StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It does seem to me that this is a historical topic. And it also occurs to me that we have a *gasp* History Forum on the board. Amazing, innit?

have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Junghalli wrote:You also often see "simple life" wanking from the San Francisco hippie set. I remember one incident a couple of semesters ago where some guy in my class thought people living in shithole countries like Nigeria had it better than us, citing the usual bullshit about "people in countries that aren't obsessed with materialism are happier" (more or less). My jaw dropped. I was really sorry it was in a class discussion so I couldn't say what I thought of him ("you're a fucking idiot").

The Noble Savage has always been a popular conceit with rich, decadent city dwellers who've never had to experience the lifestyle they idealize.

I seem to recall that there was some Western fascination with "rustic primitive countries" which was why they visited Thailand and what not.

The only thing is, that these countries, however "rustic" they are, are shitholes, and unstable shitholes at that. Do they want to live in a country with no functional democracy?

Someone should point out to these woo-woosthat, if the Church in the Middle Ages was so great for Western Civilization(tm), why was there a decline in Western Arms corresponding with the spread of Christianity?

There's a modicum of truth in what that Youtube idiot says. I wouldn't be surprised, frankly, if more people died as a result of war or war-related atrocities in the 20th century than in all the Middle Ages, if only because of the relatively tiny population of Europe and technological inability to do so. That's a far cry from saying life in the Middles Ages was less brutal, nasty, etc. than the present.

And there is something to his claim that "The Rennaisance was THE LOVE OF GOD." The Church was by far the largest patron of the arts, and religious subjects (in which the patrons are often subtlely included)popped up the most. Never mind the underlying motivation was a rediscovery of ancient literature that was ultimately irreconcilable with Christian dogma and eventually resulted in an era of religious wars and virulent intolerance.

Well, there is that, and I don't think anyone was disputing that, whether on Youtube or here.

In any case, I've managed to wear him down to the point where his current rebuttal is:

The middle ages were no less harsh than the filthy conditions heaped upon the immigrants to the US throughout the 19th century. WHY DONT YOU GO AND LOOK THAT UP, IT WAS ONLY ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, FOOL, NOT 700.

Truely, the comparisons of the middle ages to the 19th century makes the living conditions of the middle ages a whole lot better than those of today.

So he admits the Middle Ages were shitty, right? Since, you know, we were comparing them to modern times, not the XIXth century

PeZook wrote:

So he admits the Middle Ages were shitty, right? Since, you know, we were comparing them to modern times, not the XIXth century

Indeed, when I press him about this, he turns around and claims that he was never arguing that the middle ages were a better quality of life, but rather, everyone was chivalrous. He then sites awesome characters from history. Out of like, everyone from the middle ages ever.

Zablorg wrote:

PeZook wrote:

So he admits the Middle Ages were shitty, right? Since, you know, we were comparing them to modern times, not the XIXth century

Indeed, when I press him about this, he turns around and claims that he was never arguing that the middle ages were a better quality of life, but rather, everyone was chivalrous. He then sites awesome characters from history. Out of like, everyone from the middle ages ever.

So...all you need to show is that there was at least one bastard king during the Middle Ages?

Man, that's one weak position

Before he took over England, William the Conqueror was known as William the Bastard.

Look into the leaders of the 4th Crusade. Then let him argue Chivalry.

Timotheus wrote:Considering how far overall health fell after the end of Ancient times I would like to point out that the Church is the reason for a large amount of the poor health.

You can't really blame that on the Church. With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, there simply wasn't the social infrastructure left to actually sustain the public works which made Roman cities moderately less hellish charnel houses. Hell, it wasn't uncommon for plagues to ravage modern cities even at the turn of this century. The exact state of health care varied somewhat but only really started changing in modern times with modern infrastructure, a mostly reliable food supply, and the systematic spread of medical knowledge and practices.

The History Channel and other likes to talk a whole lot about how "ancients" knew some pretty advanced things, and they did, but it was almost always spotty, incomplete, and in many cases no more than a lucky guess. The average Roman prole (or slave) was as fucked as a medieval peasant and even the nobility of the respective eras weren't a whole lot better.