|
Quorum posted:Incidentally, this is a fascinating example of a distinct brand of historical revisionism which marks the period of Reconstruction and the early 20th century. Basically, following the trauma of the Civil War, white Northerners (principally) found themselves with a problem: Jamestown was inconvenient. Located in the former Confederacy, and the site of the first imported slaves in the New World, it was frankly problematic that it had in fact come before Plymouth, which had become invested with all the virtues of the Progressive Era: religious reformism, moral purity, temperance, et cetera. So what you see is that Jamestown gets neatly sliced out of the American founding myth, replaced almost wholesale with Plymouth. This is where Schoolhouse Rock and modern America at large get the popular image of the first settlers being Pilgrims on the Mayflower with buckled hats, when in fact the Mayflower came thirteen years after the Susan Constant, and was a delivery vessel for Jamestown on which the Pilgrims hitched a ride. It's also why the popular image of The First Thanksgiving involves merry Pilgrims eating turkey with jolly Indians, rather than hungry Englishmen giving thanks to God with no natives in sight; it's just a more politically palatable image, especially once it's been thoroughly whitewashed. The narrative worked, too-- I did archaeology at Jamestown for a while and I was always surprised how many people walked up to me and were genuinely surprised that the Pilgrims did not live at Jamestown and in fact came later. Yankees did and still do a whole hell of a lot of revisionism to pretend that all of America's racial problems are confined to the South. Which sometimes manifests as expanding the South, like claiming Kansas is a Southern state.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Byzantine posted:Yankees did and still do a whole hell of a lot of revisionism to pretend that all of America's racial problems are confined to the South. "Pennsyltucky" is probably my favorite example of that same cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Yankees did and still do a whole hell of a lot of revisionism to pretend that all of America's racial problems are confined to the South. And sometimes as shrinking it; for example, look at what this map labels as "Mason and Dixon's Line," and compare it with the actual Mason-Dixon line, which is the southern border of Pennsylvania (and the western border of Delaware). Also, loving  at labeling a westward-thrusting spearpoint from the Thirteen Colonies to the Pacific as "PEACE."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Quorum posted:And sometimes as shrinking it; for example, look at what this map labels as "Mason and Dixon's Line," and compare it with the actual Mason-Dixon line, which is the southern border of Pennsylvania (and the western border of Delaware). (REST IN) "PEACE" (NATIVE AMERICANS) They just forgot some words.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Which sometimes manifests as expanding the South, like claiming Kansas is a Southern state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I'm very disturbed by this image that claims slavery to be a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The real linguistic crime is English-speakers pronouncing Copenhagen with a German accent, in the belief that this is the native pronunciation. https://youtu.be/7URUAUygynw 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
 A map simply labeled, "The Chinese Civil War."
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:
What's the light blue colouring for? I thought it was either another faction or neutrals, but parts of all the other nations have splashes of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Thank you. I've reported them for hate crimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:What's the light blue colouring for? I thought it was either another faction or neutrals, but parts of all the other nations have splashes of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:What's the light blue colouring for? I thought it was either another faction or neutrals, but parts of all the other nations have splashes of it. Glaciers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:What's the light blue colouring for? I thought it was either another faction or neutrals, but parts of all the other nations have splashes of it. http://dimensionscollide.wikia.com/wiki/Qin_Civil_War
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:What's the light blue colouring for? I thought it was either another faction or neutrals, but parts of all the other nations have splashes of it. Japanese occupation is the only guess I can come up with but then I noticed all the splotches of it outside China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Japanese occupation is the only guess I can come up with but then I noticed all the splotches of it outside China. Same. And the splotch in Japan!?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:It might not be in the literal sense, but it sure can feel like it culturally. And I'll maintain that Indiana is the South's middle finger until the day I die. The largest Klan enrollment in the 1920s belonged to Indiana. It also was the start of the downfall of the Klan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:Same. And the splotch in Japan!? It's pretty obviously water and meant to take place in some post-catastrophic climate change scenario
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
This oddly raises more questions than it answers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Mr. Belpit posted:This oddly raises more questions than it answers. Every page on that wiki just gets better and better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Yankees did and still do a whole hell of a lot of revisionism to pretend that all of America's racial problems are confined to the South. And Arizona and Oklahoma.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:And Arizona and Oklahoma. Both of those states (at least in part) were occupied by the CSA during the war though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Both of those states (at least in part) were occupied by the CSA during the war though. To be specific, to the best of my knowledge: "Arizona" did not exist at the start of the war. There was New Mexico Territory. Settlers in the southern half of it met in Tucson in 1860 and proposed an Arizona Territory to the Union but were denied. So later they met in Mesilla (which is in present-day New Mexico) and voted to secede. Shortly thereafter, it was admitted to the CSA as their one territory. Halfway through the war, the Union created its own Arizona Territory - but the border was north-south, unlike the proposed east-west border of the Confederate territory. "Oklahoma" also did not exist, but in most of modern-day Oklahoma was Indian Territory, which was dominated by what was known as the Five Civilized Tribes. This is a complex matter, and this is the best I've been able to nail it down, but the Confederacy maintained a treaty with two of them - the Cherokee and Choctaw - which meant that about half of Indian Territory was allied with the CSA, and sent troops and generals (most notably General Stand Watie, the last Confederate general to surrender), but was never formally annexed. The Confederate Congress gave a non-voting delegate each to the Cherokee Nation and the Choctaw Nation, but not to the whole of the territory, nor to the other three tribes (Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole), who maintained Union ties. (According to Wikipedia, which I need to confirm for my map project, the first Confederate Congress gave delegates to the Cherokee and Choctaw, but the second one gave delegates to the Cherokee and Seminole/Creek, who were combined into a single reservation at the time.) Then again, the Confederacy didn't mind handing out seats - it also had full representation from Missouri and Kentucky, despite those states being under full Union control for nearly the whole war, as well as full representation for the loyalist counties of Virginia, Louisiana, and Tennessee, and a delegate for Arizona Territory in the second congress - which began in 1863 - despite the Confederate government being run out of the territory in 1862 and hiding in El Paso. Golbez fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Both of those states (at least in part) were occupied by the CSA during the war though. Yeah but like Kansas they're not southern states but get lumped in whenever their government does dumb poo poo. It's like the "my dog when he's good your dog when he's bad" thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
considering how hosed up poland and germany were by the second world war i'm surprised to see any orange in either of them
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I don't think there actually is any in the pre 1945 borders of poland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:I don't think there actually is any in the pre 1945 borders of poland. 1. Mein Kampf
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:considering how hosed up poland and germany were by the second world war i'm surprised to see any orange in either of them In the rural regions of eastern Germany there probably were no targets anyone would have been interested in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Is Dresden orange on that map? Can't make sense of all those tiny bits in Saxony. E: I think it may be a barely-visible blue splotch?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Is Dresden orange on that map? Can't make sense of all those tiny bits in Saxony. from the actual numbers that map is drawn from:  I don't actually know the difference between "Dresden" and whatever the other Dresden is so I included both. Peanut President fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
If anyone is curious about any other place: Go here: https://ec.europa.eu/CensusHub2 Show Data On: "dwellings" Location: "NUTS3 regions" Period of Contruction Select Region Select Period of Construction
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:from the actual numbers that map is drawn from:
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
 Azores update:1) You all have good points and I appreciate you taking the time to actually read all the poo poo I wrote and put forward thoughtful critique. I agree that a lot of the images and claims are not convincing, and I am not yet totally convinced myself. But based on various hints from the evidence at hand, I am still curious about the possibilities and want to investigate some things for myself. Furthermore, I will be going there on vacation at the end of the month with the explicit goal of looking at various sites there that might be of historic origin, so I am going to continue suspending my disbelief at least until then because I don't want anyone's rational critical arguments to ruin the vacation that makes me feel like Indiana Jones which I have been looking forward to for months. Besides spending a lot on the flights, I spent more money than I should have on a DJI Phantom 3 4k aerial photography drone and I'm taking it with me because I want to hang out on a remote island and make totally sweet 3D models of various sites. Though I am a historian, this is not the topic I have devoted my life to, so I ultimately don't really care whether these sites are ancient, medieval, or early modern. But I like messing around with this puzzle and it would be fun to discover something, if there's something to discover. 2) I have been exchanging emails with one of the scholars who wrote the articles. I told him about my theories and plans and asked him if he had any suggestions about sites to investigate while I'm there. He sent me some pretty interesting photos taken by himself and other people working on this project of hypogea (an ancient sort of tomb carved into the side of a cliff) and their locations, and also a strange thing he and his colleagues call "the Ziggurat". Reverse google image search shows me that these pictures don't seem to be published on the internet yet, so I will not share them here out of respect for privacy. He seems to be taking me seriously and revealing to me some things that are not known to most people, so I will continue with that and see where it goes. He told me some locations to check out, so I will just go there and take my own pictures and share those with you all if there is anything there. 3) He seems to be mostly interested in evidence of stone-age settlements across all the islands, whereas I'm more interested in proving the legend that that Sao Miguel was settled in the 8th century by people from northwestern Iberia fleeing the Moors. He wants to be the Azorean historian that rewrites the history of the Azores from front to back, I'm just interested in early European exploration of the Atlantic. So he's not especially helpful with my questions, but he has been leading me to some interesting stuff indirectly: For instance, I found this paper, The Genetic Makeup of Azoreans Versus Mainland Portugal Population by Cláudia Castelo Branco and Luisa Mota-Vieira, Molecular Genetics and Pathology Unit, Hospital of Divino Espirito Santo of Ponta Delgada, EPE, Azores. In it I found: quote:Genetic diversity values, based on autosomal STR markers, for Azores (0.788; Branco et al., 2008a; Santos et al., 2009) and mainland Portugal (0.782; Perez-Lezaun et al., 2000) indicate that both populations are very diverse. Studies of HLA markers in mainland (Spinola et al., 2005a; 3 loci) and in Azores (Spinola et al., 2005b; 6 loci) demonstrate values of average diversity of 0.92. The results obtained for Azores (Pacheco et al., 2010), based in 7 loci, presented a smaller value (0.83). Of course, this event could have been after Portuguese discovery, or it could correspond with the Neolithic Celtic settlement this guy is promoting, or it could be due to the Britonic population present in northwestern Iberia just before the Moorish invasion:  Hard to say! I assume it has something to do with the area called Bretanha on Sao Miguel:  quote:There still exists some controversy relative to the origin of Bretanha in the local lexicon. The parish received its name from the original Bretanha of the older parish, and in accordance with popular tradition, it was adopted by the local Portuguese colonists to refer to the original settlers of the area. It is assumed that the area was originally inhabited between the end of the 15th Century and/or the beginning of the 16th Century. During this period the concentration of colonists from Great Britain, or Brittany, may have led to the local designation. Even today, the area that was the parish of Bretanha is populated by people whose ethnicity are mistaken for British nationals (skin, eye or hair colors primarily), and where the local dialect is punctuated by diction and intonations reminiscent of French. So much uncertainty about the origins of anything there. 4) I feel that the scope of this discussion has grown beyond the realm of the map thread, and when I come back from the Azores I would like to create a whole thread about this, but I'm not sure which subforum would be most appropriate, Any ideas? twoday fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Get help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
twoday posted:Azores... Indiana Jones...   ??? Hope you've got ancient eel figurines with you 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Fine! Maybe you all think I'm crazy. Maybe this theory (which I am not convinced of) seems too "out there" and "controversial" for your simple minds to take seriously. I don't care. I'm going to continue with my research anyway (even though I doubt that it will lead to anything conclusive). Then you'll see! Then I'll prove you all wrong (assuming the unlikely occurrence of me somehow managing to uncover sufficient evidence for this theory which stands up to public and academic scrutiny) ! edit: System Metternich posted:Hope you've got ancient eel figurines with you Oh yeah, I stumbled across that game and it looks cool; I wish I had time to play it. How does the story go? Does it claim that the Azores are the remnants of Atlantis? twoday fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
twoday posted:Fine! Maybe you all think I'm crazy. Maybe this theory (which I am not convinced of) seems too "out there" and "controversial" for your simple minds to take seriously. I don't care. I'm going to continue with my research anyway (even though I doubt that it will lead to anything conclusive). Then you'll see! Then I'll prove you all wrong (assuming the unlikely occurrence of me somehow managing to uncover sufficient evidence for this theory which stands up to public and academic scrutiny) ! Remember keep a good diary so you can sell the TV rights
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
twoday posted:Oh yeah, I stumbled across that game and it looks cool; I wish I had time to play it. How does the story go? Does it claim that the Azores are the remnants of Atlantis? It's a great, great game and if point & click adventures interest you at all you should definitely play it. Sadly the Azores only figure into it because Indy has to visit an eccentric professor there to find out where the Lost Dialogue of Plato is hidden. Not telling where Atlantis lies instead, but it's at a spot where you likely wouldn't have thought it to be!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
has the mapthread finally driven someone insane?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:57
|
|
