MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Did The Dark Ages Exist? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 86, 87, 88  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As some of you may recall, I have argued in favor of the possibility that slavery existed in America---specifically African American slavery---prior to the arrival of Europeans. In fact, I have suggested that Europeans may have inherited the slavery system from those who had previously established it.

For reference, see The Nile and the Mississippi and Why is it that the southern states had slaves while the north did not?

My attention was recently drawn to some interesting illustrations of "Americans" made in 1671. These are featured in Arnoldus Montanus’ New and Unknown World. Do these drawings actually show dark skinned peoples of an "African" type?

It was the first person appearing in this video, THE ISRAELITES: YOU NEGROS NOT AFRICAN, BLACK, NOR AFRICAN AMERICANS, who alerted me to these images. He also brought to my attention this book, Africans and Native Americans, which argues that blacks were present in America prior to "Columbus."

Interestingly, Don Cheatle's ancestors were slaves in America. But their masters were Native Americans.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen. I give you...


The Taj Mahal


One of the strange stories told about the Palace of Versailles is that occupants openly defecated in its hallways.
What did the...thousands of people of Versailles use for their toilets? One option was of course the major hallways where people would squat in the dark corners and use as their toilet. At one point, the dauphin and dauphine were housed in apartments off of the major hallway, and a gate was put up around their door to ensure people would not use that area as their toilet.
-- A Day in the Life of the Royals
These stories are widely reported in official histories of Versailles.

They are all nonsense.

Despite the reputation of the French for their reluctance to bathe, such behavior as is described above is utterly alien everywhere within the Western world. No one in the West openly shits in hallways and homes. Where open sewers existed in the West, they did so by necessity (dense, urban environments that were over-built and exceeded the capacity of latrines and closed/buried sewers).

On the other hand, there is one place where this behavior is normal. To my knowledge it is, in fact, the only place where this behavior is normal.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So surprised these posts are garnering no response.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
So surprised these posts are garnering no response.

I'm enjoying them :) Not too much to add though at the moment.

One of the strange stories told about the Palace of Versailles is that occupants openly defecated in its hallways.

I remember being equally shocked by this when I came across it in a book a few years back. In fact, I remember reading the page two or three times as I thought I'd misread it, somehow it seemed that unlikely. Your theory makes much more sense, though I still find it hard to believe that it would be commonplace for people to openly defecate in the corridors of a major palace - even in India (no offence intended to any Indians reading lol).

I think a slightly more believable variant would be;

There are tales of the Taj Mahal, and apocryphal tales of people defecating in its hallways based on the knowledge that open defecation is common in India - it's easier to believe that foreigners are primitive ..they even openly defecate in the palace hallways! (Maybe there even were a few infamous cases of it actually happening within the palace which became the basis for the generalisation). Then when the Palace of Versailles is later conflated with the Taj Mahal these semi-apocryphal, semi-truthful stories get conflated too.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It could be argued that no western nation 'knows' India as well as Britain and many of its colonial families can be assumed to have had ambivalent feelings about Indian customs. Conversely there is little ambivalence in British attitudes towards France. Any opportunity to denigrate French ways would no doubt be seized on and widely repeated, even believed.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
Your theory makes much more sense, though I still find it hard to believe that it would be commonplace for people to openly defecate in the corridors of a major palace - even in India (no offence intended to any Indians reading lol).


It isn't now and probably never was. However, I am told that the surrounding townships are full of public defecators, even now, despite the interests of the Indian Government in quelling the practice for the sake of the tourists. It wouldn't take much for these tales to migrate to the Palace itself.

And considering that one of our quality Indian immigrants to Canada, recently elected to sit in judgment of us Canadians as a member of our fine Governing Parliament, was recently captured on hidden camera pissing into a tea cup in the home of one of his constituents, I haven't any doubt that the Indian locals shat all over the Taj Mahal when afforded the opportunity.

But the locals weren't the occupants.

Who were the occupants?

Supposedly Muslim overlords. The Mogols of India. The Mongols that is. But who the hell were they. Really. Were they actually Muslim?

If I'm to believed, Louise 14 is at least a composite of a local French ruler and a Mogol "Sun King," and it is just as possible that Louise 14 is a mere duplicate of the Mogal and France never had a king at all.

There are tales of the Taj Mahal, and apocryphal tales of people defecating in its hallways based on the knowledge that open defecation is common in India - it's easier to believe that foreigners are primitive ..they even openly defecate in the palace hallways! (Maybe there even were a few infamous cases of it actually happening within the palace which became the basis for the generalisation). Then when the Palace of Versailles is later conflated with the Taj Mahal these semi-apocryphal, semi-truthful stories get conflated too.


That is the proposal in essence.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why this fixation with Indian toilet habits? Goethe was horrified at witnessing public defecation in Italy in 1780, the Scottish writer, Tobias Smollett, was similarly offended during his travels in Italy and France in the 1760s. Paris sewers separating drinking and non-drinking water were built in the late nineteenth century, ditto London's sewer system.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Believe it.

Or not.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Someone bought me a book for Christmas; A History of the World in Twelve Maps by Jerry Brotton. In the first chapter there are a few nuggets about the famed astronomer Ptolemy.

After its completion, Ptolemy's Geography disappeared for a thousand years. No original copies from Ptolemy's own time have survived, and it only reappeared in thirteenth century Byzantium

Then a few paragraphs later;

Turning to Ptolemy's biography to try to understand the significance of his book offers little help. Virtually nothing is known about his life. There is no autobiography, no statue, not even an account written by a contemporary.



Also on a similar note this video just popped up on YouTube. More evidence that conspiracists are encroaching upon the history revisionism territory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oTXmt4w70

I'm not a fully paid up member of his website so I don't have access to the accompanying article he's produced. However, he did a similar one a few weeks back about Herodotus, and in that he pointed out that the source documents for Herodotus don't go back especially far.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's typically brazen of the forgers to use the name 'Ptolemy'.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've also been reading a book about Swiss history - A Concise History of Switzerland, Clive Church & Randolph Head. In that a similar "lost to history" document reappears. Though this time much, much later. 19th century.

The new federal politics faced a powerful challenge from a new cantonal democratic movement in the 1860s, which ultimately produced both a new federal constitution in 1874, making Switzerland a tighter federation, and also a new clash with the Catholic Church. Switzerland's uncertain place in an increasingly nationalist Europe also spurred renewed interest in Swiss past: the pact of 1291 between Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden (lost until the eighteenth century and published only in the 1830s) became a new cornerstone of national pride and led to the creation of a national holiday on 1 August
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Switzerland's uncertain place in an increasingly nationalist Europe also spurred renewed interest in Swiss past: the pact of 1291 between Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden (lost until the eighteenth century and published only in the 1830s)

Clearly a forgery. You might want to firm this up. It's always good to epater the Swiss. The nineteenth century is full of these let's-be-a-nation discoveries.

You might be interested to know that Switzerland is a Megalithically Created Country (MCC) along with Portugal, Scotland, Savoy and one or two others that have slipped my mind. Oh, yes, England. And the MCC of course. Did you know they vetoed Brian Close's selection for a tour to Australia? Bigger than Yorkshire they were once. And it included Middlesborough at the time. So no gain there.

PS I spent aeons tracking down a general history of Switzerland in English (it's significant Swiss ones have never been translated) so I expect it was the one you cite. Says everything twice but doesn't say much, is that the one?
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I expect it was the one you cite. Says everything twice but doesn't say much, is that the one?

This one was first published 2013, so I'm guessing it's a different one. There is a fair bit of repetition though.

You might be interested to know that Switzerland is a Megalithically Created Country

I remember reading the thread somewhere on here about the development of nation states. That was quite a while ago, but I remember it making perfect sense, and it had quite an impact on my thinking. I may have to revisit it again. I'm partly interested at the moment because of the overlaps between Jewish history and Greek/Roman history. If the first states were city states, then I'm thinking the first nations must have been loose unions of city states, a la ancient Greece. It's relatively easy to organise a city of people, but to control the vast swathe of people out in the wilderness would take a hell of a lot of organisation and manpower. Especially if many of those people are nomadic.

So I'm thinking there must have been quite a marked difference between "citizens" of cities and non-citizens in earlier times. (I'm no doubt going over old ground here). Cities with written law and written religion (which were no doubt essentially the same thing originally) and wild illiterate peasants beyond the city walls (even now gypsies tend to be illiterate). So two people from two separate cities will have probably had much more in common with each other than either would have had with the wild folks between the cities.

Historically (and to some extent today even) Jews seem to essentially be a network of city folk spread across the continents.

I think this is probably the original distinction between "Jews" and Gentiles. Jews live by the "written law" and gentiles without/outside of it. In history Jews are nearly always found in towns and cities, often walled and fortified ones. And they tend to work in city based (or written-based) professions. Or bury their heads in scripture. And they seem to be in pretty much every country in Europe from the get go - from the very onset of the Medieval period. The beginning of half decent records. You may also remember the difference between ius civile - city law, and ius gentium - natural law, from the other thread.

I think "Jew" was probably in some sense similar to the label "Roman citizen". Maybe the Jews were actually the remnants of a city-based empire, maybe even the Roman Empire itself. A union of cities & citizens, with the countryside rabble filling the vast spaces in between. This would explain why the history of the Temple of Jupiter parallels the history of the Temple of Jerusalem. And also why Christianity seemingly sprung from both Judaism and the Roman Empire. Likewise, this confusion between who was responsible for the death of Jesus - Romans or Jews. Maybe they were one and same in some vague confused way.

It would also tie in with the Jesus was Caesar idea. As per the Francesco Carotta book Wiley recently linked to.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I remember reading the thread somewhere on here about the development of nation states. That was quite a while ago, but I remember it making perfect sense, and it had quite an impact on my thinking. I may have to revisit it again.

It's a big subject soon to be a major book from the Harper/Vered stable. Soon as in as soon as I can get her back on a sixty hour week and the next few projects are in the can.

I'm partly interested at the moment because of the overlaps between Jewish history and Greek/Roman history.

Certainly those are three histories that aren't very reliable histories.

If the first states were city states

I think that's a given.

then I'm thinking the first nations must have been loose unions of city states, a la ancient Greece.

Definitely not a given. Ancient Greece was never a nation. The first 'nations' are surely empires that took over city states, even though these empires may have been city states originally.

It's relatively easy to organise a city of people, but to control the vast swathe of people out in the wilderness would take a hell of a lot of organisation and manpower. Especially if many of those people are nomadic.

Nomads are a thing apart. All city states must have had a hinterland of a swathe of people 'in the wilderness' though only from a city slickers perspective.

So I'm thinking there must have been quite a marked difference between "citizens" of cities and non-citizens in earlier times.

Yes, that is true and important.

Cities with written law and written religion (which were no doubt essentially the same thing originally) and wild illiterate peasants beyond the city walls (even now gypsies tend to be illiterate).

The origin of pagans is pagani, paysans, illiterate peasants.

So two people from two separate cities will have probably had much more in common with each other than either would have had with the wild folks between the cities.

Well, yes and no. The cities are of course rivals and competitors (not least for possession of the peasants in between) as much as commonly-civilised. City leagues are quite common when there's an empire nosing around.

Historically (and to some extent today even) Jews seem to essentially be a network of city folk spread across the continents.

Yes, this is my reading of the situation.

I think this is probably the original distinction between "Jews" and Gentiles. Jews live by the "written law" and gentiles without/outside of it. In history Jews are nearly always found in towns and cities, often walled and fortified ones. And they tend to work in city based (or written-based) professions. Or bury their heads in scripture. And they seem to be in pretty much every country in Europe from the get go - from the very onset of the Medieval period. The beginning of half decent records. You may also remember the difference between ius civile - city law, and ius gentium - natural law, from the other thread.

Agreed but everything you say here equally applies to Romans, Greeks ... all the way back to Sumerians. I will leave you to develop the remainder of your argument which seems interesting but diffuse at present.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
It's a big subject soon to be a major book from the Harper/Vered stable.

I look forward to reading it.

I will leave you to develop the remainder of your argument which seems interesting but diffuse at present.

I'm fishing in the dark a little bit with this, and the Roman/Jewish thing is quite a hard sell, but the more I look the more I seem to find.

For instance, the overlaps between the Jewish Second Temple (destroyed 70 AD) and the Roman Second Temple to Jupiter (destroyed 69 AD) don't just end there. There's also quite a big overlap regarding the actual names. In English we have the names Jove and Jovis for Jupiter, which not only sound quite similar to Jehovah, but also if you look at the Latin variations of the word Jehovah many are almost identical.

These are a few from the Wiki page on Jehovah;

Ieve: Petrus Alphonsi (c. 1106), Alexander Geddes
Jova: 16th century, Rosenmüller(1820)
Jovae: Rosenmüller (1820)

We also have the word "jovial", supposedly from Jupiter, meaning joyous of course, which is maybe similar to the Jewish/Christian idea of "rejoicing" in God. In fact, Nostradamus in his writings referred to Protestants as "Jovialists", which makes no sense on face value, but makes perfect sense if Jovis is just a synonym for Jehovah. Also, when English speakers say "by Jove" they generally mean "by God" anyway.

So you have two second temples both destroyed at the same time (approximately). Both dedicated to Gods that have names with shared etymology. And Jews are on record as having paid the exact same tithe to both temples.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 86, 87, 88  Next

Jump to:  
Page 87 of 88

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group