Define 'historical myth'

ingemann

Banned
Yeah, Afrocentrism is pretty bad. Like the whole 'ancient Egyptians were Black' thing, which just doesn't make sense on dozens of levels.

I can live with Ancient Egypt was Black, at least one dynasty was Nubian so it have some ground in history. Yes the conclusion is wrong but at least one dynastys had Black pharaohs. So full of shit, but still some connection with reality
Cleopatra I also can live it, it's clearly wrong and stupid (we have most of her genelogy and it was Macedonian with a few Persians), but who cares.
the one which piss me off, is the Olmecs was black, beside being incredible obvious wrong, it's also bring associations with 19th centuries Victorians up "the Mesoamericans was too primitive to build a civilisation, Africans did it". It steal a pierce of history from one of the world's poorest people, it's so fundamental unsympatic that it really pisses me off.
 
I can live with Ancient Egypt was Black, at least one dynasty was Nubian so it have some ground in history. Yes the conclusion is wrong but at least one dynastys had Black pharaohs. So full of shit, but still some connection with reality
Cleopatra I also can live it, it's clearly wrong and stupid (we have most of her genelogy and it was Macedonian with a few Persians), but who cares.
Well, 'black' just doesn't mean much in the context of Ancient Egypt. Nor does it actually mean anything in a modern-day context, Africa is as diverse as the rest of the world added together. It mostly exists to give people some odd atavistic kick, which feels nice for them I guess but it shouldn't be treated seriously.

the one which piss me off, is the Olmecs was black, beside being incredible obvious wrong, it's also bring associations with 19th centuries Victorians up "the Mesoamericans was too primitive to build a civilisation, Africans did it". It steal a pierce of history from one of the world's poorest people, it's so fundamental unsympatic that it really pisses me off.
I don't want to diminish the injustice of this case, but isn't that what every such politicised history does? Diminish one cultures' history and accomplishments to pointlessly improve another's?
 
Nobody believes that.

I don't think anyone is that stupid to believe that.

Although I agree with the gist of what you are saying.
Never underestimate how stupid people can be. I've actually met quite a number of people who believe that Palestine was pretty much empty before Zionist settlement, even bringing out Mark Twain quotes to back it up. One idiot I had the displeasure of conversing with once even went as far to say that Palestine is a made up name because there is no letter P in the Arabic language. The latter is true, but the name of Palestine in Arabic is Falastine. Go figure

I guess one of the historical myths that annoy me the most (although it is thankfully rare on this website) is that the Ottomans never seriously attempted reform, and this was one held by me until around 6-7 years ago. It stands in stark contrast to the many efforts dating back to the 17th century in order to correct what was thought to be the Empires faults. Although earlier reform movements did differ greatly from the later ones.
 
Never underestimate how stupid people can be. I've actually met quite a number of people who believe that Palestine was pretty much empty before Zionist settlement, even bringing out Mark Twain quotes to back it up. One idiot I had the displeasure of conversing with once even went as far to say that Palestine is a made up name because there is no letter P in the Arabic language. The latter is true, but the name of Palestine in Arabic is Falastine. Go figure

I guess one of the historical myths that annoy me the most (although it is thankfully rare on this website) is that the Ottomans never seriously attempted reform, and this was one held by me until around 6-7 years ago. It stands in stark contrast to the many efforts dating back to the 17th century in order to correct what was thought to be the Empires faults. Although earlier reform movements did differ greatly from the later ones.

1. Using Mark Twain quotes to talk about the supposed emptiness of Palestine? Interesting.

2. What were the difference between the reform movements?
 
Yeah, Afrocentrism is pretty bad. Like the whole 'ancient Egyptians were Black' thing, which just doesn't make sense on dozens of levels.
If you think that's bad there's also the claim that Halfdan the Black was black because Dark-Age Norsemen totally used 21st-century ethnic appellations! I suppose in regards to his son Harald Fairhair, Halfdan's genes were recessive. All of them, if you must ask. ;)
 
Never underestimate how stupid people can be. I've actually met quite a number of people who believe that Palestine was pretty much empty before Zionist settlement, even bringing out Mark Twain quotes to back it up. One idiot I had the displeasure of conversing with once even went as far to say that Palestine is a made up name because there is no letter P in the Arabic language. The latter is true, but the name of Palestine in Arabic is Falastine. Go figure
Seeing people first figure out that 'Palestine' and 'Philistine' have a common origin is always funny. Of course, the Old Testament doesn't exactly paint a very nice picture of the Philistines...
 
1. Using Mark Twain quotes to talk about the supposed emptiness of Palestine? Interesting.

2. What were the difference between the reform movements?
1. While travelling in the area, he noted that it was rather sparsely populated (which it was, but so was the rest of the Middle East until the 20th century). People arguing against the existence of a Palestinian people argue that this proves that only roaming Bedouin lived in Palestine, and that there were not settled people to expelled, something that goes against census data, not to mention photographic evidence.

2. The earlier reform movements were based on emulating the Ottoman Empire of the late 15th/early 16th centuries rather than reforming along the lines of Western nations. It wasn't until the "Tulip Era" of Ahmed III that reformers in the Ottoman Empire looked to Western nations as a model.
Seeing people first figure out that 'Palestine' and 'Philistine' have a common origin is always funny. Of course, the Old Testament doesn't exactly paint a very nice picture of the Philistines...
Speaking of which, I did once hear an argument that asserted the homeland of the Palestinian people was Greece. Since the Sea People may have come from there, and since Philistines may have been Sea People. I thank god that I only heard that argument once.
 
1. While travelling in the area, he noted that it was rather sparsely populated (which it was, but so was the rest of the Middle East until the 20th century). People arguing against the existence of a Palestinian people argue that this proves that only roaming Bedouin lived in Palestine, and that there were not settled people to expelled, something that goes against census data, not to mention photographic evidence.

This strikes me as being especially egregious. I mean, who did they think lived in the cities?
 
This strikes me as being especially egregious. I mean, who did they think lived in the cities?
A logical, common sense question. The ones I've talked to usually avoid by pointing out Tel-Aviv was only a city thanks to Zionist settlement, or some shtick about being "glorified villages", or mainly Jewish populated (the only city in Palestine prior to Zionist settlement with a significant population was Jerusalem). The Twain quote itself was " (Palestine is a) desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country".

Of course, he also describes Greece as being the same, despite also noting that it has not too short of a million inhabitants, which seems to suggest that perhaps his authority on the population of Eastern Mediterranean countries in the 19th century may be less reliable then the censuses of these nations.
 
I think this is quickly becoming another historical misconceptions thread.

Not that I have nothing against that, since there are a lot of historical misconceptions that didn't make the cut in the other one(s).

To me, a historical myth is when something is plain, obvious bullshit that makes even less sense the more you think about it, yet keeps being repeated and repeated because it makes a good story, rather than people misunderstanding something that is (unlike the myth) actually based on a first fact whose meaning has been perverted through muted repetition. Washington and the cherry tree, Columbus sailing to prove the world was round and Queen Isabella pawning her jewels to pay for the voyage (as previously mentioned), Popess Joan, the pyramids being built by Jewish slaves, Hitler was part Jewish, that guy that suposedly invented baseball yet is not featured in the baseball hall of fame, etc. all are historical myths rather than misconceptions.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Afrocentrism is pretty bad. Like the whole 'ancient Egyptians were Black' thing, which just doesn't make sense on dozens of levels.
It makes more sense than "The Ancient Chinese were black" or "The Celtic Druids were black" theories which I have heard.

It also makes more sense than the "The Ancient Egyptians were East Asians" theory that one guy proposed.
 
I think this is quickly becoming another historical misconceptions thread.

Not that I have nothing against that, since there are a lot of historical misconceptions that didn't make the cut in the other one(s).

To me, a historical myth is when something is plain, obvious bullshit that makes even less sense the more you think about it, yet keeps being repeated and repeated because it makes a good story, rather than people misunderstanding something that is (unlike the myth) actually based on a first fact whose meaning has been perverted through muted repetition. Washington and the cherry tree, Columbus sailing to prove the world was round and Queen Isabella pawning her jewels to pay for the voyage (as previously mentioned), Popess Joan, the pyramids being built by Jewish slaves, Hitler was part Jewish, that guy that suposedly invented baseball yet is not featured in the baseball hall of fame, etc. all are historical myths rather than misconceptions.
So would you count the idea that the Maya calendar ended on December 21st 2012 as a historical myth? I mean, it's certainly retarded enough, it assumes people lacked the ability to use simple addition and yet it's been repeated so often that most people actually seem to believe it.
 
So would you count the idea that the Maya calendar ended on December 21st 2012 as a historical myth? I mean, it's certainly retarded enough, it assumes people lacked the ability to use simple addition and yet it's been repeated so often that most people actually seem to believe it.

That's like saying "Wow, christian calendar ends on 31. December! World will end then!" instead of "Christian calendar ends on 31. December. Then we start new one and when that one ends we start new one again." Mayans only had longer cycles and I believe calendars were found that go up to 5000AD+.
 
That's like saying "Wow, christian calendar ends on 31. December! World will end then!" instead of "Christian calendar ends on 31. December. Then we start new one and when that one ends we start new one again." Mayans only had longer cycles and I believe calendars were found that go up to 5000AD+.
What do you mean longer cycles? And that's another misconception/myth, that the calendar is a physical object and we need a physical copy of the calendar to know how the dates progress. What archaeologists have found are inscribed/written dates that go pretty damn far into the future. We know they didn't believe the world ends in 2012 not because we found a stone tablet that inexplicably has every date for the next several thousand years inscribed on it (I have no idea how that's supposed to work or why people ignore the illogicality of it) but because the Maya are still around, their beliefs weren't totally eradicated, and there's a lot we can glean from ancient writings as well. As it happens the Maya, both past and present, believed the current creation has the potential to last forever and therefore there's no set end date since they didn't believe it would definitely end.
 
What do you mean longer cycles? And that's another misconception/myth, that the calendar is a physical object and we need a physical copy of the calendar to know how the dates progress. What archaeologists have found are inscribed/written dates that go pretty damn far into the future. We know they didn't believe the world ends in 2012 not because we found a stone tablet that inexplicably has every date for the next several thousand years inscribed on it (I have no idea how that's supposed to work or why people ignore the illogicality of it) but because the Maya are still around, their beliefs weren't totally eradicated, and there's a lot we can glean from ancient writings as well. As it happens the Maya, both past and present, believed the current creation has the potential to last forever and therefore there's no set end date since they didn't believe it would definitely end.

Longer cycles same way we have year long cycle (=1 year). Granted, I'm not exactlly sure on details but December 2012 was just the end of one such centuries long cycle.
 
Re: the Nubian dynasty in Egypt, wouldn't they have intermarried and assimilated at some point? They might have started out black, but they wouldn't stay that way.
 
Re: the Nubian dynasty in Egypt, wouldn't they have intermarried and assimilated at some point? They might have started out black, but they wouldn't stay that way.

The Ptolemies didn't intermarry themselves with the Egyptian population though they were a special case. Given how much the Nubians admired Egyptian religion and culture, they would have eventually assimilated had those barbarian dogs from Assur not kicked them out! :p
 
Re: the Nubian dynasty in Egypt, wouldn't they have intermarried and assimilated at some point? They might have started out black, but they wouldn't stay that way.
Unless you're talking about a different Nubian dynasty than the one I'm thinking of, they apparently didn't last long enough to have intermarried and all.
 
Top