Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:World History Lecture Five

2009-02-27T01:03:02Z

CWaddell:

Most of shariah is based on the [[Hadith]], not the Quran.

== Britain ==

''Who were the British people at that time? The “Anglo-Saxons”, who were Germanic tribes that conquered England and ruled it in a chaotic manner until the Norman conquest of A.D. 1066 brought order and prosperity to the entire island. The “Anglo-Saxons” were actually a mixture of three different Germanic peoples: the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. The “Picts” were another group of people who settled Scotland at this time. The greatest Anglo-Saxon ruler was Alfred the Great, who defended Britain from Viking attacks in the A.D. 800s.''

1. No mention of the Celtic British people who were gradually overwhelmed and absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons in what became England (but remained dominant in Wales, Cumbria, Cornwall)?
2. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were increasingly sophisticated, and the united England was scarcely 'chaotic'.
3. The Normans did not rule 'the whole island'.
4. The Picts did not 'settle Scotland at this time' but were the indigenous people of northern and eastern Scotland.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:15, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections/suggestions ==

*''"Both the beginning and end of the Middle Ages occurred in what is now Italy"'' I think the exact meaning of this sentence needs to be clarified.
*I think you have chosen a somewhat extreme interpretation of why the term 'middle ages' is used. I do not think it was intended as a derogatory term by most.
*I'm quite certain the claim that ''"Except for the Carolingian court of Charlemagne discussed below, there was no kingdom in Europe from the fall of Rome to A.D. 1000."'' is incorrect. Whilst the Carolingian empire was certainly one of the most notable there were certainly others.
*The phrase ''"but they were constantly cooperating or arguing with each other"'' seems ambiguous.
*Simply as a suggestion of my own, I think it would be much easier to simply state how much older Christianity roughly is than Islam rather than using a percentage.
*The date of the battle of Yarmouk (636 AD) should be specified.
*''"causing concern by the Sunnis"'' should read "causing concern ''amongst''..."
*You suggest that Sunnis are viewed more favourably by the west, although I would rather not dwell on generalisations, it should be noted that Bin Laden's group is entirely Sunni, though of course very much a minority group amongst them.
*I'm not sure what is meant by saying that Shi'ites ''"slashing their forwards"''
*The part concerning the 2006 election and Keith Ellison needs updating.
*You mention that ''"western Europe was declining"'' at one point without clarifying in what respect there was a decline.
*The most recent data suggests that Russia now has the 9th largest population rather than the 8th.
*I would disagree with the characterisation of the Saxon rule of Britain as being chaotic, I think it was much more stable than many others.
*The Picts did not really ''settle'' in Scotland, they were a distinctive group that emerged from the existing population and dominated for a time.
*Saxon's generally cremated their dead, as the term pyre itself implies, and did not simply leave the bodies for animals as you suggest.
*You incorrectly state that the peasants in the Feudal System were not bound to their Lord. In fact they had to swear an oath to the Lord and were bound to them, or perhaps more specifically, to the land. The Feudal System was a massive system of oaths and mutual ties which form are what held it together.
*It would be more correct to refer to the 'invention' of the iron plough rather than its 'discovery'
*You state that the serfs paid rent in the form of food. This was not universally true temporally or geographically. Generally early on the serf's rent was paid as labour on the lord's own land as opposed to that which was given over to peasant subsistence farming. This developed into a system of paying rent in the form of commodities, such as food, and eventually money.
*You are incorrect in stating that everyone under the Feudal System had the ability to buy/sell land.
*There was in fact a form of centralized government but it was nowhere near as powerful as it became in the centuries that followed.
*You should clarify your definition of 'useless lands and forests'. I assume you mean this from a purely economic perspective in the context of the time.
*The sentence ''"On the humorous side, it became popular to use battering rams and catapults in warfare"'' is puzzling in my opinion.
*You suggest there were frequent battles between rival manors. For one thing, a manor was generally the fief of a single knight and as such battles on this scale were unlikely. Although there were civil wars of course, you unfairly characterise this as an inherently unstable system.
*I think you need to clarify for where the 'invasions stopped'
*I disagree with you statement about modern property law being based on the feudal system. This system did not recognise the concept of 'private property' and in many ways was almost the complete opposite of today. The private property system was developed by monarchs, particularly following the plague which decimated the population, thus reducing the rent they received. This, along with more expensive military technologies led to the need to increase income, which they did by creating laws regarding personal property and collecting taxes on the back of this. As such, private property was in fact one of the things that led to the collapse of the feudal system.
[[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 08:25, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: Thanks for your suggestions. I reviewed them carefully, accepting some and changing the text, while rejecting others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections relevant to your updates ==

*You seem to imply that Turkey is run by a military junta of some kind. This is not true. Turkey is a parliamentary democracy. Although the military does hold significant influence you are wrong to say that it 'runs' the country. As such the military does not enforce the headscarf ban. The headscarf ban was implemented as part of the secular principles of modern Turkey's founder and has been upheld by the judiciary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:32, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The military enforces the rule, which is contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming major. Most informed observers would describe Turkey as run by the military rather than by popular opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections relevant to further updates ==

*I cannot really see a direct link between feudalism and 'the customer is always right.' For one thing, the concept of a customer was not in widespread use, especially early on in the feudal era, given that there was relatively little trading and what there was originally rarely involved money. IT was not until later on that the practice of trading goods increased significantly, and especially with the increased use of money led to the creation of the market as we know it today.
*You put far too great an emphasis on the good aspects of feudalism from modern perspective. You do not mention that the system was extremely exploitative of the serf class. They were bound to work the land all their life and to serve their lord, and were entirely under his control. Indeed there may have been fewer people who didn't work but when they were in fact 'fired' as it were the consequences were far more devastating than today. This would have involved an entire family being ejected from their home and the land they worked since this was all part of the equation. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)

: Feudalism developed the concept of "service", which became central to chivalry. From that came "customer service," as in restaurants.

: On your second point, I'm afraid it suffers from anti-Christian bias that infects commonly read materials. Feudalism had no commuting, no "lay offs," no "offshoring", fewer heinous crimes like today, no widespread breakups of marriage, no same-sex marriage, no drug addiction, etc. It was far from perfect, but far from terrible also. What liberals hate about it was its Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
::The concept of "customer service" has been in existence for as long as commerce itself has, which was long before feudalism. As for the benefits of feudalism, "no commuting" and "no layoffs" also applied to slavery, so it would be fair to say that these are just aspects of feudalism rather than inherent benefits of the system that would make it desirable. I'm not sure that feudalism itself lowered crime or drug addiction relative to other societies in the same historic period, but I'm not aware of any aspect of feudalism itself that impacted marital fidelity or societal views towards homosexuality when compared to the prevailing religious views of the day. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:30, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:::Certainly commerce existed prior to the feudal system but it was not a characteristic of that system above others and so the concept of customer service cannot really be attributed to it. I don't think religion really came into my point. The feudal system was extremely exploitative of the serfs and any mention of perceived benefits must weighed against this extreme lack of rights and freedoms. The church was much more powerful back then with a much stricter interpretation than prevails generally today which explains a lot of the social factors of the time. Marriages didn't break up mainly because it was virtually impossible for the common person to be able to get out of a marriage, and marriage was needed to produce legitimate heirs, so that even the serfs could pass on their plots to their children. Many modern drugs were not even known about in European feudal society let alone available to them so that much can explain that not so much the actual system in place. To say that the lack of commuting as an advantage outweighs a social status only just above that of a slave is to take it too far i think. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::::On the subject of service, perhaps an earlier precursor would be Jesus acting as a servant, perhaps best shown in John 13, when He washed His disciples' feet.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:47, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:::::As people above have said, serfdom was pretty much equal to slavery (except slave-owners actually purchased their slaves, so they had an interest in keeping them alive). I remember reading about how Prince Edward, son of King Henry, once ordered a travelling merchant to be blinded because he was obstructing the road. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Normally I like to stick to the purely factual errors, such as incorrect dates, but I'll stray into interpretations. Beyond your vast over-simplification of the medieval world (feudalism and manorialism vary greatly temporally and geographically), you are anachronistically applying modern ideas to the feudal society and vice versa. First, you attempt to make some analogy between the feudal system and a free market, which is simply not true. Not everyone had the ability to buy and sell property (I'll allow that I, too, am oversimplifying geographically and temporally); rather, land was deeded by a social superior in exchange for some form of obligation, usually military service. Generally speaking, this applies only to male nobility, and in the case of inheritance, to the first born male. Significant amounts of warfare, including the Crusades, had as some amount of roots the lack of inheritance by second sons or poor lords, who could only hope to obtain property through some martial deed.

The serfs were hardly free labor as we would know it now, they were legally or traditionally bound to the land; if ownership of land changed hands, the serfs were still bound to that set of land and therefore their new lord. Certainly the serfs received the benefits you stated (food and protection), but it was not an amicable free market relationship, but one of obligation and hierarchy based on custom, not on economics. I should also note here that this system is "manorialism" and the hierarchial system of nobles mentioned before is "feudalism." They are not the same thing, although they are similar.

As for your paragraph on "chivalry," you take pains to connect it to modern "chivalry," that is a code of etiquette (which for you primarily means interaction between the genders), yet you never really get into the meat and potatoes of what it was originally. First of all, it was not a code for "everyone." As is the general theme for this era, it was the code of nobility, specifically knights (the warfighting nobility). Peasants were certainly not subject to it. There were specific rules dealing with the customs of "sportsmanship" in war. As said, peasants were not really subject to chivalry. If captured, they were usually killed (they had no economic value attached to them). Knights were treated well and ransomed, partially out of sportsmanship and partially out of their high worth. Depending on the conditions of a city being captured, the inhabitants could be treated well or poorly. As for the "free enterprise" approach to the military, again you apply an anachronistic term. Armies were created through the feudal relationship of hierarchical obligation. (Although there were significant mercenary forces, second born noble sons, etc. that could be seen as slightly more "free market" if you really must apply the term). This developed very good warriors, I'll agree, but not necessarily superior armies (the two are not the same thing), and the invasions were stopped by a combination of forces (not to mention that they don't really stop in the Medieval Period - the Ottomans continue to threaten Vienna well into the 17th century).

Rather than the various things you mentioned, chivalry was merely the code of ethics (and the "code" was hardly written in stone) for the warrior class of nobility. It fluctuated greatly with time and space, and was based primarily in a combination of Christian ideals, traditional warrior ethos, economic ideals, and societal needs.

On a final note, you commented to Robert that liberals "hate" feudalism because of its Christianity. As a liberal, and an avid student of history, I neither "hate" nor love feudalism. I nothing it. It's simply a convenient model to simplify complex interactions in Medieval society. Christianity was the single most important facet in the social relationships of the era, but that doesn't make me hate the era. That would be very, very silly. If I were to apply any moral judgment, it would be that Christianity was a positive by creating organization and regulation were there was little. So be careful before you start throwing accusations around.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 16:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

: "CWaddell", the word "nothing" is not a verb and your long-winded sermon fails to persuade. Chivalry was and is an ideal for all to strive for. It is very effective in reducing and eliminating friction, insults, hard-feelings, and even accidents. Atheists do exaggerate their criticism of feudalism because they dislike its Christian culture. You may not be an atheist, but you have relied on biased works by atheists in your education. Open your mind and free yourself from the bias, and you will only wish you had done so sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:: I apologize for my previous rudeness. Please give my comments a second chance; I am not trying to push a political viewpoint, but merely trying to help improve your lectures.--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 20:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Five

2009-02-26T23:35:23Z

CWaddell: /* Corrections relevant to further updates */

Most of shariah is based on the [[Hadith]], not the Quran.

== Britain ==

''Who were the British people at that time? The “Anglo-Saxons”, who were Germanic tribes that conquered England and ruled it in a chaotic manner until the Norman conquest of A.D. 1066 brought order and prosperity to the entire island. The “Anglo-Saxons” were actually a mixture of three different Germanic peoples: the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. The “Picts” were another group of people who settled Scotland at this time. The greatest Anglo-Saxon ruler was Alfred the Great, who defended Britain from Viking attacks in the A.D. 800s.''

1. No mention of the Celtic British people who were gradually overwhelmed and absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons in what became England (but remained dominant in Wales, Cumbria, Cornwall)?
2. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were increasingly sophisticated, and the united England was scarcely 'chaotic'.
3. The Normans did not rule 'the whole island'.
4. The Picts did not 'settle Scotland at this time' but were the indigenous people of northern and eastern Scotland.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:15, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Corrections/suggestions ==

*''"Both the beginning and end of the Middle Ages occurred in what is now Italy"'' I think the exact meaning of this sentence needs to be clarified.
*I think you have chosen a somewhat extreme interpretation of why the term 'middle ages' is used. I do not think it was intended as a derogatory term by most.
*I'm quite certain the claim that ''"Except for the Carolingian court of Charlemagne discussed below, there was no kingdom in Europe from the fall of Rome to A.D. 1000."'' is incorrect. Whilst the Carolingian empire was certainly one of the most notable there were certainly others.
*The phrase ''"but they were constantly cooperating or arguing with each other"'' seems ambiguous.
*Simply as a suggestion of my own, I think it would be much easier to simply state how much older Christianity roughly is than Islam rather than using a percentage.
*The date of the battle of Yarmouk (636 AD) should be specified.
*''"causing concern by the Sunnis"'' should read "causing concern ''amongst''..."
*You suggest that Sunnis are viewed more favourably by the west, although I would rather not dwell on generalisations, it should be noted that Bin Laden's group is entirely Sunni, though of course very much a minority group amongst them.
*I'm not sure what is meant by saying that Shi'ites ''"slashing their forwards"''
*The part concerning the 2006 election and Keith Ellison needs updating.
*You mention that ''"western Europe was declining"'' at one point without clarifying in what respect there was a decline.
*The most recent data suggests that Russia now has the 9th largest population rather than the 8th.
*I would disagree with the characterisation of the Saxon rule of Britain as being chaotic, I think it was much more stable than many others.
*The Picts did not really ''settle'' in Scotland, they were a distinctive group that emerged from the existing population and dominated for a time.
*Saxon's generally cremated their dead, as the term pyre itself implies, and did not simply leave the bodies for animals as you suggest.
*You incorrectly state that the peasants in the Feudal System were not bound to their Lord. In fact they had to swear an oath to the Lord and were bound to them, or perhaps more specifically, to the land. The Feudal System was a massive system of oaths and mutual ties which form are what held it together.
*It would be more correct to refer to the 'invention' of the iron plough rather than its 'discovery'
*You state that the serfs paid rent in the form of food. This was not universally true temporally or geographically. Generally early on the serf's rent was paid as labour on the lord's own land as opposed to that which was given over to peasant subsistence farming. This developed into a system of paying rent in the form of commodities, such as food, and eventually money.
*You are incorrect in stating that everyone under the Feudal System had the ability to buy/sell land.
*There was in fact a form of centralized government but it was nowhere near as powerful as it became in the centuries that followed.
*You should clarify your definition of 'useless lands and forests'. I assume you mean this from a purely economic perspective in the context of the time.
*The sentence ''"On the humorous side, it became popular to use battering rams and catapults in warfare"'' is puzzling in my opinion.
*You suggest there were frequent battles between rival manors. For one thing, a manor was generally the fief of a single knight and as such battles on this scale were unlikely. Although there were civil wars of course, you unfairly characterise this as an inherently unstable system.
*I think you need to clarify for where the 'invasions stopped'
*I disagree with you statement about modern property law being based on the feudal system. This system did not recognise the concept of 'private property' and in many ways was almost the complete opposite of today. The private property system was developed by monarchs, particularly following the plague which decimated the population, thus reducing the rent they received. This, along with more expensive military technologies led to the need to increase income, which they did by creating laws regarding personal property and collecting taxes on the back of this. As such, private property was in fact one of the things that led to the collapse of the feudal system.
[[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 08:25, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: Thanks for your suggestions. I reviewed them carefully, accepting some and changing the text, while rejecting others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections relevant to your updates ==

*You seem to imply that Turkey is run by a military junta of some kind. This is not true. Turkey is a parliamentary democracy. Although the military does hold significant influence you are wrong to say that it 'runs' the country. As such the military does not enforce the headscarf ban. The headscarf ban was implemented as part of the secular principles of modern Turkey's founder and has been upheld by the judiciary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:32, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The military enforces the rule, which is contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming major. Most informed observers would describe Turkey as run by the military rather than by popular opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections relevant to further updates ==

*I cannot really see a direct link between feudalism and 'the customer is always right.' For one thing, the concept of a customer was not in widespread use, especially early on in the feudal era, given that there was relatively little trading and what there was originally rarely involved money. IT was not until later on that the practice of trading goods increased significantly, and especially with the increased use of money led to the creation of the market as we know it today.
*You put far too great an emphasis on the good aspects of feudalism from modern perspective. You do not mention that the system was extremely exploitative of the serf class. They were bound to work the land all their life and to serve their lord, and were entirely under his control. Indeed there may have been fewer people who didn't work but when they were in fact 'fired' as it were the consequences were far more devastating than today. This would have involved an entire family being ejected from their home and the land they worked since this was all part of the equation. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 10:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)

: Feudalism developed the concept of "service", which became central to chivalry. From that came "customer service," as in restaurants.

: On your second point, I'm afraid it suffers from anti-Christian bias that infects commonly read materials. Feudalism had no commuting, no "lay offs," no "offshoring", fewer heinous crimes like today, no widespread breakups of marriage, no same-sex marriage, no drug addiction, etc. It was far from perfect, but far from terrible also. What liberals hate about it was its Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)
::The concept of "customer service" has been in existence for as long as commerce itself has, which was long before feudalism. As for the benefits of feudalism, "no commuting" and "no layoffs" also applied to slavery, so it would be fair to say that these are just aspects of feudalism rather than inherent benefits of the system that would make it desirable. I'm not sure that feudalism itself lowered crime or drug addiction relative to other societies in the same historic period, but I'm not aware of any aspect of feudalism itself that impacted marital fidelity or societal views towards homosexuality when compared to the prevailing religious views of the day. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:30, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:::Certainly commerce existed prior to the feudal system but it was not a characteristic of that system above others and so the concept of customer service cannot really be attributed to it. I don't think religion really came into my point. The feudal system was extremely exploitative of the serfs and any mention of perceived benefits must weighed against this extreme lack of rights and freedoms. The church was much more powerful back then with a much stricter interpretation than prevails generally today which explains a lot of the social factors of the time. Marriages didn't break up mainly because it was virtually impossible for the common person to be able to get out of a marriage, and marriage was needed to produce legitimate heirs, so that even the serfs could pass on their plots to their children. Many modern drugs were not even known about in European feudal society let alone available to them so that much can explain that not so much the actual system in place. To say that the lack of commuting as an advantage outweighs a social status only just above that of a slave is to take it too far i think. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 12:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::::On the subject of service, perhaps an earlier precursor would be Jesus acting as a servant, perhaps best shown in John 13, when He washed His disciples' feet.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:47, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:::::As people above have said, serfdom was pretty much equal to slavery (except slave-owners actually purchased their slaves, so they had an interest in keeping them alive). I remember reading about how Prince Edward, son of King Henry, once ordered a travelling merchant to be blinded because he was obstructing the road. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Normally I like to stick to the purely factual errors, such as incorrect dates, but I'll stray into interpretations. Beyond your vast over-simplification of the medieval world (feudalism and manorialism vary greatly temporally and geographically), you are anachronistically applying modern ideas to the feudal society and vice versa. First, you attempt to make some analogy between the feudal system and a free market, which is simply not true. Not everyone had the ability to buy and sell property (I'll allow that I, too, am oversimplifying geographically and temporally); rather, land was deeded by a social superior in exchange for some form of obligation, usually military service. Generally speaking, this applies only to male nobility, and in the case of inheritance, to the first born male. Significant amounts of warfare, including the Crusades, had as some amount of roots the lack of inheritance by second sons or poor lords, who could only hope to obtain property through some martial deed.

The serfs were hardly free labor as we would know it now, they were legally or traditionally bound to the land; if ownership of land changed hands, the serfs were still bound to that set of land and therefore their new lord. Certainly the serfs received the benefits you stated (food and protection), but it was not an amicable free market relationship, but one of obligation and hierarchy based on custom, not on economics. I should also note here that this system is "manorialism" and the hierarchial system of nobles mentioned before is "feudalism." They are not the same thing, although they are similar.

As for your paragraph on "chivalry," you take pains to connect it to modern "chivalry," that is a code of etiquette (which for you primarily means interaction between the genders), yet you never really get into the meat and potatoes of what it was originally. First of all, it was not a code for "everyone." As is the general theme for this era, it was the code of nobility, specifically knights (the warfighting nobility). Peasants were certainly not subject to it. There were specific rules dealing with the customs of "sportsmanship" in war. As said, peasants were not really subject to chivalry. If captured, they were usually killed (they had no economic value attached to them). Knights were treated well and ransomed, partially out of sportsmanship and partially out of their high worth. Depending on the conditions of a city being captured, the inhabitants could be treated well or poorly. As for the "free enterprise" approach to the military, again you apply an anachronistic term. Armies were created through the feudal relationship of hierarchical obligation. (Although there were significant mercenary forces, second born noble sons, etc. that could be seen as slightly more "free market" if you really must apply the term). This developed very good warriors, I'll agree, but not necessarily superior armies (the two are not the same thing), and the invasions were stopped by a combination of forces (not to mention that they don't really stop in the Medieval Period - the Ottomans continue to threaten Vienna well into the 17th century).

Rather than the various things you mentioned, chivalry was merely the code of ethics (and the "code" was hardly written in stone) for the warrior class of nobility. It fluctuated greatly with time and space, and was based primarily in a combination of Christian ideals, traditional warrior ethos, economic ideals, and societal needs.

On a final note, you commented to Robert that liberals "hate" feudalism because of its Christianity. As a liberal, and an avid student of history, I neither "hate" nor love feudalism. I nothing it. It's simply a convenient model to simplify complex interactions in Medieval society. Christianity was the single most important facet in the social relationships of the era, but that doesn't make me hate the era. That would be very, very silly. If I were to apply any moral judgment, it would be that Christianity was a positive by creating organization and regulation were there was little. So be careful before you start throwing accusations around.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 16:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

: "CWaddell", the word "nothing" is not a verb and your long-winded sermon fails to persuade. Chivalry was and is an ideal for all to strive for. It is very effective in reducing and eliminating friction, insults, hard-feelings, and even accidents. Atheists do exaggerate their criticism of feudalism because they dislike its Christian culture. You may not be an atheist, but you have relied on biased works by atheists in your education. Open your mind and free yourself from the bias, and you will only wish you had done so sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::I apologize for my poor grammar, even if said mistake was irrelevant to my argument. I'll fix it for you: "I neither 'hate' nor love feudalism. I have no moral judgment for it, as it is simply a model to simplify complex interactions in Medieval society." I'm not disagreeing with you on modern chivalry, treating each other with kindness and basic etiquette is an excellent ideal. As I described, however, this is simply not what chivalry was in the Medieval era. It applied to a specific class in specific instances. I was "long-winded" for a reason; you very obviously have not studied this topic, and I wanted to be thorough in my explanation of your mistakes. I would also appreciate it if you did not insinuate I was close-minded. While I present a nuanced argument in an attempt to help you improve your lecture, you respond by personally attacking me without responding to any of my arguments. --[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 18:35, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Supersonic speed

2009-02-26T23:01:30Z

CWaddell:

Any [[speed]] that is faster than the speed of [[sound]] in the substance of interest.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

The prefix Mach is used to describe an airplane's true airspeed relative to the local speed of sound. It derives form Ernst Mach, a [[Czech]] born, [[Germany|German]] scientist who contributed to the study of sound. When a plane moves at the speed of sound (in air) it is Mach 1. When twice the speed of sound it is Mach 2. At Mach 0.5, an airplane is travelling at half the local speed of sound. When a plane passes the sound barrier (flying faster than sound travels) listeners hear a [[sonic boom]].

The speed of sound in air is 770 mph, or 1130 ft/s (1230 km/h or 344m/s) in dry air at 70F <ref>Speed of Sound http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe.html, Retrieved 7March2008</ref>. Sound travels faster in water than it does in air, and even faster in iron and steel.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:physics]]

Talk:World History Lecture Five

2009-02-26T21:56:22Z

CWaddell: /* Corrections relevant to further updates */

Francisco Pizarro

2009-02-25T06:09:58Z

CWaddell:

'''Francisco Pizarro''' (1471-1541) was a Spanish conquistador who led the conquest of [[Peru]], betraying and eventually killing their emperor, [[Atahualpa]]. The ancient Peru city of Cuzco was completely destroyed and replaced with the city of [[Lima]]. While in Peru, Pizzaro also discovered the greatest silver mine in the Americas, the vast majority of which was traded with [[China]], whose economy was based on silver. Like Cortes' conquests, Pizzaro's conquests were facilitated by the use of [[horse]]s, superior weapons, and devastating European diseases like [[smallpox]], against which the Incans had no immunity.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pizarro, Francisco}}
{{Nb_explorers}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]

Texas Rangers (baseball team)

2009-02-25T06:07:55Z

CWaddell:

[[Image:Ameriquest Field.jpg|right|280px]]
The '''Texas Rangers''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team located in [[Arlington, Texas]]. They play in the American League, Western Division.

One of the more famous owners of the team was the 43rd [[President]] of the [[United States]], [[George W. Bush]], who owned the team for a period of time. The Rangers are the oldest Major League baseball team never to have played in the [[World Series]].

== Team ==
The Texas Rangers are a team known for having an explosive batting lineup that scores a lot of runs, but also a team that gives up a lot of runs with average or worse pitching. Some of the more famous players their lineup include aged certain to be baseball hall of framer [[Sammy Sosa]] and young rising stars such as [[Michael Young]] and [[Ian Kinsler]]. On the pitching side [[Kevin Millwood]] is considered the ace of the unit.

==Roster==
===Pitchers===
*53 - Joaquin Benoit
*61 - Thomas Diamond
*51 - Willie Eyre
*39 - Scott Feldman
*50 - Frank Francisco
*13 - Kason Gabbard
*54 - Matt Harrison
*35 - Tommy Hunter
*37 - Eric Hurley
*60 - Warner Madrigal
*20 - Brandon McCarthy
*46 - Luis Mendoza
*33 - [[Kevin Millwood]]
*57 - Justin Nippert
*44 - Vicente Padilla
*59 - Josh Rupe
*36 - C. J. Wilson

===Catchers===
*51 - Max Ramirez
*25 - [[Jerrod Saltalamacchia]]
*2 - Taylor Teagarden

===Infielders===
*4 - Joaquin Arias
*9 - [[Hank Blalock]]
*27 - Frank Catalanotto
*19 - Chris Davis
*6 - German Duran
*5 - [[Ian Kinsler]]
*30 - Travis Metcalf
*10 - Michael Young

===Outfielders===
*41 - Brandon Boggs
*22 - Marlon Byrd
*17 - Nelson Cruz
*40 - Greg Golson
*32 - [[Josh Hamilton]]
*7 - David Murphy

===Designated Hitter===
none

==Minor League Affiliates==
The minor league affiliates of the Rangers are:
*AAA - Oklahoma RedHawks
*AA - Frisco RoughRiders
*A Adv. - Bakersfield Blaze
*A - Clinton LumberKings
*SS - Spokane Indians
== External Links ==
*[http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=tex Official Website]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}
[[Category:Texas]]

Vice-President

2009-02-25T06:04:39Z

CWaddell: /* Election of the Vice President */

The '''Vice-President''' of the United States is a Constitutional role, with the primary function of being the next in line to the presidency, should the President be killed or otherwise unable to fulfill his duty.

The Vice President is also the President of the [[Senate]], able to break ties should the Senate vote a tie.

The current Vice President is [[Joe Biden]].

==Eligibility==
Because the Vice President may have to become the President, he or she must be qualified to be President, meaning they be a natural born U.S. citizen; they must be 35 years old; and they must have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 (consecutive?) years.

==Election of the Vice President==
Originally, the Vice President was the person who received the 2nd most number of votes in an Presidential Election. This system broke down, however, in 1796, when Federalist John Adams won the presidential election and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson came in second, leading to an executive split between the two parties. There were more problems in 1800 as the Democratic-Republicans failed in trying to engineer the second place finisher, forcing the House of Representatives to choose between Thomas Jefferson and fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr.

In 1804, the Twelth Amendment was adopted to solve this problem, creating separate ballots for President and Vice President.
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]

Vice-President

2009-02-25T05:58:21Z

CWaddell:

The '''Vice-President''' of the United States is a Constitutional role, with the primary function of being the next in line to the presidency, should the President be killed or otherwise unable to fulfill his duty.

The Vice President is also the President of the [[Senate]], able to break ties should the Senate vote a tie.

The current Vice President is [[Joe Biden]].

==Eligibility==
Because the Vice President may have to become the President, he or she must be qualified to be President, meaning they be a natural born U.S. citizen; they must be 35 years old; and they must have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 (consecutive?) years.

==Election of the Vice President==
Originally, the Vice President was the person who received the 2nd most number of votes in an Presidential Election. However, once political parties became the norm, the party at large selected the persons they wished to present for President and Vice President, and nominated them at the same time. The ballots no longer reflect an individual vote for both the President and a separate one for Vice President, but a single vote that selects both at once.
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:World History Lecture Six

2009-02-25T05:21:09Z

CWaddell:

==The New Zealand population survived by growing bananas, coconuts, yams and taro==

Where did you get this information from? The New Zealand climate does not support the growth of bananas and coconuts. the staple of Maori agriculture was the kumara (sweet potato). I don't think they had pigs either. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 08:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==End of the Byzantine Empire?==

''"The end of the Byzantine empire occurred when Mongols invaded in the 13th century, followed by the rise of the Ottoman (Muslim) Turks to power in the 14th century, who replaced the Byzantium empire with their own."''

I suspect the fact that the Byzantine Empire came to an end in the 13th century would come as a suprise to those rulers and subjects of the Empire who were still there when Constantinople fell in 1453.[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 09:50, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

== Factual Errors ==

-University of Bologna was not the first University. University of Constantinople was founded in 425 and recognized as one in 848. Islam founded numerous Universities before the University of Bologna.

-The 'tunic with a large red cross on it' was specifically the clothing of the Knights Templar, not all crusaders.

-The siege of Orleans was in 1429.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 00:19, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Five

2009-02-25T05:20:50Z

CWaddell:

Talk:World History Lecture Five

2009-02-25T05:19:37Z

CWaddell:

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2009-02-24T23:55:28Z

CWaddell: /* Specific Factual Errors */

The paragraph "Victory" reads like the USA won the 2.WW all on theire own.
The US armed forces only lost about 170.000 men in europe. If you compare that to the 13.000.000 soldiers, who died fighting for the soviet union, this is hardly anything.
The USA might have done a big chunk of the work, when it comes to financial help for the the allies, but claiming that American soldiers defeated Germany without mentioning all the other nations lossing millions of lives in the struggle against the third reich, is just wrong! - [[User:MolotoK|MolotoK]] 14:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Italy ==
'' In October 1922, the Fascists or “Black Shirts” protested in Rome, demanding that King Victor Emmanuel abdicate in favor of Mussolini. The king did step down and Mussolini became Il Duce, the leader of Italy.''

This is incorrect. The March on Rome did not seek the abdication of Victor Emmanuel, nor did he abdicate; but he did makle Mussolini head of government. VEII was still on the throne and dismissed Mussolini in 1943. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

''In 1937, Japan invaded China, and Japan invaded northern and central China. It sacked the Chinese capital of Nanjing, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians. Jiang Jieshi fled to the west while Mao Zedong’s guerilla fighters stayed to combat the Japanese.''

Tut, tut, tut. I'm surprised at you of all people peddling this line. That the CCP stood and fought the Japanese while the Nationalists either fled or held back waiting for the post-war conflict is a staplke of Communist historiography. Objective assessments have found that both Communist and Nationalist forces fought bravely against the Japanese (there were Nationalist guerillas as well as 'conventional' forces), with successes and failures, but that the Nationalists were more successful and more active than the 'conventional wisdom' has it and the Communists less so. The Communists were just better at getting their message across. There was also an element of both sides holding back forces to face each other rather than the Japanese - ''vide'' the New Fourth Army incident of 1941. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Britain not England==
We live in the United Kingdom. Occasionally, it is called Britain. "England" however, is merely one part of the union, and is incorrect. I don't refer to the US as Texas, although sometimes it seems like it. [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 06:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==George Orwell==
While George Orwell WAS fighting on the side of the republican government, he wasn't fighting for them. He was a member of the socialist POUM (Workers' Party for Marxist unification) militia. the Communists who had power in the Republican government were Stalinists and were therefore against the POUM who was more aligned with Trotsky. the fighting referred to here was between the Republican government and the communists on one side, and the anarchists and anti-stalin POUM on the other. so while Orwell did fight against the Communists, it was not on the side of the government.

--[[User:DaveClark|Dave Clark]]

== WWII and Korean War ==
Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around.

I agree with MolotoK - you say "just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again," but hardly mention the four straight years of fighting on the Eastern front, where most of the German army was. You make it seem as if George Patton single-handedly won World War II.

"General MacArthur wanted to defeat them also, but President Truman refused and fired MacArthur." This should probably be clarified to point out that MacArthur wanted to expand the war into a general nuclear confrontation, and then was publicly insubordinate, it's a bit misleading.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 22:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Mistakes ==

*You seem to suggest that the Soviet Union conquered Finland, in fact they annexed just a few border regions.
*The British did not fortify the Maginot Line, that was solely the job of the French.
*You should specify that the Vichy regime controlled only part of France that was not directly occupied by Germany.
*The Free French continued to fight beyond the liberation of Paris, your wording implies they simply stopped at this point.
*Operation Sea lion was the name of the proposed invasion of Britain, not the bombing beforehand, and it was of course never put into action.
*I think you oversimplify the invasions of the Balkans and Greece when you say that Germany ‘simply invaded them and conquered them’
*You call the Soviet Army the ‘most vicious’ without anything to support such an assertion.
*You say ‘Russians never surrender’, whilst of course in the Leningrad case in particular they showed extreme resilience, masses of Russian POWs were taken during the war.
*Mengele’s Ph.D was not based on Darwinian Evolution.
*You fail to mention some of the key events in the intelligence war, the capture of Enigma machines and codes of which there are several examples.
*Your claims about Peral Harbour being known about have only some truth to them. Certainly there were many signs that should have been picked up on, but they were not. This was largely due to mistakes lower down the chain of command. If I remember rightly the raid was picked up on radar but was wrongly assumed by some/someone to have been a group of US planes.
*I think your claim about the Coral Sea is slightly wrong. It was the first naval battle when the opposing ships never sighted each other, but carrier planes had been used in earlier months.
*You also fail to mention a key intelligence trick the US used in order to determine that an attack on Midway was about to take place.
*You seem to imply that the US forces were involved in the Battle of El Alamein, which is incorrect.
*You seem to have some rather dubious criticisms of Truman, the fact that he enjoyed playing cards is completely irrelevant to anything else in the lecture, and to say he ws out of his depth seems to be more your personal opinion than the general consensus amongst historians.
*Your statement “Just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again” seems to omit any reference to the huge sacrifices made by the other Allies, especially the Soviet Union.
*Operation Overlord was the name for the invasion of Normandy and the establishment of a foothold, not a catch-all term for liberating the whole of continental Europe.
*D-Day was the largest amphibious invasion of all time, but not the largest ever invasion.
*”There were so many ships and people in the ocean that it obscured the water below” is more a poetic description than a fact, as should be clarified.
*You also clearly state that the Americans overpowerd the D-day defenders, without mentioning that of the 5 landing beaches 2 were taken by the British and 1 by the Canadians.
*You fail to mention the distinctive tactics used by Patton which played the greatest role in his success.
*You very much oversimplify the German resistance by saying they were simply routed everywhere.
*Patton did not simply ‘roll through France, Belgium, Luxembourg etc’, especially since his line of advance was south of that. It was only with the Battle of the Bulge that he moved north.
*You completely fail to mention any other commanders, and omit massive operations such as Marketgarden.
*It was the Free French forces who originally entered the city, not the Americans.
*You vastly oversimplify the implications of allowing Patton to continue, which would have essentially led to war with the Soviet Union.
*The Enola Gay was the name of one specific plane that dropped the 1st atomic bomb, not the name of all the planes involved.
*Josef Mengele did not simply flee to Brazil, in fact he did not do so until 1949.
*You fail to mention the US opposition to Soviet help against Japan, and imply Roosevelt was completely for it.
*The Berlin airlift began in June 1948 and ran into 1949, not 1949 – 1950 as you claim.
*You seem to imply that Kennedy was somehow lazy or negligent regarding the building of the wall. Although nothing practical was done, it was not really feasible for the US to actively oppose the wall’s construction, with actual intervention surely leading to war.
*You seem to suggest the development of ICBMs somehow helped the development of spying, which makes little sense.
*The U2 spy plane was shot down and did not simply ‘fall to earth’.
*You fail to mention that the pilot was released as part of a prisoner swap.
*You seem to imply that Truman stopped MacArthur from achieving victory in the Korean War. MacArthur was fired because he wanted to use nuclear weapons against China!
*Your statement that China is completely communist is not true, China is actually quite open to the free market these days and becoming more so. It is almost certainly true that there is no such thing as a ‘true communist’ country since none have ever lived up to Marx’s actual aims.

*I would also add that 'England' should read 'UK', through normally Britain will suffice. To simply refer to England downplays the contribution of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish.

These are just the ones where I could actually identify factual errors, and there may be others. In general you seem to oversimplify non-American activities, particularly in WWII. Although I respect the fact that this is predominantly a US resource it is a World History course. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

== Specific Factual Errors ==

Specific Factual Errors with no room for interpretation:

-The Italian Conquest of Ethiopia took until 1936 (war began in 35, continued through beginning of next year).

-The discussion of the formation of the Axis Powers is a bit off. Germany/Italy signed a treaty in Oct. 1936 and Germany/Japan in November 1936, but the three were not joined as one until Nov. 1937.

-The Russians only took some border territory from Finland, not the entire country.

-The Germans took control of northern France, and ''Southern France'' became the Vichy government.

-Operation Sea Lion was the plan to invade England. Operation Eagle was the aerial campaign.

-Operation Overlord refers merely to the invasion of Europe, not the entire retaking.

-Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945. May 7 was the signing of the Surrender, and May 8 was the end of operations, or what is celebrated as V-E day.

-Yugoslavia was thrown out of the Comintern by Stalin in 1948; it was not "controlled by the Soviet Union"

-The Berlin Airlift was from June 25, 1948 to September 30, 1949.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 18:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2009-02-24T23:54:49Z

CWaddell:

The paragraph "Victory" reads like the USA won the 2.WW all on theire own.
The US armed forces only lost about 170.000 men in europe. If you compare that to the 13.000.000 soldiers, who died fighting for the soviet union, this is hardly anything.
The USA might have done a big chunk of the work, when it comes to financial help for the the allies, but claiming that American soldiers defeated Germany without mentioning all the other nations lossing millions of lives in the struggle against the third reich, is just wrong! - [[User:MolotoK|MolotoK]] 14:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Italy ==
'' In October 1922, the Fascists or “Black Shirts” protested in Rome, demanding that King Victor Emmanuel abdicate in favor of Mussolini. The king did step down and Mussolini became Il Duce, the leader of Italy.''

This is incorrect. The March on Rome did not seek the abdication of Victor Emmanuel, nor did he abdicate; but he did makle Mussolini head of government. VEII was still on the throne and dismissed Mussolini in 1943. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

''In 1937, Japan invaded China, and Japan invaded northern and central China. It sacked the Chinese capital of Nanjing, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians. Jiang Jieshi fled to the west while Mao Zedong’s guerilla fighters stayed to combat the Japanese.''

Tut, tut, tut. I'm surprised at you of all people peddling this line. That the CCP stood and fought the Japanese while the Nationalists either fled or held back waiting for the post-war conflict is a staplke of Communist historiography. Objective assessments have found that both Communist and Nationalist forces fought bravely against the Japanese (there were Nationalist guerillas as well as 'conventional' forces), with successes and failures, but that the Nationalists were more successful and more active than the 'conventional wisdom' has it and the Communists less so. The Communists were just better at getting their message across. There was also an element of both sides holding back forces to face each other rather than the Japanese - ''vide'' the New Fourth Army incident of 1941. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Britain not England==
We live in the United Kingdom. Occasionally, it is called Britain. "England" however, is merely one part of the union, and is incorrect. I don't refer to the US as Texas, although sometimes it seems like it. [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 06:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==George Orwell==
While George Orwell WAS fighting on the side of the republican government, he wasn't fighting for them. He was a member of the socialist POUM (Workers' Party for Marxist unification) militia. the Communists who had power in the Republican government were Stalinists and were therefore against the POUM who was more aligned with Trotsky. the fighting referred to here was between the Republican government and the communists on one side, and the anarchists and anti-stalin POUM on the other. so while Orwell did fight against the Communists, it was not on the side of the government.

--[[User:DaveClark|Dave Clark]]

== WWII and Korean War ==
Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around.

I agree with MolotoK - you say "just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again," but hardly mention the four straight years of fighting on the Eastern front, where most of the German army was. You make it seem as if George Patton single-handedly won World War II.

"General MacArthur wanted to defeat them also, but President Truman refused and fired MacArthur." This should probably be clarified to point out that MacArthur wanted to expand the war into a general nuclear confrontation, and then was publicly insubordinate, it's a bit misleading.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 22:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Mistakes ==

*You seem to suggest that the Soviet Union conquered Finland, in fact they annexed just a few border regions.
*The British did not fortify the Maginot Line, that was solely the job of the French.
*You should specify that the Vichy regime controlled only part of France that was not directly occupied by Germany.
*The Free French continued to fight beyond the liberation of Paris, your wording implies they simply stopped at this point.
*Operation Sea lion was the name of the proposed invasion of Britain, not the bombing beforehand, and it was of course never put into action.
*I think you oversimplify the invasions of the Balkans and Greece when you say that Germany ‘simply invaded them and conquered them’
*You call the Soviet Army the ‘most vicious’ without anything to support such an assertion.
*You say ‘Russians never surrender’, whilst of course in the Leningrad case in particular they showed extreme resilience, masses of Russian POWs were taken during the war.
*Mengele’s Ph.D was not based on Darwinian Evolution.
*You fail to mention some of the key events in the intelligence war, the capture of Enigma machines and codes of which there are several examples.
*Your claims about Peral Harbour being known about have only some truth to them. Certainly there were many signs that should have been picked up on, but they were not. This was largely due to mistakes lower down the chain of command. If I remember rightly the raid was picked up on radar but was wrongly assumed by some/someone to have been a group of US planes.
*I think your claim about the Coral Sea is slightly wrong. It was the first naval battle when the opposing ships never sighted each other, but carrier planes had been used in earlier months.
*You also fail to mention a key intelligence trick the US used in order to determine that an attack on Midway was about to take place.
*You seem to imply that the US forces were involved in the Battle of El Alamein, which is incorrect.
*You seem to have some rather dubious criticisms of Truman, the fact that he enjoyed playing cards is completely irrelevant to anything else in the lecture, and to say he ws out of his depth seems to be more your personal opinion than the general consensus amongst historians.
*Your statement “Just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again” seems to omit any reference to the huge sacrifices made by the other Allies, especially the Soviet Union.
*Operation Overlord was the name for the invasion of Normandy and the establishment of a foothold, not a catch-all term for liberating the whole of continental Europe.
*D-Day was the largest amphibious invasion of all time, but not the largest ever invasion.
*”There were so many ships and people in the ocean that it obscured the water below” is more a poetic description than a fact, as should be clarified.
*You also clearly state that the Americans overpowerd the D-day defenders, without mentioning that of the 5 landing beaches 2 were taken by the British and 1 by the Canadians.
*You fail to mention the distinctive tactics used by Patton which played the greatest role in his success.
*You very much oversimplify the German resistance by saying they were simply routed everywhere.
*Patton did not simply ‘roll through France, Belgium, Luxembourg etc’, especially since his line of advance was south of that. It was only with the Battle of the Bulge that he moved north.
*You completely fail to mention any other commanders, and omit massive operations such as Marketgarden.
*It was the Free French forces who originally entered the city, not the Americans.
*You vastly oversimplify the implications of allowing Patton to continue, which would have essentially led to war with the Soviet Union.
*The Enola Gay was the name of one specific plane that dropped the 1st atomic bomb, not the name of all the planes involved.
*Josef Mengele did not simply flee to Brazil, in fact he did not do so until 1949.
*You fail to mention the US opposition to Soviet help against Japan, and imply Roosevelt was completely for it.
*The Berlin airlift began in June 1948 and ran into 1949, not 1949 – 1950 as you claim.
*You seem to imply that Kennedy was somehow lazy or negligent regarding the building of the wall. Although nothing practical was done, it was not really feasible for the US to actively oppose the wall’s construction, with actual intervention surely leading to war.
*You seem to suggest the development of ICBMs somehow helped the development of spying, which makes little sense.
*The U2 spy plane was shot down and did not simply ‘fall to earth’.
*You fail to mention that the pilot was released as part of a prisoner swap.
*You seem to imply that Truman stopped MacArthur from achieving victory in the Korean War. MacArthur was fired because he wanted to use nuclear weapons against China!
*Your statement that China is completely communist is not true, China is actually quite open to the free market these days and becoming more so. It is almost certainly true that there is no such thing as a ‘true communist’ country since none have ever lived up to Marx’s actual aims.

*I would also add that 'England' should read 'UK', through normally Britain will suffice. To simply refer to England downplays the contribution of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish.

These are just the ones where I could actually identify factual errors, and there may be others. In general you seem to oversimplify non-American activities, particularly in WWII. Although I respect the fact that this is predominantly a US resource it is a World History course. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

== Specific Factual Errors ==

Specific Factual Errors with no room for interpretation:

-The Italian Conquest of Ethiopia took until 1936 (war began in 35, continued through beginning of next year).
-The discussion of the formation of the Axis Powers is a bit off. Germany/Italy signed a treaty in Oct. 1936 and Germany/Japan in November 1936, but the three were not joined as one until Nov. 1937.
-The Russians only took some border territory from Finland, not the entire country.
-The Germans took control of northern France, and ''Southern France'' became the Vichy government.
-Operation Sea Lion was the plan to invade England. Operation Eagle was the aerial campaign.
-Operation Overlord refers merely to the invasion of Europe, not the entire retaking.
-Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945. May 7 was the signing of the Surrender, and May 8 was the end of operations, or what is celebrated as V-E day.
-Yugoslavia was thrown out of the Comintern by Stalin in 1948; it was not "controlled by the Soviet Union"
-The Berlin Airlift was from June 25, 1948 to September 30, 1949.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 18:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2009-02-24T04:41:07Z

CWaddell:

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Universal education has been provided from public funds in Scotland since about 1570. England caught up with the Education Act in 1870 and many towns and villages, including the one I live in, have state schools which are much older than that (early 19th century in our case). So as J00ni says, this statement is specific to the USA.
:::In any case, as AliceBG says, so what? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

:::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dark Ages ==

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
::2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:::WaZi is correct. I've deleted this statement. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Conservative denials about history==
If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Misnamed ==

I always thought that it was called the "guilded age" because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

==Status==
''That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship.'' I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

: "Status" is not the same as "contributions". Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on "status" than they do now? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: My personal experience as a teacher of over 6 years, and as a student. There is more focus today on who held what position, rather than who accomplished what. I welcome anyone who has old textbooks to see how much more attention was paid to folks like Thomas Edison in the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Amerindians & Asians ==

The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Specific Denials ==
1. First of all, your source is "www.floridareenactorsonline.com." A history professor would laugh at you while writing a massive F if you used this as a source. Not that its facts are necessarily wrong. Northern merchants were almost certainly involved in the slave trade. The article does not attempt to make any connection between separation of church and state and the slave trade; in fact, its discussion of Rhode Island concentrates mainly on the pre-Revolution era, so describing it as a state in the essay is an anachronism.
2. Thomas Jefferson may not have been the single most successful president ever, but he did engineer the Louisiana Purchase and win the first Barbary War. As for important, his extensive political writings were fundamental in early American political thought. He also did write the first drafts of the Declaration, and most of his material remained in the final copy.
3. Not really sure what this means. How would this be taught in a history class? I assume you're talking about gender courtesies, not an archaic system of aristocratic hierarchy, but even these gender interactions are based around specific social and economic circumstances, and these are commonly addressed by history books. To simply teach that "chivalry was customary" tells the student nothing about history.
4. Quite frankly, so what? In general, the Grant era was corrupt on all counts. I assume this is some assertion that liberals hide all the Democrats' faults, but most liberals assert that the parties of the late 19th century are vastly different from today's, so the point is moot.
5. It did create tremendous prosperity, but it did this through the toil of an underclass that could rarely hope to see the fruits of their labors. The lack of regulation did allow for unprecedented growth, but at the expense of average people.
6. As other people have pointed out, so what? Lots of things are less than 100 years old, and they're perfectly fine. Glorification of traditionalism is not always a good thing.
7. Teaching it as purely "atheist materialism" is, as with much of these points, a vast oversimplification that does the student a disservice. The Holocaust has vast and complicated roots that are well studied and cannot be boiled down to simply "atheist materialism." Traditionally, this point is used to demonstrate how evil "Atheism" (and more specifically, "Darwinism") is, but that's not a very good, logical argument. An idea's misuse does not make it wrong; I'm sure you would agree anytime I point out some evil act a Christian has perpetrated with the defense "well they're not real Christians." Misapplication of an idea (and I'll let others get into more depth on how innacurate it is even to say it's an application of the idea) does not make the idea wrong.
9. Not once in my extensive liberal education was I tought that Lenin was a good dude. You're going to need to cite where this is denied.
10. I'll refer you back to point seven here. I could just as easily say "The KKK, with its insistence on authority, was a right-wing doctrine."
--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2009-02-24T03:32:35Z

CWaddell:

Talk:World History Lecture Eight

2009-02-24T02:51:30Z

CWaddell:

Just thought I would point out that the slave trade is not considered part of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian exchange, also known as the great biological exchange, dealt with plants, animals, and pathogens. See for example, Alfred Crosby, ''The Columbian Exchange'' (1972)

== Hume ==

There are a number of errors in the "Enlightenment" section, but I'd like to focus on the errors relating to Hume. First of all, presenting Hume as a sceptic towards religion, while absolutely true, is an understatement. Hume was sceptical of ''everything'' beyond experience, even those things (such as continuity and causation) which previous philosophers had taken for granted. Secondly, it is entirely untrue to claim that there were so few great English philosophers, whether that means English speaking or born in England (hopefully it doesn't mean the latter, because Hume was of course Scottish). Hume is considered one of the greatest not because he has so few peers, but because, surprisingly enough, he was a brilliant philosopher. Thirdly the claim that Hume's chief claim to fame is that he influenced Darwin is utterly absurd. His claim to fame is that he gave the finest statement of empiricism and made important criticisms of philosophy's attempts to understand metaphysics. The fact that he influenced Darwin may be important, but is not even well known. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections ==

The caravel wasn't notable so much for its cargo ability (in the spice trade it was replaced by other, heavier ships) but its speed and manueverability in shallow water.

"Known as the 'reconquista', this was accomplished first through the reconquest of Granada" - the Reconquista had been going on for hundreds of years, it didn't begin with the capture of Granada.

Magellan's voyage didn't lead to ownership of Mexico and Peru. Cortes claimed Mexico for Spain in March 1519. Magellan sailed from Spain in August 1519.

"Giving them a bunch of blankets exposed to the deadly germ" almost certainly is not true for the time period discussed - it implies a knowledge of disease far beyond the 16th century. The few semi-documented cases come from the mid-late 18th century. Disease was the major killer of natives, but not through conscious infection through smallpox.

Philip II reigned from 1556-1598, not 1638-1715. The Dutch Revolt began in 1568. 1579 was the creation of the Union of Utrecht.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 21:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)