Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

PC taints everything these days...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PC taints everything these days...

    Sad...

    An amazing and useful archeological find and the reporter just can't help but taint it with politically correct nonsense.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...cL&ocid=SMSDHP

    Now for the first time, archaeologists have an idea about the things ships carried in these earliest days of European imperialism
    Does anyone really think Vasco de Gama saw it that way? He was exploring new trade routes with Europe and Portugal in particular.

    Or this gem:

    It’s the oldest ship to be excavated from this early in the so-called Age of Discovery
    What would the writer prefer it be called? The way that is phrased it sounds condescendingly dismissive of de Gama's whole voyage. Sort of Meh. He didn't "discover" anything. Those people and places were already there long before he arrived...

    Or this:

    More than 2800 artifacts have been recovered. These include a great deal of weaponry and ammunition — cannonballs of stone and metal, musket barrels and parts of swivel guns. These highlight how the Portuguese relied on what historians call “hostile trade,” using their superior weaponry to bully locals into trade.
    I doubt that they were hauling weapons as part of some Viking-like expedition to raid the locals, not even knowing who they were, but far more likely they did not knowing what they might face including hostile natives, pirates, and who-knows-what.
    But, here we have the writer claiming unnamed historians say it was just because they were aggressively going to take advantage of some (you can infer non-European from the tenor of the article) people and rip them off.

    (Emphasis mine)

  • #2
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Sad...

    An amazing and useful archeological find and the reporter just can't help but taint it with politically correct nonsense.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...cL&ocid=SMSDHP



    Does anyone really think Vasco de Gama saw it that way? He was exploring new trade routes with Europe and Portugal in particular.

    Or this gem:



    What would the writer prefer it be called? The way that is phrased it sounds condescendingly dismissive of de Gama's whole voyage. Sort of Meh. He didn't "discover" anything. Those people and places were already there long before he arrived...

    Or this:



    I doubt that they were hauling weapons as part of some Viking-like expedition to raid the locals, not even knowing who they were, but far more likely they did not knowing what they might face including hostile natives, pirates, and who-knows-what.
    But, here we have the writer claiming unnamed historians say it was just because they were aggressively going to take advantage of some (you can infer non-European from the tenor of the article) people and rip them off.

    (Emphasis mine)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_da_Gama

    Comment


    • #3
      And, how does that change anything I stated?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        And, how does that change anything I stated?
        It's not exactly PC'ism if its true. He did enforce trade impositions on locals using military force, he did abduct locals, he did murder local traders and pilgrims etc etc.....

        Comment


        • #5
          Discover originally meant - uncover ie make known/visible to the rest of the world. Thus the man (and it almost always was a man in those days) who came back from an expedition and informed the outside world about an island, a waterfall, a huge rock etc etc was the discoverer as before then it was only known to the people living on or next to it. If any of them had got into their out rigger or whatever and voyaged to other lands and told them about their home island, waterfall rock etc they would have 'discovered' it.

          Thus the Maoris sailed to New Zealand but did not discover it contenting themselves with slaughtering the original inhabitants.
          Last edited by MarkV; 22 Mar 16, 06:14.
          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
            It's not exactly PC'ism if its true. He did enforce trade impositions on locals using military force, he did abduct locals, he did murder local traders and pilgrims etc etc.....
            Your own source pretty much discredits that.

            First voyage:

            Vasco da Gama spent 2 to 29 March 1498 in the vicinity of Mozambique Island. Arab-controlled territory on the East African coast was an integral part of the network of trade in the Indian Ocean. Fearing the local population would be hostile to Christians, da Gama impersonated a Muslim and gained audience with the Sultan of Mozambique. With the paltry trade goods he had to offer, da Gama was unable to provide a suitable gift to the ruler and soon the local populace became suspicious of da Gama and his men. Forced by a hostile crowd to flee Mozambique, da Gama departed the harbor, firing his cannons into the city in retaliation.
            Sounds like he didn't get an exactly warm reception there...

            The presents that da Gama sent to the Zamorin as gifts from Dom Manuel—four cloaks of scarlet cloth, six hats, four branches of corals, twelve almasares, a box with seven brass vessels, a chest of sugar, two barrels of oil and a cask of honey—were trivial, and failed to impress. While Zamorin's officials wondered at why there was no gold or silver, the Muslim merchants who considered da Gama their rival suggested that the latter was only an ordinary pirate and not a royal ambassador
            Another not exactly exciting reception and the local merchants appear to have talked him down.

            The second voyage appears to have been one of, at least in part, retribution for his poor treatment on his first. That's pretty standard for the time. I'd say the locals were hostile to trade and da Gama came back to set them straight on that score. I see nowhere where the Portuguese were acting in a vicious unilateral manner, but rather operating under what were pretty normal circumstances at the time. Side A disses Side B, B retaliates on A.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Your own source pretty much discredits that.

              First voyage:



              Sounds like he didn't get an exactly warm reception there...



              Another not exactly exciting reception and the local merchants appear to have talked him down.

              The second voyage appears to have been one of, at least in part, retribution for his poor treatment on his first. That's pretty standard for the time. I'd say the locals were hostile to trade and da Gama came back to set them straight on that score. I see nowhere where the Portuguese were acting in a vicious unilateral manner, but rather operating under what were pretty normal circumstances at the time. Side A disses Side B, B retaliates on A.
              From the same 'discrediting' source


              First voyage

              Mombasa
              In the vicinity of modern Kenya, the expedition resorted to piracy, looting Arab merchant ships that were generally unarmed trading vessels without heavy cannons. The Portuguese became the first known Europeans to visit the port of Mombasa from 7 to 13 April 1498, but were met with hostility and soon departed.
              Piracy

              Annoyed by this, da Gama carried a few Nairs and sixteen fishermen (mukkuva) off with him by force.
              Kidnapping


              Nice reading of that source there Shipwreck.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                From the same 'discrediting' source

                First voyage
                Piracy
                Kidnapping
                Nice reading of that source there Shipwreck.
                Yea, but it wasn't one-sided as the article implies. de Gama was doing the same $h!+ those he encountered were doing to him and each other. You keep trying to make the issue one-sided like the article does.

                I keep pointing out it was the way of the times and not something unique to the Portuguese or Europeans, although they got better at it than many of their opponents over time. That's why they "won" and other groups lost, not because the Europeans were the only ones doing stuff like piracy, war, kidnapping, and looting.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Yea, but it wasn't one-sided as the article implies. de Gama was doing the same $h!+ those he encountered were doing to him and each other. You keep trying to make the issue one-sided like the article does.

                  I keep pointing out it was the way of the times and not something unique to the Portuguese or Europeans, although they got better at it than many of their opponents over time. That's why they "won" and other groups lost, not because the Europeans were the only ones doing stuff like piracy, war, kidnapping, and looting.
                  The intellectual community is finally turning against the "blank slate" crowd. In a generation hopefully authors like the one in your post will be looked on with derision.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                    From the same 'discrediting' source


                    First voyage



                    Piracy



                    Kidnapping


                    Nice reading of that source there Shipwreck.
                    Re: The kidnapping of countless thousands of Europeans from the coastal and tributary towns of Europe and the British Isles, and not forgetting South-Eastern Europe and the same happening in Southern Russia Asia and many parts of Africa.

                    Paul
                    ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                    All human ills he can subdue,
                    Or with a bauble or medal
                    Can win mans heart for you;
                    And many a blessing know to stew
                    To make a megloamaniac bright;
                    Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                    The Pixie is a little shite.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      Yea, but it wasn't one-sided as the article implies. de Gama was doing the same $h!+ those he encountered were doing to him and each other. You keep trying to make the issue one-sided like the article does.

                      I keep pointing out it was the way of the times and not something unique to the Portuguese or Europeans, although they got better at it than many of their opponents over time. That's why they "won" and other groups lost, not because the Europeans were the only ones doing stuff like piracy, war, kidnapping, and looting.

                      So you don't like unpleasant facts, copy that.

                      And all lands, both islands and mainlands, found and discovered already, or to be found and discovered hereafter, by the said King of Portugal and by his vessels on this side of the said line and bound determined as above, toward the east, in either north or south latitude, on the eastern side of the said bound provided the said bound is not crossed, shall belong to, and remain in the possession of, and pertain forever to, the said King of Portugal and his successors. And all other lands, both islands and mainlands, found or to be found hereafter, discovered or to be discovered hereafter, which have been discovered or shall be discovered by the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., and by their vessels, on the western side of the said bound, determined as above, after having passed the said bound toward the west, in either its north or south latitude, shall belong to, and remain in the possession of, and pertain forever to, the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, etc., and to their successors.
                      Last edited by Paddybhoy; 25 Mar 16, 06:20.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Sad...

                        An amazing and useful archeological find and the reporter just can't help but taint it with politically correct nonsense.

                        http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...cL&ocid=SMSDHP



                        Does anyone really think Vasco de Gama saw it that way? He was exploring new trade routes with Europe and Portugal in particular.

                        Or this gem:



                        What would the writer prefer it be called? The way that is phrased it sounds condescendingly dismissive of de Gama's whole voyage. Sort of Meh. He didn't "discover" anything. Those people and places were already there long before he arrived...

                        Or this:



                        I doubt that they were hauling weapons as part of some Viking-like expedition to raid the locals, not even knowing who they were, but far more likely they did not knowing what they might face including hostile natives, pirates, and who-knows-what.
                        But, here we have the writer claiming unnamed historians say it was just because they were aggressively going to take advantage of some (you can infer non-European from the tenor of the article) people and rip them off.

                        (Emphasis mine)
                        I don't always agree with you but this is a clear case of what is called in historiography the fallacy of relativity, also known as "presentism."

                        In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.[2]
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presen...rical_analysis)
                        Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                        Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                        Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                          I don't always agree with you but this is a clear case of what is called in historiography the fallacy of relativity, also known as "presentism."

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presen...rical_analysis)
                          Thanks for putting a name to it. That's precisely what the article does. Not only does it introduce present day cultural bias but one could argue it also introduces cultural bigotry in the form of "Europe bashing."
                          This is fairly common among Progressive Leftist academics, the exclusion of "dead White men" from literature, framing European history as one of imperialism, colonization, slavery, exploitation, and other negatives while giving groups who today are championed by those same academics a pass on their abuses and excesses.

                          Paddybhoy keeps doing the above in his responses. The Treaty of Tordesillas to which he indirectly refers was between Spain and Portugal to keep the two states from direct conflict and war over potential colonization efforts.
                          That changes nothing of the fact that de Gamma and others regularly ran into opposition to their voyages and actions. Things weren't one-sided with the Europeans being, singularly, the villains.

                          It's not like the Europeans were the first to expand an empire. The Mongols, Rome, Greece, China, the Ottomans, all built empires. There are dozens of others too. But, like the article, some are singled out more than any others for their actions and tried if you will against modern cultural norms.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            It's not like the Europeans were the first to expand an empire. The Mongols, Rome, Greece, China, the Ottomans, all built empires. There are dozens of others too. But, like the article, some are singled out more than any others for their actions and tried if you will against modern cultural norms.

                            They aren't singling it out, the article is about a Portuguese shipwreck so they provided a background.

                            If they found the tomb of Genghis Khan I wouldn't have a problem with them mentioning that Genghis Khan conquered vast territories, enslaved millions and slaughtered entire cities that resisted his empire.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There might just be some subtle difference between Genghis Khan and the Portuguese :-)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X