Subject:
|
Re: Historical fudging...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:59:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
520 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> Oh dear,
>
> we wouldn't want the americans to be beaten at something, now would we...
> For a few centuries everyone believed good 'ole Cristopher was the first
> european to find America. Now we know better: the vikings beat him by some
> four centuries, the Irish by about a millenium.
> For centuries we believed the technique of printing books was invented in
> Europe. Now we know better: the Chinese invented the same principle around
> the same time.
> Just because they haven't the proof yet doesn't mean it can't be true...
>
> Duq
And in a pure historical context, the ancient Incas and Aztecs had working
calendars far before most other civilizations. I heard it said that Inca's
had suspension bridges, 'paved' walkways, and glass, and just about
everything, except they never 'invented' the wheel.
/on the soapbox (so you're warned)
Stuff pre 1900 can be subject to scrutiny--Did Columbus sail the ocean blue
in 1492? Did the Irish get here before him? By a millenium? Sure,
whatever--change the history books. Let's get right back to the 'land
bridge' to Alaska and the native Americans were the first to 'discover'
America--that is not the point.
Again, I have no problem with fixing historically inaccurate ideas--the
Vikings were in America long before Columbus, but that's not the point--
The point is, in this day and age, when it comes to the matter of powered
manned flight, coming out today and saying that the Wright brothers weren't
the first, is historical fudging. Saying that Bell wasn't the first--it's
like, hey, we had the last 100ish years of historical *documents* to say one
thing, with witnesses and evidence that are pretty reliable--why now? Why
didn't Joe Inventor, who read in the local paper, or heard from the Town
cryer 100 years ago, that someone else is getting the claim, pipe up then?
I mean why now? Why didn't Miss Cleo say something when she was in school
and a teacher mentioned KittyHawk? For that matter, why didn't her father,
or even the guy who supposedly did it--her grandpappy?
It stopped being a big world during the industrial revolution--the steam
engine I can see a contention for who did it first, for people were not well
read and such, and populations were separate, but 1903? Preacher? Makes a
plane and doesn't make a fuss when he hears about KittyHawk? Nor his kids?
Italian children sit in school just like you and me did when we were kids,
and they get taught history, just like we were--and yet in the 21st century,
100 years after these things, is when some great grandkid who remembers a
'story' from their youth, or someone says 'My great grandpappy invented the
phone before Bell'--I have to question, "Why now? Why not before? Your
pappa sat thru his history class and said *nothing*. All those witnesses
and their kids sat thru their history classes and said *nothing*. And now
his grandkid (or witnesses of this supposed flight and offspring thereof),
who had ample opportunity before the 100th anniversary, *now* pipes up? And
somehow all the evidence disappears? Horsefeathers!
/steps off the soapbox
All that said, if there's *proof* that this happened a year of so before
KittyHawk, I'll rewrite the historical texts myself. 100 years of papers,
and other forms of distributing info to the masses, and no evidence
forthcoming, speaks for itself.
By the by, I am as far from American apologetics as they come.
Dave K
> "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:H79wKC.8Bu@lugnet.com...
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest/12/17/ezekiel.aircraft/index.html
> >
> > And another story from last week that said, iirc, someone in Italy was the
> > first to fly, and not the Wright brothers.
> >
> > This is much akin to the little fiasco a few months back about denouncing • G
> > Bell as the original inventor of the telephone.
> >
> > Look folks, after 100 years of nothing, coming up and saying *now* that
> > these folks were not the first to do these things... I mean, to fix
> > historical inaccuracies is one thing, but to say "Well so and so flew but • we
> > lost the plane and all proof but he flew a year before the Wright
> > brothers..." just bugs me.
> >
> > It's like a National Enquirer article--"Baby born with two tails"--yeah,
> > well, whatever.
> >
> > Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Historical fudging...
|
| (...) Actually, that is innacurate; what the pre-colombian civilizations had were *more complex* calendars, and perhaps slightly more accurate on the long run. The calendar used in Europe during late Roman times (Julian calendar) was pretty (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
| Oh dear, we wouldn't want the americans to be beaten at something, now would we... For a few centuries everyone believed good 'ole Cristopher was the first european to find America. Now we know better: the vikings beat him by some four centuries, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
