Define 'historical myth'

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.
Yes, December 21st marked the start of a new baktun, which is a period of time lasting 400 years. I'm not sure the term cycle though is really appropriate here however since cycle implies a cyclical view of time, which the Long Count was not. The Long Count (not the actual name, the real name is unknown) was used to measure time for historical purposes rather than functioning as a ritual calendar like the Tzolk'in or a civic calendar like the Haab, though end dates for katuns and baktuns would still be celebrated. In any case, there are also time periods much longer than baktuns. The piktun is the next largest period of time, being 20 baktuns, or roughly 8,000 years. However people aren't going to start rambling about how the end of the current piktun signifies the end of the world because this piktun ends on October 13th, 4772, and shouting about how the end of days is coming in just under 3,000 years isn't sensationalist for people it seems.
 
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.
Indeed, that's a rather annoying way of thinking. Just because a group or culture came from some place doesn't mean the people currently belonging to that group are from that place. Else Russians would be Swedish.
 
A myth is more than a misconception. It also meets some kind of social need; it feeds into a society's sense of itself, or its ideas about an outside group. "America's Founding Fathers were Christians" and "America's founding fathers were deists" are two myths that reinforce different groups' ideas about themselves and the United States.
Responding to the OP, yes, a myth can take root even among a small group of people.
Also people applying different terms than we would today. Arguably both myths are true but rely on different ideas of what it meant to be Christian or Deist-for that matter, how many of the founders would actually have found the two incompatible?
 
Yes, December 21st marked the start of a new baktun, which is a period of time lasting 400 years. I'm not sure the term cycle though is really appropriate here however since cycle implies a cyclical view of time, which the Long Count was not. The Long Count (not the actual name, the real name is unknown) was used to measure time for historical purposes rather than functioning as a ritual calendar like the Tzolk'in or a civic calendar like the Haab, though end dates for katuns and baktuns would still be celebrated. In any case, there are also time periods much longer than baktuns. The piktun is the next largest period of time, being 20 baktuns, or roughly 8,000 years. However people aren't going to start rambling about how the end of the current piktun signifies the end of the world because this piktun ends on October 13th, 4772, and shouting about how the end of days is coming in just under 3,000 years isn't sensationalist for people it seems.

OK, it wasn't cyclic as solar year is. Returning to original point, this whole Mayan apocalypse shenanigans is not a historical myth, it's rather a faulty interpretation of Mayan way of thinking. Historical myth would be if centuries from now people would look back and say "people in early 21st century believed Mayan predicted world will end in december 2012"
 
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.

Misconception. It stems from a real fact, that the end of a cycle of the Mayan calendar happened on December 21st 2012. Granted, it takes a severe lack of logic to conclude that the end of a cycle in any calendar involves the end of that calendar, which as you have said multiple times is absurd since calendars are cyclic by definition and it is comparable to saying that the Gregorian calendar ends in December 31st of any year, century or millenium, let alone that it constitutes a prediction about the end of the world in itself (or that prophecies are real, but this is stupid and paranoid people we are talking about after all).

I think another poster brought an even more valid clue about the difference between a misconception and a myth, and it is that the myth always has some "moral" to be extracted of it, as well. Since Mayans are your forte, I'll use as an example the myth that the Mayans (or any other Native American group) were perfect peaceful pacifists and didn't even have a concept of murder, war and weapons until those pesky Europeans showed up. It goes against all logic, it ignores all evidence or testimony (even from the Mayans themselves) and its sole base is the plain "good savage" stereotype rather than anything we know about them. The (false) moral here is, of course, that evil is apparently a monopoly of the white man and that we westerlings could eliminate violence of our lives "if we were just like the Mayans".

The misconception, on the other hand, has no moral in itself, although it can be given one afterwards by the teller. I admit that it is a blurry line.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, that's a rather annoying way of thinking. Just because a group or culture came from some place doesn't mean the people currently belonging to that group are from that place. Else Russians would be Swedish.

I think the worse thing is the entire idea that ethnic groups have a true "homeland" where they actually belong, as opposed to being the legitimate inhabitants of where-ever they've lived for generations simply by virtue of living there. The attitude toward ethnic groups when it comes to Israel utterly disgusts me.
 

ingemann

Banned
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.

Yes it doesn't make much sense, but the modern Egyptians are cultural strong and important enough that these kind of idiocies won't survive in the long run.

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?

It's a question of legitimicy, when the poles say that Copernicus was polish, you can make a fair argument for it, just as a fair argument could be made for him being German. But if the chinese suddenly claimed he was chinese (a ridiculous example), it become worse, because a fair argument can't be made. It become even worse when it's done against a people who can't defend their history. Simply because if a myth are created, they could later use it to claim the monuments of the Olmecs and the lands they lies on.
 
Top