, to complement our more topical interviews. Inclusive biographies offer us insights into the full life of the person and thereby provide a glimpse into the evolution of society, as well as the individual person, in defining the context for later social and political actions. In many cases, these later actions can be understood and explained only by such subjective factors as belief systems, personal psychology, ideologies, visions and dreams. Life history interviewing is also resonant with recent developments in the historical profession and in other social science disciplines. In historical studies, most scholars now search for data about motivation in order to gain a sense of either the interior life of social processes or an internal view of these processes. They seek information about the more complex processes of personality development, the formation of political consciousness, and the intersection of action and belief. In the words of Jean Paul Sartre, they are interested in what was "done to people but also in what people did with what was done to them."

Part of the action of cultural construction which allows people to create their own histories through their own activities has its origins in the attitudes and visions that motivate their actions. To understand their history, one must understand the process by which such consciousness emerged, and the effects of consciousness on cultural construction. In oral history, that can best be done through the collection of biographical histories in which social, political, and cultural history is illuminated through the telling of a life story. Oral history is, in this sense, the quintessential historical text. Involving, as it does, historians and public figures in the creation of their own documents, oral history merges past and present in the dialectical transformation of text into cultural artifact.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~cohadm01/

More as above.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

It is increasingly accepted that many old written documents that are considered "facts" by men such as Nicki are simply oral history that was recorded, often a generation or two after the fact.

Yes. Many primary ancient soures were written well removed from the time period they cover etc. Your fist link mentioins this and why it was recorded and for what purpose. US Naval; war College uses Thucy to teach modern naval officers the rudiments of naval stratergy using those "facts" Thucy has handed down to us as to how and whty one side one and one side lost.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Centuries later, in the absence of other documentation, it takes on an appearance of veracity (to some people) that is simply not justifiable from an objective point of view.

Really bizare, you now argueing that this oral history that has become written record is now no longer valid because your objectivity prevents your aceptance of the fact it has its origins in oral tradition.

Or again your sweeping statement requires an actual example.

Here we go Thucy writes an acount, it has elements supported by other primary and secondry sources, along with archeology that show the details recounrted are correct,written records of taxes and ships constructed, today it is used to educate nations mil men in how to fight at sea, the oral history component is the personal recolection, speeches and experience the writer also records that add depth of understanding to the events, the motives/desires and so on that drove policy. Economist look at the level of finace expened and compare to modern mil expenditure, mil theorists look to see what lessons can be learned, social historians look at the acounts of what motivated men to partake and so the list goes on.

At no time does the list include oral history having the importance or relavence you said for it, rather it is used as and Molly have already intimated, and your list of links show it to be used for.

Which btw lends more credence to your unwlingness to post your friends Uni, as it no doubt will contain more of what the above say oral is to be used for, and how to do it.


quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I think if you read my posts, I have said that historians are increasingly recognizing that oral history is often more accurate than written history, and in cases where there are two conflicting accounts, the oral record is often correct, and the written record wrong.



quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I presume that means you're not a PhD. Me neither, but two of my close friends are. One heads the history department at his University. It's his assertion of oral history, not mine.


Andquote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking oral history, molly, is increasingly recognized as more accurate than written history. After two centuries of being dismissed by Western historians.

So i am still waiting for a supporting link to back that up, or a single example, which i notice is beyond you.....

[The Mad Viking]

http://www.nipissingu.ca/history/faculty.asp

Look, I'm pretty certain by now I will never change anything you believe. I have yet to see you alter any opinion you have posited, or give any ground to anyone, ever, on 'Poly.

Further, you have precious little of value to add.

And since I really don't value your opinion (unlike, for example, molly's) I really should not bother defending myself from your attacks, or elaborating on positions which you are not even trying to understand.

I like arguing as much as the next guy, but ultimately, there is more to gain if you try to understand the other guy.

Now I gave you a lot of links, and I give you full credit for taking time to look at some of them. One would think that the mere number of them would suggest to you a perception that oral history has value. You can use the word "supplement" if you want, but if oral history did not, in fact, change, or supercede, (or correct errors and ommissions!) in our previous understanding based only on written only history.

So here is something you apparently missed, my emphasis added:

from https://<a href="http://www.dohistor...l#ACCURACY</a>

Once a project is under way, we need to assess and ensure the accuracy of the data gathered. We have to face the question: how accurate is this oral history? At the very least, we must be aware of the limitations of oral history in order not to mislead ourselves into believing that oral history automatically yields accurate renditions of past events.

Because oral history depends upon living people as sources, we have limits; we can go back one lifetime. Because oral history uses spoken, not written sources, the allowable evidence expands. Even in the absence of written documentation, groups such as women, minorities, and the not-famous have been able to record their own histories and the histories of those they consider important using oral history. History is no longer limited to the powerful, famous, and rich, and literate. Now history can give us a much more inclusive, and, one hopes, accurate picture of the past.

Trained to depend on written records, traditional historians have been known to shudder in horror at the potential problems and inherent weaknesses of oral history. What of the failings of human memory? What of the human tendency to impose a narrative structure on events that may not be closely connected? What of the self-serving motives of the story teller? What of the power relationships between interviewer and interviewee that affect what and how events are reported? What of the differences between the spoken and written word? What of the inaccuracies that creep into meaning when trying to put a conversation onto paper?

Well, many of the same problems arise in using written records. Written sources can carry personal or social biases. Written sources occur within a social context. As an example, newspaper accounts contemporary with events often suffer from historical inaccuracy because of the ideological slants of reporters and editorial staff, because of the availability of sources, because of advertisers' interests, and because of the need to sell interesting stories that the public wants to buy. Yet these same newspaper accounts can be used as historical evidence of people's attitudes and interpretations. Even historical analysis published by professional historians intent on upholding the best standards in their field still falls short of that elusive goal, a complete and totally objective account of events.

Understand that professional historians are VERY careful to avoid making claims that will rock the little boat of professional historians that they sail in.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh rubbish. It's easy to make a sweeping statement such as that, but a lot more difficult to back it up. Clearly Beard is rubbing off on you...

Fine. I believe that our accounts of history are rife with Eurocentric bias. Apparently you don't. There are plenty of people in both camps.

As far as the "need" for slaves, well, I guess that depends on how you define "need".

If you define it like an economist, you are quite correct. They needed slaves to increase profits.

It was just because of that damn cotton gin. Had nothing to do with greed or a willingness to treat human beings worse than farm animals.


Antiquity and Africa:
It is generally true that in times when African nations were capable of mounting a viable military action, these nations and their people were not automatically considered inferior.

As far as old Aristotle, leaving out the context that he was also racist against Finns and a misogynist is relevant how?

The Ancient Greeks, for the most part, were very chauvinistic and believed their society to be an ideal that other nations should aspire to. Many believe that Greeks were superior as a people to Persians, for example.

Herodotus was clearly not in this camp, and I'm sure he was not alone.

Rather than Mr. Beard's unhelpful diatribe and victimology, I'd recommend the 'General History of Africa' volume V, edited by B. A. Ogot, published through Unesco. Preface by Amadou-Mahtar M'bow. Some whites may have contributed and it's a written record, but hey, you can't have everything.

Also: Basil Davidson's 'African Civilization Revisited'. A good serious work with excerpts from documents written(!) by black Africans.

Of course Mr. Davidson was born to white British parents, but I'm sure he's coping.

Thanks, molly, I'll take you up on those.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Fine. I believe that our accounts of history are rife with Eurocentric bias. Apparently you don't. There are plenty of people in both camps.

Not true.

I agree that there is bias in everyone (Beard being a case in point), what I don't agree on is that there is this nebulous 'Eurocentric' (perhaps Beard would call it 'WhiteCentric' or whatever pejorative term for honkies is in vogue in his kind of academia at the moment) bias pervading all history.

One wonders what kind of 'Eurocentric' bias C. V. Wedgwood had in writing about the Thirty Years' War, for instance, and how, as you put it, her work showed :

...an overwhelming cultural bias to prop up the ideology of the culture that is important to the survival of it's people.

I don't think the mass destruction, slaughter and religious hatred exhibited in that conflict redounds particularly well to the character and quality of European civilization; surely European, white, Eurocentric historians would all be keeping quiet about a war that engulfed great swathes of Western Europe in convulsions of insensate destruction, death, famine, torture and forced cannibalism on starving peasants ?

As far as the "need" for slaves, well, I guess that depends on how you define "need".

So who was going to pick the cotton and bring in the sugarcane and tobacco ?

The cotton wasn't going to pick itself- ergo, they 'needed' cheap labour to pick the cotton, and increase their profits and make them wealthy and happy.

As the population of the United States and Europe grew, so did the demand for cloth, raw and finished.

That's how I define 'need'- by trying to see it through the eyes of the cotton and tobacco and sugar planters.

As far as old Aristotle, leaving out the context that he was also racist against Finns and a misogynist is relevant how?

The Ancient Greeks, for the most part, were very chauvinistic and believed their society to be an ideal that other nations should aspire to. Many believe that Greeks were superior as a people to Persians, for example.

Herodotus was clearly not in this camp, and I'm sure he was not alone.

Oh come on. Applying modern standards to ancient civilizations is totally pointless- don't play into Beard's hands.

The Greeks could indeed be chauvinistic, as could the Han Chinese, Egyptians, Hittites, Hebrews- and so what ?

Aristotle demonstrates in his quote from 'Physiognomy' the standard Greek philosophical viewpoint of moderation in all things, and nothing to excess- so his comments about excessive whiteness and excessive blackness.

However Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus give us a different viewpoint based on oral history and written texts and residence in Egypt/Africa- which were viewed as being greater than Greece in respect of the antiquity of their learning in mathematics, and as homes/origins of some Greek gods for instance.

I doubt Aristotle ever met a Finn, by the way, but he may well have met Celts- they appear to have met Alexander:

When Alexander the Great was about to get into Asia with his army, he first sought to make a deal with the Celts "who dwelt by the Ionian gulf" to try to secure his Greek lands and dominions while he was away. The friend and perhaps half-brother of Alexander, Ptolemy Soter, relates that the Celtic envoys that Alexander conversed with, were haughty men of great stature, and when they were drinking with Alexander he asked them what they feared the most, they answered:

"We fear no man; only one thing, that the sky should fall on us."

When the envoys left, Alexander turned to his nobles and whispered:

"What a vainglorious people."

Alexander was a little miffed that they hadn't expressed awe and fear of him...

"People of great stature and haughty disposition."

Arrian


The Dying Gaul :

[DaShi]

Why do some many Canadians here throw hissy fits when you don't agree with them?

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Neurotic/Pschotic Viking

http://www.nipissingu.ca/history/faculty.asp

Look, I'm pretty certain by now I will never change anything you believe. I have yet to see you alter any opinion you have posited, or give any ground to anyone, ever, on 'Poly.

Incorrect, just because you have not *seen* it does not mean it has not occured. Logical thought is just not your thing baby...

Think of me as Lord Acton, who never started an argument unless he was sure he was in the right, giving rise top his dictum, the best way to win an argument is to start from being in the right....at worst i have been not all inclusive in my posts, but worong?, nope, and since i gave you an opurtunity to demnostrate if anything i had posted was wrong in fact, rather than intpretation of fact i find you bleating rather shamfull.

Another difference between us is your inability to play the argument rather than the man, if you ever find your able to support you baseless postings you will find the ability to play the man also comes with it, but doing the latter without the former is bad form.

Originally posted by The Neurotic/Pschotic Viking

Further, you have precious little of value to add..

But enough to show your uneducated in the subject matter.

FYI, im a retired lecturer in War Studies, having completed 21 years mil service, and have taught at staff College camberly Uk, and VMI in the USA.

Apartly others found something of value from myself.

So no link to your appeal to authority where you friend works and teaches that oral history is more acurate than the written record, then?, just as i thought.

Originally posted by The Neurotic/Pschotic Viking
And since I really don't value your opinion (unlike, for example, molly's) I really should not bother defending myself from your attacks, or elaborating on positions which you are not even trying to understand..

I understand you have no idea of the subject, based soley on what you post, which is full of logical falacies, inacurate renditions of history that bear little if any resemblance to the historiacal evidence.

Now inability to defend sweeping vaugue undined statements its certainly your thing baby, just as is making them in the first place.

Originally posted by The Neurotic/Pschotic Viking
I like arguing as much as the next guy, but ultimately, there is more to gain if you try to understand the other guy.

I understand you very well. Its your inability to support you wild statemenmts thats the problemo, since your unable to understand the posts i make to you.

Originally posted by The Neurotic/Pschotic Viking
Now I gave you a lot of links, and I give you full credit for taking time to look at some of them. One would think that the mere number of them would suggest to you a perception that oral history has value. You can use the word "supplement" if you want, but if oral history did not, in fact, change, or supercede, (or correct errors and ommissions!) in our previous understanding based only on written only history.

Look sonny, i already said that oral historys support the written record and are used in education. Those links all do that, what they provide are personal and individual records of events that support and enhance the written record. For instance D Day persoanla oral historys decribe what it was like at an individual level, the officail historys, the writen records record such things as what time a unit hit the beech, what losses occured, when its objectives were or were not met, who was in command. What does not occur is the oral history that puts an actual human acount onto that template allow the contrqadiction of the written record.

Another example is the US education system useing the slave oral naratives as part of the Us education systems teaching of the period. in the 192/30s the US Government commisioned every surviing former slave to put down their recolections of slavery so that an oral history of those events would be preserved. That and others acounts provide the oral slave narative. It does not replace the written record only provide the personal recollections of them. intrestingly part of the study was a series of questions, one of which was were you more happy as a slave than now, to which 76% of replys were that they were happier as slaves. It should be born in mind that this was during the depresion, happieness was in short supply. However what does that oral history do to your responsoble for slavery argument?, well the oral history says the salves were happier to be slaves than to be free, you would think someone who introduces oral history would be aware of what the slaves themselves though about it, especially since it contradicts your argument.

What the sheer number of them all saying, ie that they provide individial personal acounts that are important to give a ballance to other sources, rather than a single one of them saying that what the oral acounts is more acurate tha any other is also rather glareing.

Originally posted by The Neurotic/Pschotic Viking
So here is something you apparently missed, my emphasis added:

from https://<a href="http://www.dohistor...l#ACCURACY</a>

Once a project is under way, we need to assess and ensure the accuracy of the data gathered. We have to face the question: how accurate is this oral history? At the very least, we must be aware of the limitations of oral history in order not to mislead ourselves into believing that oral history automatically yields accurate renditions of past events.

Because oral history depends upon living people as sources, we have limits; we can go back one lifetime. Because oral history uses spoken, not written sources, the allowable evidence expands. Even in the absence of written documentation, groups such as women, minorities, and the not-famous have been able to record their own histories and the histories of those they consider important using oral history. History is no longer limited to the powerful, famous, and rich, and literate. Now history can give us a much more inclusive, and, one hopes, accurate picture of the past.

Trained to depend on written records, traditional historians have been known to shudder in horror at the potential problems and inherent weaknesses of oral history. What of the failings of human memory? What of the human tendency to impose a narrative structure on events that may not be closely connected? What of the self-serving motives of the story teller? What of the power relationships between interviewer and interviewee that affect what and how events are reported? What of the differences between the spoken and written word? What of the inaccuracies that creep into meaning when trying to put a conversation onto paper?

Well, many of the same problems arise in using written records. Written sources can carry personal or social biases. Written sources occur within a social context. As an example, newspaper accounts contemporary with events often suffer from historical inaccuracy because of the ideological slants of reporters and editorial staff, because of the availability of sources, because of advertisers' interests, and because of the need to sell interesting stories that the public wants to buy. Yet these same newspaper accounts can be used as historical evidence of people's attitudes and interpretations. Even historical analysis published by professional historians intent on upholding the best standards in their field still falls short of that elusive goal, a complete and totally objective account of events.

What i missed was any single mention at all to support your claim for oral history.


FYI you have misused oral history, conflated its uses for you own inability to post acuratly by a poor attempt to confuse what oral history is used for.
Im unclear if your unable to comprehend that oral history links you have provided are exactly those i had in mind when saying that they support existing written records and do not replace or have more weight than them.

Originally posted by The Neurotic/Pschotic Viking
Understand that professional historians are VERY careful to avoid making claims that will rock the little boat of professional historians that they sail in.

Incorrect, but you would know that if you had passed through an education system or worked in academia.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

As far as the "need" for slaves, well, I guess that depends on how you define "need".

How about i need to be your slave or else your going to cut my throat?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
If you define it like an economist, you are quite correct. They needed slaves to increase profits.

labour costs of slaves are lower than indetures or free people, a US Salve in 1860 obtained 20% of the average free whites income, this put him on a better finacial level than the average euopean of the same period.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
It was just because of that damn cotton gin. Had nothing to do with greed or a willingness to treat human beings worse than farm animals.

Nope, contradicts the statistical data.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The Ancient Greeks, for the most part, were very chauvinistic and believed their society to be an ideal that other nations should aspire to. Many believe that Greeks were superior as a people to Persians, for example.

Every Greek state had slavery it was the bedrock of the greek state economy, Plato and others wrote that from birth some are marked for slavery and others to own them, and that the perfect society had to have slaves in a certain proportion to free men, it was only by having slaves that the free greeks could sit and think about phiosophy, astonomy and so on.

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xari.htm

Aristotle Section 1.5

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I doubt Aristotle ever met a Finn, by the way, but he may well have met Celts- they appear to have met Alexander:

The Greeks gave us the word celts, they traded with in Massilia around 600 BCE and again with them in Etuscia around 500 BCE and called them Keltoi, Vix In Burgandy has the largest Greek Amphotia ever built, found in Celtic burial mound, 280 gallon bronze capacity from 550 BCE. Aleaxander did recieve Celtic envoys in 335 as you mention.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Nickiow
So no link to your appeal to authority where you friend works and teaches that oral history is more acurate than the written record, then?, just as i thought.

This, in a nutshell, shows why it is pointless to discuss anything with anyone who idolized Lord Acton.

You oh-so cleverly edited my username without seeing the link you asked for. You are so sure you are right you never bother to try to understand what the other person is saying. I can imagine you in conversation, your eyes glazed over while you wait impatiently for the noise that is other peoples voices to stop, so that you can babble on with the inane drivel that only you imagine has value.

I said

Look, I'm pretty certain by now I will never change anything you believe. I have yet to see you alter any opinion you have posited, or give any ground to anyone, ever, on 'Poly.

and you responded

Incorrect, just because you have not *seen* it does not mean it has not occured. Logical thought is just not your thing baby...

Both my statements are factually correct. You are absolutely and irrevocably wrong when you said those statements were "inccorect."
Further, it is not illogical to be "pretty certain" of something after watching it's behavior in over 100 instances in different conditions.

FYI, im a retired lecturer in War Studies, having completed 21 years mil service, and have taught at staff College camberly Uk, and VMI in the USA.

There is no shortage of desperate institutions seeking self-important pedants to condescend to their students.

[The Mad Viking]

molly:

On Eurocentric history, I suspect we tend towards agreement. I did not mean to suggest that European history is so biased that it is of little or no worth. The bias varies greatly, and even portions with significant bias are very worthwhile.

But you must be aware of the bias, and that is almost impossible without a context that tradition western history tends to exclude.

It certainly admits to all sorts of European villains doing terrible things to other Europeans. On the other hand, precious few are demonized for their actions against the Arabs. And yes, you can find numerous exceptions to such statements, from a sample of millions of documents.

As far as "need" goes, there seems to be a very low standard for your definition.

That's how I define 'need'- by trying to see it through the eyes of the cotton and tobacco and sugar planters.

I need your wallet, so I need to kill you.

Were slaves useful? Of course.

Did people want to have slaves so they could be wealthy and powerful? Of course.

Did they "need" them? Not in my (perhaps) limited understanding of the word.

Aristotle -

Oh come on. Applying modern standards to ancient civilizations is totally pointless- don't play into Beard's hands.

I agree with you. But it was you who brought ancient civilization's behaviour into the argument about modern standards.

Look, Arnold J. Toynbee said the following:
When we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races...which has not made a creative contribution to any of our twenty-one civilizations is the black race.

I still just bought the first half of his "Study of History". (abridged into 1 large volume). IMO he has a lot of fascinating insights.

People love to discount everything an author says because they find something that is patently wrong. (or because they despise the author's style and diction)

I try not to be like that.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

You oh-so cleverly edited my username without seeing the link you asked for.

Your Mad, right?, your posts contain the elements i use to more acuratly describe your condition, pysochoptic and neurotic, since your fond of logic as you latter define it, its appopriate to call you but what you exhibit, your logic not mine btw, but helping the metaly challenged is not easy....

Saw it(the link), what it does not contain is any mention of how oral history is more accurate than the written record, which is your stated posistion, so i assume you have mistaken your friends opinion as to that, as you have not provided such a link, it is no different than all the others, a link that does support what you claim for it to do.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
You are so sure you are right you never bother to try to understand what the other person is saying. I can imagine you in conversation, your eyes glazed over while you wait impatiently for the noise that is other peoples voices to stop, so that you can babble on with the inane drivel that only you imagine has value.

Vivid imagination, why not post something factually correct rather than something you imagine to be the case. What am i saying!!, youve only ever posted imaginary posistions that when examined nand found wanting, you get pissy because they (your posts) are not based in fact or logic, resulting in incorrect conclusions. Last i looked you posited a position and have to defend it, finding yourself unable to do that you revert to playing the player not the ball.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

I said

Look, I'm pretty certain by now I will never change anything you believe. I have yet to see you alter any opinion you have posited, or give any ground to anyone, ever, on 'Poly.

and you responded

Incorrect, just because you have not *seen* it does not mean it has not occured. Logical thought is just not your thing baby...

Both my statements are factually correct. You are absolutely and irrevocably wrong when you said those statements were "inccorect."
Further, it is not illogical to be "pretty certain" of something after watching it's behavior in over 100 instances in different conditions.

Still playing the player not the ball then......how nice.

Logic is still not your thing baby, just because you have not seen a thing does not mean it has occured, very straight forward comment on you being, unable at all, to determine if my believe in anything has altered through debate, and further inquiry.

I see, so logically then when you post what you call a premise, others find factual or logical problems with it and point them out, your reposnse is to conclude they are the ones with the problem, not that the premise is flawed. Thats how your logic runs so far....your just not a Vulcan are you....

Kinda of pot calling kettle going on in your mind.

Otoh, you have no ability to argue that the US was responsible for slavery, or that genocide is legal, or that oral history is more acurate than the written record, and persuade me that you are cortrect.

Me, i learn something new every day, some days many things, its called having an open mind, the Mad seldom do.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
There is no shortage of desperate institutions seeking self-important pedants to condescend to their students.

Last i looked RMA Sandhurst, Staff College Camberly (http://www.da.mod.uk/CSRC) was the top Uk defence traing establishment, with a world wide intake, VMI USA (http://www.vmi.edu/) also has a long and distinguished history of excellence.

So no not desperate at all, they can and do pick from the worlds finest to teach future mil officers.

Youve earnt every condescending comment by your own action btw. Or another way to look at it, the facts put to you that show your premise to be flawed is not condescending, its called how to learn, you chose to learn or think your the victim.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Look, Arnold J. Toynbee said the following:
When we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races...which has not made a creative contribution to any of our twenty-one civilizations is the black race.

I still just bought the first half of his "Study of History". (abridged into 1 large volume). IMO he has a lot of fascinating insights.

People love to discount everything an author says because they find something that is patently wrong. (or because they despise the author's style and diction)

I try not to be like that.

Except that of course those 21 Civilizations were all non inclusive of the negro race, ergo he was making an acurate comment, not a racist comment but a factual (Toynbee was using emprical dat to furnish much of his arguments) comment that you aparntly find racist or patently wrong.

Is context another concept you have a problem with?.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Nickiow


Except that of course those 21 Civilizations were all non inclusive of the negro race, ergo he was making an acurate comment, not a racist comment but a factual (Toynbee was using emprical dat to furnish much of his arguments) comment that you aparntly find racist or patently wrong.

Is context another concept you have a problem with?.

I think that Egypt had a large black population. It definately had black rulers from time to time. One could argue that the negrito ethnic groups of India, SE Asia, and Australia are very closely related to "the negro race". Thgey've been a part of Indian culture for a long time. Krishna, who is always depicted as dark complected in Indian art, may have been a negrito.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


I think that Egypt had a large black population. It definately had black rulers from time to time. One could argue that the negrito ethnic groups of India, SE Asia, and Australia are very closely related to "the negro race". Thgey've been a part of Indian culture for a long time. Krishna, who is always depicted as dark complected in Indian art, may have been a negrito.

Yes the Upper Egptians are to the best of my knoweldge part of the negroid group and they rulled Egypt for a what, a 000 years.http://www.public.asu.edu/~usman/ima...ian-kemsit.jpg

But Toynbee was not adressing them, but Egypt itself, rather than an ethnic group n (http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html) which was at one time dominate at the political level. However it is exactly that mind set that gave rise to the Afrocentric views more commonly advanced today, which gives less credence to the concept of negro Americans thinking of themselves as Americans and not joining the Uk when the Uk said if you fight for us we will make you free, and staed loyal and later Southern Negros who vastly outnumbered those who did the same for the North, ie they thought of themselves as southern, but negro. Just the same as in Egypt the negros saw theselves as Egyptian rather than a seperate. This seperate concept is rather a new one, and comes almost entirely from the US, it has huge problems being retro fitted onto classical civilisations, but since the whole idea is to drag a century of white dominated thought to a more balanced perspective, ie christ was not a blue eyed blond pale skinned as per the churchs visual would present him, its not a view not worth adopting as your base point, clearly you have more wriggle room by adopting such a stance as Beard.

Of course negros were part of the Egyptian population, (part of the country being called khemi which means black)19 cent london had 5% from Negro stock, Egypt was much higher and is depicted in art while Uk art rarely shows them, but what was the relationship of them at that time, ie was race an issue?, as in Rome a negro could climb to the top of the pile if his abilitys allowed, so it was in Egypt, unlike the Victorians who had a different view on race, and social mobility.