What's the most Cringeworthy take on Actual History/Archeology you've ever read?

Space Murica said:
Ok, so this is something I heard second hand a decade ago, so I don't have many details.
The main idea is that during ancient times, Mars's orbit was far more eccentric, as well as just plain unstable. And so every once and a while, like once a century ish, Mars would have an encounter with Earth, getting close enough that Phobos and Deimos were visible to the naked eye. Gulliver's Travels is quoted as evidence for this, as that book has two small martian moons named Phobos and Deimos.
And these encounters would cause great tides, dozens of feet high. The only evidence for this was how Rome wasn't a coastal city, because apparently the only reason a non port city could become and stay the capital of an empire was if the coasts flooded every once and a while.
I have nothing more to say.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, so the thread's finally found Velikovsky!
 
Something common among conspiracy theorist but using stylized ancient art as "proof" that the people saw aliens/had a birth disorder.

Because things like metaphor, symbolizism, and artists not having access to reference materials didn't exist in the past. People drew what they saw and only that.

See Ancient Aliens. Or for less insane theories thinking someone is disabled because they appeared stylized in art.


For much of history making a "accurate" copy of reality was not the goal of most artists. Who in many cases where commission workers doing it for political and religious reasons.
 
Konradleijon said:
For much of history making a "accurate" copy of reality was not the goal of most artists. Who in many cases where commission workers doing it for political and religious reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope. Photorealism has been the only goal of any artist ever in the entire history of mankind. Nobody has ever made anything with anything else in mind. Not once, not ever.

And come on! Bias, lies, or exaggeration making it in to media? When has that ever happened?
 
Anaja said:
Nope. Photorealism has been the only goal of any artist ever in the entire history of mankind. Nobody has ever made anything with anything else in mind. Not once, not ever.

And come on! Bias, lies, or exaggeration making it in to media? When has that ever happened?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This attitude reminds me of Video Game culture. Where for a period of time the toxic masculine "graphics are king" crowd and a subset of developers got it into their head that realistic ultra detailed graphics where good and stylized games where bad.

See Zelda: Windwaker which used a cartoony artstyle and was thought of as childish even do it's a good game.
 
"If Bush I and Clinton had kept squeezing Russia in thr 90's there wouldn't have been a Ukraine war"

While I'm not 100% unsympathetic to the sentiment, I rather suspect that wouldn't have gone remotely as people who say that think, not least because I don't think there was much left to squeeze out of 90's Russia.
 
king of hybrids said:
"If Bush I and Clinton had kept squeezing Russia in thr 90's there wouldn't have been a Ukraine war"

While I'm not 100% unsympathetic to the sentiment, I rather suspect that wouldn't have gone remotely as people who say that think, not least because I don't think there was much left to squeeze out of 90's Russia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's the same sentiment as the bad takes of 'we should have actually annexed Iraq/Afghanistan/wherever instead of trying to have it both ways.'

You know, the whole actually be an imperial conquered and don't pretend you aren't and half ass it sort of thing. Blah.
 
king of hybrids said:
"If Bush I and Clinton had kept squeezing Russia in thr 90's there wouldn't have been a Ukraine war"

While I'm not 100% unsympathetic to the sentiment, I rather suspect that wouldn't have gone remotely as people who say that think, not least because I don't think there was much left to squeeze out of 90's Russia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think what would be better is if the US and NATO where not obsessively pushing neoliberalism privatization on the USSR during the fall of the Soviet Union and let some social democracy system headed by the Russian people. We wouldn't have had the rise of Putin as there wouldn't be a neoliberal haze on Russia which lead to Putin being in power and his strong manning which lead lead to the Ukraine War.

Why are Liberal economics so obsessed with free market capitalism with no regulations.

Like anything slightly socialist is bad.
 
Konradleijon said:
I think what would be better is if the US and NATO where not obsessively pushing neoliberalism privatization on the USSR during the fall of the Soviet Union and let some social democracy system headed by the Russian people. We wouldn't have had the rise of Putin as there wouldn't be a neoliberal haze on Russia which lead to Putin being in power and his strong manning which lead lead to the Ukraine War.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Absolutely, "squeezing" Russia more wouldn't solve the problem. Putin's whole shtick is that he's a revanchist nationalist who uses perceived ( and mostly real!) national victimization to earn support. I don't see how the West treating Russia as an enemy earlier would lead to anything other then a stronger and probably more radical Putin administration.

As usual neolibs interested more in globe flavored in-group/out-group dynamic then anything actually constructive miss the obvious lessons of history in order to justify their eternal nuance-less crusade.
 
Konradleijon said:
I think what would be better is if the US and NATO where not obsessively pushing neoliberalism privatization on the USSR during the fall of the Soviet Union and let some social democracy system headed by the Russian people. We wouldn't have had the rise of Putin as there wouldn't be a neoliberal haze on Russia which lead to Putin being in power and his strong manning which lead lead to the Ukraine War.

Why are Liberal economics so obsessed with free market capitalism with no regulations.

Like anything slightly socialist is bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because liberalism exists to lend legitimacy to capitalism. The last of Liberalism's revolutionary character died in WWI.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
Absolutely, "squeezing" Russia more wouldn't solve the problem. Putin's whole shtick is that he's a revanchist nationalist who uses perceived ( and mostly real!) national victimization to earn support. I don't see how the West treating Russia as an enemy earlier would lead to anything other then a stronger and probably more radical Putin administration.

As usual neolibs interested more in globe flavored in-group/out-group dynamic then anything actually constructive miss the obvious lessons of history in order to justify their eternal nuance-less crusade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The same thing with the Koreas, Middle East, Latin America.

If the USA stayed out of other countries business then none or little of the stuff would happen.

I think there is a common North Korean bad history where people think that North Korea's railing against America and South Korea is made up bullshit when it's actually based on facts.

The US did bomb every structure in North Korea ,committed massive war crimes, and does turn other counties into puppet states to feed American capital.

South Korea was a dictatorship around the level of early North Korea for a while and even today is basically a cyberpunk dystopia where workers have no rights and only looks good next to North Korea.

I am not defending North Korea. But it's not like the whole anti American thing is made of nothing or that America wouldn't threaten their national security if they where not repressive.
 
Konradleijon said:
I think what would be better is if the US and NATO where not obsessively pushing neoliberalism privatization on the USSR during the fall of the Soviet Union and let some social democracy system headed by the Russian people. We wouldn't have had the rise of Putin as there wouldn't be a neoliberal haze on Russia which lead to Putin being in power and his strong manning which lead lead to the Ukraine War.

Why are Liberal economics so obsessed with free market capitalism with no regulations.

Like anything slightly socialist is bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that the whole privatization thing was pretty much a domestic push, with NATO generally ignoring Russia. Cause nothing bad was gonna happen after the fall of the Soviet Union, right?
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
Absolutely, "squeezing" Russia more wouldn't solve the problem. Putin's whole shtick is that he's a revanchist nationalist who uses perceived ( and mostly real!) national victimization to earn support. I don't see how the West treating Russia as an enemy earlier would lead to anything other then a stronger and probably more radical Putin administration.

As usual neolibs interested more in globe flavored in-group/out-group dynamic then anything actually constructive miss the obvious lessons of history in order to justify their eternal nuance-less crusade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where have we seen an authoritarian use real grievances to fuel nationalism and conquest before?
 
Konradleijon said:
The same thing with the Koreas, Middle East, Latin America.

If the USA stayed out of other countries business then none or little of the stuff would happen.

I think there is a common North Korean bad history where people think that North Korea's railing against America and South Korea is made up bullshit when it's actually based on facts.

The US did bomb every structure in North Korea ,committed massive war crimes, and does turn other counties into puppet states to feed American capital.

South Korea was a dictatorship around the level of early North Korea for a while and even today is basically a cyberpunk dystopia where workers have no rights and only looks good next to North Korea.

I am not defending North Korea. But it's not like the whole anti American thing is made of nothing or that America wouldn't threaten their national security if they where not repressive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If the US "stayed out of other countries business", the DPRK would be much bigger.
 
To clarify, as I understand it the 'keep squeezing' notion is literal/geographic as well as economic; in terms of thinking in hindsight that not trying to more actively court/recruit/subvert all the former non-Russia SSRs and utterly surround Russia before it could get back up was a mistake.

Considering the track records, all it would do would be to result in a slightly larger Russia and a substantially larger Turkey
 
king of hybrids said:
To clarify, as I understand it the 'keep squeezing' notion is literal/geographic as well as economic; in terms of thinking in hindsight that not trying to more actively court/recruit/subvert all the former non-Russia SSRs and utterly surround Russia before it could get back up was a mistake.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As far as I'm aware, the countries in Eastern Europe that joined NATO after the fall of the USSR did so pretty eagerly.

The last 500 years or so has not given them the assurance that Russia wouldn't be coming back for them.
 
Mopman43 said:
As far as I'm aware, the countries in Eastern Europe that joined NATO after the fall of the USSR did so pretty eagerly.

The last 500 years or so has not given them the assurance that Russia wouldn't be coming back for them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can only imagine that it'd be a pretty sweet deal. Join NATO, thereby getting protections against the predations of both a revanchist, post-Soviet Russia (it's not like that culture, people, or sense of nationalism just evaporated overnight, after all) as well as a formal assurance that you, yourself, won't be snapped up by a hungry major European power. At least, on paper.

Especially given the treatment of nations outside of the imperial core of the Soviet Union, and as you mention the long, long history of those territories.

Every nation needs a military, after all, and things look a little more certain and a little less threatening when you throw in under a relatively stable multi-nation defensive treaty. Or so my naive understanding of global politics tells me.

Of course this is a rosy and simplistic view of history on my part, one that's formed largely by hindsight (hello Budapest Memorandum what're you doing here?), but... eh.
 
Last edited:
Parzival said:
Kim-Il-Sung was already establishing his personality cult by the time of the Korean War, try again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is a difference between a "normal" cult of personality dictator and modern day North Korea.

A Small Bird said:
I can only imagine that it'd be a pretty sweet deal. Join NATO, thereby getting protections against the predations of both a revanchist, post-Soviet Russia (it's not like that culture, people, or sense of nationalism just evaporated overnight, after all) as well as a formal assurance that you, yourself, won't be snapped up by a hungry major European power. At least, on paper.

Especially given the treatment of nations outside of the imperial core of the Soviet Union, and as you mention the long, long history of those territories.

Every nation needs a military, after all, and things look a little more certain and a little less threatening when you throw in under a relatively stable multi-nation defensive treaty. Or so my naive understanding of global politics tells me.

Of course this is a rosy and simplistic view of history on my part, one that's formed largely by hindsight (hello Budapest Memorandum what're you doing here?), but... eh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
NATO could have accepted members that where still socialist but like supported human rights.

Or atleadt not privatized.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top