Total topics: 12
I'm not sure where I stand, currently I'm uncertain and wish someone to sway me one way or the other. Of course though, I will critically challenge a sway of either direction.
Here are my notes, some ideas may have changed since I wrote them, but I figure they will stimulate your thoughts and bring about a conversation.
I believe on the importance of short-term History such as business decisions based on a company's past, but not in long-term history since the present environment is never the same as the past, making the past decision only a guestimation of what is appropriate for the present, not an assured prediction.
Here is my speculative definition:
History is (potentially) simply a propaganda made to inspire or strike pride in a nation's political, religious, or technological identity.
Here is a commonly recognized definition of history:
A nuanced and practical definition of history, acknowledging its complexities and multiple facets, could be articulated as follows:History is the systematic study and interpretation of past events, cultures, and societies, aimed at understanding the complexities of human behavior, social structures, and the forces that have shaped the world. It encompasses a wide range of subjects, including economic, social, technological, and environmental aspects, beyond its traditional focus on politics, national pride, or religious identity. While history can be used to inspire or instill pride, its primary purpose is to provide a comprehensive, critical examination of the past, offering insights into the present and guiding considerations for the future. This approach recognizes the potential for multiple interpretations and the influence of historiography, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and analysis in discerning historical truths.
Firstly, history is not a systematic study but a documentation of historical events; a historian uses a systematic study of history.
Secondly, history is not complete with everyday documented, only what was selected as important; it is these events than are related to a nation's religious, political, or technological progression.
Thirdly, almost nothing of history is factual, it is primarily subjective interpretation. Even then the objective aspect of history can easily be skewed toward the people of power, especially in ancient times when only the elite could read and write while the people were oblivious to the documents recorded. Of the interpretations, what of it can be learned but an opinion. If I recorded that blue is the prettiest color the only conclusion to be derived is some ancient person thought blue was the prettiest color. This makes the practical application of learning from history is close to zero, since it is mostly opinions, and the minuscule objective evidence is potentially skewed.
Finally, even if by a miracle the history was interpreted in the same perspective as the author and the objective facts were true, the learning part of history requires drawing effects from cause, which also includes context. It is this context that is consistently changing in the present and never matching the past, making direct cause and effect impossible to be certain. This leaves us with a highly improbable potentially flawed and contextually different solution that may help interpret our future. It is from this I believe that we would do just as well with what we think is best given our intuition and present experience, effectively rendering history as a practically useless propagandic study.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Would history be different if Nazis expanded slower?
Ok. First, I am glad we are not in an alternative world where things suck.
Now. We know the path that nazi Germany did take. Allies won. Yay.
Would there be any difference if they had moved slower?
Ex:
- If they did not attack france when they did
- If they kept their alliance/ non attack pact with Russia
- If they had developed more alliances
- If their jump to war occured 3 years later
Would the war occured any different way other than win/loose?
Would the war actually occured?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
History
DebateArt added a HISTORY category to the Forum on Feb 16th with this announcement
Minor changes- Removed letter spacing in multiple places, now the "fonts" may look a bit better.- Added "History" category to the forum, as it's been requested by several people on several occasions.-Further optimized performance, the website should feel more snappy now.PS The history category is empty, but I am sure we already have some existing topics that would fit into that category, so the mods please feel free to move some stuff around :)02.16.2023 12:21AMPublished by@DebateArt.com
While not inaccurate textually, this announcement certainly fails to acknowledge the long journey this category took to inception.
- Let's recall that DebateArt offered to create a HISTORY category June 14th, 2021 stating that it only took 10 minutes worth of effort and agreeing to deliver in the next few days.
- After no follow up for the next 13 months, I decided to test Whiteflame's claim that any user could precipitate a functional change on DART with a successful MEEP demonstrating popular support. For the first two week of August 2022, I conducted an election on the proposition of a HISTORY category and at the end announced a successful campaign, receiving more populat support than the latest presidential election.
- I submitted a formal request documenting overwhelming popular support and requesting that 10 minute piece of work be completed sometime in the last 20 weeks of the year.
- DebateArt, WF, and Vader never made any reply or acknowledgement of the MEEP simply ignored the request for the rest of the year.
- Therefore, to now characterize that popular campaign by the DebateArt community as "requested by several people" without any acknowledgement of the Democratic seems downright petulant if not outright contemptuous.
- In spite of their roles as moderators, neither Whiteflame or Vader ever made the least acknowledgement of this, the first user initiated MEEP.
- To the extent that it took more than two and one half years to effect a popular 10 minute change, I think we have give DebateArt a failing grade for effort.
- To the extent that part of my intention was to test Whiteflame's claim that anybody can effect a change on DART via a MEEP, I think Mods complete dismissal and lack of attention to this democratic effort transformed another very positive community-based project into another humiliating farce.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
History
FELLOW DARTers-
I hope everyone will participate by VOTING on the following two modest propositions:
PROPOSITION1:
Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled CONSPIRACY THEORIES ?
YES or NO?
PROPOSITION2:
Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled HISTORY ?
YES or NO?
VOTING PROCEDURE:
- VOTING will remain OPEN until 11:00 PM EST, FRIDAY, AUG. 15th
- One VOTE per PERSON, please.
- Duplicate VOTES will be disregarded.
- No requests to change VOTE after submission will be considered.
- Any indication of multi-accounting will be referred to MODERATION
- Please help promote voting clarity by limiting posts to VOTING ONLY using roughly this format:
- YES or NO
- YES or NO
- QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT/CAMPAIGNING are all encouraged and may be posted to these FORUM TOPICS:
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7756-proposed-meep-history-as-a-new-forum-category
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7757-proposed-meep-conspiracy-theories-as-a-new-forum-category
- For either PROPOSITION, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal.
- That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question With 20 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11.
- If either PROPOSITION fails to produce a binding result, no change shall be requested.
- If either PROPOSTION succeeds, I'll provide that result to DebateArt.com and the MODERATION TEAM requesting that change be completed before the END of 2022.
THANKS in ADVANCE for EVERYBODY's SINCERE and FRIENDLY PARTICIPATION!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
After 15 days of voting and with fairly good participation, DARTers expressed clear support for the proposition that we add a new category entitled HISTORY.
Regarding the PROPOSITION:
Shall we request the creation of a new FORUM CATEGORY titled HISTORY ?
23 VOTERS voted YES
8 VOTERS voted NO
This topic is created to provide that result to DebateArt.com and Mods requesting this change .
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Is there popular support for a new forum category HISTORY?
If this idea seems popular I propose we have a vote on it from Aug 1st to Aug 15th
I will also be separately proposing a new forum category CONSPIRACY THEORIES to be voted on during the same period if such an idea seems popular.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
History sections and mythohistory sections usually do very well on websites. Shouldn't Dart implement this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
So I've learned I can't just make a topic with any resolution I want a find interested opponents here, so i'm going to test the waters and get a feel for what people think and believe on this next topic before I construct a debate resolution around it.
How many of you have heard of the Axial Age? a designation given to a part of history by a academic named Karl Jaspers.
What are your thoughts about it? Do you deny that it occurred (a hard sell if you do) and if you don't then how do you explain the Axial Age, what do you make of it?
How can for thousands and thousands of years religion across the globe basically take one of two shapes exclusively (Animism and Polytheism) then all of a sudden across the globe, every religion as we know it today was born? Isn't that just a little mind blowing? If you had a time traveling private jet, you could theoretically go to a single year that's roughly around 500 B.C. and pick up Siddhartha, Confucius, Lao Tsu, the author of the Upanishads, Daniel and Jeremiah, Xenophanes and Anaximander, and bring them all to the same room and hold a religious summit with the founders of every major religion and schools of thought in western and eastern philosophy.
Industrial Revolutions are pretty easy to explain because they just hinge on a breakthrough in some kind of technology and how fast that tech can spread. But a diverse religious renaissance across the globe in relatively isolated cultures?
"well it was a turbulent time in history, people needed to turn to new ideas to help them through it. The Waring States Period was going on in China, the Temple had been destroyed in Jerusalem and their people sent into exile, the Persian and Peloponnesian war was going on in greece." Yeah but it's not like war and significant social disrupting events hadn't occurred before in history. The Bronze Age Collapse ended the written word, and sent multiple advanced developed kingdoms back to the stone age and to barbarianism. Yet for the most part, with the exception of Israel (and even they were not much of an exception) the whole world stuck with animism and polytheism like they always had.
What was different during the Axial Age? and is "it was just a coincidence" a good enough explanation for you in explaining why it happened everywhere all at once or is their a systemic social and cultural historic explanation for this religious renaissance that satisfies you? I'd love to hear it cause this is interesting stuff.
What do you make of this if you are a christian in terms of your faith? does it challenge your faiths notion that Jesus is the only way if it seems God was inspiring religious thinkers across the world all at once, or do you have a way to view these religious awakenings in a somewhat positive light without giving them the same degree of credit and status you do your own faith? or some other explanation for all this?
If your an atheist what you make of the Axial Age? do you find it interesting at all?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I welcome people of many perspectives to post their view on this thread's title.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Suppose that when the Romans started persecuting the Christians, they actually managed to eliminate every single Christian and their ideology. How would history evolve from there?
A few things off the top of my head.
The schism between East and West Roman Empire would not have occurred, or at least, not for the same reason.
Europe would be primarily a polytheistic culture adopting new gods to its panteon as it encountered other religions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Disclaimer: This is purely for entertainment. It is not intended to parody any specific person, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of any political movements mentioned in it. I am entirely aware that no one actually thinks like this (I hope, anyway). This is completely satirical. None of the below content necessarily reflects my own opinions and beliefs.
HISTORY EXPLAINED
Episode 1, 1/20/2020: The Fall of Rome
A production of the DART Bard
Featuring Trum Porter
Editor's Note: In our modern days, ignorance of basic history has become rampant. In this new project of the Bard, we are trying to educate the public about history in a fun but informative way. We are excited to announce the first episode in our series History Explained.
The Fall of Rome
In the early years of the fourth century, the great Roman Empire was secure under the reign of its Emperor, Constantine. His acceptance of Judeo-Christian values was a major reason he was able to reunite the Empire and protect it from invaders. After he died, however, the emperors after him relied on extortion and corruption. They paid for this deep state corruption with inflation. I probably don't have to tell you that they were Democrats. At the same time, the Roman leaders foolishly allowed illegal German immigrants to settle within their lands. This invasion of illegals was one of the major reasons the Empire collapsed. Beyond any doubt, they should have built a big, beautiful wall to keep Rome great; however, the liberals were in charge. Finally, Emperor Julian (R) began an anti-deep-state campaign in 360. He even fought a war against the Sassanids, knowing that wars are, of course, great and easy to win. Sure, he encouraged non-Christian religions, but hey, he was an emperor, not a pastor. King David wasn't perfect either. Most importantly, he sent the Roman army to deal with the illegal immigrants from Germany. Sadly, the deep state prevented him from making them pay for a wall. Less than two years later, the great Roman Empire split into two pieces once again. The official story was that it was split between the brothers Valens and Valentinian, but we know from Breitbart that the real reason was that a civil war started when the deep state tried to ban assault swords. After that, Rome began to fall harder and faster. German barbarians fleeing the Huns invaded Rome just like illegal immigrants invade America today. After that, the Huns themselves invaded. The only bright spot was when the leader of the Christian church in Rome, Leo I, was able to negotiate with one of the Vandal leaders to avoid any further death during one of the many sacks of Rome (remember when I said that Judeo-Christian values helped Constantine keep Rome together? Here they are, WINNING again). Finally, in 476, the Empire was unable to defend itself and fractured into multiple states.
The lesson to be learned here is obvious. The Romans continually failed to build a wall and allowed deep state libs to run the country into the ground. Had they chosen to Make Rome Great Again, they might have avoided their eventual collapse to the invading illegal immigrants. This is why it's so important to keep Dimocrats out of office and keep America great, so we avoid the fate of Rome.
Trum Porter is an Oklahoma-based journalist and the author of multiple books, including best-sellers Constantine: Making Rome Great Again and Orange Man Good.
Click here for this month's edition of the Bard:
I've noticed that my normal satire makes fun of the left more than the right, so I decided to switch it up with this. What parts do you think worked, and what parts didn't? I'd be glad to know how I can improve in the future.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
My argument is a rather simple one so to make it clear and precise, Ill divide my reasons up.
1. There is NO document proving that Shakespeare had any level of education, Surely a person who used around 29, 000 different words in his plays would AT LEAST have a basic education if not a college degree. To put this into perspective, 29,000 words is considered to be one of the highest levels of vocabulary in all of history. And yet apparently we're supposed to believe a man without a college education and possibly not a grammar school education is this smart.
2. Shakespeare's signatures are sloppy and inconsistent, I mean surely a man who wrote many plays and sonnets would at least have decent hand writing right?
3. Shakespeare's settings in his plays are normally centered around royal families or nobles however as we know Shakespeare was very poor and most likely knew little to nothing about royal life.
4. Shakespeare's will mentions nothing about his plays, Poems, Or sonnets. I mean surely a man wrote that many plays and poems would at least mention what he wanted to do with his 18 unfinished plays right? Guess not apparently.
I would also like to say for the record that I am not normally a conspiracy theorist believer in fact I despise many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. However this is the first conspiracy theory ive seen that has sufficient evidence and shear facts to back it up.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People