As i understand it history has many reports about the death of Cleopatra. One source states when Mark Anthony committed suicide, he was buried with Cleopatra in her residence (which now is under water). Another source source says Caesar put a guard on Cleopatra, so she would not commit suicide. Only those who were there and saw these events knew the truth and wrote about it then. Those who wrote about what happened in there time come from many sources. Who do you believe? pljames
About history.
- Thread starter pljames
- Start date
We believe into what we want to believe. We are also influenced others so called authority,Not to believe in what intellectual believe we will be chastised by the society
My feeling about this or any other historical event is to try to understand what historians say. I believe most historians are trying to find the truth, but, like everyone else, are limited by the available evidence.
I'll lend support to the side with the best evidence. What I "believe" is subjective to my own perception and mental model of how my brain interprets outside information or stimuli. Mainstream history can vary depending on who or whom you are asking. History can and will be written by the victors. If the information is compatible, then multiple scenarios can arise to explain an occurrence in our past. Take for example the perspectives of the two distinct cultures. The Aztecs saw the Spaniards as gods and welcomed them with open arms; the Spaniards…saw them as vermin and treated them as such. In that time span the Spaniards wrote their own account of their encounters with the Meso-Americans…and only after centuries did we look into the history from both sides to question the “truth” of the Spaniards history in the Americas.
Another thing about history, made more obvious in modern times, is the influence of revisionist history. This is where we use our modern bias and perception to judge the past, thereby losing the original context. As an example, modern times is against slavery of the past, which was not the case in other times of history. We might feel it necessary to judge the past by the present and assume their intend was the same as we project. Then we label the past, incorrectly for political gain.
The second half of this history time shift trick, is since we are being allowed to use modern perception to judge and define the past, then it is just as valid to judge the present, by that past. Even if you did nothing, if it is happened in the past, and we can make a superficial connection, you did it. This allows dual standards. I am concerned about liberal education and liberal history revision turning the past into a fantasy outside of space and time. Many blacks have taken the revision to heart, until they feel the past is alive in the present, even though this is the most accepting of all times. Liars don't care as long as they gain.
If I used that revisionist template, Mark Anthony and Cleopatra could be liberalized by giving them a modern romantic spin. Mark Anthony used his iPhone to call the guards and the therapists, but Cleopatra had stopped taking her meds.
The second half of this history time shift trick, is since we are being allowed to use modern perception to judge and define the past, then it is just as valid to judge the present, by that past. Even if you did nothing, if it is happened in the past, and we can make a superficial connection, you did it. This allows dual standards. I am concerned about liberal education and liberal history revision turning the past into a fantasy outside of space and time. Many blacks have taken the revision to heart, until they feel the past is alive in the present, even though this is the most accepting of all times. Liars don't care as long as they gain.
If I used that revisionist template, Mark Anthony and Cleopatra could be liberalized by giving them a modern romantic spin. Mark Anthony used his iPhone to call the guards and the therapists, but Cleopatra had stopped taking her meds.
Another example is being told that Christopher Columbus discovered America when we knew there were Native Americans already living there. Twisting history because you are in charge of documenting it is a very common occurrence so I really do not put much faith in history books for truth but only what they want you think that happened.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Do you apply that same standard to your holy book?
this isn't what high school history teaches.
actually it was the vikings that discovered north america and more specifically newfoundland.
what does indian folklore say about the discovery of north america?
So your saying that the Vikings "discovered" America but not the Native Americans who had been living there already for over 30,000 years? It would seem to me somewhere you too were influenced by history books written by those who cannot print the truth about who was here first and when. There are nowadays history books setting this record straight and it only took centuries to do this and signify that the Native Americans were here and it was them who first discovered America not anyone else. Now when history books say that the Vikings were the first Europeans to discover America that could be a much better way of addressing history, to me, but alas they don't do it that way.
Some portion yes.
Unfortunately Giovanni Verrazano and Jon Cabotto is not mentioned. I believe Americo Vespussion never vent higher then Central America
Not quite.
It isn't fully known how the Native Americans came to be where they were. They may have crossed fro the Bering strait when things were a little iced over, they may have gone there before or after that.
But the word "discover" carries with it connotations of having been the act of discovery. As in, and specifically in the case of Columbus, someone who set out with the purpose of completing a map. To determine how the world was made up, and to give others a picture of what the world was. Is.
The Native Americans might have been the first there, but they didn't "discover" anything, as much as stumble across it. They were looking for a place to hunker down, with a decent food source. Columbus went to complete a map.
Whether or not you subscribe to theories of the Vikings, or the Basques, or what have you, the simple fact is that Columbus went there in hopes of proving a theory and adding to our knowledge of the world. That is discovery. Men who add to the knowledge of men.
Human knowledge and success is about the advancement of knowledge. No people who merely survived where they happened to be born has contributed anything toward that.
Human advancement and dominance is dependent on far more than a water buffalo and a rice paddy to shit in. The sooner you accept that and get off the spiritual high horse, the better off you'll be.
Therefore hurray for the dego Giovanni and for the Italian Jew Caboto.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There is now incontrovertible evidence of an earlier wave of European exploration of North America. (About 20KYA if I'm not mistaken.)
It occurred during an ice age when sea level was much lower than today, so the shoreline extended about 25 miles further out. Underwater archeology has discovered the ruins of habitations that were inarguably built by Europeans because they used the same technologies that were used by the Europeans of that era. This was long before the Indo-European migration to Europe so it would have been the Cro-Magnon people, the first Homo sapiens to reach Europe.
Unfortunately they seem to have died out without colonizing the hemisphere. Their DNA is not found in modern Native Americans.
A brief [half hour] search of Wikipedia and Talk Origins reveals nothing of an EEMH [European Early Modern Humans or Cro-Magnons] presence in North America. 20KYA places them as very late in EEMH history. They are thought to have disappeared as a distinct human type around 10KYA.
For your assertions to be credible you should provide a credible reference. Please don't denigrate Wikipedia or Talk Origins and think this is a satisfactory answer. I know both have their faults, as have most public references online. A peer-reviewed scientific journal such as Nature might be a start.
With reference to the bolded, no, I really don't think so.
The prevalence of knowledge and points of reference in modern times has made revisionist history more difficult, not more prevalent.
I'm not arguing revisionist history doesn't exist. I'm saying it's far more difficult now to get away with, than it ever was in the past.
To clarify further, your statement "made more obvious in modern times" is the very point which denies the rest of your post.
If it were made more obvious, then surely it was by dint of fact?
Actually I'm going to retract that. You're quite right, it has been "made more obvious". I wasn't reading thoroughly enough.