Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-05-09T16:31:34Z

RichardD: /* Teflon */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS:<br>Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, <br>At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:::Apologies for coming in on this debate so late, but I am a student of Theatre and I would like to put my two cents in. It's certainly not a sign of stupidity to question the origins of comedic humor. Like anything else, everything has an origin and the birth of Christianity is just as good a measuring stick as any other.

:::That being said, I do indeed believe that humor as it has been defined here predates Christianity. The plays of Plautus and Terrence especially come to mind. Mr. Schlafly, you cited specifically the film ''Trading Places'', yes? Well one of the Roman Plautus's more well known plays, ''Menaechmi'' is similar in wit and predates the birth of Christ by...I believe around two hundred years, though I could be wrong on the exact number. It specifically deals with a pair of estranged twins and ultimately draws it's comedy from their machinations when the come together in Sicily and one twin's wife mistakes the other for her husband while her real husband is getting back at her by giving away some of her belongings to a prostitute. It is a play whose intention is to evoke laughter and gaiety through use of situational irony and circumstance. The "mistaken identity" theme is a widely recognized hallmark of humor and the play was later adapted by William Shakespeare in "A Comedy of Errors". This is only a single example and if it is insufficient to convince you then I can provide more. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 12:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'm not familiar with that work and welcome specific "humor" that you think is in it. I caution you, however, against automatically assuming that the play must have been intended to be "humor" as "Trading Places" is. Most ancient "comedies" were not really "humor" in the modern sense of the word, but were charming poetry. "To err is human; to forgive divine" could have been in a "comedy" in the ancient sense of the term, but it is not "humor".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:33, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::As I said before, I am a student of Theatre. I am familiar with the varying definition of comedy, especially in regards to the history of the playwright. On the whole being designated a "comedy" as laid down in Aristotle's "Poetics" only meant that it was not a tragedy: meaning that the protagonist did not ultimately fall victim to his tragic flaw or hamartia as is necessary in a tragedy. Indeed, a comedy in the theatrical sense is not by necessarily "funny", however, a play intended to be funny would still fall under the category of comedy. What I provide is not only a comedy in the classical sense, but a comedy explicitly intended to be funny and, furthermore, primarily through the use of wit and situation rather than explicitly through vulgarity and slapstick. [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dintro%3Ascene%3Dsubject here is a text, translated from it's original latin] that I managed to find. The first lines of act one, scene one have the character Peniculus explaining that his friends call him "The Sponge" because of his enormous apatite and ability to seemingly absorb food and clean a table. This becomes a bit of a running gag with lines such as between one of the characters and her servant when she sends the servant with some money to get food. She says basically "We need food for three people" to which the servant replies "Who's eating" when he learns that the list of three includes Peniculus he states "So I'll need enough money to get food for ten people then." This is just one example of a "gag" within the script. Much of the humor comes from the characters comentary on the action which is given directly to the audience. The relationship between Menaechmus and his wife, for instance is another source of humor and is reminiscent of "The Honeymooners". At one point Menaechmus tells his consort that he spent a fairly large amount of money on some clothes for his wife, prompting Peniculus to say sadly to the audience "And that's good money he'll never see again...". These are just some examples from the first act. The overall plot of the show, as I said before, involves what has become one of the most prevalent comedic devices of mistaken identity to drive the plot.

:::::The notes provided in the translation occasionally point out various terms that while not readily apparent "where meant to make the audience laugh". Plautus also helped to pioneer the various comedic stereotypes which would eventually become the basis for the Italian Comedia Del Arte and later would be exploited by Shakespeare and persist even today. These include: The crafty servant, The pompous, ego-inflated general, the buffoonish erudite, the elderly lech, the idiotic lover, and others. Most of these archetypes can be seen in "The Taming of the Shrew" as a matter of fact, relatively unchanged from the base of their inception. I could go further into a discussion regarding this play if you wish, though we are quickly approaching the level of research paper and most of the info can be found in the link I provided above. I believe it meets all of the criteria for being considered true humor. It is not based around physical slapstick or vulgarity, it's intention is to make the audience laugh, it utilizes an acknowledged comedic device as a plot driver, and it is verified as predating Christianity (Plautus is believed to have died around 184 B.C.). Again, if this one play is insufficient, then I could provide more evidence. I apologize for the length of this post, but I do love discusing Theatre and while brevity may be the soul of wit, I am not claiming to be witty...just that this play is witty :)--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 14:01, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

=== Connection between humour and Christianity? ===

Please could someone explain why there is supposed to be a connection between humour and Christianity? i.e. why are you asking the question about whether or not humour existed before Christ? I genuinely don't understand the basis of the supposed connection. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 19:56, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. <br>
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Robert, you learn about the defense of entrapment, as used successfully in the criminal defense of John DeLorean a few decades ago. "Manufactured" plots are not the same as real ones. Cecil may have misled and exploited some useful idiots who never would have done something like that on their own.

::::: Maybe you think John DeLorean should have been found guilty in his trial, but the jurors felt otherwise. He was entrapped to fabricate a crime that never would have happened otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

=== Guy Fawkes ===

The question is a little odd: "Did Guy Fawkes really create the Gunpowder Plot?" The answer is well-known: the plot was hatched by a group of Catholic nobles and gentlemen from the Midlands, who recruited Fawkes to set off the explosives. Fawkes was a soldier and an expert on explosives an also a highly committed Catholic, so he was an ideal man for the job.

Andy, you seem to have doubts about the reality of the Gunpowder Plot. If you visit England, I strongly recommend a visit to Coughton Court, near Alcester, Warwickshire, the ancestral home of the Throckmorton family. The Throckmortons were one of several Catholic noble families in the Midlands who refused to convert to the Protestant religion and were connected by marriage or business to all the Gunpowder Plotters except Fawkes. There's an excellent little exhibition there about the Gunpowder Plot and the role in it of the closely-connected Catholic noble familes of Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. There are other fascinating features, such as several priest holes, a Catholic altar concealed in an item of furniture and a tapestry incorporating a secret code to show the location of Catholic priests in the Midlands. [[User:JosephMac|JosephMac]] 20:09, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== Language of Jesus ==

Is that really so mysterious? It seems obvious that He'd use whatever language His listeners best understood, and in first-century Palestine that would be Aramaic most of the time, with maybe occasional Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. I for one was (and remain) unaware of any significant controversy over this. [[User:Tattersalt|Tattersalt]] 18:18, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your statement is not persuasive. One might expect Jesus to teach in the language that best articulated the concepts, for example. For hundreds of years the Bible was read in Latin, even though that was not the language that many readers "best understood."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

== Teflon ==

Teflon was never invented by NASA, but rather by a guy named Roy Plunkett by mistake. [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/kids/calendar/kidfeb.htm] [http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/mar/05/business/chi-0703050135mar05] Patent was filed in 1941 while NASA was founded in 1958. [http://history.nasa.gov/] [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 22:27, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

: Could be. Note that space program promoters often claim that the space program discovered Teflon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:26, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

:: All I know is that NASA itself does not say that it invented Teflon. [http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/f_apollo_11_spinoff.html] I really think this is just an urban legend. You know how these things get started Andy, I get plenty of them in my inbox every month. Unfortunately people don't investigate these chain emails, it is a BIG pet peeve of mine when I get them. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 11:55, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

::: It is as ameda says - it is not really a mystery, more a common misconception. [[User:RichardD|RichardD]] 12:04, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

::::I'd have to agree. You know they didn't invent it; I know they didn't invent it. That means it's not a mystery. Ignorance, perhaps, or deception on the part of those spreading the claim, but not a mystery. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:07, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: That's illuminating, but it leaves the mystery of why this falsehood is so widely taught. None of the comments above shed light on that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:16, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I prefer to think of it as showing how Conservapedia's userbase has an above-average intelligence! [[User:RichardD|RichardD]] 12:31, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-05-09T16:04:56Z

RichardD: /* Teflon */

Bromine

2009-05-09T16:03:32Z

RichardD: formatting

{{Element | name=Bromine | symbol=Br | anumber=35 | amass=79.9 amu | noe=35 | class=Halogen | cstructure=Orthorhombic | color=Red | date=1826 | discname=[[Antoine J. Balard ]] | origname=From the Greek ''bromos''. | uses= fire retardants, ingredients in bug and fungus sprays, antiknock compounds in leaded gasoline, and oil-well completion fluids. The remainder, as elemental bromine, is shipped to various chemical processors for use in chemical reagents, disinfectants, photographic preparations and chemicals, solvents, water-treatment compounds, dyes, insulating foam, and hair-care products. | obtained=Ocean Water & any brine source.}}
'''Bromine''' has the atomic number 35. Like [[chlorine]], it is a [[halogen]] that easily reacts with other elements. In nature bromine can only be found in compounds. These combinations are called bromides. Bromides are used to obtain pure bromine and to produce bromine products. After [[fluorine]], bromine is the most reactive element. It reacts with many different substances, is very corrosive and destructive of organic material.

Bromine is the only non-metallic element that is liquid at room temperature and standard pressure. It is a red liquid that easily evaporates and smells. Bromine is approximately 3,12 times heavier than water. At temperatures of 58,8 °C it becomes gaseous & at –7,3 °C and lower temperatures it is a solid.

Solid bromine (due to the high pressure) can be found floating in suspension in ocean water over three miles deep in areas where the aquaeous concentration of bromine is high enough - this is harvested by humans when the currents move it closer to the shore. Clams also use bromine to help make their shells, as with calcium carbonate. The Greeks extracted bromine by a process known as 'clamscrubbification' (in much the same way as dye was extracted from molluscs on the island of Lesbos), as they lacked the modern methods of harvesting it from the ocean water itself.

Bromine is a bleach. It is poisonous in fluid form and bromine vapor is destructive of human skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It causes serious burns. A concentration of 1 ppm can cause eye watering and when inhalation of concentrations below 10 ppm occurs, one starts to cough and the respiratory tracts are irritated.<ref>[http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/bromine/130300.pdf U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries]</ref><ref>[http://www.the-innovation-group.com/ChemProfiles/Bromine.htm Bromine Chemical Profile]</ref><ref>[http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4514 State of Arkansas Encyclopedia: Bromine]</ref><ref>[http://www.geology.ar.gov/minerals/industrial_miner_a_d.htm#bromine State of Arkansas: Bromine]</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

Bromine

2009-05-09T16:03:08Z

RichardD:

World History Lecture Fourteen

2009-05-08T18:34:11Z

RichardD: /* 9/11 */ Remove insulting Americo-centrism. People of other nationalities are dying too.

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

Our journey through world history reaches the present in this final lecture.

The Christian population has steady increased from 0% in 6 B.C. to 33% today. Although Christians have always been a minority in the world, this minority has led the world in accomplishments and achievements. Ask yourself as you complete this course: What is the future for Christianity?

==World Trade==

One word sums up most historians’ view of the world today: “globalism”. That was not even a word 20 years ago. “Globalism” means treating the world as one political unit, as one massive village. Distances appear to be shortening between people, cultures and nations. Travel is more affordable for more people. Mobility is greater. Trade among nations is larger. Television and the internet link the world’s population of six or so billion people like never before.

One [[invention]] in late 1947 made most of this possible. Three scientists invented the [[transistor]] at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey (exit 44 on I-78, near Berkeley Heights). This tiny invention brought about a massive revolution in [[computer]]s and communications. With improvements, the transistor permitted microelectronic control and amplification of signals. This greatly advanced communication, as in radio, television, telephone and later the internet. This also permitted the storage of massive amounts of information, as in computers. Bell Labs, then part of AT&T, made this invention available to the entire world. Soon transistors replaced vacuum tubes in radios and televisions, enabling them to work better. The Japanese flooded the market with improved products.

[[Apple Computer]] sold a personal computer for home use in the late 1970s and, in 1981, [[IBM]] introduced its own personal computer. Time magazine declared the personal (or home) computer to be “Man of the Year” for 1982. Fifteen years later the internet became popular for connecting computers. In 2000, presidential candidate Al Gore attempted to take credit for helping create the internet, and the world ridiculed him. No politician, and certainly not Al Gore, can take credit for all this.

Other inventions also helped improve the world. The invention of plastics enabled the mass production of inexpensive goods, everything from drinking cups to watches to car and airplane furnishings. Robotics lowered the cost of manufacturing for everything. In the [[United States of America|United States]] unions resisted some of these changes. The Japanese companies, benefiting from cheaper labor and lack of unions, surpassed American companies in many industries. Economic problems later caught up with [[Japan]] in the early 1990s, but even today its car industry (especially Toyota) does better than Detroit car manufacturers. Voluntary import quotas have kept Japanese car imports lower than they would be without any trade barriers, and the Japanese began expensive selling luxury cars (such as the Lexus) as a way of making more money with fewer products.

In addition to Japan, other [[Asia]]n nations also thrived after World War II. The “Four Tigers” are the prosperous Pacific Rim nations of [[South Korea]], [[Taiwan]], [[Singapore]] and [[Hong Kong]]. (Hong Kong is now part of communist China but is allowed to remain free until at least the middle of the 21st century.) Even communist China has grown stronger economically by trading with the United States. Malaysia and other Asian nations have prospered too.

The world today has numerous “multinational” companies having offices in many different countries. Many American companies now have offices or factories even in communist China now. These multinational companies are attracted by the low wages and inexpensive raw materials, and by the opportunity to sell their products there. Increased regulation and taxes in America also encourage companies to transfer to their jobs to foreign countries, where there is less regulation and fewer lawsuits.

===Trade===

Beginning soon after the end of World War II, the western nations discussed agreements to reduce tariffs for trade among themselves. In 1947, they entered into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in order to decrease tariffs that interfered with trade. This marked a significant change from how nations had used tariffs in the past to protect their domestic industries and raise revenue. Under GATT, western countries first froze the tariffs (preventing them from increasing) and later began reducing the tariffs. In 1995, this approach was taken one step further with the World Trade Organization (WTO), which included non-western countries and also established international courts for deciding trade disputes among nations. There are 150 members of the WTO today, and Vietnam (which the communists won by war in the 1970s) joined the WTO in 2007.
[[File:European Union.jpg|right]]
Western European nations also joined the European Common Market after World War II, and then in 1958 joined the European Economic Community (EEC) to reduce tariffs among themselves. The EEC later became the European Union (EU), which includes all Western European countries except Switzerland, which has never joined anything and fiercely defends its independence, Iceland, and Norway. In 2002, all of EU began using a common currency known as the “euro”, except for Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, which still use their own currencies. In 2004, many Eastern European nations also joined the EU. A map of the EU is to the right.

The large Muslim nation of Turkey has requested to join the EU. One opponent is the new Pope Benedict XVI of the Catholic Church, who succeeded Pope John Paul II in 2005 upon his death. Pope Benedict has emphasized the need to keep Europe Christian, and he sparked Muslim riots in late 2006 when he repeated a provocative quote about Islam. One of President Barack Obama’s most significant statements after his election was to call for the inclusion of Turkey in the EU.

North America has also created a free trade zone (free from tariffs) with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was never ratified by the Senate as a treaty but which Congress passed into law anyway. NAFTA establishes international courts that have already been used to force the United States to open its borders to Mexican trucks, which are less safe than American ones. The importation of drugs into the United States from Mexico has increased since NAFTA went into effect.

There are other free trade zones. LAFTA is the Latin American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1961, and replaced in 1981 by the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI). ALADI has not been very successful and therefore several Latin American countries decided to form new free trade zones. The most successful free trade zone in Latin America is the South American Common Market (Mercosur) which has Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela as members. Other trade zones in the Americas include the Andean Community, the Central American Common Market (CACM) and the Caribbean Common Market (Caricom). Supporters of these agreements assert that they help Latin American countries develop economic independence from foreign powers. There is CAFTA, a recently enacted Central American Free Trade Agreement that the United States joined. There is ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, founded in 1967 by Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines to combat communism. ASEAN signed trade agreements with Japan (1977) and the European Community (1980). All these agreements and associations seek to reduce tariffs between member states and promote so-called “free trade.”

The promotion of “free trade” has many opponents. Conservatives object to sending money to foreign countries and the resultant loss of American manufacturing jobs to near-slave labor in foreign countries. A consequence of “free trade” is an increase in illegal drugs from foreign countries into the United States, often hidden within other goods. Foreign countries, particularly China, have been putting cheaper but dangerous substitutes into goods that result in injuring Americans, including children and pets, who end up using them. Unions object to their loss of jobs that result from “free trade,” as it is cheaper to have goods manufactured outside of all the expensive regulations and lawsuits that occur in the United States. Many inside and outside the United States also object to a culture of “consumerism”, such that people are encouraged to buy more than what is healthy or necessary. Brand names like McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Nike dominate television and the culture of teenagers. “McDonaldization” is when American advertising (as in the case of McDonalds) has an influence on the world culture, causing distant children (like Chinese) to repeat a McDonald’s slogan they heard on television.

===Energy===

Americans discovered crude oil (petroleum) near Titusville, Pennsylvania, and drilled their first oil there in 1859. It began yielding 25 barrels a day.<ref>By the end of 1859 the flow of oil from this first well had slowed from 25 to 15 barrels a day.</ref> The world would never be the same again. By 1906, American oil production had reached 126 million barrels a year. Today petroleum constitutes 40% of Americans’ overall energy consumption in the United States, with coal being the other big source of energy. Most of the cheap, readily accessible oil in the world is under the control of Muslims in the Middle East.

To keep the price of oil higher than it would be in a free market, Middle Eastern countries formed OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in 1960. The original members were Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq and also the Latin American country of Venezuela. African and Asian countries later joined OPEC too. Angered by American support of Israel during the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, OPEC placed an embargo on the shipment of oil to the United States. Prices jumped by a multiple of four in two years, and there were many long lines and shortages at American gas stations. The worldwide economy was hurt by this shock in energy prices, aggravating a problem with inflation and unemployment late in the 1970s. Japan, which relies heavily on oil imports, was hit hard. But OPEC’s influence has steadily declined due to increased competition by other countries. Mexico and Russia have become large oil-producing nations, and they have not joined OPEC. In 2007, the net revenues from oil to OPEC nations will be about $500 billion, while the non-OPEC nations will have net oil revenues of about $225 billion. The United States imports about $170 billion-worth more of oil than it exports.

Many claim that the involvement of the United States in the Middle East is to protect the cheap oil there. In late 1990, Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait, a large oil producer. In January and February 1991, the United States (with the support of the United Nations) responded with Operation Desert Storm, and liberated Kuwait in this Gulf War. Saddam Hussein, in retreat, lit fires on the Kuwaiti oil wells and dumped two million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf. This seemed to anger environmentalists more than the loss of life! The environmentalists called this action by Saddam Hussein “environmental terrorism.”

In the late 1990s, politicians and some scientists began to cite a warming trend in the earth’s weather as evidence of a “global warming” caused by the burning of oil and the release of chlorofluorocarbons, a chemical. They blamed factory smokestacks and automobiles, and especially refrigerators and air conditioners. The loss of trees in rain forests was also supposedly a cause of global warming. Regulators began banning the use of certain chemicals in hairspray, and the Kyoto (Japan) Treaty was proposed to limit the pollution each country could generate each year. Political opposition in America prevented the United States from ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.

In the first decade of 21st century, worldwide temperatures have not increased, and in the past few years the average world temperature has actually been decreasing at a rapid rate. Proponents of “global warming” (including Al Gore) refuse to debate this, however, and insist that the science is settled in favor of their theory, and that more governmental controls of energy are needed. This is a familiar pattern by some: they always seek theories and ways to increase governmental control.

President Barack Obama has called on Congress to pass a law by the end of May 2009 to place limits on energy production, particularly the production of coal, supposedly to help reduce “global warming.”

===Technology===

Advances in communication technology, such as the internet and cell phones, have created a worldwide culture that increasingly prefers English over local languages. English is easier to type into a computer than Asian languages, for example. At the same time, the cultural varieties of distant places such as India and Southeast Asia can be appreciated more in the Western world. Restaurants featuring foreign food are prevalent across the United States now.

Technology has brought some medical advances, most notably in the expanded use of antibiotics after World War II. Physicians say that most of medicine today was discovered in the past 70 years. The modern inventions of the MRI and CAT scan have improved the ability to view the human body, and treat illness. Other modern developments, such as widespread vaccination and insecticides, are more controversial. Preventive vaccination is credited with eliminating the terrible diseases of polio and smallpox, but other, newer vaccines are opposed by many parents.

Proposals to spend taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research are controversial and open to much criticism. In Germany, where the people experienced the horrors of the medical experiments connected with the Holocaust, the people are strongly against embryonic stem cell research. Private investors show little interest in spending their own money on this even in the United States. But a political movement linked to the [[abortion]] industry demands that taxpayer money be spent on this research, without any evidence that any good will ever come of it. If embryonic stem cell research were so great, then why wouldn’t there be many private investors spending money on it?

The United Nations promotes abortion worldwide through its U.N. Fund for Population Activities. Even though the world population will peak and begin to decline in the 21st century, the promoters of abortion continue to demand more and more killing of unborn children. This is promoted using taxpayer money. The United Nations also pushes its pro-abortion agenda through the World Health Organization (WHO).

===Agriculture===

The “green revolution” was a worldwide effort to increase the food supply through better farming, particularly in undernourished regions like India and South America. By increasing the amount of farmland and obtaining better [[crop yield]] from existing farms, the food supply increased such that India began producing more food than it could even consume, and exported its surplus. Worldwide, the crops of rice, wheat and maize (corn) all increased.

Popular and easy to grow in the Asian climate, rice was historically the world's most popular crop. But maize (corn), wheat and sugar cane have surpassed rice in popularity. Here is the list of the most popular crops in the world today:

# sugar cane
# maize (corn)
# wheat
# rice
# potatoes
# sugar beets
# soybeans
# oil palm fruit
# barley
# tomatoes

Pesticides and fertilizers were used to increase production during the green revolution, and many wonder if they are harmful to our diet. A massive market has developed in “organic” goods grown without the use of pesticides. Today, there is also controversial use of genetic engineering of crops to increase crop yield (the amount of food produced per a given area).

Environmentalists complained that increased irrigation for crops has depleted ground water and an increase in the salinity of the soil. Many ground wells in the United States may be polluted from hazardous waste (such as dumped oil), or possibly from fertilizers or pesticides.

===Outer Space===

In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a “Space Race” to see who could explore and perhaps claim outer space first. In 1957, the Soviet Union shocked Americans by being the first to launch spacecraft (“Sputnik”) into orbit. The first astronaut was a dog named Laika, which sadly did not return alive. The name “Sputnik” inspired the name chosen by a hippie-like leader of a new counterculture movement in San Francisco: “beatnik”. The beatniks in the late 1950s laid the foundation for the hippies in the 1960s.

Sputnik, which was hyped in the media, alarmed some Americans, and politicians vowed not to remain in second place in this Space Race. America launched a project in the 1960s to land a man on the Moon, and used a series of spacecraft named “Apollo”. In 1969, with the immortal words “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” Astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human to walk on the Moon. Some conservatives felt that the Soviets never intended to go to the Moon themselves, but wanted Americans to waste money on the project. It’s unclear what good came of the lunar project, although it did lead to the invention of Teflon, now widely used in cooking.

The Soviet Union continued a more limited space program, and in the 1970s the two superpowers began to collaborate on docketing their spacecraft together in orbit, creating space shuttles, and even building space stations. In 1975, the Apollo spacecraft and the Soviet Soyuz successfully docked together in space.

Americans continued to explore planets with the Hubble Telescope (to explore distant space in 1990) and the Pathfinder space probe (landing on Mars in 1997). For most of the 20th century scientists (and popular movies) claimed that life must exist in outer space. Claims of life existing in outer space may have anti-Christian motivations and effects, as they tend to contradict the Christian view of the creation of life and the redemption by Jesus Christ. No extraterrestrial life has ever been found, despite all the exploration costing billions of dollars.

==Security and Terrorism==

As communications and travel make the world seem like a smaller place, security issues become more important. America can no longer rely on the vast distance of the oceans to protect herself from her enemies. A terrorist is only a few hours away by plane, or by car in crossing a border.

Terrorism is the main threat. It has existed long before the 20th century. The Crusades were a reaction to medieval terrorism in Jerusalem. The anarchist movement that began in the late 1800s, and which claimed President William McKinley as a victim (to assassination) in 1901, used terrorism. In 1920, a bomb exploded in a crowd in the Wall Street district of Manhattan, killing 40 and injuring 400. A warning note read, “Remember we will not tolerate any longer. Free the political prisoners or it will be sure death for all of you. American Anarchists Fighters.” The criminals were never caught.

Both terrorism and violent anarchism seek to disrupt and defeat authority. In 1995, a Japanese cult released poisonous nerve gas in a Tokyo subway, killing 12 and injuring thousands. In late 1996, Marxist terrorists captured and held hostages at the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru. The oldest active terrorist group in the world is the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which has attacked and bombed Britain in an attempt to force it to relinquish control of Northern Ireland.

No sane person wants a terrorist to obtain a nuclear bomb. Most developed countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 as a way of keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. India and Pakistan never signed this treaty, and in 1998 both successfully detonated nuclear explosions in tests, proving that they have atomic bombs.

===Northern Ireland===

Ireland is an island slightly northwest of England. “Northern Ireland” is in the northeastern one-sixth of the island of Ireland. Northern Ireland has about a million people, with slightly more Protestants than Catholics. It is part of the United Kingdom rather than the country of Ireland. Its Northern Ireland Assembly has 108 elected officials, of whom 59 are “Unionists” (who support remaining in the United Kingdom) and 42 are “Nationalist” (who seek joining the independent Irish Republic). The other seven do not specify their allegiance. The largest Christian denominations are Catholic, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Anglican Church of Ireland, and the Methodist Church, with the total number of Protestant members outnumbering the Catholics.

Irish rebellions against British control date back to rebellions in 1798 and 1803, and several secret Irish societies (such as the Defenders and Ribbonmen) played roles in those uprisings. There was an Irish Republican Army that fought the British at the Battle of Ridgeway. There was the Easter Rising from April 24 to 30, 1916, during which Irish rebels capture key locations in Dublin and proclaimed an Irish Republic. The British suppressed this and executed its leaders. But on 1919, the Irish Republic was declared through the efforts of its leader, Michael Collins (1890-1922). Unfortunately, Michael Collins was killed just three years later during an Irish civil war.

Northern Ireland remains in control of the British, despite the objections of the growing Catholic minority. On “Bloody Sunday” (1972), the Irish held a peaceful march for freedom in Derry, Northern Ireland. The British soldiers responded by shooting thirteen unarmed protesters dead, including six minors, and another died from the wounds a few months later. Five had been shot in the back. Army vehicles ran over two protesters. The British never punished those responsible and several songs (one by John Lennon, and other by U2) commemorate the tragedy. There is a Christian rock group that dedicates its name to the event, calling themselves “Bloody Sunday.”

This event made many Irish feel that complete independence is the only solution, and that armed revolt is the only way to achieve independence. Membership in the IRA then soared. At one point they launched missiles from a van, directed at the headquarters of the British prime minister, in the hopes of killing John Major. He escaped injury. More recently, violence in Northern Ireland has subsided, but there is no end to the controversy over whether the Protestants or Catholics should rule that northeastern corner of Ireland.

===9/11===

Islamic terrorism has long plagued the Middle East. Palestinian terrorists grabbed and murdered eleven Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, shocking the world. A suicide bomber drove a truck of explosives up to a barracks of American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, and detonated an explosion that destroyed their building, killing 241 of them in 1983. Within a year President Reagan pulled American troops out of Beirut. In March 1998, terrorists bombed American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Most suspected Osama Bin Laden as the mastermind behind these attacks.

But it was not until September 11, 2001 (9-11) that Islamic terrorism hit American soil. A group of 19 Muslims, most from Saudi Arabia, hijacked American airlines and flew one into each tower of the World Trade Center, a third into the Pentagon (probably after the pilot had trouble locating the White House from the air), and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania as the passengers attempted to retake control of the plane from the terrorists. Nearly 3,000 people died when the World Trade Center collapsed from the resulting fire, as millions watched it live on television. An outpouring of support for American followed, with only Saddam Hussein of Iraq refusing to fly his flag at half-mast at the United Nations.

Led by America, a number of nations (mostly NATO members) responded by attacking Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, after the Taliban in charge of that nation refused to hand him over. Bin Laden is the leader of the terrorist organization called al Qaeda (spellings vary in translating that name from Arabic). Bin Laden fled, but al Qaeda was broken up in Afghanistan, the Taliban was overthrown, and many of Bin Laden’s top aides were killed by the end of 2001. Although a democratic provisional government has replaced the Taliban there, the persecution of Christians continues. In 2006, one Christian was targeted for execution by the Afghanistan country merely for converting from Islam, and the United States did not intervene. International pressure causes a suspension in the punishment.

In 2003, a coalition (made up mostly of American and British soldiers, with support from various other nations) invaded Iraq after Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors of his nuclear facility and Americans feared that he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Iraq War was initially very successful for the coalition, as Baghdad was captured quicker than expected. The use of new body armor by American soldiers saved many lives that would have been lost at an earlier time. At the end of 2006 Saddam Hussein himself, after being captured by an American soldier and tried by the Iraqis, was hanged for his crimes. But in early 2007, three years after President Bush had announced victory in the war, he asked the American people to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq to try to finish the job. Terrorists there have caused a continuing stream of violence and killings for over three years.

===Migration===

In the second half of the 20th century, people increasingly migrated to the United States and Europe. In the United States, the immigrants were welcomed with jobs. In Europe, the immigrants were first welcomed with jobs and became “guest workers,” but when the jobs became scarce the governments would welcome the immigrants with welfare. Some migrated to Muslim countries in the Middle East to work on oil wells.

“Push-pull factors” caused the massive migration. The “pull factors” are those described above: better jobs and welfare. The “push factors” are poverty, violence, or religious persecution in a homeland. Hindus fled Muslim Pakistan, Afghans fled the Taliban and Cubans fled Castro. Sometimes refugee camps were necessary to take care of all the migrating people, as done in the Middle East for Palestinians and in Albania during the Kosovo crisis. Congo also established refugee camps for those fleeing from the ethnic cleansing of the tribal wars in Rwanda.

When immigrants failed to learn and speak the local language, tensions arose. By the end of the 20th century, there was growing opposition in both the United States and Europe to the large amounts of immigration.

The EU removed most internal border patrols, so people now flow freely from one country into the next, such as from Austria into Germany. The Muslim influx has been particularly high. In past centuries, churches would play a central role in integrating the immigrants into the local activities and culture. But churches, which have become largely empty in Europe anyway, cannot integrate the Muslim immigrants. In France, a politician Jean-Marie Le Pen demanded tougher controls against immigration. But the media then labeled him as a racist and he was badly defeated in the election for president in 2002. But meanwhile Islam is overtaking the Christian French culture, as the mosques are more vibrant than the churches in France now. In 2004, France desperately banned the wearing of the Muslim hijab (headscarf) girls in state schools.

Many European nations now face the controversy of whether to allow women to wear the Muslim coverings. In late 2006, the Dutch government announced its plan to ban Muslim head coverings in all public places. In Germany, many teachers are forbidden from wearing the hijab. A Belgian town banned the burqa (full-body covering) and niqab (a veil that covers only the face) entirely from its streets. In Britain, schools were allowed fire teachers for wearing face-coverings. Even in the Muslim country of Turkey, its military rulers have banned any wearing of the Muslim veil in public buildings since the 1920s, when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the modern Republic of Turkey.

Liberals are alarmed by this Muslim clothing because they frustrate the liberal desire to create a secular, atheistic society. It becomes difficult to complain about a cross somewhere when women are wearing burqas in glaring display of their faith. Also, some feminists object to the burqa as discriminatory towards women, subjugating them to an inferior position in society. Only in the sanctuary of the home do Muslim women remove their coverings.

In the United States, the largest group of immigrants is from Mexico, and they are pouring into Catholic churches. For example, Catholics comprise less than 10% of Utah’s population, which is predominantly Mormon, but an influx of immigrants from Mexico is boosting church attendance there. But much of this immigration is illegal, and has created a subculture of 12 million people – close to 5% of the American population – that is not even supposed to be here. Illegal immigrants are winning robotics science competitions and garnering top prizes at universities. Many become self-employed due to the laws making it a crime for companies to hire them as employees. Congress proposed creating a “guest worker” policy that would allow the illegal immigrants to stay. President Bush said he would build a fence to stem the tide of illegal immigration, yet much of the promised fence was never built. Those caught for illegal immigration are typically returned to Mexico, only to return again illegally to the United States. Some have gone back and forth over a dozen times. Public schools welcome illegal immigrants, and some come here to obtain free benefits like schooling and medical care. Some heinous crimes and also fatal car accidents, perhaps due to a lack of an ability to read English signs or understand traffic patterns, have been caused by illegal immigrants.

There has also been much migration within a same country. In developing countries, migration from rural areas to big cities caused huge increases in city population, and tons of pollution. Mexico City has become one of the most populated cities in the world from this type of migration. In developed countries like the United States, there is substantial migration in the opposite direction, from the city to the countryside, where it is easier to raise a family.

===Human Rights===

In Africa, ethnic cleansing plagued the nations of Rwanda (where the Tutsi minority was slaughtered by the Hutu majority) and in the Middle East, where the nomadic Kurds have been persecuted by Turks, Iranians and, most recently, Iraqis. The former Yugoslavia has also been accused of ethnic cleansing.

International, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) formed in the 1960s to combat human rights abuses. The most prominent is Amnesty International, which has sought release of political prisoners and also opposed use of the death penalty. Sometimes these groups can obtain publicity and world pressure more effectively than governments can. But these groups are often biased in what they complain about, and rarely publicize human rights abuses by communist or Islamic governments. The persecution of Christians is unlikely to generate any outrage by NGOs or the press, unless (as in Afghanistan) the persecution is an embarrassment to Republicans.

The United Nations issued a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It included in basic human rights “life, liberty, and security of person.” In the United States, Rev. Martin Luther King led a movement in the 1950s and 1960s to establish civil rights for African Americans. There were many protests and arrests, and Rev. King himself spent time in jail at one point. But he and his supporters overcame the opposition and established equal rights regardless of race. Ever since, virtually every other movement has attempted to claim authority based on this major civil rights movement. Yet some movements today that claim to be civil rights movements actually conflict with Rev. King’s own Christian goals. For example, Rev. King spoke out against the black Muslim movement, but he is almost never quoted for it.

Public praise of Christian human rights workers is also rare. An exception was in 1979, when the Nobel Prize committee broke from its own tradition and gave an award to an outwardly religious woman, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, India. She was recognized for her work on behalf of the sick and poor of India. When the government of India announced its intention to tax her award, thereby preventing her from contributing it to her work, an international outcry caused the Indian government to allow her to receive her award tax-free. When Mother Teresa died in 1997, Indians gave her a funeral with full military honors!

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:World History lectures]]

Manganese

2009-05-07T11:42:48Z

RichardD:

{{Element | name=Manganese | symbol=Mn | anumber=25 | amass=54.938 amu | noe=25 | class=Transition metal | cstructure=Cubic | density=7.440 g/cm^3 | color=Silver/Gray | stableisotopes=1 | date=1774 | discname=[[Johann Gahn]] | origname=From the Latin word ''mangnes'' (magnet) | uses=Steel, batteries, ceramics, coins, fertilizer and animal feed additives | obtained=Pyrolusite, psilomelane, cryptomelane, manganite, rhodochrosite}}

'''Manganese''' is an [[element]] in the "transition metals" class of the [[periodic table of the elements|periodic table]]. It is hard and brittle. It reacts (slowly) with water, and with acids.

Manganese was discovered by [[Johann Gahn]] in 1774 by heating [[pyrolusite]] with [[charcoal]] in a blast furnace.

Manganese is used in small amounts to change the propeties of [[steel]] and other useful alloys.

It is remarkable in all the other metals in that it is formed by the radioactive breakdown of magnesium isotopes, yet is still found in sufficient quantities to be useful in common, everyday processes and materials. Manganese is found in pyrolusite (magnesium) ore along with magnesium, and the two are seperated in a process similar to that of iron in a blast furnace, due to their significantly different melting points (one melts and is tapped off while the other remains solid; this is then melted and tapped off). It can also be found in pure manganese ore, where all the magnesium has decomposed. These deposits, however, are scarce.

[[Category:Elements]]