|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:Noted garbage organization the UN publishes garbage definition. Indigenous doesn't mean victims of colonialism. Like you can have indigenous Swiss, who I presume aren't.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:you seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about minority peoples and marginalized cultures
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Give England back to the Welsh and the Cornish, I say. It's all been downhill since the beaker folk turned up. Rodrigo Diaz posted:So I actually have a question that could either turn into a shitshow or be really interesting: at what point does a people become native? This is relevant to the thread in particular when thinking about two colonized regions, specifically the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Al-Andalus, but also of course has relevance to modern states in the Americas & elsewhere. I'm not sure what the time limit is for people becoming "natives" to a region, it's tricky and probably dependent on super-subjective and retrospective criteria. I'd say that a key factor for colonial people is the extent to which they retain relations with their country of origin. It's striking that many ANC firebrands will concede that Afrikaners are native Africans, while white English speakers aren't, given that the latter were always much more supportive of black enfranchisement. But at the same time, it makes sense, if you consider the way Afrikaners completely adopted an African identity, with no links to Europe. Likewise, the English in India never really became native, apart from a few eccentrics, because children were universally sent back to Britain for their schooling, and the vast majority of people expected to retire to Britain. So despite many people being born in India, living most their lives there, marrying and having children there, and if they were unlucky dying there, it remained a place of work, with identity still tied back to a Britain they barely knew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
In another thread I was recently discussing how the lure of India (and Burma, and later Africa) for many British middle-class men who went there was that it allowed them to live the lifestyle of a gentleman--not with a lot of money, but with servants, horses, hunting, and other things which their class upbringing had told them were necessary but that they could never have afforded in Britain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
yall need this https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gallery/2016/oct/14/the-battle-of-hastings-as-re-enacted-in-playmobil
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:Now maybe you are referring to some of his other posts, but frankly I agree that that definition is overly specific and leaves out a lot of cultures just because they don't have minority status in their lands. Yeah it pretty much directly states that you can't talk of "native French" or "native polish" or whatnot. In a way that makes political sense as it would legitimize discrimination in those countries. It doesn't take much imagination to see some FN or Pegida type turning those around to poo poo on migrants. It's a workable definition if you're running an aid agency but a poo poo one for talking about history. Surprise a lot of definitions are highly dependent om the context of their use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:I'd say that a key factor for colonial people is the extent to which they retain relations with their country of origin. It's striking that many ANC firebrands will concede that Afrikaners are native Africans, while white English speakers aren't, given that the latter were always much more supportive of black enfranchisement. But at the same time, it makes sense, if you consider the way Afrikaners completely adopted an African identity, with no links to Europe. This certainly plays a factor but I don't think it is the main factor, or at least is not adequate in isolation. The Italo-Normans took a very long time to "blend in" even after they had lost serious contact with northern France. The same goes for the Moors in Spain. I think it to a degree has to do with formation of a caste system (or something like it) along ethno-cultural lines, but if your Afrikaners example holds water then that clearly is also inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I think it to a degree has to do with formation of a caste system (or something like it) along ethno-cultural lines, but if your Afrikaners example holds water then that clearly is also inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
So now I'm wondering, do people actually consider, eg, Afrikaans people to be indigenous to Africa? Around here indigenous means Maori and nothing else, despite half the country having a strictly kiwi identity. Or white (what ever that means) people in the States? Also Hey Gal I don't get where you're getting this chip on my shoulder from what I wrote, it all seemed pretty matter of fact to me. Ngai Tahu's migration/invasion just happened to be what I was reading about that morning. Heck, they're the tribe known to have done really well with their treaty settlement, they provide a bunch of the employment in this two horse town.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:It's all been downhill since the beaker folk turned up. https://youtu.be/Zw9qN6_eXOg?t=150
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:So now I'm wondering, do people actually consider, eg, Afrikaans people to be indigenous to Africa? Around here indigenous means Maori and nothing else, despite half the country having a strictly kiwi identity. Or white (what ever that means) people in the States? It does make me wonder exactly how far back you need to go to count as "indigenous" outside of the UN definition. The Maori didn't arrive in New Zealand from Polynesia until medieval times, but they were the first human settlers in the whole area. One could argue that they're immigrants themselves, albeit without an existing population to gently caress up (they did plenty of loving up people during their other invasions though, like the Moriori genocide in 1830s).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:or israelis Which Israelis do you mean? There's plenty of them who are descendants of Jews who never set foot outside Palestine. It hardly seems fair to lump them in with the Zionist-inspired ones who moved their in the 19th-20th centuries, and the Zionist ones shouldn't be lumped in with the displaced European Jews. Actually, don't answer that. This is a discussion which will result in nothing good unless we can get a good effortpost from someone about Medieval Judaism. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Which Israelis do you mean? There's plenty of them who are descendants of Jews who never set foot outside Palestine. It hardly seems fair to lump them in with the Zionist-inspired ones who moved their in the 19th-20th centuries, and the Zionist ones shouldn't be lumped in with the displaced European Jews. and this is one of the two best threads in the forums, we should be fine
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i did not mean anything inflammatory by it: speaking as neutrally as possible, every one of those groups regards themselves as "from" there, although in different ways. I just really want to hear about Medieval Judaism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I just really want to hear about Medieval Judaism. It was one of the less fun times to be a Jew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:It was one of the less fun times to be a Jew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:It was one of the less fun times to be a Jew. Not inherently incorrect, but as usual with the less pleasant aspects of medieval society, it was relatively more fun in comparison to later periods of western history than is commonly imagined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
deadking posted:Not inherently incorrect, but as usual with the less pleasant aspects of medieval society, it was relatively more fun in comparison to later periods of western history than is commonly imagined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Depends on when you mean by "later". If we're talking Germany 1942 we'll duh. Germany 1900 would actually be a pretty good time and place to be Jewish. "Medieval Europe" is also a huge span of time and territory with huge variations as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Does the Khazar Khaganate count as being in Europe? They controlled most of Crimea which I guess is sorta kinda in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
From what I've read about the crusades they were usually accompanied by pogroms of Jewish populations at home as the religious fervor grew. The Peasants' Crusade of 1096 being the prime example. They nearly wiped out a lot of Jewish communities on their way to the Holy Land. The church of course condemned all of this and threatened the peasant crusaders with excommuncation but no one listened to them because obviously anyone who didn't want you to kill Jews had been bribed to say it. The crusaders where then utterly crushed by the Turks before they even got to the Holy Land. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
turks? in 1096?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Give England back to the Welsh and the Cornish, I say. :crying-'obby-'oss-in-front-of-St-Piran's-cross.jpg:
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:turks? in 1096? Seljuks
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
deadking posted:Not inherently incorrect, but as usual with the less pleasant aspects of medieval society, it was relatively more fun in comparison to later periods of western history than is commonly imagined. I'm sure that was true in many places, but in England it was sort of the other way round. England was pretty much the most anti-Jewish place in Europe in the high Middle Ages (among the populace, the Royal view as a bit more complex). The Blood Libel was an English invention, and the sort of lurid antisemitic myths that you don't find in most of Europe until the early modern period were common currency. Then, by the 19th century, Britain was the favoured European destination for Jews from Eastern Europe escaping pogroms (although more favoured the New World). FreudianSlippers posted:Does the Khazar Khaganate count as being in Europe? I did my A-level (last year of school) course work on the Khazars, and got a terrible mark for it, which almost cost me a grade. Turned out the teacher marking it was only aware of the Khazars from anti-Semitic theory (Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from Khazar converts and therefore should be kept out of Palestine) and thought I'd based my whole coursework on fringe racial science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:
Holy poo poo how did that pan out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
The Peasant's Crusade is some real  poo poo. A quick (and shamelessly simplistic) description of it is it's the answer to the question "what would happen if a army's camp followers decided to form their own army?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The Peasant's Crusade is some real Speaking of unusual crusades... HEY GAL posted:turks? in 1096? Yeah, the crusades were after Manzikert, and had to fight through Turkish-ruled lands to get to the holy land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:turks? in 1096? It's more likely than you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
sullat posted:Speaking of unusual crusades... The Wikipedia page on the Children's Crusade is interesting, because it is clearly written by a fan of one historian's work. While I don't advocate relying on one historian at the expense of all others, this guy's methodology seems fine and he bags hard on Runciman which I'm already down with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Turks have been all over the place for like 1500 years. Those guys got around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
sullat posted:Speaking of unusual crusades... The Byzantines initially requested help assuming the Crusaders would help them get those lands back. Instead the Crusaders were much more interested in getting through the Turks to Palestine and then taking the Holy Land for themselves, prior assurances to the emperor notwithstanding. And it's pretty much downhill from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The Byzantines initially requested help assuming the Crusaders would help them get those lands back. Instead the Crusaders were much more interested in getting through the Turks to Palestine and then taking the Holy Land for themselves, prior assurances to the emperor notwithstanding. There was one where Frederick II just kinda showed up at the wrong time and the Ayyubid sultan signed a treaty with him that restored Jerusalem to the Crusader states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The Byzantines initially requested help assuming the Crusaders would help them get those lands back. Instead the Crusaders were much more interested in getting through the Turks to Palestine and then taking the Holy Land for themselves, prior assurances to the emperor notwithstanding. This page gets the sheer mutual contempt across pretty well. Primary accounts of the First Crusade usually have the sides describing each other as "wily Greeks", servants of the "evil Emperor", and my personal favorite: "the Latin race, who is by nature exceedingly garrulous and wordy". It also goes into one of my favorites anecdotes about the First Crusade: the time Godfrey of Bouillion tried to storm the Theodosian walls without siege equipment. You see, he'd refused to swear fealty to Emperor Alexios before coming to Constantinople. This led the emperor to refuse him the privilege of buying supplies when he arrived, leaving Godfrey no option but to raid local villages for food. The Emperor, who didn't want these barbarous Latins ravaging his own people, rescinded his earlier decision. But Godfrey still refused to swear the oath. Eventually, this caused Alexios to restrict supplies again. So Godfrey gets the brilliant idea to assault one of the world's most fortified cities head-on. Without, as Anna Komnene specifically states, any equipment to speak of. They just tried to burn the gates down by hand. According to Eastern Roman accounts at least, Godfrey was not immediately destroyed for this because he did so on a holy Friday. Alexios, respecting the Savior's sacrifice on that day, allowed the treacherous princes to live after defeating them. I'm not really inclined to believe that last part, but it's one of Anna's better digs at the crusaders so I think it bears mention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
What are some good resources to learn more about medieval economics? Among peasants and freemen especially. Also curious about the costs involved in raising troops, just raising resources for taxes and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Debt: The First 5000 Years was a really useful book for me, but it has a significantly wider scope than just the medieval era. Also, I got some really nice answers last time I asked a similar question in this thread, this was among them. Schenck v. U.S. posted:Here, have a lecture Christopher Dyer (PDF) delivered at the British Numismatic Society. Dyer is probably the most prominent historian of daily life in medieval Britain, and the currency nerds invited him to talk about what ordinary rural people did with coins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Broken Mind posted:Also curious about the costs involved in raising troops, just raising resources for taxes and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Broken Mind posted:. Also curious about the costs involved in raising troops, just raising resources for taxes and stuff. It cost a shitload.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
To key off the discussion of absolutist monarchies earlier, I had some questions about proto-democratic government institutions. So Folkmoots, Althings, and the like, assemblies where laws and leaders are voted upon by a large proportion of society. What I've read about the subject suggests that they're relics of "tribal" government, from a stage where local leaders hadn't consolidated the resources needed for a powerful aristocracy or monarchy. In that situation it makes sense that ordinary citizens could exercise greater political authority. Then as we move further from Late Antiquity, military pressures from larger societies encourages power to concentrate, and these institutions begins to disappear. But I'm not sure about these broad conclusions. I even suspect that the historiography on this subject may have been tainted with nationalism/attempts to back-project the modern idea of democracy onto earlier societies. So instead of sifting through everything for bias I'll be lazy and ask y'all: 1) Broadly speaking, how was the idea of "suffrage"/whether-you-get-to-vote-or-not thought of at these meetings? 2) How were these institutions recognized by writers in the time period? Were parallels to, say, Athens and the Roman Republic made? 3) Where did they survive the longest, and is it accurate to say they ever "disappeared" at all? Bendigeidfran fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Re: AlthingFreudianSlippers posted:In the Icelandic Commonwealth the ruling class were chieftains known as gošar. The country was split into four regions and each regions had about 9 gošar and each goši had his "gošorš" which is a bit like a fiefdom except not quite. The title of goši was usually inherited but it could also be sold or given. Some gošar maintained temples and holy sites and held blóts. Each goši had his žingmenn, men who followed him to assemblies, supported him in conflicts in exchange for his protection and mediation in feuds. Since any free land owning man could choose which goši to follow the gošorš of each goši wasn't really based on geography. It's however likely that people usually choose the goši that lived closest to them out of convenience since medieval Iceland was very rural without any villages and with long distances between most farms following a goši that lived several weeks travel away might be a hassle and not sit well with the goši that lived closer. Every goši was a member of the alžing, a yearly national assembly that was both a parliament and a supreme court. The descendants of Ingólfur Arnarsson, the first permanent settler, held the title of Allsherjargoši which despite the fancier title didn't have any more power than anyone else but would sanctify the alžing each year. The highest title that anyone could hold was that of lögsögumašur (lawspeaker). Every three years the alžing would appoint a lawspeaker who would recite one third of the law each year and act as the chairman of the court. However in this case most of the writing about the instituion wasn't done until the 13th century in the so called "Sturling era" when power had been consolidated in the hands of a few powerful clans which began to fight each other for power and the althing was basically just a tool in that conflict. Two of the clans eventually reached a stalemate and since both of them were vassals of the king of Norway the country became a part of the kingdom of Norway and the althing was eventually reduced to little more than a court of law deciding on disputes and criminal cases in accordance to the king's law. This is how it stayed until 1843 when the king granted Iceland a degree of self rule but it didn't have any real power and only had a advisory role. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th century the althing was slowly granted more and more power and the power of the king to influence laws was limited. By 1918 Iceland was fully independent but still had a Danish king as head of state and in 1944, making use of the war, became a republic and replaced the role of the king with a similarly powerless president that could still veto laws but wasn't really supposed to. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 22:01
|
|