Jump to content

Like an Historical Theory I guess


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

At the kind of colleges I got to go to we spent like two weeks on Andrew Carnegie and FordFuckFistmyself or whomever and then blizted through WW1 (to say nothing of, like, the causes or aftermaths or FUCKING LESSONS) in a day with -I shit you not- a "professor" who said

"Um, like, it like totally ended on Armistice day. Because then the Allies went and captured the Capital and it was over! Hooray!"  (I added the "like" part, but she literally mentioned Armistice Day, then didn't know what that meant or how WW1 ended. A HISTORY """"""PROFESSOR"""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Anyways...

Yo. 

Dudes. And bros and bras 

 

Irene didn't blind her son. Are you kidding me with that shit? Really? Really? We're just, like, -letting- that go unchallenged in the historical record? Where are all these feminists and historians and historian feminists acting like Gustaf Kossina's in skirts when they could, like, actually STUDY some of the few systems and circumstances that actually allowed women to hold real power on the world stage and leave real records to prove it. 

 

Yo, cut out everything else. 

Irene is a shrewd political operator. Stop reading and go smoke out of an active exhaust pipe if you disagree. 

Her son is her future.

I end my case. 

-------------------------------------------------

There are only 2 options if you accept what I've proven beyond a fuckstick's conception of a "reasonable doubt" 

1) Irene realized her son is the anti-christ. Like for real. She came home to the royal apartments, SAW him floating on the ceiling speaking in tongues. Then he ate, ATE, the Patriarch. Yeah, that's her boy. But by assuming title of Basileus (yes, Basileus) your future is more than your baby. It's your state as well. He ATE the Patriarch. Kid had to go. 

2) Yo, has nobody writing history read Game of Thrones? It was a scheme! It was a scheme! A fait accompli! Those stupid boys couldn't let a girl WIN being EMPRESS. Gotta just worldfuck her on her way out the door. 

Think of the precedent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whatever... said:

"Um, like, it like totally ended on Armistice day. Because then the Allies went and captured the Capital and it was over! Hooray!"  (I added the "like" part, but she literally mentioned Armistice Day, then didn't know what that meant or how WW1 ended. A HISTORY """"""PROFESSOR"""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

whatever… -- sounds like the typical adjunct professor, hahaha. Credit for spending 2 weeks on Andrew and other great American capitalists, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

whatever… -- sounds like the typical adjunct professor, hahaha. Credit for spending 2 weeks on Andrew and other great American capitalists, though!

Yo, not to go on and stuff in a thread for historical pet theories... 

On the first day she asked us to call her Goddess 

This wasn't someone on the internet having funzies with their name and title. This was an 'authority' on the subject matter. 

 

Am I doing well? Is this what I'm supposed to do, btw? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, whatever... said:

On the first day she asked us to call her Goddess

whatever… -- it’s an interesting theory and I’m all for speculation, but it does reflect the standard of Goddess’s profession. It’s a great example why teachers should stay in their lanes.

Did she back up her theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

whatever… -- it’s an interesting theory and I’m all for speculation, but it does reflect the standard of Goddess’s profession. It’s a great example why teachers should stay in their lanes.

Did she back up her theory?

What theory? That Armistice day ended with the capture of Berlin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

whatever… -- on Irene re her son.

That's my theory

I can't back it up further than deductive reasoning. 

In the absence of physical evidence that is the evidence. That the actor's accused actions do not fall in line with her historical profile, motive exists for third parties to exploit the situation. 

Recall, I am not pronouncing Irene of Athens guilty

I am not pronouncing her innocent 

 

I don't know 

I am suggesting that the story may not have been told honestly, in its entirety, for a variety of reasons and that for those reasons perhaps guilt should not be pronounced in the absence of physical evidence 

 

Yes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a reader and consumer of histories and historical products 

 

I find most annoying an historian or presenter who too often is unimaginative when it comes to the only interesting facet of human behavior- Motive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May we learn what provoked this thread?  Not that this thread shouldn't be here!  But can you clarify as to whether this was provoked due to somebody (as Procopius thoughtfully did with Theodora) informing the world what an evil, satanic monster was Irene of Athens.

These women -- Catherine d'Medici, Catherine the Great, almost all of them get branded monsters.  Somehow, despite Elizabeth I in her own way a monsters (but all monarchs are), managed to avoid that, for the most part, even when shown to be a huge, selfish, greedy shyte, as continuing to refuse paying then men who crewed the ships that fought Philip's armada for days and weeks, letting them die of disease preferably, because that reduced the number of unpaid navvies.  They didn't even have food and clothes to get home.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, whatever... said:

I find most annoying an historian or presenter who too often is unimaginative when it comes to the only interesting facet of human behavior- Motive

whatever… -- it’s an interesting theory, good for you for taking the insurgent’s perspective against authority. Real politics is bloody and messy, and I’m sure there’s more to the history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zorral said:

May we learn what provoked this thread? 

This is me playing nice

13 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

whatever… -- it’s an interesting theory, good for you for taking the insurgent’s perspective against authority. Real politics is bloody and messy, and I’m sure there’s more to the history.

I mean... whatever

Hasn't been good for me

If the subject is of no interest I entreat the authorities to make it go away. I tried. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still confused.  

Is it anything like in the Literature forum, the thread, "What Are You Reading," I was told that an alternate historical sff/f novel, about which many have good things to say, is a bad book with dangerously misguided ideas and has twisted history. But she hasn't, at least as far as I am acquainted over the years of studying empires in connection with slavery understand.  I could be wrong, of course, but so far, as for instance the way the book portrayed the East India Company and England's drive to bust open China to become addicted to opium as the means to get all that silver paid out for massively desirably luxury Chinese products flowing back to the British metropole, which didn't offer Chinese anything it wanted, happened and happened for those stated reasons -- and the Company did enslave people in India in order to produce the opium they were throwing to the Chinese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why you put this up, here and now.  Did somebody on the forum say something about Irene of Athens that was wrong?  It's not like we were having a discussion anywhere about Irene or the 8th C here on Miscellaneous.  Again, not to say the the thread shouldn't be here, I just want to know what set you off to begin it. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

whatever… -- it’s an interesting theory and I’m all for speculation, but it does reflect the standard of Goddess’s profession. It’s a great example why teachers should stay in their lanes.

She said she was a goddess.  Therefore literally everything is in her "lane."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

What I don't understand is why you put this up, here and now.  Did somebody on the forum say something about Irene of Athens that was wrong?  It's not like we were having a discussion anywhere about Irene or the 8th C here on Miscellaneous.  Again, not to say the the thread shouldn't be here, I just want to know what set you off to begin it. :dunno:

I did not mean to "set ... off" 

I thought it a less volatile musing, potentially more liable to attract conversation about the motives of state actors, than wondering if the Arkies were eating their own hair 

 

Sorry

"set ... off" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooookay.  None of that came through at all.

I mean, I was ready and happy to participate in a discussion of how women in history who actually wielded power are disappeared from it -- and lordessa are there ever a lot of them, and many if not most diehard gotters don't believe there ever were any at all, and site these books as proof -- and / or were maligned as witches, incubuses, sorceresses, satanic, etc. committing crimes that, of course, male rulers always do, and etc. 

I'll go away now.

Good luck. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry

 

I am not an historian. Or a scientist. 

I like stories. I like history. I like the story of history. So I don't want to phrase anything in a way that suggests I'm making some kind of declarative statement. I'm much less interested in the particulars, facts for or against Irene, and more interested in ^those^ broader treatments of powerful women as political actors. I thought I said that. 

I am sorry 

 

eta

declarative statement as an authority on the subject, I might have said 

 

eta2

I mean I declare shit all the time. I just assume y'all are at least smart enough to know that's just me being me tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Oooookay.  None of that came through at all.

I mean, I was ready and happy to participate in a discussion of how women in history who actually wielded power are disappeared from it -- and lordessa are there ever a lot of them, and many if not most diehard gotters don't believe there ever were any at all, and site these books as proof -- and / or were maligned as witches, incubuses, sorceresses, satanic, etc. committing crimes that, of course, male rulers always do, and etc. 

I'll go away now.

Good luck. /cdn-cgi/mirage/bc47d56566b199a6b5c5a9d42c8b58924c2410613bafccc017177c69ad97ef3c/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_thumbsup.gif

Zorral -- no, don’t go; stay :leer:

I’ve always been interested in the great women of power (GWOP), but never had the time to study them beyond what Hollywood portrayed. Given the game they played and their gender-based challenges, their successes made them that much more impressive.

I did read about a more intermediate woman of power (IWOP), La Malinche. I thought her story would reinforce my understanding of pacification, and it did! I actually applied some lessons learned to my toolbox. Otherwise, her efforts proved decisive, facilitating my appreciation of her husband’s monumental accomplishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So I got another one. 

This is one of those things that I'm sure I'd get, like, a definitive answer to if I weren't a lowly peasant and could just ask somebody - a huu-maan beee-iiiing - who might not know the answer themselves, but could direct me towards discovering it. Hard to google. 

Anyway, I read G.J. Meyer's book on WW1 when I was like a sophomore or junior in HS. And at the time I noticed that they kept saying how cold it was on both of the main fronts (East and West, not the sideshow stuff). Like they keep saying that's it's colder than it's ever been in a hundred years and shit. 

And discounting biases that come into those kinds of recordings and stuff, like did anyone REALLY take the temperature this time in this place last year and compare it to the historical record or did nobody give a fuck until someone's national security depended on this 2-mile-wide and thirty-miles-deep stretch of land that was arbitrarily assigned to some  asshole junior officer who'd never been cold before and decided to stick a thermometer outside his cushioned and lamp heated bunker and wrote it down? 

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that like, recordings of 'facts' are often as unreliable as anything else. We all get that, yes? 

But yo, they KEEP saying it

Lenningrad in the next war. Stalingrad too, I think (I think, I haven't read a book on that in a few years).

One of the early sieges of Constantinople, for sure. Maybe the Umayyads? Everyone notes how cold the winter is. 

 

Again, we understand that there's observation bias. But I wonder if these great massings, movings, and conflicts of peoples changes the weather. At a physical, air/heat displacement level. 

First, you have disruption of normal peacetime/traffic behaviors. I don't KNOW if that could change the weather on its own 1000 years ago, but I bet it would tomorrow. 

Then, you have the consolidation of persons for massed movements- Mobilization, yes? This takes heat generating entities away from spread out areas and puts them in one big area. Usually, but not always and depending on the level of state sophistication, close to an existing large urban center. I don't KNOW that that could change the weather. Five hundred dudes? Probably not. Five thousand, maybe? Fifty thousand? Five million? 

Then you have those masses of persons moving along the -now displaced- peacetime routes in different (probably much much more dense, but also more gradual depending on the technology) patterns. Could this change the weather 1000 years ago? Doesn't seem too likely. But what if PRC kept detonating EMP devices EVERY DAY in orbit over USA and the only vehicles that could reliably operate were hardened military/government types. Think THAT would change the weather? 

Everyone thinks that the great migrations of Goths and others that brought down the (decadent) [weak] Western Empire was caused by climate change. Like, that's just accepted historical fact. And I'm not here to dispute it, per say. But what if the weather was changing so much -also- because so many people were moving. And it doesn't matter why they were moving. Whether famine, or raiders, or climate change itself initiated the movings. Once they started moving, whether because of the weather or whatever, they changed the weather. Does that make any sense? 

 

#HardToGoogle

#NotAllOpportunitiesAreEqual

#HowDoYouEvenAskAnAdjunctSomethingLikeThat?

#TryHarder

#I'mPrettySureSomeoneIsOnThis,Don'tKnowHowToKnowForSure

#I'dLoveToResearchIt,ButWeOnlyLearnedTo"Write"And"Research"| 5 Paragraph Essay |In"School"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...