Early Modern history
Donald Tucker
Chris Williams (C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk) writes:
> In article <631tn1$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Donald Tucker says...
>
>>The Canary Islands were inhabited by a stone age people and the
>>Portugese did not attempt to settle there. The Spanish established
>>the first European settlement in 1402 and spent the next 94 years
>>in a laborious conquest of the inhabitants. This unimpressive
>>military performance suggests that the invincible Spanish
>>conquistador is somewhat of a myth created by the collapse of the
>>politically fragile and disease devastated Aztec empire and the
>>civil war ravaged Inca empire.
>
> Possibly, but what about another explanation? It's easy to conquer
> 'feudal' or primitive societies of farmers. You just kill off their
> rulers, and take their place - possibly tweaking the social system a
> little.
>
> But hunter/gatherers have no state structure to defeat: you can only
> get to them via genocide. So the Spaniards sailed through the Inca
> empire realy easily, but then took centuries to defeat the 'primitive'
> Araucanians.
I don't dispute this explanation of the relative ease of conquering
primitive states as compared to dispersed tribes. The state is based on
the need to coordinate, organize and control social and economic
relationships on a much larger scale than tribes require. This means
that a state society is inherently more fragile than a tribal one.
> This thread is another advertisement for 'soc.history.early-modern'.
> Donald, do you want to propose it? I'd help.
Well, I didn't originate the proposal for the group. But I'm prepared
to take part in a working group to draft a proposal by exchange of
e-mail that we would then circulate for discussion in the soc.history
ng's. We could do much of the drafting by a clip and paste of the
generic parts of soc.history.ancient and soc.history.medieval.
If we were doing the soc.history ng heirarchy from scratch we would
probably do well to set up a general framework such as:
soc.history
soc.history.western
The subgroup for our traditional "eurocentric" history and global
history that impinges on the West.
soc.history.eastasian
The subgroup for matters internal to China, Japan, Tibet etc.
soc.history.southasian
The subgroup for matters internal to India, Pakistan etc.
soc.history.what-if
Alternative histories
soc.history......
Then within the western groups we would have:
soc.history.western.ancient
The same charter as the present soc.history.ancient -- the
history of matters antecedent to the present Western civilization,
and events in Asia and elsewhere that impacted on it
soc.history.western.medieval
The same charter as the present soc.history.medieval
soc.history.western.1500-1800
The "early modern" ng.
soc.history.western.1800-1914
Or some other cut off date to distinguish the "modern" from the
"post-modern." There is no concensus on terms.
soc.history.western.1914-present
Donald ___,__<@~__,___ World history; Alternate history;
/^/^/^[#]^\^\^\ Maps; Civilizations Timelines; pinyin;
Pteranodon logo _/|\_ at:
Copyright 1996 " " © http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/
Donald Tucker
Joe Bernstein (jos...@tezcat.com) writes:
> In article <634jmu$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
[cut]
> I *think* I've seen the entire discussion thus far, and it's
> pretty clear that the problem is nobody wants to be proponent.
> The "working group" would probably turn into the official
> proponents' list although this isn't how things always go
> (sometimes a writer wishes to stay silent or to drop out;
> sometimes a non-writer affiliates with the proposal). Anyway,
> there have to be people willing to do the work of (a) writing
> the proposal and (b) following the official discussion, answering
> criticisms, and sometimes even (gasp) changing the proposal to
> reflect the correctness of those criticisms. That's "proponent".
> There's an extra burden on the person who first sends it to
> news.announce.newgroups, or who is listed first, if there's
> more than one proponent: that person is the owner-of-record for
> the proposal, unless he/she quits or vanishes or something, and
> has to fill out the form that takes it to a vote.
>
I don't dispute this. I suppose that the onus probably falls on
the person who originated the thread. The rest of us are really
just camp followers.
>> If we were doing the soc.history ng heirarchy from scratch we would
>> probably do well to set up a general framework such as:
>
> A quite good framework to which I have only one objection:
>
>> Then within the western groups we would have:
>>
>> soc.history.western.ancient
>> The same charter as the present soc.history.ancient -- the
>> history of matters antecedent to the present Western civilization,
>> and events in Asia and elsewhere that impacted on it
>>
>
> Please read the soc.history.ancient charter before making this
> assertion. You can find it at
> http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/charters/soc/history/ancient/
> or
>
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/soc/soc.history.ancient
> or at other places like DejaNews. It's also in one of our FAQs. It
> explicitly welcomes any history up to AD 700 which can be known from
> textual sources, including parts of Asia not usually of interest
> primarily for their impact on the West. It even explicitly welcomes
> Maya history. [cut]
Apologies for the error. It's been a while since I read the charter
for soc.history.ancient.
I agree that soc.history.ancient is not simply soc.history.medieval
moved back some years. I had assumed that it also included Southwest
Asia, the southern littoral of the Mediterranean, and Central
Asia.
The posting volume on East, South and Southeast Asia, and the
Americas is not sufficient to justify separate ng's. In the absence
of separate history ng's for these regions there is no other
appropriate ng to discuss their ancient history. As you have
pointed out, postings on their early history are within the
charter for soc.history.ancient.
Donald Tucker
Rodolphe Audette (rodolphe...@sit.ulaval.ca) writes:
> Donald Tucker wrote:
>
>> If we were doing the soc.history ng heirarchy from scratch we would
>> probably do well to set up a general framework such as:
>
>> soc.history
>
>> soc.history.western
>> The subgroup for our traditional "eurocentric" history and global
>> history that impinges on the West.
>
>> soc.history.eastasian
>> The subgroup for matters internal to China, Japan, Tibet etc.
>
>> soc.history.southasian
>> The subgroup for matters internal to India, Pakistan etc.
>
>> soc.history.what-if
>> Alternative histories
>
>> soc.history......
>
>> Then within the western groups we would have:
>
>> soc.history.western.ancient
>> The same charter as the present soc.history.ancient -- the
>> history of matters antecedent to the present Western civilization,
>> and events in Asia and elsewhere that impacted on it
>
>> soc.history.western.medieval
>> The same charter as the present soc.history.medieval
>
>> soc.history.western.1500-1800
>> The "early modern" ng.
>
>> soc.history.western.1800-1914
>> Or some other cut off date to distinguish the "modern" from the
>> "post-modern." There is no concensus on terms.
>
>> soc.history.western.1914-present
>
> I think establishing a new hierarchy for history NGs, which would imply
> creating several new NGs and, even worse, renaming a few existing ones,
> would only result in failure for all of them.
I just want to make clear that I am *not* proposing a new hierarchy of
history ng's. I was merely outlining a structure that might have been
useful if we were starting from scratch.
BTW, my error in summarizing the charter of soc.history.ancient is
corrected in another post.
> A few weeks ago, some
> people, including me, suggested soc.history.early-modern, covering the
> period 1500-1800, should be created. Why not stick to that for the time
> being? Creating other NGs covering later periods should be deferred
> until after s.h.e-m is created, running, and sure on its feet.
I am not suggesting anything different. Merely that we should reflect on
the broader context of our actions.
> And I
> disagree with creating different NGs for different parts of the world.
> At best this could have been justified for soc.history.medieval, but I
> suppose this wasn't deemed necessary when that NG was created and that's
> just fine. Why then should it be deemed necessary, or even useful, for
> later periods, as obviously the history of all parts of the Big Ball is
> more and more interrelated?
But here I disagree. Before 1500 civilizations existed mainly in separate
worlds with limited relations between them. In the years after 1500
the relations between regions have become closer and closer. The main
reason for separate regional discussions of more recent periods would
arise when the volume posting made the ng too large to scan in a few
minutes a day, as has already happened to soc.history.
vetturin
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Rodolphe Audette wrote:
> Donald Tucker wrote:
>
> > If we were doing the soc.history ng heirarchy from scratch we would
> > probably do well to set up a general framework such as:
>
> > soc.history.eastasian
> > The subgroup for matters internal to China, Japan, Tibet etc.
That is a good suggestion, but Tibet is not part of East Asia, as no
academic programs offer Tibetan studies under any East Asian departments.
Sincerely,
Shadow-Eyes
Uhhm...well if that if the case what part of ASia does TIbet belong to?
South central?
John Jimenez
>
>vett...@usc.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Freddy:
It's Joe though. There's something about him.
Holdaway:
What?
Freddy:
I don't know, I... I got it! Do you remember the Fantastic Four?
Holdaway:
You mean the invisible girl and 'flame on' and all that S**T?
Freddy:
Yeah! THING! M**********R LOOKS LIKE THE THING!!!
- Mr. Orange from Reservoir Dogs.
Donald Tucker
vetturin (vett...@lvl-sun673.usc.edu) writes:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Rodolphe Audette wrote:
>
>> Donald Tucker wrote:
>>
>> > If we were doing the soc.history ng heirarchy from scratch we would
>> > probably do well to set up a general framework such as:
>>
>> > soc.history.eastasian
>> > The subgroup for matters internal to China, Japan, Tibet etc.
>
> That is a good suggestion, but Tibet is not part of East Asia, as no
> academic programs offer Tibetan studies under any East Asian departments.
>
Including Tibet in an East Asian ng does not preclude discussing it
elsewhere, or academic East Asian studies that exclude Tibet.
But from a historical point of view the inclusion of Tibet in an East
Asian ng makes sense because China-Tibet relations are a historical reality.
For example Tibetan tribes invaded Chinese western territories from
150 BCE to 780 CE, the Tanguts from the Tibet region founded the
Xixia empire which occupied present day Gansu from c. 990 to 1227, and
Qing China ousted the Dzungars from Lhasa, imposed a new ruler
in 1720 and established a protectorate by the middle of the 18th
century. Ever since then the argument over whether Tibet is independent
from China has been a significant issue in East Asian discussions.
To exclude Tibet from an East Asian ng is comparable to excluding
Canada from an Americas discussion group, because Canada is neither
the US nor a Latin American country.
Donald Tucker
Shadow-Eyes (Shado...@NightScryer.com) writes:
> On 4 Nov 1997 13:16:07 -0800, vetturin <vett...@lvl-sun673.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Rodolphe Audette wrote:
>>
>>> Donald Tucker wrote:
>>>
>>> > If we were doing the soc.history ng heirarchy from scratch we would
>>> > probably do well to set up a general framework such as:
>>>
>>> > soc.history.eastasian
>>> > The subgroup for matters internal to China, Japan, Tibet etc.
>>
>>That is a good suggestion, but Tibet is not part of East Asia, as no
>>academic programs offer Tibetan studies under any East Asian departments.
See my reply to Rodolphe Audette's post for an answer to his point.
> Uhhm...well if that if the case what part of ASia does TIbet belong to?
> South central?
>
We could create a ng that would deal with Central Asia: Tibet, Xinjiang,
Turkestan etc, but it would probably be too low in traffic to be
worth doing. Anyway, most Tibet posts argue about Tibet's relationship
with China.
There was a relationship between Tibet and South Asia, i.e. India and
neighboring areas, during the latter part of the British Raj following
the British expedition under Col. Younghusband in 1903. In 1906
Qing China signed a protocol with Britain that recognized Chinese
sovereignty in Tibet but confirmed British trading and diplomatic
privileges. The British administered their interests from India.
John Gibson
This doesn't really relate to the post that I'm replying to but there
seems to be a debate over what soc.history.early-modern is. Well,
no-one seems to have many qualms with "medieval" despite the completely
European nature of that term.
Can't someone just set up this group and have posts ranging from
whatever dates seem appropriate. There's some late medieval stuff, like
the Fuggers' accounting activities, which seem to be relevant even
though they occur long before 1500.
I would like to see an early modern group because I know far more about
this era than any other.
So it's purely self-indulgent.
JOHN
Kai Rosenthal
Hey,
how old is this seperation medieval <-> modern history anyway ?
Wasn't it Christopherus Cellarius who made up this seperation
somewhere in the 1700's ??
So, isn't it perhaps time to rethink it anyway ???
--
Kai.
"There is a fine line between sanity and insanity.
I walk this line"
David Heading
In article <346A34...@mailserv.ncl.ac.uk>, John Gibson
<W.J.G...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> This doesn't really relate to the post that I'm replying to but there
> seems to be a debate over what soc.history.early-modern is. Well,
> no-one seems to have many qualms with "medieval" despite the completely
> European nature of that term.
>
> I would like to see an early modern group because I know far more about
> this era than any other.
>
> So it's purely self-indulgent.
>
I too would like to see an "early Modern" group. Rather than fiddle wih
sematics, cant we just use a working description of the era?
Something like "world history from circa 1500 (CE) to circa 1700 (CE)"
seems to be reasonably non-Eurocentric, and not treading on the toes of
other groups. I've been following this thread myself, for purely
self-indulgent reasons too. There is a need and there is interest, so can
we get on with it and leave the rather stale debate about what it actually
means? Please?
David Heading
Donald Tucker
David Heading (d.j.h...@no-spam.aston.ac.uk) writes:
>
> I too would like to see an "early Modern" group. Rather than fiddle wih
> sematics, cant we just use a working description of the era?
>
> Something like "world history from circa 1500 (CE) to circa 1700 (CE)"
> seems to be reasonably non-Eurocentric, and not treading on the toes of
> other groups. I've been following this thread myself, for purely
> self-indulgent reasons too. There is a need and there is interest, so can
> we get on with it and leave the rather stale debate about what it actually
> means? Please?
Is there a reason why you prefer the closing date of c1700 over c1800,
or is this a typo?
Unfortunately we can't "get on with it" until we are reasonably confident
that we can have a concensus on basic issues such as timeframe.
David Heading
In article <64ep21$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker) wrote:
>
> Is there a reason why you prefer the closing date of c1700 over c1800,
> or is this a typo?
No, more a freudian slip - its what I'm personally interested in. :)
>
> Unfortunately we can't "get on with it" until we are reasonably confident
> that we can have a concensus on basic issues such as timeframe.
>
>
Fair enough, but how about some attempts to actually define what we mean,
if only by example. Something like:
"The social, political, cultural, economic and military history of the
world between the approximate dates of 1500 and 1800 (CE). This includes,
but is not limited to, the French invasions of Italy (the Italian Wars),
the ramifications of the Spanish conquest of southern and central America,
early colonial attempts by Europeans, the later Ming Chinese Empire, its
fall and the early Manchu Empire, the development of the Shogunate in
Japan, the rise and fall of the Moghul Empire in Northern India, European
conflicts such as the Thirty Years War, the rise of France and Britain as
world powers, the Russian conquest of Siberia, the reformation and
development of both Protestant and Catholic churches, the development of
trade and industry in western Europe, Achien (sp?) Regime politics, the
American War of Independence, Milton, Shakespeare, Moliere, Swift and
other playwrights/authors and cultural expressions..."
You can, I'm sure, add what you like to the above list (I'm weak on 18th
century stuff). For preference, I would exclude the French revolution,
which, together with the Napoleonic era, is probably worth a newsgroup of
its own.
My point was, badly put as it might have been, that we need to actually
hammer out what people want, not whether it fits into a particular
viewpoint of history.
Feel free to criticise, but flame gently :)
Cheers
David Heading
--
"Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God"
John Gibson
David Heading wrote:
[snip]
: Fair enough, but how about some attempts to actually define what we
mean,
: if only by example. Something like:
:
: "The social, political, cultural, economic and military history of the
: world between the approximate dates of 1500 and 1800 (CE). This
includes,
: but is not limited to, the French invasions of Italy (the Italian
Wars),
: the ramifications of the Spanish conquest of southern and central
America,
: early colonial attempts by Europeans, the later Ming Chinese Empire,
its
: fall and the early Manchu Empire, the development of the Shogunate in
: Japan, the rise and fall of the Moghul Empire in Northern India,
European
: conflicts such as the Thirty Years War, the rise of France and Britain
as
: world powers, the Russian conquest of Siberia, the reformation and
: development of both Protestant and Catholic churches, the development
of
: trade and industry in western Europe, Achien (sp?) Regime politics,
the
: American War of Independence, Milton, Shakespeare, Moliere, Swift and
: other playwrights/authors and cultural expressions..."
Absolutism and the extent to which it was truly "absolute". The
development of Prussia and Austria. The military "revolution", or
evolution if you like. Hell, the list is almost endless.
: You can, I'm sure, add what you like to the above list (I'm weak on
18th
: century stuff). For preference, I would exclude the French revolution,
: which, together with the Napoleonic era, is probably worth a newsgroup
of
: its own.
:
Fair point, but the revolution and subsequent wars had such a profound
effect and consequences, such as being the final catalyst in the fall of
the Holy Roman Empire, that it can't really be ignored. It is after all
probably the most explosive moment in early modern European history.
Furthermore, a thread could run along the lines of, "why did the
revolution occur in France and not elsewhere?" which can't really
by-pass the French Revolution.
: My point was, badly put as it might have been, that we need to
actually
: hammer out what people want, not whether it fits into a particular
: viewpoint of history.
:
: Feel free to criticise, but flame gently :)
:
: Cheers
: David Heading
There's a lot of interest in such a group. I think it is clearly
viable.
I would certainly contribute regularly.
JOHN
John Beaderstadt
dan brady wrote:
>
> In this sense early modern society as I have described them did not emerge
> all over the globe at the same magic hour...
This is true, no matter what era you're discussing. For example, the
prehistoric era didn't end in Alaska until slightly less than two
centuries ago, considerably later most other places. For that matter,
the Inuit are still in the stone age in many geographic locations, while
in others they have entered the "modern" era without passing through any
intermediary iron age, dark age, or rennaisance. Essentially, an "age"
describes a stage of development in an individual society, and is not a
universal, chronological landmark.
--
"The fortunate man knows how much he can safely leave to chance."
-- Lady Barbara Hornblower
dan brady
I would think that early modern, would have to be distinguished by the
beginnings of the hallmarks that identify that portion of history known
as modern. These are, in my mind, the machine age, industrialism, global
capitalism, and a secularization of the social structure, meaning the
decline of the religious institutions and the rise of science and technology.
Using these guideposts, early modern would, in europe begin with the 1600s at
the earliest. While in other parts of the world, modern history would have to
wait until circumstances altered and the hallmarks, aforementioned, emerged.
In this sense early modern society as I have described them did not emerge
all over the globe at the same magic hour, rather, it was a set of social
revolutions/evolutions, which began in one area of the globe and percolated
over its surface.
What do you think?
In article <346A34...@mailserv.ncl.ac.uk>, John Gibson
<W.J.G...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
> This doesn't really relate to the post that I'm replying to but there
> seems to be a debate over what soc.history.early-modern is. Well,
> no-one seems to have many qualms with "medieval" despite the completely
> European nature of that term.
>
> Can't someone just set up this group and have posts ranging from
> whatever dates seem appropriate. There's some late medieval stuff, like
> the Fuggers' accounting activities, which seem to be relevant even
> though they occur long before 1500.
>
> I would like to see an early modern group because I know far more about
> this era than any other.
>
> So it's purely self-indulgent.
>
> JOHN
Donald Tucker
d.j.h...@no-spam.aston.ac.uk (David Heading) suggested an
attempt to define the scope of soc.history.eary-modern by
example and posted a good first draft. John Gibson
<W.J.G...@ncl.ac.uk> suggested some changes.
Here is a rededraft that could be included in the charter
if we use this method:
"The social, political, cultural, economic, military and
intellectual history of the world from about 1500 to 1800 CE.
This begins with the conduct and consequences of Portuguese
Spanish maritime exploration, the development of strong French
and Spanish monarchies and their rivalries following the
French invasions of Italy in 1494, Italian intellectual
and cultural developments after 1450, Henry VII and Tudor
England, the Holy Roman Empire and its attempted modernization
after the 1495 Diet of Worms, the consequences of Russian
statebuilding and expansion by Ivan III (the Great), Ottoman
and Venetian development after their war of 1499-1503, Shah
Ismail and Safavid Persia, Babur's Indian conquests and
Mogul Empire, conduct and consequences of Ming China's
maritime exploration by Admiral Zheng He (Cheng Ho) 1403-1433,
[Discussion comments: ]
[1. Zheng He's voyages are an obvious compare and contrast ]
[ with the Portuguese voyages of a few years later ]
[2. There is no significant change in China about 1500. The ]
[ Chinese did not make major changes after the arrival of ]
[ Portugal's Thomé Pires in Beijing in 1520]
and Japan after the introduction of the musket by Portuguese
in c. 1543.
Other on topic issues include Spanish, Portuguese and other
European colonial expansion and development around the globe,
later Ming and early Qing China until the First British War in
1841-1842, Japan's Azuchi-Momoyama Tokugawa Periods until 1868,
India before the end of the East India Company in 1858.
Within Europe on topic issues include the Reformation and
counter-Reformation, the 17th and 18th century revolutions
in science, commerce, agriculture, and military technology,
the development of trade and industry from about 1500 to 1800 CE,
the early Industrial Revolution in 18th century England,
Machaivelli, Shakespeare, Milton, Moliere, Swift and cultural
expressions from about 1500 to 1800 CE, Absolutism and
Enlightenment, the rise and fall of Spain, the Netherlands and
Sweden as a Powers, the rise of France and Britain as Powers,
the Russian conquest of Siberia, the development of Austria and
Prussia, wars, including the American and French Revolutions.
[Discussion comments: ]
[ This enables discussion of "why did the revolution occur ]
[ in France and not elsewhere?"
The period closes with the destruction of ancient institutions
such as the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, displacement of medieval
legal systems during the French conquest of Europe, the spread
of the new American and French political ideas, as well as the
spread of the Industrial Revolution beyond England.
In some parts of the world relatively isolated from the the
emerging Western World System, the early-modern period lingers
on in domestic affairs, such as China until 1843, India until
1858, and Japan until 1868, all of which are within the charter
for discussion in soc.history.early-modern.
This enumeration of topics overlaps soc.history.medieval and
would overlap soc.history.modern if such a group was created.
But discussion in those groups would focus on different aspects
of events. For example soc.history.medieval could examine
medieval institutions that persisted into the Tudor period
and soc.history.early-modern could delve into the pre-1500
world to examine the Fuggers' accounting activities.
Similarly, soc.history.modern could examine modern political
thought that originated in the Enlightenment and the American
Revolution."
Comments?
Floyd Davidson
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote:
>dan brady wrote:
>>
>> In this sense early modern society as I have described them did not emerge
>> all over the globe at the same magic hour...
>
>This is true, no matter what era you're discussing. For example, the
>prehistoric era didn't end in Alaska until slightly less than two
>centuries ago, considerably later most other places. For that matter,
>the Inuit are still in the stone age in many geographic locations, while
>in others they have entered the "modern" era without passing through any
>intermediary iron age, dark age, or rennaisance. Essentially, an "age"
>describes a stage of development in an individual society, and is not a
>universal, chronological landmark.
My, my what an interestingly Euro-centric view of history too!
One of the more interesting things about Eskimo cultures is how
sophisticated they are at a number of things, one of which is
adapting to new technologies. The idea that "stone age" and
"iron age" would be significant as a landmark or measure of
Eskimo cultural history is just hilarious! They didn't have
access to significant iron, therefore developing it in even
simple ways would have been super extra-ordinary. But on the
other hand they haven't been "stone age" for several thousands
of years (probably long prior to that state in European
history).
Certainly when iron implements from areas where people had iron
ore to work with became available, the Eskimo people adapted to
it rather rapidly (actually they were importing iron before
Europeans became aware that Eskimo people existed).
But that was never a two way street, and the so-called "modern
era" cultures have been very very slow to adapt to more
sophisticated concepts from other cultures, Eskimo culture being
one example. Even in technology, where "modern era" people take
such pride in their accomplishments, they have been very slow at
adaption of technologies from other cultures. Hull design (try
finding a more efficient design that an Aleut kayak!) for boats
is one such technology, and warm clothing is another (we
couldn't figure out what made Eskimo mukluks warm until about
1950, and with all of our fantastic technology we couldn't even
equal mukluks until the past 10-15 years).
However, it is in non-technological areas where western culture
in this "modern era" has its worst problems compared to other
cultures. Traditional Eskimo cultures, for example, have a far
more sophisticated sense of interpersonal relationships, civil
government structure, individual freedom, property ownership,
family bonds, and educational methodology, than do traditional
"modern era" western cultures. The most obvious examples, those
concerning concepts of property ownership and civil government
structure, are directly in conflict with the above statement
that Eskimos moved into a modern era without passing through a
"dark age, or "rennaisance" (which, by the way is probably wrong
in that they feel the "dark age" began when Europeans came to
the Arctic in large numbers, and some feel that they might right
now be exiting that dark age and headed for a "rennaisance"
period).
Western culture is today finally beginning to view property
ownership as a responsibility limited by environmental concerns,
which means it has just now reached the a starting point that
Eskimo cultures (actually most Native American cultures) were at
a few thousand years ago! Yet it is still commonly thought by
many people in western cultures that Eskimos and other Native
Americans had/have no concept of property ownership at all!
(Re-consider that from the perspective that trespassing was a
capital crime! Property ownership was, and is, a _very_ serious
part of their culture, and they basically view western concepts
of property ownership as exceedingly crude to the point of being
immoral.)
Likewise individual freedom and its relationship to civil
government structure is an area where Eskimo culture has been
practicing for hundreds if not thousands of years at a level of
sophistication that western culture has only just begun to
embrace in the past few hundreds of years. The most interesting
example of European clash with Eskimo cultures was the Russian
experience in western Alaska, where almost to a man the
explorers stated that it was impossible to deal with the Yup'ik
Eskimo people because they just did not have any form of
government! In fact it was far too sophisticated for the
Russians to realize that it was even there. And that view did
not change much for most western observers until about 1970 when
it became apparent that the dominance of western culture was
pushing the traditional Eskimo culture out of existence and
Yup'ik elders finally began describing their form of government
to western based anthropologists (see the work of Anne
Fienup-Reordan).
We would all do well to study some of the more advanced
characteristics of non-modern age cultures and adapt our own way
of living to match.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@tanana.polarnet.com> Salcha, Alaska
John Beaderstadt
Floyd Davidson wrote:
>
> My, my what an interestingly Euro-centric view of history too!
>
> One of the more interesting things about Eskimo cultures is how
> sophisticated they are at a number of things, one of which is
> adapting to new technologies. The idea that "stone age" and
> "iron age" would be significant as a landmark or measure of
Put your sneer away until you learn the proper usage of "Eskimo" and
"Inuit."
I always wonder about people who seize the smallest opportunity to
expound in multi-page arguments that have little to do with the topic at
hand.
John Beaderstadt
> You will, however, please excuse me if it takes more than a
> couple days for me to respond...
Take all the time you want, as I won't be back at all. My post was meant
merely to illustrate that it would be misleading to apply a term to a
given people and think that it meant the same as when applied to another
people. That was my first post in this group, and I thought it a rather
innocent and obvious statement; I certainly don't see why it should draw
such sarcasm and vitriol. Assuming that you have begun as you intend to
continue, I'll go elsewhere.
LJ Hutchins
> soc.history.medieval could examine
> medieval institutions that persisted into the Tudor period
> and soc.history.early-modern could delve into the pre-1500
> world to examine the Fuggers' accounting activities.
> Similarly, soc.history.modern could examine modern political
> thought that originated in the Enlightenment and the American
> Revolution." Comments?
>
> Donald
Be careful! Someone may soon suggest once again we set up a
soc.history.early-modern newsgroup....
LJ Hutchins - ljhutchins@saqnetDOTcoDOTuk
Floyd Davidson
[posted and emailed]
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote:
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>>
>> My, my what an interestingly Euro-centric view of history too!
>>
>> One of the more interesting things about Eskimo cultures is how
>> sophisticated they are at a number of things, one of which is
>> adapting to new technologies. The idea that "stone age" and
>> "iron age" would be significant as a landmark or measure of
>> Eskimo cultural history is just hilarious! <snip>
>
>Put your sneer away until you learn the proper usage of "Eskimo" and
>"Inuit."
>
>I always wonder about people who seize the smallest opportunity to
>expound in multi-page arguments that have little to do with the topic at
>hand.
I'm sorry you didn't understand the topic at hand any better
than it appears you understand the proper usage of "Eskimo" or
"Inuit".
If you would be so kind as to tell us all just what *you* think
the proper usage is, I'll be happy to point out where my usage
is very correct and yours, if it differs, is based one form or
another of misunderstanding. Just in case you want a small
prompt, "Inuit" does not describe all Eskimo people nor all
Eskimo languages. "Eskimo" is the only word in the English
language which does describe all of the Eskimo people and
languages, including Inuit (as well as Unangam and various
Yup'ik Eskimo languages).
You will, however, please excuse me if it takes more than a
couple days for me to respond, as I'll be spending the next few
days in the village of Atkasuk, where the "Inuit" speak Inupiaq
and call themselves Inupiat in their language and "Eskimo" in
English.
Donald Tucker
John Beaderstadt (be...@together.net) writes:
> dan brady wrote:
>>
>> In this sense early modern society as I have described them did not emerge
>> all over the globe at the same magic hour...
Agree. In a separate post I suggested some start dates for different
regions. Do they need to be adjusted?
> [cut]
> the Inuit are still in the stone age in many geographic locations, while
> in others they have entered the "modern" era without passing through any
> intermediary iron age, dark age, or rennaisance. Essentially, an "age"
> describes a stage of development in an individual society, and is not a
> universal, chronological landmark.
I note that Floyd Davidson flamed youn over the use of the term "inuit"
indstead of "eskimo." I appreciate his point that:
"'Eskimo' is the only word in the English language which does
describe all of the Eskimo people and languages, including Inuit"
and have put my comments in a separate thread:
_Eskimos and Inuit (Was Re: Early Modern history)_.
As for your substantive point that an "age" describes a stage of
social development rather than a universal, chronological
landmark, I agree.
But soc.history.early-modern is not limited to any particular
age for a specific society. Rather it is a catch-all for
events leading up to and during the period in which Western
Society encountered the rest of the world, after about 1500,
and the internal events in the West and other societies during
this process. We similarly end the period when Western Society
is better characterized as Modern than Early-Modern, after about
1800,
We could be rigid and say that for non-Western societies
the time frame is 1500-1800. But this is difficult to justify if
the discussion is about something internal to a non-Western
society. At the extreme we have China, where 1500 has no
significance at all.
To be practical we have to be somewhat flexible in setting
bounds for disussion of internal developments in non-Western
societies when we attempt to apply a time frame based on
the development of Western Society to a global context.
In a separate post I attempted some bounds for non-Western
societies. Clearly they are arbitrary. How should they
be adjusted?
Donald Tucker
John Beaderstadt (be...@together.net) writes:
> dan brady wrote:
>>
>> In this sense early modern society as I have described them did not
>> emerge all over the globe at the same magic hour...
Agree. In a separate post I suggested some start dates for different
regions. Do they need to be adjusted?
> [cut]
> the Inuit are still in the stone age in many geographic locations, while
> in others they have entered the "modern" era without passing through any
> intermediary iron age, dark age, or rennaisance. Essentially, an "age"
> describes a stage of development in an individual society, and is not a
> universal, chronological landmark.
I note that Floyd Davidson flamed you over the use of the term "inuit"
instead of "eskimo." I appreciate his point that:
"'Eskimo' is the only word in the English language which does
describe all of the Eskimo people and languages, including Inuit"
and have put my comments in a separate thread:
_Eskimos and Inuit (Was Re: Early Modern history)_.
As for your substantive point that an "age" describes a stage of
social development rather than a universal, chronological
landmark, I agree.
But soc.history.early-modern is not limited to any particular
age for a specific society. Rather it is a catch-all for
events leading up to and during the period in which Western
Society encountered the rest of the world, after about 1500,
and the internal events in the West and other societies during
this process. We similarly end the period when Western Society
is better characterized as Modern than Early-Modern, after about
1800.
John Gibson
Donald Tucker wrote:
:
: d.j.h...@no-spam.aston.ac.uk (David Heading) suggested an
: medieval institutions that persisted into the Tudor period
: and soc.history.early-modern could delve into the pre-1500
: world to examine the Fuggers' accounting activities.
: Similarly, soc.history.modern could examine modern political
: thought that originated in the Enlightenment and the American
: Revolution."
:
: Comments?
: Donald ___,__<@~__,___ World history; Alternate history;
: /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\ Maps; Civilizations Timelines; pinyin;
: Pteranodon logo _/|\_ at:
: Copyright 1996 " " ©
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/
Donald,
That's excellent! The best outline of early modern times I've come
across.
JOHN
Chris Williams
In article <347222...@together.net>, John Beaderstadt says...
>Put your sneer away until you learn the proper usage of "Eskimo" and
>"Inuit."
This sort of exchange is probably one of the reasons why it's better to have
a minimalist definition of the period in the charter ["1500-1800 is early
modern history because that's the convention in most English-speaking
history departments. You got a problem with that?"*] and save the historical
justification for the debate on the RFD. Otherwise we create any number of
gaps for nitpickers.
Chris
*NB That was a joke.
Donald Tucker
John Beaderstadt (be...@together.net) writes:
>> You will, however, please excuse me if it takes more than a
>> couple days for me to respond...
>
> Take all the time you want, as I won't be back at all. My post was meant
> merely to illustrate that it would be misleading to apply a term to a
> given people and think that it meant the same as when applied to another
> people. That was my first post in this group, and I thought it a rather
> innocent and obvious statement; I certainly don't see why it should draw
> such sarcasm and vitriol. Assuming that you have begun as you intend to
> continue, I'll go elsewhere.
Your original post that:
"<here fill in the name of any of many non-Western cultures, in
Africa, America, Asia> are still in the stone age in many geographic
locations, while in others they have entered the "modern" era without
passing through any intermediary iron age, dark age, or rennaisance.
Essentially, an "age" describes a stage of development in an individual
society, and is not a universal, chronological landmark."
is IMHO entirely appropriate as a contribution to the newsgroups to
which it was posted.
But the extensive flame over your use of the word "inuit" rather than
"eskimo" is unjustified. I appreciate Floyd Davidson's point that:
"'Eskimo' is the only word in the English language which does
describe all of the Eskimo people and languages, including Inuit"
but it is not necessary to hit people over the head for a lapse
based on a technical misunderstanding.
For the general reader suffice it to say that "inuit" is a term
that the Arctic people in northern Canada usually call themselves.
But they also respond to the name "eskimo" which has become the
generic name for all Arctic people, no matter what they call
themselves. For lovers of the obscure, the term "eskimo"
originated in an Algonquin indian language. AFAIK its use in
English dates from the journal of Hudson's Bay Company explorer
Samuel Hearne in 1770 when he explored north of 60^ in the
eastern Arctic.
It would be proper netiquette to let the thread "Early Modern
history" be used for discussion of the modalities for creation
of the newsgroup soc.history.early-modern.
If Floyd Davidson, or anyone else wishes to further enlighten
us on eskimo vs. inuit they are free to use this thread.
BTW we went through this definitional exercise just five
months ago on soc.history.what-if where the thread
"Points Of Fact: 'Asian'" was similarly used for this
arabesque.
Stephen Graham
In article <64rncm$9...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> Other on topic issues include Spanish, Portuguese and other
> European colonial expansion and development around the globe,
> later Ming and early Qing China until the First British War in
> 1841-1842, Japan's Azuchi-Momoyama Tokugawa Periods until 1868,
> India before the end of the East India Company in 1858.
This extend the early-modern period too far by at least a century.
For instance, most colonial history is strongly linked to contemporary
European events.
> Within Europe on topic issues include the Reformation and
> counter-Reformation, the 17th and 18th century revolutions
> in science, commerce, agriculture, and military technology,
> the development of trade and industry from about 1500 to 1800 CE,
> the early Industrial Revolution in 18th century England,
And again, you're running well into the modern period. The early industrial
revolution should not be separated from discussion of the 19th century.
The key European break point is probably the beginning of the
Enlightenment. While the precise date when that starts is debatable, a
date of approximately 1740 is a reasonable dividing line in Europe.
Given the European colonial expansion that follows this period, it works
reasonably well for Asian and African history. There are also some nice
chronological coincidences. In Southeast Asian history, for instance,
there are new dynasties that date from 1758 (Burma), 1767 (Thailand),
and 1792 (Vietnam), as well as civil war in Laos.
What this allows is a uniform coverage of the age of Revolutions, which
is the hallmark of modern as opposed to early-modern history.
An alternative is to simply scrap the idea of early-modern vs. modern.
--
Stephen Graham
gra...@ee.washington.edu
gra...@eskimo.com
John Gibson
dan brady wrote:
>
> I would think that early modern, would have to be distinguished by the
> beginnings of the hallmarks that identify that portion of history known
> as modern. These are, in my mind, the machine age, industrialism, global
> capitalism, and a secularization of the social structure, meaning the
> decline of the religious institutions and the rise of science and technology.
>
> Using these guideposts, early modern would, in europe begin with the 1600s at
> the earliest. While in other parts of the world, modern history would have to
> wait until circumstances altered and the hallmarks, aforementioned, emerged.
> revolutions/evolutions, which began in one area of the globe and percolated
> over its surface.
>
> What do you think?
Isn't there a case for saying that these hallmarks of the modern world
are, in some respects at least, linked to Medieval developments or the
decline of Medieval practices/institutions/whatever else you can think
of?
I would say simply anything that is relevant. Characterising it by
dates is a difficult exercise as various parts of the world "modernise"
at different times and in their own unique way.
For example, if you said posts from 1500 were relevant then how about
Ivan the Terrible, essentially Medieval in outlook in my opinion?
Just as there is no definitive starting date for the Middle Ages so
there is no such date for the beginning of the modern world. Caxton's
printing press of 1476 is clearly a modern development - but in a late
Medieval world.
JOHN
Joe Bernstein
> attempt to define the scope of soc.history.eary-modern by
> example and posted a good first draft. John Gibson
> <W.J.G...@ncl.ac.uk> suggested some changes.
I did not particularly like either of those examples, but either
is more acceptable than...
> Here is a rededraft that could be included in the charter
> if we use this method:
[68 lines snipped!]
> Comments?
WAY too long for a charter. Of an unmoderated group, yet.
If someone wants to write an FAQ and say "This lists topics agreed upon
at the start to be kosher in soc.history.early-modern" (by the way, I
still don't like the name, which I guarantee will get you vast numbers
of posts about the Edwardians and such, but I am resigned to it...) Well,
anyway. As an answer to "What is on-topic in she-m?" that 68 lines has
some value. It is not, however, a good precis of the history itself
(reading without thinking I found much of it opaque), nor is it good for
a charter, which is supposed to be short and clear. If you really want
any version of that 68 lines to be "official", *refer* to it in the
charter but put it elsewhere; see notably the charter for
soc.religion.mormon for an example of how to do this.
<ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/soc/soc.religion.mormon>
long file, I regret to say; you may find a shorter version on the
newsgroup's home page if it has one.
In my news.groups career I was known as an advocate of precise and
detailed charters, but even I blanch in horror at that one. You don't
want to see what others will say about it.
Mr. Tucker is quite correct to want to refer explicitly to the overlap
with soc.history.medieval, if there is to be one. (Something like
"The formal boundary of this group, AD 1500, is also the formal
chronological boundary of soc.history.medieval, and some crossover
is expected" would do fine.) But a baroque "This is early modern and
this isn't" in the charter will only serve to persuade readers of
news.groups that there is substantial uncertainty and disagreement
as to what the new group should be about. Quite obviously, when you
talk borders, you demonstrate that this is true. However, another former
news.groups expert, Bruce Baugh, remarked quite sensibly that what a
charter should do is hint briefly at what you *do* want. From that point
of view, naming borders is necessary, but naming *half a dozen* major
topics that fall squarely inside is more important: the centre is
where you actually agree, anyway, and as long as there's a strong centre,
the borders will police themselves.
soc.history.ancient has in its "newsgroup line" a direct reference
to AD 700, precisely because we knew that that would be one of the
least widely accepted aspects of the whole schmear, and we wanted to
make that counter-intuitive borderline as up-front as possible.
If you're trying to emulate us, you want absolute clarity about your
borders; but you do not want to attain this through a map of the
entire topic.
May I suggest that relevant text might go something like this?
"The chronological borders of this newsgroup are roughly AD 1500 and
1800. These dates recognise on the one hand the European discovery
of America and the attendant changes in (for example) worldwide food
patterns, and on the other hand the French Revolution and the attendant
worldwide warfare. However, there will be topics, clearly "early modern"
in spirit, which overlap these boundaries, particularly with reference
to (for example) China. In any event, if your concern is with a
primarily post-1800 issue, please use soc.history or any subsequently
created modern history group; if it is with a primarily pre-1500 issue
please use soc.history.medieval (with respect to its geographical
boundaries), soc.history, or any subsequently created pre-modern history
group. On the other hand, if your interest is Isaac Newton, the glory
days of the Ottoman or Moghul Empires, or what the later Chinese classic
novels say about Qing society, soc.history.early-modern is for you."
That's still too long - my tendencies are showing - but it's much,
much shorter, and I think it gets to the point of what you guys are
arguing about.
By the way, I would be very comfortable with replacing the part about
the French Revolution with something about the advent of worldwide warfare,
which actually took place some forty years earlier with Queen Anne's War/
the French and Indian War / whatever it was called in South Asia (where
it was also a Big Deal, since English hegemony to all intents and purposes
was the outcome)... Correspondingly, I have no real trouble with a
close date around 1760 or so. (The French Revolution *as an expression
of 18th-century thought* might then be indicated as an acceptable
borderline thread. But ack, there we go with ballooning length again...)
Joe Bernstein
who really had very little problem with the first charter sketch -
Chris Williams' ? - and does not understand what this steadily elaborating
fuss is about.
Todd A. Farmerie
Joe Bernstein wrote:
>
> WAY too long for a charter. Of an unmoderated group, yet.
success of soc.history.ancient (unmoderated), the opinion in news.groups
is shifting more and more toward the "no unmoderated history groups".
People usually willing to give unmoderated groups a chance are going on
record as planning to vote NO on the current
soc.history.war.world-war-i, specifically due to its proposed
unmoderated status. As much of a pain in the tail as moderation can be
to set up, if you want the group, you should at least include
robomoderation.
taf
Vagor
I seem to recall that "Eskimo" derives from French "escommoquois" (sp?)
meaning "eaters of raw flesh".
--
Never attribute to malice, what can be explained by stupidity.
Stephen Graham
In article <3475A0...@po.cwru.edu>,
Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Joe Bernstein wrote:
>>
>> WAY too long for a charter. Of an unmoderated group, yet.
>
>success of soc.history.ancient (unmoderated), the opinion in news.groups
>is shifting more and more toward the "no unmoderated history groups".
There'd be less objection to an unmoderated early-modern group. There
aren't as many pre-existing flamewars for the period.
Stephen Graham
In article <34755C...@hkucc.hku.hk>,
Norman G. Owen <ngo...@hkucc.hku.hk> wrote:
>We tend to begin "modern" SEAsian history (which I've been
>teaching for over 20 years now, god help me) in the mid/late 18th
>century, though a lot of the early chapters/lectures are still about
>"traditional" (=early-modern) states and societies, as background for
>the far more radical/dramatic changes which the 19th century brings.
>
>HOWEVER: (1) When I *studied* SEAsian history (we're now talking 30
>years ago), "modern" began in 1824. Still a useful exam question: "Why
>did the 'modern' history begin then?" (Answer: Anglo-Dutch treaty and
>end of 1st Anglo-Burmese War). So it's hardly self-evident.
I'd probably fail that question, then. My answer would be "It didn't,"
with sufficient backing naturally.
But then my studies were in the 1980s. (MA, 1988, University of Hawaii)
The US programs I'm familiar with don't distinguish between Early Modern
and Modern Southeast Asia.
I'm less familiar with non-Asian history programs, but a quick peek at
University of Washington's catalog shows only a Modern European History
program, with courses such as Germany, 1648-1914.
I'm certainly not advocating a hard dividing line - I'm just not happy
with the proposed soft dividing line.
>> >> An alternative is to simply scrap the idea of early-modern vs. modern.
> As noted above, I favor the distinction, not on the grounds of a clear
>cleavage, which does not exist, but to cluster more conveniently similar
>concerns/threads.
If it becomes an obvious problem, early-modern could be split off at a
later date. But why not try a single modern group for the nonce, especially
since there's a group that could be used in existence.
Vagor
Really didn't want to start anything here... and thanks for making me do
some reading...but I find "esquimawes, perhaps from Micmac eskameege "to
eat raw fish"", etc., the American Heritage dictionary.
"Today the term "Eskimo" is widely thought to mean "eaters of raw meat" and
to be rather insulting -- in fact, that's probably not what it means
although the exact source of the word isn't clear." -
http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/ANTHRO/rwpark/ArcticArchStuff/Inuit.html
"A European word that was first used in the sixteenth century to designate
a group of Algonkian Indians who lived on the north shore of the Gulf of
St. Lawrence. The name may be derived from the Algonkian word meaning
"eater of raw meat," or from the French word meaning "the excommunicated.""
- http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/north/nor-i/dorset/dors007e.htm#Glossary (the
National Library of Canada).
Floyd Davidson
In article <6546c3$9...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
Vagor <dave...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I seem to recall that "Eskimo" derives from French "escommoquois" (sp?)
>meaning "eaters of raw flesh".
It is derived from one or more Algonquian words.
There is an Ojibwa word similar to "eskimo" which means "eaters
of raw meat", but it had little exposure to English speakers and
was used not only to refer to Eskimos (Inuit in this case), but
also to other Indians.
The most likely etymology of the English word "eskimo" (based,
BTW, on research by Jose Mailhot, a fluent speaker of Cree) is
from about half a dozen Cree words, all of which had great
exposure amongst English speakers, all of which were used only
to refer to their Eskimo neighbors, all of which sound similar
to "eskimo", and all of which mean "the people who speak a
different language". (Not nearly as exciting as the "raw flesh"
bit.)
See the linguists mailing list archives for more information:
<http://www.ling.rochester.edu/linguist/7-300.html>
Donald Tucker
Joe Bernstein (jos...@tezcat.com) writes:
> In article <64rncm$9...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
d.j.h...@no-spam.aston.ac.uk (David Heading) suggested an
attempt to define the scope of soc.history.eary-modern by
example. John Gibson <W.J.G...@ncl.ac.uk> suggested some changes.
I suggested a draft.
Joe Bernstein's comments show the problems of trying to write
a charter that spells out dates for different regions.
IMHO a detailed charter is more trouble than it is worth.
So lets find some concise text:
> "The formal boundary of this group, AD 1500, is also the formal
> chronological boundary of soc.history.medieval, and some crossover
> is expected"
Possible redraft:
"This group has 1500 CE as the chronological boundary with
soc.history.medieval, but some crossover is acceptable."
> soc.history.ancient has in its "newsgroup line" a direct reference
> to AD 700, precisely because we knew that that would be one of the
> least widely accepted aspects of the whole schmear, and we wanted to
> make that counter-intuitive borderline as up-front as possible.
By this logic, should the closing date be 1820 instead of 1800?
> May I suggest that relevant text might go something like this?
>
> "The chronological borders of this newsgroup are roughly AD 1500 and
> 1800.
1820?
> These dates recognise on the one hand the European discovery
> of America and the attendant changes in (for example) worldwide food
> patterns, and on the other hand the French Revolution and the attendant
> worldwide warfare. However, there will be topics, clearly "early modern"
> in spirit, which overlap these boundaries, particularly with reference
> to (for example) China. In any event, if your concern is with a
> primarily post-1800 issue, please use soc.history or any subsequently
> created modern history group; if it is with a primarily pre-1500 issue
> please use soc.history.medieval (with respect to its geographical
> boundaries), soc.history, or any subsequently created pre-modern history
> group. On the other hand, if your interest is Isaac Newton, the glory
> days of the Ottoman or Moghul Empires, or what the later Chinese classic
> novels say about Qing society, soc.history.early-modern is for you."
Has some good phrases for inclusion in the RFD. I trust that the
people who have promised to provide us with a RFD will take it into
consideration.
> [cut]I would be very comfortable with replacing the part about
> the French Revolution with something about the advent of worldwide ,
> warfare [cut]
> really had very little problem with the first charter sketch -
> Chris Williams' ? [cut]
Chris, will you be circulating a RFD. I undersand that "Jazzman"
is preparing one. Have either of you attempeted to co-ordinate
your efforts?
Donald Tucker
"Norman G. Owen" (ngo...@hkucc.hku.hk) writes:
[cut]
> 3) So, I conclude, I'd favor any arrangement that allows for an
> *overlap* between early-modern and modern, with the former permitted to
> come up at least to the 1820s (outside Europe) and the latter to start
> as early as the 1740s, if appropriate. I think the general distinction
> -- EM vs. M -- is useful, but I wouldn't favor any definition so tight
> that we're constantly having to say "You're off-topic, go play next
> door." If the poster thinks events in the late-18th/early-19th pertain
> to an early-modern topic, let him/her post there; if the idea is to
> examine the roots of modernity (e.g. the American Revolution leading
> toward the US today, the Industrial Revolution in England as a harbinger
> of 19th-century industrializaiton elsewhere), then into modern [once
> created] let it go.
Agree 100%.
Perhaps the RFD drafters could pick a few words out of this paragraph.
>> >> An alternative is to simply scrap the idea of early-modern vs. modern.
> As noted above, I favor the distinction, not on the grounds of a clear
> cleavage, which does not exist, but to cluster more conveniently similar
> concerns/threads.
Again, agree 100%.
We should *not* try to find "break points." The cluster concept is a
good way of expressing the objective.
Donald Tucker
Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) writes:
>[cut]
> In article <652diu$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) writes:
>>> [cut]
>>Agree that the roots of contemporary history are in 18th century
>>events, whether colonial development or the englightenment.
>>If we also form a soc.history.modern newsgroup the time period
>>covered should go back into the 18th century.
>
> Then the general end date of soc.history.early-modern should be set
> earlier, with the proviso that discussion of events in the 18th century
> may be appropriate.
I disagree. People would find it difficult to sever Early-Modern
discussion at this early point.
>
> If soc.history.early-modern is formed, it should be formed at the same
> time as soc.history.modern or an equivalent group.
You are free to propose a Modern group to discuss 1700-xxxx (or
1740-xxxx if you prefer). We have our hands full trying to get
some concensus on the Early-Modern group.
>>I discussed the problem of cutting off discussion of non-Western
>>events beyond 1800 elsewhere in that post. So I won't repeat it
>>here.
>
> To my mind, that shows one of the difficulties in splitting early
> modern and modern outside of Europe, and thus one of the problems
> with making the split at all.
>
We have to accept that any dates, such as 1500-1800, can be only a
loose fit to global history. The alternative, which I find
unsatisfactory, is to focus the 1500-1800 newsgroup on Western
Society in a manner similar to soc.history.medieval.
If people want to discuss the development of non-Western historical
events in a particular region over a longer period, they have
soc.history and soc.history.moderated. They are also free to propose
regional history groups such as soc.history.East-Asia,
soc.history.South-Asia, or whatever title they prefer.
> However, there is a fundamental shift in world history dating from the
> mid-eighteenth century, driven largely by changes in Europe and in the
> conduct of Europeans in the broader world. See the discussion of this in
> Wallerstein's The Modern World System II (1600-1750) and III
> (1730-1840).
I have read Wallerstein and find him interesting, but too focused
on economics. His concept of the World System suppresses the
persistant cultural distinctiveness of different societies.
His dates also rely on trade and economic changes.
>
>>For example ancient institutions persisted
>>in Europe until shattered by the Napoleonic Wars, but Modern
>>ideas were thriving many decades before. Thus the 18th century
>>is of interest to persons in both soc.history.early-modern, with
>>its general time frame of about 1500 to 1800, and to persons
>>who would use soc.history.modern with its general time fame
>>of about 1700 to xxxx
>
> However, there is a fundamental shift occuring in the mid-18th century
> that provides a good divide. Institutions such as the Holy Roman Empire
> persisted, but were clearly moribund. In the case of the HRE, it's
> demise can be traced to the Peace of Westphalia.
I agree that the HRE demise can be traced to Westphalia. But I
want an early-modern newgroup where it would be on topic to
discuss its progressive decline until it was formally killed, rather
than having to censor the discussion after an arbitrary cut-off
date over a half century earlier.
>
> Perhaps my difficulty lies in your making the French Revolution
> specifically on-topic for early-modern, when it very clearly is not an
> early-modern event.
>
IMHO its on topic because it brings closure to the Early-Modern era.
To exclude it would be like having a murder mystery and excluding the
discussion of how actually did it, on the basis that this was
off topic.
The French Revolution is on topic for Modern history because it, and
the earlier American Revolution, are the social implementaiton of the
modern project envisaged by Enlightenment philosophers.
>>[end date depends on whether there would
>>be a separate soc.history.contemporary].
>
> I sincerely doubt it - too many problems with straying into
> contemporary politics.
Which suggests that soc.history.modern should have a cut-off
date of 1914. I will leave the desirability of having a newsgroup
soc.history.contemporary for someone else to justify.
>>Agree that this can be discussed as part of the process of
>>industrialization that further developed in the 19th century.
>>But it is also a worthwhile historical inquiry to examine the
>>early industrial revolution as the implementation of the
>>commercial and scientific techniques developed in the 17th
>>century, which makes it a seamless part of the early-modern
>>discussion. Thus it would be on topic for both groups, but
>>from a different perspective.
>
> Again, this does not require that the 18th century be included in
> soc.history.early-modern, but that it be understood that there is
> flexibility in discussing the effects of early discoveries.
As stated above, I disagree.
>>But it would cripple discussion if we were to split the newsgroups
>>with a single date. Indeed the era of transition at 1740 is
>>worth discussing because it *is* a transition. thus it should be
>>on topic for both the Early Modern and Modern newsgroups.
>
> 1740 is no more a single date in this context than 1800 was in your
> example. Instead I was providing an approximate guide date where,
> within Europe, a significant break can be seen.
I do not see any break. I see an overlap.
>
> It's actually a bit later than where I'd put the break point if left
> entirely to myself.
Ditto. Overlap, rather than break.
>
[cut Southeast Asian dates]
[cut WW II issues]
IMHO we have now completed a general disscussion of the desirability
of an early-modern newsgroup. It is time to consider a formal
RFD.
IMHO this should provide that the on charter period is from
about 1500 to 1800 and recognize that this could overlap
soc.history.medieval and the a possible soc.history.modern
group.
In a separate post, I address the issue of how detailed the charter
should be.
Joe Bernstein
>Sorry to throw a wet blanket on this, but in spite of the relative
>success of soc.history.ancient (unmoderated), the opinion in news.groups
>is shifting more and more toward the "no unmoderated history groups".
Um, with all due respect, the opinion on news.groups seems to be worth less
and less all the time. I note that misc.kids.moderated passed, and
although I'm not sure I would have voted NO were I still casting NO votes,
after the revisions they made in their charter, it's still worth noting
that they passed with enough YES votes to have beaten even as much
opposition as soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm had. I cannot conceive of
soc.history.early-modern, as an unmoderated group, attracting this level of
opposition.
The history groups which passed have *consistently* had around 300 votes.
It's true that there have been a few failed votes, but those were from lack
of interest. A history group with a real constituency will always pass,
basically. (Oh, and by the way, the proponents have a disturbing tendency
to get involved in the news.* hierarchy afterwards. :-) For some
documentation, see
<http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/soc/history/overview.html>
<ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/soc/>
The question is whether there's a real constituency, and the only real way
to find out is to try, I guess. Do note that a *lot* of groups have been
failing their votes for lack of interest this year - vote totals are
averaging way below normal, and this includes some groups that seemed sure
to pass with room to spare (a quite new example is
rec.music.artists.crowded-house, which looked to me like a sure thing at
its RFD time). So I think any proponents for this group (or any group!)
are going to have to accept that campaigning in an appropriate form is a
major part of the job. The single most-favoured method of campaigning -
nobody will criticise you for this, and somebody will criticise you for
almost anything else - is illustrated in my .sig for this post only.
For soc.history.ancient we also posted the RFDs, and CFV pointers, to tons
of scholarly mailing lists. I have some reason to think these were widely
ignored, and in any event sha got slightly fewer votes than sh.medieval a
year earlier.
I will be willing to act to a limited extent as a mentor, by e-mail (note
that my best current address is *not* the one this post is coming from!).
I'd prefer not to be named as a mentor in the RFD and I certainly will not
participate in discussion on news.groups. If the group is unmoderated and
avoids scandalous idiocies in its charter (cf.
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm), I expect to vote for it; if moderated, well,
we'll see.
>People usually willing to give unmoderated groups a chance are going on
>record as planning to vote NO on the current
>soc.history.war.world-war-i, specifically due to its proposed
>unmoderated status. As much of a pain in the tail as moderation can be
>to set up, if you want the group, you should at least include
>robomoderation.
Sigh. Maybe I can afford to check this out on DejaNews. But any war group
is likely to be urged to go moderated much more forcefully than any other
history group; witness soc.history.african.biafra.
Joe Bernstein
who can't quite believe he's committing this sort of treachery to
news.groups so *soon*, but still is... Best email: jos...@tezcat.com; not
online again before 11/27 though.
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and bookseller j...@sfbooks.com
speaking for myself and nobody else http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
Check out the talk of soc.history.early-modern! Now on soc.history etc.
Floyd Davidson
I can find dozens of cites that say the same things, but the
problem is they have all been shown to be incorrect.
Check out the work of anthropologist Jose Mailhot, a fluent
speaker of Cree (one of the several Algonquian languages) who
published (in French) extensive research on the etymology of the
English word "Eskimo". To date there have been no published
works (or even whispered suggestions, as far as I know)
questioning Mailhot's research or conclusions. His work
indicates several Cree words are the origination of the word
"Eskimo".
He found the "eaters of raw meat" to be unlikely. It refers to
an Ojibwa (another of the Algonquian languages) word that had
only slight exposure to English speakers, while the Cree words
(about 6 of them, which are all variations on "the people who
speak a different language") had rather wide exposure to English
speaking people. It is also true that the Ojibwa word was not
used to uniquely describe the Inuit people that the Ojibwa knew,
but also meant other Indian tribes who were not Eskimo. The
Cree words were used only to mean the Inuit Eskimo people who
did not speak the same basic (Algonquian) language as the Cree.
One place where significant (and accurate) discussion can be
found is:
<http://www.ling.rochester.edu/linguist/7-300.html>
However, it also should be noted that virtually all anthropology
studies of Eskimo cultures prior to about 1970 should be viewed
with extreme skepticism. My advice is that if you do not have
enough background to pass judgment on the material itself, one
can assume that it is terribly flawed to the point of being of
negative value. (In other words, they make good material for
today's anthropologists to use in studying how not to do
anthropology.)
As to the significance of the word "Eskimo" in the English
language, I would refer you to a number of works published by
the Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, in Fairbanks, Alaska. I highly recommend those works
published by Irene Reed (the Center's founder and first
Director), Elsie Mather, Steve Jacobson, Larry Kaplan, and of
course the current directory, Mike Krauss.
The ANLC can supply a list of the works they publish, most of
which are relatively inexpensive (though not the dictionary
described below, which runs about 50 US dollars), and have the
distinction of being the definitive works on their subjects:
Alaska Native Language Center
P.O. Box 900111
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775-0120
I also recommend reading anything by Ann Fienup-Riordan, who is
one of the only non-Eskimo anthropologists that I trust without
reservation (on the subject of Eskimo culture).
Perhaps the two single best published references would be:
"Eskimo Essays", 1990 by Ann Fienup-Riordan, ISBN 0-8135-1589-0
and
"Comparative Eskimo Dictionary, with Aleut Cognates", 1994
by Michael Fortescue, Steven Jacobson, and Lawrence Kaplan,
ISBN 1-55500-051-7
Besides... why would an Eskimo be insulted if you called them
"eaters of raw meat". They eat a lot of what typical non-Eskimo
Canadians and Americans would call "raw meat". And regardless
of where the word "Eskimo" came from, it is the _only_ word in
the language which means the entire Eskimo group of languages or
people. I'm rather well acquainted with an Eskimo or two and
I've never met one that was offended by the word Eskimo, nor
have I found one from Alaska that thought "Inuit" was the right
word!
Actually, I know two Eskimo ladies (Elsie Mather's cousins
actually, that I've known for 30 years or so) who teach Yup'ik
Eskimo speakers the art of professional Yup'ik-English
translation. They use the word "Eskimo" when speaking English,
and neither of them uses the word "Inuit", ever, in any
language.
Vagor
Looks like I have to eat Cree (hope it's not raw).
Stephen Graham
Donald, you haven't answered this question:
Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
period?
It's a question you'll have to answer during the formal RFD period, so
you might as well answer it now.
In article <655ued$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) writes:
>>[cut]
>> Then the general end date of soc.history.early-modern should be set
>> earlier, with the proviso that discussion of events in the 18th century
>> may be appropriate.
>
>I disagree. People would find it difficult to sever Early-Modern
>discussion at this early point.
They're not required to "sever discussion" at that date. It's a matter
of developing guidelines as to where topics generally belong.
>> If soc.history.early-modern is formed, it should be formed at the same
>> time as soc.history.modern or an equivalent group.
>
>You are free to propose a Modern group to discuss 1700-xxxx (or
>1740-xxxx if you prefer). We have our hands full trying to get
>some concensus on the Early-Modern group.
You would be better off proposing two groups at once. In the course of
developing the charter for early-modern, the potential charter for
modern should become fairly clear. I'm certainly willing to help as
necessary.
>> However, there is a fundamental shift in world history dating from the
>> mid-eighteenth century, driven largely by changes in Europe and in the
>> conduct of Europeans in the broader world. See the discussion of this in
>> Wallerstein's The Modern World System II (1600-1750) and III
>> (1730-1840).
>
>I have read Wallerstein and find him interesting, but too focused
>on economics. His concept of the World System suppresses the
>persistant cultural distinctiveness of different societies.
>His dates also rely on trade and economic changes.
Yes, Wallerstein is focused heavily on economics. Given the nature of
the commercial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, that's
entirely appropriate. Any division you make should accomodate all
historical trends, whether social, economic, political or other,
reasonably well. If your division works well for intellectual history,
but not at all for economic history, then it's fundamentally flawed
and shouldn't be used.
>> However, there is a fundamental shift occuring in the mid-18th century
>> that provides a good divide. Institutions such as the Holy Roman Empire
>> persisted, but were clearly moribund. In the case of the HRE, it's
>> demise can be traced to the Peace of Westphalia.
>
>I agree that the HRE demise can be traced to Westphalia. But I
>want an early-modern newgroup where it would be on topic to
>discuss its progressive decline until it was formally killed, rather
>than having to censor the discussion after an arbitrary cut-off
>date over a half century earlier.
But I haven't proposed an "arbritrary cut-off date" any more than your
date of 1800 is an arbitrary cut-off date. I simply disagree with the
general date you've chosen. I agree that any charter developed should
indicate a large degree of flexibility pursuant to discussion of its
intended topics. This is normally understood, as evidenced by the
current discussion of the history of Alsace and Lorraine in
soc.history.war.world-war-ii.
>> Perhaps my difficulty lies in your making the French Revolution
>> specifically on-topic for early-modern, when it very clearly is not an
>> early-modern event.
>
>IMHO its on topic because it brings closure to the Early-Modern era.
>To exclude it would be like having a murder mystery and excluding the
>discussion of how actually did it, on the basis that this was
>off topic.
Your approximate closing date severs the French Revolution from its
conclusion in the Napoleonic Wars. Or the Napoleonic Wars from the
nationalist movements of the early 19th century culminating in the
revolutions of 1848.
There should be one group where discussion of the French Revolution is
most appropriate. Would that be soc.history.early-modern or
soc.history.modern, presuming it's created.
>IMHO we have now completed a general disscussion of the desirability
>of an early-modern newsgroup. It is time to consider a formal
>RFD.
>
>IMHO this should provide that the on charter period is from
>about 1500 to 1800 and recognize that this could overlap
>soc.history.medieval and the a possible soc.history.modern
>group.
As it stands, I would oppose creation of soc.history.early-modern with
the proposed date.
Chris Williams
In article <65chu7$11es$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu says...
>
>Donald, you haven't answered this question:
>
>Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
>period?
>
>It's a question you'll have to answer during the formal RFD period, so
>you might as well answer it now.
I'll answer it - though I'm sure that Donald's answer wil differ from mine.
Soc.history.moderated is useful, but it suffers from 4 main drawbacks:
1) The general nature of the subject means that anyone who's not interested
in 'all of history' has to wade through lots of uninteresting stuff (ie
stuff that isn't on police history :) before getting to things that are
worth reading.
2) The moderation process slows down discussion. Often it takes up to 24
hours before posts appear: thus the speed of the 'conversation' is not what
the medium is capable of.
3) Moderated groups suffer from their own problems, notably how to maintain
continuity in the moderation team. Sometimes, s.h.mod has appeared to me to
be 'over-moderated', and the moderators often edit and intervene in
discussion. While this is a perfectly reasonable paradigm for *some* types
of Usenet discussion, it is not what I prefer for *all* types of Usenet
discussion.
4) The proof is in the eating: shw-i, sha, and shmed all get far higher
traffic than sh.mod. While the first and the last in particular sometimes
suffer from flame wars, these can generally be tuned out by kill-filing two
or three individuals: the number of good content posts in these groups is
still about 10 times higher than the total traffic on s.h.mod.
These are my answers: doubtless other people will stress other things. I'd
like to make it clear that the moderators of sh.mod do a fine job. They may
have canned some of my posts, but that's because I can be a rude sod
sometimes (you should hear me in the pub after seminars talking about
post-modernism...).
As for S.H.E-M, my position remains that I'll be the proponent, as long as
someone else collects the data that can demonstrate there is a demand for
the traffic.
Chris
Rube Lloyd
--WebTV-Mail-1255800105-8091
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Eskimo, is an Inuit word meaning eater of raw meat. The Eskimo and
Inuit are the family of people. The Aleut is their first cousin. None
are related to the Native American, nor do they claim to be.
--WebTV-Mail-1255800105-8091
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
<html>
<EMBED <display transition="slideleft">
<embed<body
background="http://www.geocities.com/
SoHo/Gallery/7752/stars.gif">
<table width=100%
border=9><tr><td>
<form>
<input type=button
borderimage="file://rom/borders/
buttonborders 5.
bif" width=100% text="gold" value="Rube's World"
action="http://members.tripod.com/
~index">
</form>
<form>
<center>
<audioscope height=200 width=90 bgcolor=black leftcolor=lightblue rightcolor=gold gain=-70 border=4 align=left>
<!embed src=
"http://members.tripod.com/~webtv1/
waterfall.gif"autostart=true border=5 height=200 width=180>
<img src=
"http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/
Gallery/3198/earthmoon.gif"
Height=200 border=8 width=180>
<audioscope height=200 width=90 bgcolor=black leftcolor=lightblue rightcolor=gold gain=-70 border=4 align=right>
</center>
<!form><td><tr></table>
<br>
<font color=lightblue>
<font size=4>
<font effect=shadow>
<br><br><br>
<center>
<!table width=100% border=5>
<!tr>
<!td>
<!--begin Ape Gif Code--------->
<!embed src=
"http://members.tripod.com/~gifs123/
ape.gif"
autostart=true height=100 width=140>
<!/a>
<!embed src=
"http://members.tripod.com/~gifs123/
ape.gif"autostart=true height=100
width=130>
</a>
<!embed src="http://members.tripod.com/
~gifs123/ape.gif" autostart=true height=100
width=140></a>
<!/td>
<!---end ape gif code------------------>
<!tr>
<!/table>
<!center>
<!----begin music code------------------>
<!embed src=
"http://www.midi.net/midifiles/arch/misc/
water.mid" loop="true" autostart="true">
<!EMBED SRC=
"http://members.tripod.com/~gargos14/
warhammer.mid" loop="true"
autostart="true">
<embed src="http://www.dtx.net/~raborn/i/
deb_ara1.mid" loop="true"
autostart="true">
</a>
<!--end music code---------------------->
<br><br><br><br>
<font color=gold size=6 effect=emboss>
<!marquee direction=left>
Keep..the..Faith..and..SHOW..ME..THE..MONEY </marquee>
<marquee direction=right
behavior=alternate>
Rube Lloyd
</marquee>
<font color=lightblue size=4 effect=emboss>
<marquee direction=left>
<br>
'Until we meet again'
</marquee>
</html>
--WebTV-Mail-1255800105-8091--
Jurriėn de Jong
Just to add two pennies,
I would favor a division between a group s.h.earlymodernorwhatever and
s.h.world. The first could observe Europe and it's contacts with the
rest of the world from a Eurocentric perspective, the second could
observe contacts between cultures/states/economies in a global
perspective (possibly even promote a comparative perspective). These are
(however some may dislike it) two important and largely independent
currents of thought. This could mean an overlap at times between the two
in the case of European expansion, but I don't feel that to be a
problem.
As far as I can see the idea of an Early modern era applies basically
to Europe. I grant that during this period there was a proces of
expansion and contact with other cultures/states/economies, but the
proces was inherently European, and if you take a dualist view (Modern
vs traditional) you could even maintain that it had very little to do
with the cultures it encountered. [I don't take that stance however].
Removing the `rest of the world'from the discussion has an advantage in
determining the limits of the group in space and making the limits in
time more easy to establish. I admit that this has conceptual
disadvantages, but if that was so important, there could be only one
newsgroup in whcih everything is discussed.
The shw ng would not have to be limited in time (I think it were best
if it was not), and could develop on such grand visions as McNeill
posed, discussions of the European miracle but also `smaller' topics,
like Roman-Indian contacts via the Indian ocean, plantation economy,
`modes of production' etc.
Jurrien de Jong
Donald Tucker
Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) writes:
> Donald, you haven't answered this question:
>
> Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
> period?
>
> It's a question you'll have to answer during the formal RFD period, so
> you might as well answer it now.
The only reason I didn't cross post to soc.history.moderated is that
It takes several days for my posts to appear there. As it is, replies
can be exchanged between soc.history.medieval, soc.history, and
soc.history.ancient without any delay. All that would happen if
soc.history.moderated was added to the list would be that they
would see dealyed copies of the exchanges from a day or so
earlier. But I'm copying this post to soc.history.moderated to
allow people to express any views, pro or con on inclusion of
that group in the discussion.
>
> In article <655ued$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) writes:
>>>[cut]
>>> Then the general end date of soc.history.early-modern should be set
>>> earlier, with the proviso that discussion of events in the 18th century
>>> may be appropriate.
>>
>>I disagree. People would find it difficult to sever Early-Modern
>>discussion at this early point.
>
> They're not required to "sever discussion" at that date. It's a matter
> of developing guidelines as to where topics generally belong.
It seems that we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of
a cut off date (whether 1700, 1740 or 1800).
>>> If soc.history.early-modern is formed, it should be formed at the same
>>> time as soc.history.modern or an equivalent group.
>>
>>You are free to propose a Modern group to discuss 1700-xxxx (or
>>1740-xxxx if you prefer). We have our hands full trying to get
>>some concensus on the Early-Modern group.
>
> You would be better off proposing two groups at once. In the course of
> developing the charter for early-modern, the potential charter for
> modern should become fairly clear. I'm certainly willing to help as
> necessary.
I'm not the one writing the RFD. If they are willing to do this
I have no objection.
>
>>> However, there is a fundamental shift in world history dating from the
>>> mid-eighteenth century, driven largely by changes in Europe and in the
>>> conduct of Europeans in the broader world. See the discussion of this in
>>> Wallerstein's The Modern World System II (1600-1750) and III
>>> (1730-1840).
>>
>>I have read Wallerstein and find him interesting, but too focused
>>on economics. His concept of the World System suppresses the
>>persistant cultural distinctiveness of different societies.
>>His dates also rely on trade and economic changes.
>
> Yes, Wallerstein is focused heavily on economics. Given the nature of
> the commercial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, that's
> entirely appropriate. Any division you make should accomodate all
> historical trends, whether social, economic, political or other,
> reasonably well. If your division works well for intellectual history,
> but not at all for economic history, then it's fundamentally flawed
> and shouldn't be used.
1. I look at the time frame 1500-1800 as a means of focusing discussion
rather than as a division. Thus it picks up a period when various aspects
are of interest, some are entirely included, others only partially
included. It's not as if evey year is an indivisible egg that has
to fit in one basket or another.
2. The 1500-1800 time period for world history works well for Western Society
as a whole and its relations with the rest of the world. Specifics such as
economic, political, intellectual etc changes in any specific society, the
West, China etc. are going to lead or lag *any* specific period.
>>> However, there is a fundamental shift occuring in the mid-18th century
>>> that provides a good divide. Institutions such as the Holy Roman Empire
>>> persisted, but were clearly moribund. In the case of the HRE, it's
>>> demise can be traced to the Peace of Westphalia.
>>
>>I agree that the HRE demise can be traced to Westphalia. But I
>>want an early-modern newgroup where it would be on topic to
>>discuss its progressive decline until it was formally killed, rather
>>than having to censor the discussion after an arbitrary cut-off
>>date over a half century earlier.
>
> But I haven't proposed an "arbritrary cut-off date" any more than your
> date of 1800 is an arbitrary cut-off date. I simply disagree with the
> general date you've chosen. I agree that any charter developed should
> indicate a large degree of flexibility pursuant to discussion of its
> intended topics. This is normally understood, as evidenced by the
> current discussion of the history of Alsace and Lorraine in
> soc.history.war.world-war-ii.
We will have far fewer arguments about off topic posts for an
early-modern group if we use a range of from about 1500 to about
1800 than if it is to about 1700 or 1740.
>>> Perhaps my difficulty lies in your making the French Revolution
>>> specifically on-topic for early-modern, when it very clearly is not an
>>> early-modern event.
>>
>>IMHO its on topic because it brings closure to the Early-Modern era.
>>To exclude it would be like having a murder mystery and excluding the
>>discussion of how actually did it, on the basis that this was
>>off topic.
>
> Your approximate closing date severs the French Revolution from its
> conclusion in the Napoleonic Wars. Or the Napoleonic Wars from the
> nationalist movements of the early 19th century culminating in the
> revolutions of 1848.
If you discuss the French Revolution as a modern issue you can begin
with Rousseau's _le Contrat social_ (1762) or earlier, which would
put it on topic for soc.history, or soc.history.modern if it is
ever formed as a newsgroup. If you discuss Early Modern developments
such as Absolutism, most of this is over by 1789 but parts linger on
into the 19th century.
I don't see any severing here. Just an overlap of different interests.
The 1800 date is merely to make clear that discussion of Absolutism
during and after the French Revolution would be on topic.
> There should be one group where discussion of the French Revolution is
> most appropriate. Would that be soc.history.early-modern or
> soc.history.modern, presuming it's created.
There are always problems in discussing events at chronological
borders. If we move the border back to exclude discussion of the
French Revolution, we then split the discussion of Absolutism.
If there is enough interest you can propose creation of
soc.history.French-Revolution.
>
>>IMHO we have now completed a general disscussion of the desirability
>>of an early-modern newsgroup. It is time to consider a formal
>>RFD.
>>
>>IMHO this should provide that the on charter period is from
>>about 1500 to 1800 and recognize that this could overlap
>>soc.history.medieval and the a possible soc.history.modern
>>group.
>
> As it stands, I would oppose creation of soc.history.early-modern with
> the proposed date.
>From the discussion so far there do not seem to be many posters
who would be prepared to work for creation of the group. It may
be premature to make the effort to create it.
Donald Tucker
Chris Williams (C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk) writes:
> As for S.H.E-M, my position remains that I'll be the proponent, as long as
> someone else collects the data that can demonstrate there is a demand for
> the traffic.
For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid
(YES and NO) votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes
than NO votes.
I expect that some people would vote against creating the group.
at least one poster had said that he will do so.
This would require support by perhaps 120 or more people.
Perhaps we should do a quick survey to see if there would be
the requisite number of YES votes. Or is this a waste of time
as we could achieve the same effect by going direct to the RFD?
Alex Milman
Jurriën de Jong wrote:
>
> Just to add two pennies,
>
> I would favor a division between a group s.h.earlymodernorwhatever and
> s.h.world. The first could observe Europe and it's contacts with the
> rest of the world from a Eurocentric perspective,
IMHO, this statement needs some clarifications. At least 2 great
powers of the time, Ottoman Empire and Russia, included both
european and asian territories. Should they be treated as european
or asian and what would be a criteria?
At least 2 other european countries,
Spain and Portugal, had substantial oversea holdings which had been
important not only for them but as well for other european countries:
e.g., lower price of gold and silver (due to the extensive supply
from America) had impact all over Europe.
Todd Michel McComb
In article <65d753$h2q$1...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>,
Chris Williams <C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>Soc.history.moderated is useful, but it suffers from 4 main drawbacks:
As many readers will doubtless know, the situation in soc.history.*
has changed a great deal since soc.history.moderated was created.
It was the second history group created, and one of the first groups
in all of Usenet to attempt to moderate in a content-neutral manner.
At the time it was created, there were people literally begging
for someone to take on the job, as soc.history was approximately
2/3 full on a daily basis with posts related to the Turkish/Armenian
conflict, most of them exact repetitions of what had been posted
the day before. Without a captive audience, that argument has
mostly dispersed since then.
Almost immediately after soc.history.moderated,
soc.history.war.world-war-ii was created, and WWII traffic had
always accounted for fully half of the traffic on the original
soc.history. The US Civil War & Vietnam were the next most lively
topics, followed distantly by some remarks on Ancient Greece &
Rome. These subjects all have their own newsgroups now, plus
several others for topics which had even less representation in
soc.history.
What that basically means, IMO, is that soc.history.moderated lacks
an identity as a newsgroup. It does have several quality regulars
who have a specific set of interests, so those topics tend to recur.
Beyond that, it's quite random. At this point, we do reject a
fairly substantial percentage of all attempted postings (which
wasn't true in the early years), but the vast majority of those
are advertisements or random multiposted nonsense with no discernible
connection to history. In terms of "real" posts (by that I mean
submissions where the author intended to specifically post to
soc.history.moderated instead of "whatever makes me the more money"),
there are still very few rejections. Many weeks I have nothing
like that.
Now, the truth of the matter is that I take these remarks personally,
and of course they occur often. I don't even know how many times
I've read "Oh, soc.history.moderated? That isn't worth using" or
the like, sometimes qualified as per the previous post with "Oh,
but the moderators do a good job, of course" to try to be nicer.
Well being nice is fine, I suppose, but it's clear enough how most
people feel. Yet no one seems to have any suggestions for making
the group more useful.
So let's hear it. I probably won't post again, but you can certainly
email me about it. I'm getting pretty close to the end of my rope,
and I have to wonder just how long I can invest daily effort in
something about which most people have only negative opinions.
Todd McComb
mcc...@best.com
Stephen Graham
In article <65erfv$823$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) writes:
>> Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
>> period?
>
>soc.history.moderated was added to the list would be that they
>would see dealyed copies of the exchanges from a day or so
>earlier.
Sorry, there's been a bit of a misunderstanding. Chris got my intent,
but I'll clarify: why not use soc.history.moderated to discuss early
modern history, rather than create a new group? I'm asking this more
from the perspective of ensuring that you have an answer before going to
the formal RFD so that your proposal is stronger.
>> They're not required to "sever discussion" at that date. It's a matter
>> of developing guidelines as to where topics generally belong.
>
>It seems that we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of
>a cut off date (whether 1700, 1740 or 1800).
We have the same definition as far as I can tell. I may be having
problems conveying my meaning. When I specify 1750, it's not meant that
everything after that year is off-topic, but that in general discussion
should focus on events prior to that date.
>> Any division you make should accomodate all
>> historical trends, whether social, economic, political or other,
>> reasonably well. If your division works well for intellectual history,
>> but not at all for economic history, then it's fundamentally flawed
>> and shouldn't be used.
>
>1. I look at the time frame 1500-1800 as a means of focusing discussion
>rather than as a division. Thus it picks up a period when various aspects
>are of interest, some are entirely included, others only partially
>included. It's not as if evey year is an indivisible egg that has
>to fit in one basket or another.
I agree. But I feel that your focus should be tighter than it is.
Perhaps it would be better to phrase the charter in this fashion:
soc.history.early-modern covers the approximate period of the
sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, or from the Renaissance
through the Age of Absolutism. Topics outside of this period may
discussed as they relate to the period covered.
>2. The 1500-1800 time period for world history works well for Western Society
>as a whole and its relations with the rest of the world.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
>We will have far fewer arguments about off topic posts for an
>early-modern group if we use a range of from about 1500 to about
>1800 than if it is to about 1700 or 1740.
Are there many such arguments in soc.history.medieval or
soc.history.ancient? I'm not aware of many and I doubt that they'd occur
in soc.history.early-modern. In any case, the regular posters can create
a climate that discourages such arguments.
>> As it stands, I would oppose creation of soc.history.early-modern with
>> the proposed date.
On reflection, I wouldn't oppose creation of the group but I also wouldn't
vote for it.
D. Spencer Hines
Todd Michel McComb wrote:
<snip>
1. You, and obviously others, made a critical policy mistake in making
it a moderated newsgroup in the first place.
2. I sincerely doubt you really want to hear that.
3. Refocus [if that is feasible] and "Un-Moderate" it --- or Shut It
Down.
4. You probably don't want to hear that either.
5. I'm not surprised that you are "getting pretty close to the end of
[your] rope." Bad policies lead to pain and suffering, for many folks.
6. Good Luck.
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "City life breeds a mass mind 'hostile to reason,
shifty, irritable, credulous and violent,' easy prey for conspiracy
theories and delusive promises of racist, imperialist or socialist
redemption." Robert Skidelsky, "The Road From Serfdom", Viking Penguin
(1996), p. 39
Donald Tucker
Jurriėn de Jong (jde...@RULLET.Leidenuniv.nl) writes:
> Just to add two pennies,
>
> I would favor a division between a group s.h.earlymodernorwhatever and
> s.h.world. The first could observe Europe and it's contacts with the
> observe contacts between cultures/states/economies in a global
> perspective (possibly even promote a comparative perspective). These are
> (however some may dislike it) two important and largely independent
> currents of thought. This could mean an overlap at times between the two
> in the case of European expansion, but I don't feel that to be a
> problem.
I would have considerable problems with dividing the Early Modern
world in this way. Before about 1500 the world consisted of several
major societies (and many smaller ones) that operated in relative
isolation from each other. During the next 300 years their histories
became progressively more entangled. By the mid 18th century a
true world war (the 7 years war) was being fought in Europe, America,
outer Asia and Africa.
> As far as I can see the idea of an Early modern era applies basically
> to Europe.
Agree that there was a transformation specific to European Society.
But societies in the rest of the world were being drawn into European history
and Europeans were increasingly affecting their histories.
> I grant that during this period there was a proces of
> expansion and contact with other cultures/states/economies, but the
> proces was inherently European, and if you take a dualist view (Modern
> vs traditional) you could even maintain that it had very little to do
> with the cultures it encountered. [I don't take that stance however].
The core of the process was European, but the dynamic was world-wide.
Consider, for example, the Blaut thesis that the expansion of the
West to world dominance was empowered by the wealth of the Americas.
Consider also the effects of "the Columbian exchange" of crops etc
on the rapid growth of European and Chinese population.
> Removing the `rest of the world'from the discussion has an advantage in
> determining the limits of the group in space
How do we draw the limits of "Europe" in the early modern period?
Muslim Turkey occupied land as far as Vienna and had no involvment in the
societal transformation of Europe during the 17th century.
Similarly Russia was very non-European in focus prior to Peter the
Great's victory over the Swedes in 1709.
> and making the limits in
> time more easy to establish. I admit that this has conceptual
> disadvantages, but if that was so important, there could be only one
> newsgroup in whcih everything is discussed.
We have soc.history and soc.history.moderated which have the mandate to
discuss everything. The purpose of specialized newsgroups such as
soc.history.ancient, soc.history.medieval, and the proposed
soc.history.early-modern (and perhaps the future soc.history.modern
and soc.history.contemporary) is to provide more specialized fora for
like minded people to discuss on a more focused basis.
> The shw ng would not have to be limited in time (I think it were best
> if it was not), and could develop on such grand visions as McNeill
> posed, discussions of the European miracle but also `smaller' topics,
> like Roman-Indian contacts via the Indian ocean, plantation economy,
> `modes of production' etc.
>
The limits in time of 1500 to 1800 are merely the core period. We
recognize that Early Modern themes can overlap both Medieval and
Modern ones. For example colonialism can start with a discussion
of the many years the Spanish attempted to conquer the Canaries
before the post 1492 conquests.
CG Luxford
On 25 Nov 1997, Donald Tucker wrote:
>
> For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid
> (YES and NO) votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes
> than NO votes.
>
> I expect that some people would vote against creating the group.
> at least one poster had said that he will do so.
>
> This would require support by perhaps 120 or more people.
>
> Perhaps we should do a quick survey to see if there would be
> the requisite number of YES votes. Or is this a waste of time
> as we could achieve the same effect by going direct to the RFD?
>
I suggest going straight to the RFD, when we reach the vote I shall be
casting mine in the YES direction.
Chris,
Joseph Askew
D. Spencer Hines (shi...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Todd Michel McComb wrote:
: > What that basically means, IMO, is that soc.history.moderated lacks
: > an identity as a newsgroup. It does have several quality regulars
: > who have a specific set of interests, so those topics tend to recur.
: > Beyond that, it's quite random. At this point, we do reject a
: > fairly substantial percentage of all attempted postings (which
: > wasn't true in the early years), but the vast majority of those
: > are advertisements or random multiposted nonsense with no discernible
: > connection to history. In terms of "real" posts (by that I mean
: > submissions where the author intended to specifically post to
: > soc.history.moderated instead of "whatever makes me the more money"),
: > there are still very few rejections. Many weeks I have nothing
: > like that.
It is a pity that s.h.moderated isn't more active. It is very
useful for a whole range of discussions which really need to be
moderated and it is if anything too liberal in what it accepts
and rejects. I don't think I have ever had an article rejected
from s.h.m which is really something.
: > So let's hear it. I probably won't post again, but you can certainly
: > email me about it. I'm getting pretty close to the end of my rope,
: > and I have to wonder just how long I can invest daily effort in
: > something about which most people have only negative opinions.
Well if it makes you feel better (and if you are still reading this)
I just like to have s.h.moderated around. It has fallen in frequency
of posts, but at least I know that I can read a reasonable historical
discussion when I want. Soc.history is long since gone from my list
of active groups. It isn't worth wading through the crap to find the
few good posts. The main problem I have with s.h.m is that it is so
dominated by a few people with clear interests. These tend to be
concerned with American history which doesn't really interest me.
They also tend to be modern. Which is the cause of the other I don't
know. But I'm glad it is there. Clayton Crammer probably couldn't
post in an unmoderated group for one.
: 1. You, and obviously others, made a critical policy mistake in making
: it a moderated newsgroup in the first place.
Well the obvious mistake was that you were born. As you aren't old
enough to remember Serdar Argic and the Great Armenian Flamewars,
I assure you the creation of s.h.m was NOT a mistake. It was a God
send at the time. What the problem is I'm not sure as some groups
are both moderated and lively. s.h.world-war-ii is one. I think
that you will eventually drive s.h.medieval to moderation. Maybe
we can ask Todd to do it for us.
: 2. I sincerely doubt you really want to hear that.
I really doubt anyone wants to hear a thing you have to say.
As I've met smarter dog turds with far more appealing personalities.
: 3. Refocus [if that is feasible] and "Un-Moderate" it --- or Shut It
: Down.
It is too valuable to be shut down. It can't really be unmoderated
because soc.history still exists and is just as useless as it ever
was. Unless you like hearing about Holocaust Conspiracies. Come to
think of it that is right up your street. You're wasted here.
: 4. You probably don't want to hear that either.
As it came out of your mouth I expect not.
: 5. I'm not surprised that you are "getting pretty close to the end of
: [your] rope." Bad policies lead to pain and suffering, for many folks.
As do your posts. At least to those foolish enough to read them.
: 6. Good Luck.
I think that if Todd is underemployed we ask him to moderate this
group and solve our Tosser problem once and for all.
Joseph
--
Asking the Ignorant to use the Incomprehensible to decide the Unknowable
Donald Tucker
[Note: This is a repost of an article that missed
soc.history.medieval from the distribution. I cancelled the
original article, but it may have propagated to your server.
If so please use this repost for followup]
Donald Tucker
I did not cut the previous quoted text because a new group,
soc.history.moderated, is added to the groups on which this
was originally posted. The quoted material comments on the
functioning of soc.history.moderated and moderated vs.
unmoderated history ng's.
Chris Williams (C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk) writes:
> In article <65chu7$11es$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu says...
>>
>>Donald, you haven't answered this question:
>>
>>Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
>>period?
>>
>>It's a question you'll have to answer during the formal RFD period, so
>>you might as well answer it now.
>
> I'll answer it - though I'm sure that Donald's answer wil differ from mine.
It did. See separate post.
>
> Soc.history.moderated is useful, but it suffers from 4 main drawbacks:
>
> 1) The general nature of the subject means that anyone who's not interested
> in 'all of history' has to wade through lots of uninteresting stuff (ie
> stuff that isn't on police history :) before getting to things that are
> worth reading.
>
> 2) The moderation process slows down discussion. Often it takes up to 24
> hours before posts appear: thus the speed of the 'conversation' is not what
> the medium is capable of.
>
> 3) Moderated groups suffer from their own problems, notably how to maintain
> continuity in the moderation team. Sometimes, s.h.mod has appeared to me to
> be 'over-moderated', and the moderators often edit and intervene in
> discussion. While this is a perfectly reasonable paradigm for *some* types
> of Usenet discussion, it is not what I prefer for *all* types of Usenet
> discussion.
>
> 4) The proof is in the eating: shw-i, sha, and shmed all get far higher
> traffic than sh.mod. While the first and the last in particular sometimes
> suffer from flame wars, these can generally be tuned out by kill-filing two
> or three individuals: the number of good content posts in these groups is
> still about 10 times higher than the total traffic on s.h.mod.
>
> These are my answers: doubtless other people will stress other things. I'd
> like to make it clear that the moderators of sh.mod do a fine job. They may
> have canned some of my posts, but that's because I can be a rude sod
> sometimes (you should hear me in the pub after seminars talking about
> post-modernism...).
Chris expresses a fairly strong anti-moderation viewpoint, which
I would endorse with some reservations.
My preference is to set up an unmoderated ng for soc.history.early-modern.
If it works well then no moderation is needed. If it becomes loaded
with trash or plagued by the mentally unbalanced, then we might
have to abandon it and establish a moderated ng.
> As for S.H.E-M, my position remains that I'll be the proponent, as long as
> someone else collects the data that can demonstrate there is a demand for
> the traffic.
Chris, does this mean that you are now going to present an RFD.
Have you co-ordinated with "Jazzman" to ensure that we will not
be faced with two simultaneous RFD's?
Donald Tucker
I have discussed with two of the moderators of soc.history.moderated,
Stephen Graham (gra...@ee.washington.edu) and Todd McComb
(mcc...@best.com), their criteria for posts about creation of
new history newsgroups, and would draw your attention to the
following excerpts from exchanges between myself and Messrs Graham
and McComb:
------Excerpt from one of my posts to newsgroups]---------------
Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) writes:
> Donald, you haven't answered this question:
>
> Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
> period?
>
> It's a question you'll have to answer during the formal RFD period, so
> you might as well answer it now.
The only reason I didn't cross post to soc.history.moderated is that
It takes several days for my posts to appear there. As it is, replies
can be exchanged between soc.history.medieval, soc.history, and
soc.history.ancient without any delay. All that would happen if
soc.history.moderated was added to the list would be that they
would see dealyed copies of the exchanges from a day or so
earlier. But I'm copying this post to soc.history.moderated to
allow people to express any views, pro or con on inclusion of
that group in the discussion.
------[Excerpt from email exchange with Stephen Graham:]------------
[Stephen Graham, followed by Donald Tucker:]
>>I suggested that soc.history.moderated be used as a place to discuss
>>early modern history - not that the discussion about
>>soc.history.early-modern be held there.
>
>Apologies for misreading your post.
>IMHO the topic lends itself better to discussion in a specialized ng.
------[Excerpt from email exchange with Todd McComb:]------------
This exchange was one of several after Todd McComb had rejected
a post that I had cross posted to soc.history.moderated,
soc.history.medieval, soc.history.ancient, and soc history about
the issue of moderation.
This was the post in which I quoted the text of Chris William's
comments about the problems with using a moderated history
newsgroup.
[Donald Tucker, followed by Todd McComb:]
>>But IMHO the rejected post was still appropriate for
>>soc.history.moderated.
>
>Just put the comments in the RFD. A thread in soc.history.moderated
>about how bad soc.history.moderated is, as it related to some other
>group, cannot possibly be productive.
------[Excerpt from a subsequent email exchange with Todd McComb:]----
[Donald Tucker, followed by Todd McComb:]
>>Am I correct in interpreting your comments as saying that you
>>do *not* want to have soc.history.moderated involved in creation
>>of the new ng?
>
>In the past, we have typically had RFD & CFV announcements, and perhaps
>some sort of related topical discussion (as you have posted today about
>what makes something "early modern" etc.). In other words, we have
>been taking posts which are announcements or actually about history.
------[end of excerpts]---------------------------------------------
I hope I have not distorted the views of Messrs McComb and Graham
by posting only short excerpts from our exchanges.
In essence the moderators are not prepared to have a full dossier
of our discussion of the creation of the new group posted to
soc.history.moderated.
It seems to me that it would not be appropriate to send only
an incomplete dossier to soc.history.moderated.
Accordingly, I propose to delete soc.history.moderated from
further discussion of creation of the new group.
Chris Williams
In article <65gjs3$b55$4...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au says...
>I don't think I have ever had an article rejected
>from s.h.m which is really something.
Joseph, you are slipping. Even I've had at least two rejected. I think they
were on the topic of refusing to do somebody's essay for them. Any more of
this, and your Flame King crown will be ritually taken away from you, and
you will be banished - to take the 'long walk' to talk.origins, there to
bring law to the Furrs unto death.
The solution to the Hines problem (and the Marques and Giwer/'Epstein'
problems) isn't a moderator: it's a killfile.
Chris
Jurriėn de Jong
As was to expected, my post got some reaction. I've quoted from both
Alex Milman and Donald Tucker. Various bits have been snipped to keep
the post managable, not to forge a case. Please refer to the
originals...
> Jurriën de Jong (jde...@RULLET.Leidenuniv.nl) writes:
> > I would favor a division between a group s.h.earlymodernorwhatever and
> > s.h.world. The first could observe Europe and it's contacts with the
> > rest of the world from a Eurocentric perspective, the second could
> > observe contacts between cultures/states/economies in a global
> > perspective (possibly even promote a comparative perspective).
ALex Milman:
IMHO, this statement needs some clarifications. At least 2 great
powers of the time, Ottoman Empire and Russia, included both
european and asian territories. Should they be treated as european
or asian and what would be a criteria? Spain and Portugal, had
substantial oversea holdings which had been important not only for them
but as well for other european countries.
Donald Tucker wrote:
> I would have considerable problems with dividing the Early Modern
> world in this way. Before about 1500 the world consisted of several
> major societies (and many smaller ones) that operated in relative
> isolation from each other. During the next 300 years their histories
> became progressively more entangled. By the mid 18th century a
> true world war (the 7 years war) was being fought in Europe, America,
> outer Asia and Africa.
me:
I fully agree with the fact that there was considerable contact between
Europe and the ROTW [rest of the world, forgive me for this for the sake
of time]. But I would class the 7 years war as a European conflict
spawning into the rest of the world. A discussion of the war and it's
proceedings would therefor fit into s.h.emwhatsoever, *but* a discussion
of it's effect on Indian or American CSE [cultures/states/economies)
would fit in shworld. I don't deny the relationship between CSE's,
indeed I think that the discussion of these relationships merits it's
own platform. It's a conceptual solution to the practical problems of
evading the earlymodern paradigm (which I think is eurocentric in
conception, although I admit that (any kind of) comparison of China,
India and Europe until ca 1800 does not come out bad for the Asians),
and figuring out at what time the earlymodern era stops in China (I bet
it stops earlier in Kanton than Inner Mongolia).
Donald Tucker:
The purpose of specialized newsgroups ... is to provide more specialized
fora for like minded people to discuss on a more focused basis.
me:
Happy to agree here. But every group has some demarcations, and
everybody is free to crosspost. To establish two ng's who are largely
complementary and also a little bit overlapped does not hurt anybody. I
imagine that the 7YW will feature in both, but that the urbanisation of
Europe, or the Enlightenment will be in s.h.emorwhatever, and the Muslim
conquest of Indonesia in s.h.w. However I realise that this may mean
less postings to both groups resulting in neither of them carrying
independence.
More difficult will be to establish whether Russia or the Ottomans
`belonged' to Europe. In a geographical sense they most certainly do/did
[duh]. The Ottoman Persian/Greek schizofrenia seems like an excellent
case for s.h.w, while the economic situation of the Balkans seems like a
s.h.emorwhatever. I think that mostly the difference will be quite clear
and if not: crosspost.
cheers
Jurrien
Joseph Askew
Jurriėn de Jong (jde...@RULLET.Leidenuniv.nl) wrote:
: I fully agree with the fact that there was considerable contact between
: Europe and the ROTW [rest of the world, forgive me for this for the sake
: of time]. But I would class the 7 years war as a European conflict
: spawning into the rest of the world. A discussion of the war and it's
: proceedings would therefor fit into s.h.emwhatsoever, *but* a discussion
: of it's effect on Indian or American CSE [cultures/states/economies)
: would fit in shworld.
So you would have to discuss the effects in France separately from
the effects in India and the Americas? I find this rather silly. It
is worse if you consider the silver problem and the Seventeenth
Century Crisis. Silver produced in America can be discussed in the
world group, as can the effects in Turkey, or China, or Japan, or
maybe Russia, but in England, France or Spain you would have to go
to another group? Why? Even ignoring what looks to be a ghettoisation
of my field I find this unacceptable.
If the problem is one of demarkation, especially of dates, I don't
see that joining the Europeans in one group, with a clear date,
and leaving the rest in another, with a range of possible but
perhaps contentious dates, is much of a solution. It only makes
the problem worse for the world group.
Floyd Davidson
[posted and emailed]
RUB...@webtv.net wrote:
>Eskimo, is an Inuit word meaning eater of raw meat. The Eskimo and
>Inuit are the family of people. The Aleut is their first cousin. None
>are related to the Native American, nor do they claim to be.
Well, you did get part of it right, because Aleuts (Unangam) can
be called cousins to Eskimos. Aleuts speak an Eskimo language
and today's Eskimos (both Inuit and Yup'ik), as well as Aleuts,
were once all one people who spoke the same Proto-Eskimo language.
However "Eskimo" is an English word, and has no relationship to
any Inuit words. ("Eskimo" is derived from several Cree words,
all of which mean "people who speak a different language".)
Eskimos (Inuit and Yup'ik) and Unangam are, by *definition*,
Native Americans. So too are Hawaiian and American Indian
people, even though none of those three groups are related, they
are all, by definition, Native American.
It is also very likely that not all American Indian people are
directly related to all other American Indians, hence there are
at least 4 essentially unrelated groups of people who are all
Native Americans.
I've seen you post the same incorrect statements at least three
or four times now, and I know that it has been pointed out to
you by more people than just myself that it isn't correct. So
I have to ask why you don't do more research and learn just
what the definition of "Native American" is?
Donald Tucker
Jurriėn de Jong (jde...@RULLET.Leidenuniv.nl) writes:
> As was to expected, my post got some reaction. I've quoted from both
> Alex Milman and Donald Tucker. Various bits have been snipped to keep
> the post managable, not to forge a case. Please refer to the
> originals...
I'll let Alex Milman speak for himself but here's my 2 cents
>
>> Jurriėn de Jong (jde...@RULLET.Leidenuniv.nl) writes:
>
>> > I would favor a division between a group s.h.earlymodernorwhatever and
>> > s.h.world. The first could observe Europe and it's contacts with the
>> > rest of the world from a Eurocentric perspective, the second could
>> > observe contacts between cultures/states/economies in a global
>> > perspective (possibly even promote a comparative perspective).
>
> ALex Milman:
>
> IMHO, this statement needs some clarifications. At least 2 great
> powers of the time, Ottoman Empire and Russia, included both
> european and asian territories. Should they be treated as european
> or asian and what would be a criteria? Spain and Portugal, had
> substantial oversea holdings which had been important not only for them
> but as well for other european countries.
>
Agree.
>
> Donald Tucker wrote:
>
>> I would have considerable problems with dividing the Early Modern
>> world in this way. Before about 1500 the world consisted of several
>> major societies (and many smaller ones) that operated in relative
>> isolation from each other. During the next 300 years their histories
>> became progressively more entangled. By the mid 18th century a
>> true world war (the 7 years war) was being fought in Europe, America,
>> outer Asia and Africa.
>
> me:
>
> I fully agree with the fact that there was considerable contact between
> Europe and the ROTW [rest of the world, forgive me for this for the sake
> of time].
ROTW is a fine acronym. BTW Canadian chattering classes talk
endlessly about the possible separation of Quebec province
and use a similar term, TROC, to refer to the rest of Canada.
> But I would class the 7 years war as a European conflict
> spawning into the rest of the world.
It was a real war as far as ROTWians caught up in it. Consider
the action in North America and India, which you mention in
the following sentence.
> A discussion of the war and it's
> proceedings would therefor fit into s.h.emwhatsoever, *but* a discussion
> of it's effect on Indian or American CSE [cultures/states/economies)
> would fit in shworld.
IMHO we should not exclude discussion of changes specific to a
a particular society (your CSE) from soc.history.early-modern.
This is the period of inter-societal encounter, with differential
effects in the West, India, Aboriginal America, Islam, China,
and Africa. The interrelationships, comparisons and contrasts are
far more interesting, at least to me, than a discussion limited
to one society in the ROTW. Most did not have major inter-societal
dynamics other than those channeled through Western activities.
(The exceptions include the Arab facilitated trade in the Western
Indian Ocean, and the Chinese/Indian/Muslim exhanges in
southeast Asia.)
A discussion of any particular society in the ROTW which treats
the change introduced by and via the West, such as the flood of
American silver into China, as an exogenous factor provides far
fewer interesting insights tha a holistic treatment of the early
modern era.
> I don't deny the relationship between CSE's,
> indeed I think that the discussion of these relationships merits it's
> own platform. It's a conceptual solution to the practical problems of
> evading the earlymodern paradigm (which I think is eurocentric in
> conception,
Early-modernism can be discussed as a process of "progress" from
Medieval scholasticism to Englightenment era thinking, the
inceasing quantification of science, the commerical revolution
that developed from the Fuggers onwards, the scientification
of agriculture, or many other ways that are internal to European
history. But it is also the general era that included these
developments as merely a sub-set of world developments during the
era of encounters.
> although I admit that (any kind of) comparison of China,
> India and Europe until ca 1800 does not come out bad for the Asians),
> and figuring out at what time the earlymodern era stops in China (I bet
> it stops earlier in Kanton than Inner Mongolia).
I posted some specific variations in dates from the 1450-1800
range for TOTW societies. None worked well.
I suggest that the best approach for TOTW societies is to include
anything a poster wants to about their history, provided it has
a general relation to the encounter era of about 1450-1800.
If posters want to discuss long term developments in TOTW
societies that extend centuries beyond the 1450-1800 time frame,
then soc.history.early-modern is not the right newsgroup.
They should try soc.history and/or soc.history.moderated.
If they feel ambitious they could propose a soc.history newsgroup
for the specific geographic area of interest to them, e.g.
soc.history.east-asia (China, Japan etc), or soc.history.south.asia
(India, Pakistan etc.), or whatever title and coverage area appeals
to them.
> Donald Tucker:
>
> The purpose of specialized newsgroups ... is to provide more specialized
> fora for like minded people to discuss on a more focused basis.
>
> me:
>
> Happy to agree here. But every group has some demarcations, and
> everybody is free to crosspost.
But netiquette is to avoid this except where absolutely necessary.
The ngs of your early.modern.europe and your early.modern.TOTW would
be plagued with this problem.
> To establish two ng's who are largely
> complementary and also a little bit overlapped does not hurt anybody. I
> imagine that the 7YW will feature in both, but that the urbanisation of
> Europe, or the Enlightenment will be in s.h.emorwhatever, and the Muslim
> conquest of Indonesia in s.h.w. However I realise that this may mean
> less postings to both groups resulting in neither of them carrying
> independence.
If we chartered soc.history.early-modern with about 1450 to 1800
and later chartered a soc.history.modern with about 1750 to xxxx
the overlap would include the 7YW. If I was discussing it as
a continuation of the policies of Autocracy I would confine my
discussion to soc.history.early-modern. If I was looking for
the roots of modernism in the war (not many IMHO) I would post
only to soc.history.modern. Otherwise I might cross post.
BTW, since soc.history.modern is unlikely to be proposed until
some time after soc.history.early-modern proves its worth,
substitute soc.history and soc.history.moderated for
soc.history.modern in the previous sentences.
>
> More difficult will be to establish whether Russia or the Ottomans
> `belonged' to Europe. In a geographical sense they most certainly do/did
> [duh]. The Ottoman Persian/Greek schizofrenia seems like an excellent
> case for s.h.w, while the economic situation of the Balkans seems like a
> s.h.emorwhatever. I think that mostly the difference will be quite clear
> and if not: crosspost.
I would prefer not to split soc.history.early-modern. If unsplit, the
geographic boundary issue then becomes moot.
jde...@rullet.leidenuniv.nl
back again
Joseph Askew wrote:
> So you would have to discuss the effects in France separately from
> the effects in India and the Americas?.... Why? Even ignoring what
> looks to be a ghettoisation of my field I find this unacceptable.
I would say that such discussion would fall partly in both. If the
discussion was whether silver imports added to the price revolution in
the `long sixteenth century' it would be a European problem hence
s.h.emorwhatever. A discussion a bout how it enabled the Europeans to
trade with Asia it would be a s.h.world. Again, I'm saying that
s.h.emorwhatever should IMHO take on a `Eurocentric' attitude and
s.h.world a broader perspective/the opposite, but with lots of
opportunities for crossposts.
> If the problem is one of demarkation, especially of dates, I don't
> see that joining the Europeans in one group, with a clear date,
> and leaving the rest in another, with a range of possible but
> perhaps contentious dates, is much of a solution. It only makes
> the problem worse for the world group.
Off course I should have told that this was just a ploy to get a
s.h.world created on the back of another ng ;-)
The specialised newsgroups have so far had a Eurocentric outlook in
content (ie rather more posts on Caesar than on the Chinese emperors or
Indian rice cultivation) and concept (medieval or Middle Ages is a
thoroughly European concept, I hope I don't need to explain that
one). Since the current population of the net seems to focus
mostly on the US and after that Europe, these groups by sheer numbers
generate a lot of posts. When access to the net in other areas keeps
increasing similar ng's like s.h.ming or s.h.pre-columbian (or some name
less Eurocentric) will appear (unless they sprout from s.c.china or
equivalent). But for the present the problem of dates will only be
particular to the Europeans as they have enough post to merit
specialisation. I would seriously hope that a possible s.h.world will
never be subject to cutting up as it's merit is in the scope, ie the
whole world, always.
I'm not aware of ghettoing anything and I don't think I want to. But if
creating a special forum for something which I think deserves special
attention is getthoisation than I gladly stand accused. I just take
account of the fact that Eurocentrism exists and is not entirely without
merit, as a lot of European and ROTW history had not much interaction.
It is truly well possible to study Chinese peasant society without ever
talking about Inca peasant society.
*That comparison adds much to the understanding of both of them is to
me without serious question*. If such comparison would show that
differences *within* China and Middle America in certain time periods
were greater than the difference *between* them, historians would have
to do a lot of reshaping their paradigms and have world history as most
viable option. However, I'm not aware of any research in the area and so
might have to reshape my paradigms shortly. As a matter of fact, I'm
putting them to the test, watch me in s.h and s.h.m in a few minutes!
Jurrien de Jong
Joseph Askew
jde...@rullet.leidenuniv.nl wrote:
: > So you would have to discuss the effects in France separately from
: > the effects in India and the Americas?.... Why? Even ignoring what
: > looks to be a ghettoisation of my field I find this unacceptable.
: I would say that such discussion would fall partly in both. If the
Then it is surely better to keep it in a united group.
: discussion was whether silver imports added to the price revolution in
: the `long sixteenth century' it would be a European problem hence
: s.h.emorwhatever.
What about the price revolution in Ottoman Turkey? Or China? Both
of which may or may not have suffered from American silver. This
is a common problem and should go into a common group.
: A discussion a bout how it enabled the Europeans to
: trade with Asia it would be a s.h.world.
So half the posts on the East Indies Company belong in one group
and the other half in another? We couldn't discuss the Hudson Bay
Company in the same group as the British EIC? We could discuss
the formation of the Dutch VOC in one, and its policies in both,
and the way it carried them out in another?
: Again, I'm saying that
: s.h.emorwhatever should IMHO take on a `Eurocentric' attitude and
: s.h.world a broader perspective/the opposite, but with lots of
: opportunities for crossposts.
Which is pretty much what both will do as the interest in European
history outstrips any other. World history will inevitably spend
most of its time discussing Europeans in the World. Why fight it?
: > If the problem is one of demarkation, especially of dates, I don't
: > see that joining the Europeans in one group, with a clear date,
: > and leaving the rest in another, with a range of possible but
: > perhaps contentious dates, is much of a solution. It only makes
: > the problem worse for the world group.
: Off course I should have told that this was just a ploy to get a
: s.h.world created on the back of another ng ;-)
Why? We have soc.history. If the current proposal gets up it won't
be much more than alt.revisionism, but it is there at any rate.
What is the purpose of s.h.world and why does it need to be snuck
in under the guise of something else instead of being passed on
its own merits?
: The specialised newsgroups have so far had a Eurocentric outlook in
: content (ie rather more posts on Caesar than on the Chinese emperors or
: Indian rice cultivation) and concept (medieval or Middle Ages is a
: thoroughly European concept, I hope I don't need to explain that
: one).
So they have. Although s.h.world-war-ii is fairly liberal about
alternative dates for WW2. They let in the odd post on Japan in
China pre-1941. But this is just a reflection of how things are.
In practice most groups are pretty good about it. s.h.ancient is
flexible on dates according to culture. There simply isn't enough
interest for a Chinese "medieval" group. I doubt that a s.h.east-asia
could get enough interest to get going. It would be dominated by
maybe half a dozen posters who more often than not agree with each
other anyway.
: Since the current population of the net seems to focus
: mostly on the US and after that Europe, these groups by sheer numbers
: generate a lot of posts.
Soc.history,moderated is slowly dying from lack of posts. A whole
range of potentially interesting groups are doing likewise. I used
to have my own fan group you know. I'm just not interesting enough
to keep it going but. Why wouldn't s.h.world go the same way?
: When access to the net in other areas keeps
: increasing similar ng's like s.h.ming or s.h.pre-columbian (or some name
: less Eurocentric) will appear (unless they sprout from s.c.china or
: equivalent).
Which may be something for my grandchildren to look forward to,
but it is impractical now. There is one Ming historian in the
whole of Australia. The number of professional Ming historians
in the English speaking world is fairly small. There is no way
it can sustain an entire group.
: I'm not aware of ghettoing anything and I don't think I want to. But if
This is the way it looks to me.
: creating a special forum for something which I think deserves special
: attention is getthoisation than I gladly stand accused. I just take
: account of the fact that Eurocentrism exists and is not entirely without
: merit, as a lot of European and ROTW history had not much interaction.
So Eurocentrism exists. And the number of posts European issues
create is way ahead of everything else. It isn't as if we are all
drowning in history posts and need special groups. What special
attention does world history need? I've been following s.h.medieval
for some time. In the last year I would say there has been no Tang
posts at all. If it wasn't for the odd flamefest with the Mongol
apologists around here I doubt that any pre-modern Chinese history
would be mentioned at all.
: It is truly well possible to study Chinese peasant society without ever
: talking about Inca peasant society.
It is. But then the vast body of work on European peasants can only
enrich any discussion on Chinese peasants. What European historians
with an interest in European peasants have to say can only help any
discussion of Chinese peasants. Otherwise we would be stuck with two
or three major books and a deluge of Marxist theory.
: *That comparison adds much to the understanding of both of them is to
: me without serious question*. If such comparison would show that
: differences *within* China and Middle America in certain time periods
: were greater than the difference *between* them, historians would have
: to do a lot of reshaping their paradigms and have world history as most
: viable option.
So substitute "European" for "Inca" and "Middle America" in the above
and tell me why it isn't as valid as the original version?
I just resent the idea that Chinese history needs a special little
safe place. As if it isn't interesting in and of itself and as if
other people with a European history background can't contribute.
I, if you will forgive the boosterism, believe in bringing Chinese
history to the world. Certainly to Eurocentric historians.
jde...@rullet.leidenuniv.nl
Donald Tucker wrote:
> IMHO we should not exclude discussion of changes specific to a
> a particular society (your CSE) from soc.history.early-modern.
> This is the period of inter-societal encounter, with differential
> effects in the West, India, Aboriginal America, Islam, China,
> and Africa.
So actually, you don't want an s.h.em but a s.h.world as I sketched it.
Frankly, I get the feeling that I'm being misunderstood I never said
that s.h.world would be for the ROTW, quite the reverse, it would be the
forum for discussion of the encounters between CSE's (in all times).
> A discussion of any particular society in the ROTW which treats
> the change introduced by and via the West, such as the flood of
> American silver into China, as an exogenous factor provides far
> fewer interesting insights tha a holistic treatment of the early
> modern era.
agree, exactly what I was proposing for s.h.world
> Early-modernism can be discussed as a process of "progress" from
> Medieval scholasticism to Englightenment era thinking, the
> inceasing quantification of science, the commerical revolution
> that developed from the Fuggers onwards, the scientification
> of agriculture, or many other ways that are internal to European
> history. But it is also the general era that included these
> developments as merely a sub-set of world developments during the
> era of encounters.
so the encounter of other cultures was one (I don't know how important
exactly, but certainly not the most important) aspect of this very
*European* period (In eg CHina and India some of the above mentioned
developments had taken place before the em era started of in Europe.
> If posters want to discuss long term developments in TOTW
> societies that extend centuries beyond the 1450-1800 time frame,
> then soc.history.early-modern is not the right newsgroup.
> They should try soc.history and/or soc.history.moderated.
yeah right, did you read the RFD draft, and what does it say about these
groups?
> > everybody is free to crosspost.
>
> But netiquette is to avoid this except where absolutely necessary.
> The ngs of your early.modern.europe and your early.modern.TOTW would
> be plagued with this problem.
crossposting seems to be somewhat of a problem now, but I can imagine
that by the time more people get on the net, newsgroup will keep
multiplying and the problem will get bigger as newsgroup charters demand
a certain exclusiveness. I foresee that this will be countered by better
newsbrowsers and other organisation of the ng's, maybe more threadbased.
> I would prefer not to split soc.history.early-modern. If unsplit, the
> geographic boundary issue then becomes moot.
I am proposing no split, but an addition because I feel that just
looking at other CSE's because the Europeans encountered them is a
second best option. Again, s.h.world (in my idea) would be about
discussing CSE's on an equal basis.
cheers, Jurrien
Joe Bernstein
In article <65chu7$11es$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
Stephen Graham <gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu> wrote:
> Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
> period?
>
> It's a question you'll have to answer during the formal RFD period, so
> you might as well answer it now.
Much to my surprise, I agree very much with Mr. Graham's scepticism.
One of the fundamental canons of news.groups is that you do not
create groups without traffic to fill them. "If you build it,
they will come" is about as well taken in news.groups as
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
is taken in corporate boardrooms.
TRAFFIC COMES FIRST.
Emphasis because I think *many* of the loudest posters in this discussion
are missing this point, and we're seeing a lot of goofy ideas, and a lot
of dissension, because of it.
Where is there already discussion of early modern history? What is that
discussion like? Is that discussion likely to take up residence in
soc.history.early-modern if it's created? (This last question applies
especially to mailing list traffic; considerable prior experience shows
that mailing list traffic on history does *not* move to Usenet in
significant quantity.)
If you don't have answers, you *should be using* soc.history.moderated
to get some. It's that simple.
When we started talking about soc.history.ancient, we were met with the
same question. Different proponents had different answers for it, but
the basic answer for me was always that the discussion already existed,
that it was not happening in soc.history.moderated and was an irritant
in the groups where it did happen, and that it should have its own group
to relieve the pressure on those others. I went so far as to call the
creation of soc.history.ancient a form of "garbage collection" to rid
sci.archaeology and soc.history.medieval of irritating threads.
I gather we did not entirely succeed in this aim. The hottest flamewars
are usually cross-posted; there seems to be widespread acceptance that
any topic concerning the Christian Roman Empire belongs in both sha and
sh.medieval, even though the *initial* impetus for sha's creation came
from sh.medieval regulars fed up with Dark Ages discussion.
Nevertheless, the contents of sha are consistently qualitatively different
from those of sh.medieval and sci.archaeology, they consistently closely
resemble the actual threads from those groups which we named when asked
about traffic on news.groups, and to that extent, we predicted right and
justified the group.
*We knew what we were asking for.*
I have the strong sense that those supporting the creation of
soc.history.early-modern do *not* know what they're asking for. They
are getting into endless picayune disputes over boundary dates, for
example, instead of just saying, "Look, remember that wonderful thread
on the Fuggers we had going in soc.history until it got hijacked by the
revisionists? Don't you want a group where that thread will be safe?"
There is this silly notion of soc.history.early-modern vs. soc.history.world
when the World-L mailing list *itself* - the venue for *scholars* of this
stuff - shut down not long ago for lack of traffic. There is some notion
that a soc.history.modern could plausibly be created, as an unmoderated
group yet, when even a second's thought about the existing traffic on
modern history on Usenet will show conclusively that it will be
overwhelmingly dominated by war concerns, that some of these are already
adequately served by war newsgroups, and that others (the alleged genocide
of Turks by Armenians, no I am not making this up, there are people on
soc.history and soc.culture.* who seriously believe such a thing happened...;
and of course the alleged genocide of Germans by Jews ditto...)
- that the topics *not* now well-served by and large require moderation to
permit any reasonable discussion without its being drowned out by the
flamers.
To put it bluntly, soc.history.modern already exists, and it's called
soc.history.moderated.
If you want soc.history.early-modern, then discuss early modern topics on
that newsgroup (there's *some* already); discuss them on sh.medieval to
the extent that people will put up with it; get a sense of who posts to
Usenet on these topics and what they post about; and *then* you can go
to news.groups with a serious proposal.
Illustration: There now exists a group rec.music.makers.percussion.hand-drum.
This group faced withering criticism when first proposed, because its
proponents made it plain that they had not done their traffic research,
and they didn't know where there was discussion or who was doing it.
Nor did they have any good reason why they couldn't use the existing
group rec.music.makers.percussion.
Well, they didn't withdraw their RFD, but after a few weeks of crying that
the drum-set people in the existing group intimidated them, they did in
fact start having some discussions there. And over the several months
they spent going through two more RFDs, they used those discussions,
along with the interest the RFDs themselves aroused as word percolated
to more of the relevant existing groups, to *form* the community a
newsgroup needs to have in order to start its life in a healthy way.
I visited the group in September and lo, it was indeed healthy.
I think if soc.history.early-modern passes, it will be because something
similar takes place, whether before or after a formal RFD appears.
I will probably make about half a dozen more posts shortly to answer
detail points, but I'll try not to get back on this soapbox. Still,
I really, really hope some of the people in this debate will consider
what I'm saying. Otherwise they will just have to hear it twenty more
times when the RFD comes out.
I personally would vote for soc.history.early-modern regardless of whether
this work is done. I expect that it would be of use to me personally.
But I could not in good conscience support it in other ways if it's created
simply to fill a slot, without demonstrated need; and I'd be very
surprised if it could even pass its vote without the necessary prior work.
We created soc.history.ancient to relieve actual problems on pre-existing
groups. If you aren't doing likewise with this one, you have to work to
justify the group. Please do.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and bookseller jos...@tezcat.com
Speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb
Joe Bernstein
In article <65erg7$837$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> Chris Williams (C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk) writes:
>
> > As for S.H.E-M, my position remains that I'll be the proponent, as long as
> > someone else collects the data that can demonstrate there is a demand for
> > the traffic.
I think I'd be happy with Chris Williams as a proponent except for
some worry that the verdammte flamewars over the anti-fascism newsgroup
would result in some lunatic launching a "Vote NO campaign". Um, you know
the people I'm talking about better than I do; do *you* think you're that
hated by any significant sects?
I assume relevant sects will be watching news.announce.newgroups from
now until Kingdom Come waiting for an anti-fascism CFV, so it's not
like you can really hide.
Doug Weller kept his name off the soc.history.ancient proposal precisely
to avoid some of the vicious flamage that had attended his role in the
creation of sci.archaeology.moderated from affecting us.
I'm not as clear on what I think of "Jazzman". That person should be
aware that a significant prejudice against pseudonyms exists on news.groups,
though it can be overcome by consistently intelligent behaviour.
> This would require support by perhaps 120 or more people.
That is usually considered a bare minimum for the successful creation
of a group, yes. Up to 30 NO votes is essentially random noise; there's
no point in even *trying* to explain unless there are 30 or more NO votes;
so I'd say 130 is the safe threshold.
> Perhaps we should do a quick survey to see if there would be
> the requisite number of YES votes. Or is this a waste of time
> as we could achieve the same effect by going direct to the RFD?
Straw polls help on news.groups, although real live traffic is
preferable. (I've recently noticed a slight upswing in such traffic
on soc.history.medieval: good move, folks.) Straw polls are usually
not taken as anything really indicative though: they invariably get
so many fewer votes than real CFVs that they aren't good predictors.
Mostly what they do is indicate that the proponent has *some* support
whose names are actually known and whose views have been taken into
account, so that the debate and vote aren't a complete waste of time.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and bookseller j...@sfbooks.com
Joe Bernstein
In article <65go1r$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Donald Tucker <bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> My preference is to set up an unmoderated ng for soc.history.early-modern.
> If it works well then no moderation is needed. If it becomes loaded
> with trash or plagued by the mentally unbalanced, then we might
> have to abandon it and establish a moderated ng.
I will resolutely oppose any such move. We already have a newsgroup
abandoned to the trash who are mentally unbalanced; it's called
soc.history; we don't need any more.
If soc.history.early-modern does not live up to reasonable hopes, I will
support any move to moderate *that group*, not to create a duplicative one.
This is the same position I took with regard to soc.history.ancient, by
the way, and although I'm cautiously optimistic, the overwhelming
prevalence of the current "black or white" thread (about Arabs yet! Since
when are the Arabs significant in *ancient* history?) is *current*
reason for concern. I expect that in February, around anniversary-time,
I'll be watching how much traffic is cross-posted, and if it's too much,
possibly pushing to moderate the group. We'll see if anyone agrees with
that view, if I feel that I must take it.
I agree that moderation should be avoided where possible, not least because
then someone doesn't have the horrid job of being moderator. But I don't
agree with this notion of abandoning multiple chunks of Usenet to the kooks.
> Have you co-ordinated with "Jazzman" to ensure that we will not
> be faced with two simultaneous RFD's?
Won't happen; the moderator of news.announce.newgroups will accept only
one. But I certainly see no obvious reason why there *should* be two,
and hope both prospective proponents can get together on this.
Joe Bernstein
In article <3475A0...@po.cwru.edu>,
Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> Sorry to throw a wet blanket on this, but in spite of the relative
> success of soc.history.ancient (unmoderated), the opinion in news.groups
> is shifting more and more toward the "no unmoderated history groups".
> People usually willing to give unmoderated groups a chance are going on
> record as planning to vote NO on the current
> soc.history.war.world-war-i, specifically due to its proposed
> unmoderated status.
Well, I went and read the debate in news.groups, and that's a pretty
seriously misleading statement of the case. I saw a whole lot of
concern about an unmoderated group for which the Turkish-Armenian
situation in the 1910s would be on-topic by charter. I saw one or
two people making their standard comment that all new soc.history.*
groups should be moderated, which they were already making two years
ago on the creation of soc.history.medieval, and which is getting no
more general support than it was then.
I don't think soc.history.war.world-war-i is at all analogous to
soc.history.early-modern, and I don't think it'll get the same
reception.
It's also worth mentioning that although he actually seems to be
behaving himself this time, the proponent of the WWI group is a guy
who churns out RFDs like there's no tomorrow, often for quite idiotic
groups, and I'm actually surprised at how little he's getting flamed
this time.
Donald Tucker
(jde...@rullet.leidenuniv.nl) writes:
> Donald Tucker wrote:
>
>> IMHO we should not exclude discussion of changes specific to a
>> a particular society (your CSE) from soc.history.early-modern.
>> This is the period of inter-societal encounter, with differential
>> effects in the West, India, Aboriginal America, Islam, China,
>> and Africa.
>
> So actually, you don't want an s.h.em but a s.h.world as I sketched it.
> Frankly, I get the feeling that I'm being misunderstood I never said
> that s.h.world would be for the ROTW, quite the reverse, it would be the
> forum for discussion of the encounters between CSE's (in all times).
Perhaps we are going in circles. But I'll try to see if I understand
this. We scrap creation of s.h.em but create s.h.world to cover
about 1450 to 1800. S.h.world would be able to discuss anything
relevant to history during this period, whether inter-societal
encounters or Manchu opposition to foot-binding in early Qing
China.
We could then give s.h.world a meaningless label like s.h.em
which would not in any way restrict it to discussion of
European "early-modern" issues such as the Reformation.
>> A discussion of any particular society in the ROTW which treats
>> the change introduced by and via the West, such as the flood of
>> American silver into China, as an exogenous factor provides far
>> fewer interesting insights tha a holistic treatment of the early
>> modern era.
>
> agree, exactly what I was proposing for s.h.world
>
>> Early-modernism can be discussed as a process of "progress" from
>> Medieval scholasticism to Englightenment era thinking, the
>> inceasing quantification of science, the commerical revolution
>> that developed from the Fuggers onwards, the scientification
>> of agriculture, or many other ways that are internal to European
>> history. But it is also the general era that included these
>> developments as merely a sub-set of world developments during the
>> era of encounters.
>
> so the encounter of other cultures was one (I don't know how important
> exactly, but certainly not the most important) aspect of this very
> *European* period (In eg China and India some of the above mentioned
> developments had taken place before the em era started of in Europe.
European e-m transformation was affected by world encounters and
Europe's e-m transformation affected the rest of the world. Each
fed on the other. That's why a single ng for the period makes
sense.
>
>
>> If posters want to discuss long term developments in TOTW
>> societies that extend centuries beyond the 1450-1800 time frame,
>> then soc.history.early-modern is not the right newsgroup.
>> They should try soc.history and/or soc.history.moderated.
>
> yeah right, did you read the RFD draft, and what does it say about these
> groups?
Well we have to edit the RFD drafts (two versions are before us).
>
>> > everybody is free to crosspost.
>>
>> But netiquette is to avoid this except where absolutely necessary.
>> The ngs of your early.modern.europe and your early.modern.TOTW would
>> be plagued with this problem.
>
> crossposting seems to be somewhat of a problem now, but I can imagine
> that by the time more people get on the net, newsgroup will keep
> multiplying and the problem will get bigger as newsgroup charters demand
> a certain exclusiveness. I foresee that this will be countered by better
> newsbrowsers and other organisation of the ng's, maybe more threadbased.
Crossposting is always a problem. But as people using a newsgroup
get to know each other they seem to focus their comments on
the specific ng. With a soc.history sequence of ancient, medieval,
and early modern we have few problems with posts about the Punic
Wars, the Crusades, and Cromwell. The cross post problem happens
at the boundaries, such as the chronic "fall of Rome/dark ages"
between ancient and medieval. We will have to accept some similar
problems at the boundary between medieval and early-modern, such
as Portuguese and Spanish voyages of exploration, the Spanish
Inquisition, Italian Borgias and England's Henry VII.
Note that the FAQ for soc.history.medieval provides that its
time frame is interpreted broadly as the period:
"up to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the beginnings of
European overseas expansion. This corresponds roughly to ...
1500 AD. This broad interpretation is open for revision if
other newsgroups groups dealing e.g. with ... the Renaissance
are added."
"...Questions on [examples] are welcome on the group, as well as
for example the ... the Reconquista and so on."
The period just before 1500 includes topics such as the final
phase of the Reconquista, which is related to the release of
resources to enable financing Columbus' voyage. Some overlap
with shem is unavoidable.
>
>> I would prefer not to split soc.history.early-modern. If unsplit, the
>> geographic boundary issue then becomes moot.
>
> I am proposing no split, but an addition because I feel that just
> looking at other CSE's because the Europeans encountered them is a
> second best option. Again, s.h.world (in my idea) would be about
> discussing CSE's on an equal basis.
As suggested above we could take your s.h.world and give it the
title s.h.em., which would be meaningless except as a time period
identifier (1450-1800). The ng would give an equal basis to all
societies in terms of the freedom of posters to discuss them.
We need to edit the draft RFDs.
I note that neither the draft by Chris Williams nor the one
by "Jazzman" includes a charter prohibition of binaries.
This is included in soc.history.ancient but regrettably
missed in soc.history.medieval.
The draft by Chris Williams notes that:
"...current politics as rooted in past events are not an
appropriate topic. For such topics use either soc.history
(which deals with all of history) or an appropriate politics
newsgroup."
Good point. But it should be strengthened to include a specific
prohibition of revisionist histories of the Holocaust or
Turkish/Armenian massacres (post to alt.revisionism). Some of
the posters on these topics are incredibly determined to build
a case on even the most tenuous link to a historical event, even
events over 200 years ago.
What other changes are needed?
Rube Lloyd
--WebTV-Mail-770932084-5349
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
OK, Floyd, Lets have a go at it, if that is your desire. Firstly,
Native American has allways refered to the first inhabitants of this
country. This being the American Indian population, or Amerindian, if
you prefer. Now....Show me where the Amerindians are not all related!
Different Tribes (family's) may speak differently but can communicate
with the other tribes (family groups). I dont think you know as much as
you would have us believe. Are you of Amerindian heritage? I am! My
brother-inlaw is full blooded Apache, his Sister married the Medicine
Man of the Lacota. He was raised by his Sister and Brother-inlaw, and
is now # 2 Medicine Man to the North American Intertribal Council.
Travels all over North America, including Canada, his name is Angel
Rivera, his tribal name is Tizy Tatanka. He has the power of the Bear.
So you see, Floyd, I am not just a wannabe. I am of Chicksaw, Cherokee
and Celtic heritage.
Your turn!
--WebTV-Mail-770932084-5349
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
<html>
<embed<body
background="http://www.geocities.com/
SoHo/Gallery/7752/stars.gif"><table
width=100%><heighth=100%>
<br>
<img src=
"http://members.tripod.com/~edoku/knight
2001.gif"
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font color=gold font size=6 effect=emboss>
<!marquee direction=left><br>
READY FOR BATTLE
</marquee>
</html>
--WebTV-Mail-770932084-5349--
David Heading
In article <65n6ft$r...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>, jos...@tezcat.com (Joe
Bernstein) wrote:
> In article <65chu7$11es$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> Stephen Graham <gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Why can't you use soc.history.moderated to develop discussion on this
> > period?
> >
> > It's a question you'll have to answer during the formal RFD period, so
> > you might as well answer it now.
>
> Much to my surprise, I agree very much with Mr. Graham's scepticism.
>
> One of the fundamental canons of news.groups is that you do not
> create groups without traffic to fill them. "If you build it,
> they will come" is about as well taken in news.groups as
> "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
> is taken in corporate boardrooms.
>
> TRAFFIC COMES FIRST.
>
Ah, yes indeed. This is true, so where is the traffic? I, for one, would
like to post/respond on early modern history. I have some reading on some
aspects, and questions on others. But where to post?
soc.history - too much noise, and anyway my (crossposts) never seem to
arrive there.
soc.history.medieval - off topic
soc.history.moderated - don't know the moderators address, if my posts
would be passed and the response is slow anyhow (no criticism intended)
soc.histroy.what-if - bizzarely, this is the place where I've run across
the most intelligent and informed discussion. I say bizzarely not because
'what-if' is intrinsically silly or anything, but just that you wouldnt
necessarily expect to find discussion of the real world there, in fact, so
far as I'm aware, you shouldnt.
The problem lies in the soc.history.* hierarchy. When ancient and medieval
were created, no-one gave a thought to the later ones. Oh well.
Nevertheless, the point about traffic is a good one. We should take over
soc.history for early modern to show that there is a significant ammount
of traffic. From then the world is but a short step......:)
Cheers
David Heading
--
"Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God"
- Martin Luther
Floyd Davidson
Rube Lloyd <RUB...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>OK, Floyd, Lets have a go at it, if that is your desire. Firstly,
I have a desire to go at accurate and useful information. I've
added both alt.native and soc.culture.native newsgroups to
broaden the exposure into groups where this subject is more
appropriate.
>Native American has allways refered to the first inhabitants of this
>country. This being the American Indian population, or Amerindian, if
You show me where American Indians are thought to be the only Native
Americans.
The Alaska Federation of Natives is not just for Indians. The
National Congress of American Indians recognizes, and even
allows the participation of non-Indian Native Americans in their
organization. The US Government considers Eskimo, Aleut, and
Hawaiian people to be Native Americans. The Smithsonian
Institute's National Museum of the American Indian has huge
amounts of information, displays, records, etc. on non-Indian
Native Americans.
You are the _one_ single person that I have ever heard claim
that Aleut, Eskimo, and Hawaiian people are not Native
Americans.
Everyone else says there are non-Indian Native Americans.
>you prefer. Now....Show me where the Amerindians are not all related!
>Different Tribes (family's) may speak differently but can communicate
>with the other tribes (family groups). I dont think you know as much as
Let me quote a more or less typical example of current thought
by science (which doesn't make it true, it just makes it one
more theory):
From <http://nmnhwww.si.edu/arctic/html/peopling_siberia.html>
"In an article by Joseph Greenberg, Christy Turner, and
Stephen Zegura it appeared that the genetic, dental and
linguistic evidence were reconciled in favor of three
separate migrations and the initial Paleoindian occupation
was posited to have occurred at least 12,000 years ago.
Subsequent synthetic work relying on traditional genetic
data have supported either the three-migration model or a
four-migration pattern. In contrast, studies of
maternally-inherited mtDNA have presented a variety of
competing scenarios ranging from one to six separate waves
of Asian migrants starting as long ago as 30,000
BP. Furthermore, there are different proposals for which
"source" populations in Asia gave rise to New World
populations: Viral distribution data implicate
Mongolia/Manchuria and/or extreme southeastern Siberia as
the ancestral homeland of the Amerinds; whereas, mtDNA data
point to Mongolia, North China, Tibet, and/or Korea as the
candidate source regions in Asia."
There are more different theories on who is related and who is
not than there are rumored to be words for snow in Inuit. I
cannot say with certainty how closely related or how distant
might be the various different groups of American Indian people.
There are at least two very distinct linguistic groups
(Algonquian and Athabascan), which suggests that they are not
derived from a single decendant. There are also DNA studies
which suggest there may have as many as 6 completely distinct
migrations into the Americas from Asia. And of course there are
at least two distinct traditional origination stories that are
not compatable. Whether the DNA difference result from
originations in the Americas or from different parts of Asia or
different times of migration is something we could (and will)
argue about for dozens if not hundreds of years, but one thing
it does definitely prove is that there are more than one genetic
grouping of American Indians.
How far back those divisions were, it they were at all, is hard
to say; and frankly it makes no difference if it was 10K years
or 40K, or not at all. The point was not that American Indians
are or are not genetically derived from a single source. The
point was that you keep posting articles which claim Hawaiian,
Aleut, Yup'ik, and Inuit people are not Native Americans. That
is absurd.
>you would have us believe. Are you of Amerindian heritage? I am! My
What has your Indian-ness got to do with the qualification of
Hawaiian people as Native? Or Aleut, or Inuit, or Yup'ik people
who are also Native Americans.
>brother-inlaw is full blooded Apache, his Sister married the Medicine
>Man of the Lacota. He was raised by his Sister and Brother-inlaw, and
>is now # 2 Medicine Man to the North American Intertribal Council.
>Travels all over North America, including Canada, his name is Angel
>Rivera, his tribal name is Tizy Tatanka. He has the power of the Bear.
>So you see, Floyd, I am not just a wannabe. I am of Chicksaw, Cherokee
>and Celtic heritage.
> Your turn!
Nobody has suggested you are a "wannabe", and that would be an
entirely different subject anyway. I fail to see what your
inlaws have to do with it either. Do they know you post their
names like that? I will NOT be posting a list of mine!
I also find any statements to the effect of how many medicine
men someone knows to be enough to totally discredit them as
serious. I'd be much more impressed if you told me your
children (or future children will, if you don't have any yet)
speak a Native language and live within the value system of a
Native culture.
Rube Lloyd
--WebTV-Mail-1572191931-1264
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
To insinuate that the Amerindian is in anyway related to the people of
Asia is wrong. Blood typing does not indicate any relationship between
the people of Asia and First people of this country (Amerindian).
--WebTV-Mail-1572191931-1264
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
<html>
<embed<body
background="http://www.geocities.com/
SoHo/Gallery/7752/stars.gif"><table
width=100%><heighth=100%>
<br>
<img src=
"http://members.tripod.com/~edoku/knight
2001.gif"
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font color=gold font size=6 effect=emboss>
<!marquee direction=left><br>
READY FOR BATTLE
</marquee>
</html>
--WebTV-Mail-1572191931-1264--
Stephen Graham
In article <d.j.heading-01...@fp77187.aston.ac.uk>,
David Heading <d.j.h...@no-spam.aston.ac.uk> wrote:
>soc.history.moderated - don't know the moderators address, if my posts
>would be passed and the response is slow anyhow (no criticism intended)
For most people, simply post normally to the group. If that doesn't
work, then e-mail to soc-his...@bcm.tmc.edu.
Stephan Schulz
In article <65n703$r...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
Joe Bernstein <jos...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not as clear on what I think of "Jazzman". That person should
> be aware that a significant prejudice against pseudonyms exists on
> news.groups, though it can be overcome by consistently intelligent
> behaviour.
I do not now Jazzman personally, but I have been in contact with
him/her for some time now (In fact, I'm the "knowledgeable person"
he/she has been working with on an RFD). I am quite satisfied with
his/her (My God! This is getting cumbersome....) qualifications as a
proponent. In general, my experience has been that proposals prepared
by individual move a lot faster than proposals hammered out in a
formal or informal commitee, so I usually advise people to just move
on if they have a good vision of the group and expect support, and to
use the RFD phase for more input. However, in this case a lot of
valuable discussion has already taken place in this thread, and it
would be easily possible to have more than one proponent.
>> This would require support by perhaps 120 or more people.
>
>That is usually considered a bare minimum for the successful creation
>of a group, yes. Up to 30 NO votes is essentially random noise; there's
>no point in even *trying* to explain unless there are 30 or more NO votes;
>so I'd say 130 is the safe threshold.
>
>> Perhaps we should do a quick survey to see if there would be
>> the requisite number of YES votes. Or is this a waste of time
>> as we could achieve the same effect by going direct to the RFD?
Well, straw polls are not very good at projecting a positive image -
usually about 10 times more people vote on the RFD than on a
well-handled straw poll.
>Straw polls help on news.groups, although real live traffic is
>preferable. (I've recently noticed a slight upswing in such traffic
>on soc.history.medieval: good move, folks.) Straw polls are usually
>not taken as anything really indicative though: they invariably get
>so many fewer votes than real CFVs that they aren't good predictors.
I think there is quite some relevant traffic in soc.history.medieval,
soc.history.moderated (occasionally) and
soc.history.war.misc. Moreover, I have seen at least 4 or 5 requests
in s.h.medieval about the appropriateness of 16th and 17th century
stuff.
> Mostly what they do is indicate that the proponent has *some*
> support whose names are actually known and whose views have been
> taken into account, so that the debate and vote aren't a complete
> waste of time.
We had slightly more than 300 YES votes for both s.h.medieval (without
any campaigning except for the official CFV and some pointers) and
s.h.ancient. I see no reason why the new group should receive
significantly less votes if the RFD/CFV are well-handled.
Stephan
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as sch...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd A. Farmerie
Joe Bernstein wrote:
>
> In article <3475A0...@po.cwru.edu>,
> Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to throw a wet blanket on this, but in spite of the relative
> > success of soc.history.ancient (unmoderated), the opinion in news.groups
> > is shifting more and more toward the "no unmoderated history groups".
> > People usually willing to give unmoderated groups a chance are going on
> > record as planning to vote NO on the current
> > soc.history.war.world-war-i, specifically due to its proposed
> > unmoderated status.
>
> Well, I went and read the debate in news.groups, and that's a pretty
> seriously misleading statement of the case. I saw a whole lot of
> concern about an unmoderated group for which the Turkish-Armenian
> situation in the 1910s would be on-topic by charter. I saw one or
> two people making their standard comment that all new soc.history.*
> groups should be moderated, which they were already making two years
> ago on the creation of soc.history.medieval, and which is getting no
> more general support than it was then.
Perhaps I should clarify my statement. It was not the volume of "no
unmoderated history groups" posts that I was sensing, but a few specific
individuals, who previously have been willing to give such groups a
chance, but are not now (and yes, I am one of them). When it comes down
to it, there are a small number of people who drive news.group opinion,
and when a few of this core flip over (and do so on a general level and
not simply in relation to the current proposal) then it is a matter for
concern.
And let's face it. s.h.med is not working all that well. A few recent
posters have driven off many of the more learned participants, and many
more are getting more and more fed up. You have already expressed
concerns with your ability to control s.h.a from degenerating. s.h.a
has (or at least had) a strong core of proponants who were willing to
self-police the group, and this "moderation" by self-policing made the
unmoderated status palatable to some of the more skeptical in n.g. I
see no such core here (if there is one, then they should identify
themselves, and state their intent to self-police in the RFD), and if
such a group is having problems controlling s.h.a, then what chance does
s.h.e-m have without one?
I guess there is one way to find out, but if the group passes
unmoderated, it would be a good idea to have the proposal for moderating
the group ready.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
1. There are some folks who just can't resist the impulse, however
misguided, to censor their fellow man and woman.
2. Todd Farmerie is quite obviously one of those quite dangerous folks. He
does not trust the free market of ideas.
3. The only informational model that Farmerie-san really understands is
that of the classroom, which requires a clearly class-differentiated
"Faculty" and "Student" bifurcation.
4. He wants to apply this totally inappropriate academic model to our quite
functional newsgroups. He frets continually that he has, so far, been
unable to create his dreamed for "Virtual University" and he attempts to
proselytize with this eminently sterile and moribund model at every
opportunity.
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "There are the solemn names of emperors, generals,
inventors of instruments of death, torturers and martyrs; alongside them
this one bright sound: Pushkin." --- Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Blok
[1880-1921]
Todd A. Farmerie wrote in message <348614...@po.cwru.edu>...
Lori from SF
I have been following this discussion with some interest since my area
of greatest knowledge (which is not all that much) is in the early
modern time.
I had been reading soc.history.medieval and soc.history.ancient, but
had not been reading soc.history.moderated because I assumed
(incorrectly) that it was like sci.archaeology.moderated, which has
too little conversation for me.
I have a suggestion. Why don't those interested in early-modern
history post to soc.history.moderated? If someone mistakenly posts to
shmed, which does frequently happen, s/he could be referred to shmod.
This should serve a few purposes. 1) determine whether there is enough
interest to develop a new group 2) figure out what the "natural"
boundaries might be (by looking at the postings) and 3) start talking
about history instead of how to make a group.
Hope to be reading you soon in shmod.
Lori Reeser
"When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping.
Men invade another country."
Elayne Boosler
correct email is lor...@netwiz.net
Joe Bernstein
In article <65upe3$mcn$1...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>,
Rube Lloyd <RUB...@webtv.net> wrote:
> --WebTV-Mail-1572191931-1264
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
(and a bunch of other annoying MIME stuff which I'll snip. Ms. Lloyd,
your news posts didn't used to have all this stuff. Can you fix it
back the way it was? Thanks!)
> To insinuate that the Amerindian is in anyway related to the people of
> Asia is wrong. Blood typing does not indicate any relationship between
> the people of Asia and First people of this country (Amerindian).
Um? You mean, maybe, "any close relationship"? I mean, last I checked,
we were all the same species. For that matter, humans vary less
genetically than the average primate species, and most of that variation
is among Africans, so I would imagine that (say) a chimpanzee would
find Europeans, all varieties of Asians, and all varieties of Native
Americans quite difficult to tell apart... :-)
That said, do you have any references on this? I'm curious what
alternative there is to the Amerindians coming from Asia. Africa?
(That is, besides originally...) Or is this an American Genesis
approach? Details, please...
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and bookseller jos...@tezcat.com
Rube Lloyd
--WebTV-Mail-1744022542-8899
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Hello Joe Bernstein,
My name is Ruberd Marlon Lloyd, my e mail ad. is Rub...@webtv.net,
my friends and relatives call me Rube. Not to be confused with Ruby or
Rubie. I am 6'1" tall and weigh 275 lbs. I truly am not a Mis.
Now to get on with it. My statement was that there is no
relationship between the Amerindian and the people of Siberia or the
rest of Asia, (other than we are all human beings), and I stand by that.
How did Amerindians come to be on this contenant? I don't know. I
don't think anyone does. There are theries, but no one can prove who is
right or wrong. Amerindians probably did come here via the land-bridge,
but it would have had to been 50, 60 thousand years ago, mabey more.
The original people of Britian were isolated from the mainland europe
for thousands of years. Ceaser, in his commentaries on the Gallic Wars,
describe the people of the southern shores of Britain as being the same
as those of the mainland Gaul, but that the people of the interior, were
coperan in color. I make coperan to be redish brown, and much like the
coloring of the Amerindian. Perhaps the Amerindian is of the first
people to populate northern europle. Its possible these first people to
populate europe also crossed over the land-bridge to their east and came
to America that way. Mabey not. What I can tell you is that blood
typing shows that the Amerindian is predominately type O blood and no rh
factor. The people of Siberia and the rest of Asia, ie China , Mongolia
etc. are predominately type B, and have no type O blood. My reference
it the Encyclopedia Brittianica, under blood typing.
Can I get an AMEN , to that, Bro.
Respectfully submitted for your approvial.
P.S. I like the image on my e mail, altho
it cannot be viewed by people on aol, and
Netscape is the best thing to use. If you handle it as a "gif" you can
see it. However you are probably right, I probably should use another
of my 6 e mail ads for posting to news groups.
Best Wishes
--WebTV-Mail-1744022542-8899
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
<html>
<bgsound src="http://members.tripod.com/
~webtv18/leanonme.mid">
<br><br><br>
<embed<body
background="http://www.geocities.com/
SoHo/Gallery/7752/stars.gif"><table
width=100%><heighth=100%>
<br>
<img src=
"http://members.tripod.com/~edoku/knight
2001.gif"
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font color=gold font size=6 effect=emboss>
<!marquee direction=left><br>
READY FOR BATTLE
</marquee>
</html>
--WebTV-Mail-1744022542-8899--
Floyd Davidson
[posted and emailed]
Rube Lloyd <RUB...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Now to get on with it. My statement was that there is no
>relationship between the Amerindian and the people of Siberia or the
>rest of Asia, (other than we are all human beings), and I stand by that.
...
>... What I can tell you is that blood
>typing shows that the Amerindian is predominately type O blood and no rh
>factor. The people of Siberia and the rest of Asia, ie China , Mongolia
>etc. are predominately type B, and have no type O blood. My reference
>it the Encyclopedia Brittianica, under blood typing.
Your reference material is not specific enough to draw such
conclusions, and for some very good reasons there are no others
basing credible claims on that evidence.
I do not have access to an Encyclopedia Brittianica to review the
way it lists the statistics you refer to, but there are a couple
of questions that come to mind because your summary does not
agree with other sources for the same information. The big
question is what do you mean by "The people ... of Asia ... have
no type O blood." Do you mean very few people are listed as
being Type O (meaning they have _only_ type O antigens), or do
you mean there are no people with type O antigens? A person
with both a type O and a type B (or A) antigen will be listed as
having blood Type B (or A), even though they have a type O
antigen. Only people with both possible antigens being type O
are listed as Type O. (You inherit one from each parent.)
The significance of that is great, because hereditary factors
are not the only influence on blood type concentrations in
various populations. For example, in the Himalayan region of
Asia has both the highest frequency for type B antigens, and has
historically suffered epidemics of bubonic plague. People with
type B antigens are more likely to survive bubonic plague, which
matches the higher concentration in that area. However, even
then the frequency is only 30%.
You state that they are not related is proved because most of
Asia is predominately type B (which is a questionable way to
describe a frequency which _peaks_ at 30%, in one area only),
and that American Indians are predominately type O. Your
premises are a questionable interpretation of the data to start
with, and your conclusions do not follow from those premises
anyway. In fact, it is true that _some_ Americans Indian
populations have as high as 80-100% type O, which makes
"predominate" a very good description for those specific
populations. But that does not lead to your conclusion that
they are unrelated...
Consider that in other articles you have insisted adamantly that
_all_ American Indians are related, yet the same blood type
evidence is even more pronounced in that case, because _some_
Indian populations have as high as 50% type A.
If your evidence did prove Asians are not related to Indians,
then it would also prove that not all Indians are related.
However, it proves neither.
Rube Lloyd
Floyd, I have just sent you the Encyclopedia Brittannica, which is
available on the internet.
If you can convince any that you are wiser than the Encyclopedia
Brittannica researchers, go right ahead and try.
In the meantime, please provide the names of the American Indian Tribes
who have the Fifty Percent Type "A" blood that you refered to! You can
furnish the names of those Tribes cant you Floyd?
Rube Lloyd