WRT Charles Drew, his own daughter denies that her father died because of being refused treatment. What more proof do people need that it’s a myth?
I always figured these would-be asassins were just plain old idiots. Poison is a very poor way to perform an assasination to begin with, and these bozos could have easily messed up the poison preperation. Beating someone is hardly an effective method either. I’ve never heard exactly what kind of gun was used, but if it was some low-powered plinking pistol it might have been stopped by Raspy’s flipping robes. Even if they entered his body (assuming the panicky and incompetent assasins actaully hit with all the bullets as claimed) they might not have had the stopping power.
But yeah, it could easily have been made up too.
This is a bit of an oversimplification as opposed to a “myth”. Edison invented the first commercially succesful lightbulb. Electric lighting, of course existed well before Edison (arclight predates him by quite a bit), and light bulbs were ‘around’ in the sense that particle accelerators are 'around ’ today. In the lab, not the home.
This is more an attack on simplification that anything else, but it goes too far. Soon some bozo is claiming that the Wright brother didn’t invent the first airplane (they didn’t, assuming you don’t consider getting off the ground and controlling the airplance to be ‘required features’). It starts getting more annoying than the alleged ‘annoyance’ factor of the myth to begin with.
This struck me as very interesting. For a Demicanadian (grew up a few miles from the Ambassador Bridge, raised on the CBC), my knowledge of Canadian literature is shameful. And the early novels of any nation are interesting. Let me know if you start a thread on this sometime – I’m ripe for education.
There’s a cause and effect SNAFU here.
Anyway, IS there any real evidence that the USSR “tried to match Reagan’s build up”? I.e., that they tried to greatly expand their military capability (to an unprecedented degree) to try to keep up with the U.S. in the 1980s?
What about their horrific embroglio in Afghanistan? That’s never mentioned by the hero-worshipping “Reagan defeated communism” idiots.
Or for that matter, Cleopatra was black (she was an inbred Macedonian, she would more likely be blue from the inbreding then black)
The Medieval period in European history was a dark ages for cuktural, scholarly, and intellectual development.
Drug abuse is a problem which originated in the 20th century.
The earth is 6000 years old at most.
The King James version of the Bible is the earliest and most accurate English translation.
One can find footprints of humans and dinosaurs in the same geological strata.
Hey, you could always go to the source. 
Oooh, shiny! Thanks!
Well, all over the rest of the New world, even in Brazil, slavery tended to kill off its workers so fast they couldn’t increase their numbers. Brazil tended to correct itself, though, and became very much like the US in this regard later.
OK, I wasn’t exactly sure what that original statement meant. I thought it meant that they were all staring upowards at night and thinking, “Ooooooh! Pwetty Wights! J
Fair enough – its just that a lot of the “myths” people are mentioning here aren’t exactly myths so much as differing points of view, parable-like stories, or simplifications.
I’ve never heard that one. Though its probably slightly correct. There’s a reaosn they call it “prime aged beef…”
But not many, and they are very weak. I can only count 3 that I could honestly say are still Communist.
I don’t know if its true or not, but I could see it. If you have a piece of chalk and want t write on something, an iron shovel isn’t a bad surface.
We were part of that, too. Who do you think kept the resistance going? Its also a myth that “we created bin Laden, but that one seems to have gone the way of the dodo, too.
This is certainly a myth, although drugs abuse may never have been as widespread before the 20th, with its massive extra wealth and transportation infrastructure. The Opium trade could give us a run for our money.
The Pilgrims were the first English colonists in America.
(This is not said outright, so much as it is strongly suggested. In Bowling for Columbine, for example. And every Thanksgiving.)
Let me tell you about a little place called Jamestown…
If you don’t require success, there’s always Roanoke Island.
Suetonius and Tacitus were not terribly objective (and it’s impossible to blame them for this). While Claudius was definitely a better military emperor and administrator than his predecessor or his successor, he also left behind a considerable pile of bodies (often killed without trial), enjoyed the company of prostitutes quite a bit, and was shamefully manipulated by his much younger wives. The best sources are the newer biographies of Nero and Caligula (Claudius himself is long overdue for a good biography), but this site has some insight into the “other” Claudius.
A few annoying Biblical myths (some are myths about the biblical era rather than from the Bible itself):
The pyramids were built by slave labor. They probably weren’t built by slaves, period. They were built by workmen who occasionally went on strike (once for sun-screen), and the greatest pyramids were already ancient by the time the Hebrews arrived (ca. 1600 BCE).
The Romans required people to report to the city of their ancestors for census and taxation purposes. That “don’t even make good nonsense”- why would they care? That would be about as logical as requiring U.S. citizens to return to their cities of birth to vote, besides which if you were taking a census it would be a lot more logical to record where the person himself lives rather than where his family lived centuries before. This was almost certainly a device to match the life of Jesus of Nazareth (which may be a translation error anyway) to the prophecies about Bethlehem.
The Roman procurator had to cow-tow to the Sanhedrin and Rome returned one prisoner per year to the Jews. Not bloody likely on either count; the High Priest was probably appointed by Rome and even the Bible mentions the bloodiness of Pilate, besides which the leader of an insurrection against Rome (which bar-Abbas is recorded as being) would have been the last person he’d have released.
Appendage to the above: I was equally annoyed by people who complained about the portrayal of Pilate and the Sanhedrin in Gibson’s Passion because, historically accurate or not, both are from the Gospels. (His other historical errors are less excusable.)
But that is to replace one historical myth with another. None of the puritans were being ‘killed for their beliefs’. The only capital crimes under the English anti-recusancy laws were ones specifically restricted to Roman Catholic clergymen or those who had assisted Roman Catholic clergymen. Moreover, those lesser anti-recusancy laws which could be used against puritans tended to be enforced only very sporadically. They usually had little to fear if they kept a low profile, especially if they were only laymen or women.
I stand corrected on the and killed comment. However, given the history of England that they had witnessed in their own lifetimes, it was not solely paranoia for them to have feared it may come to that, and the fact that laws were only sporadically enforced didn’t mean that they would always be (and in fact under Abp. Laud the situation did become much worse). I stand by the meat of my statement, however- that emigrating to the New World required tremendous bravery.
Check out this fascinating article from the New Yorker. It discusses height as a way to measure the overall health of a population. Relevant because when they examined the height records of American slaves, they discovered they were almost as tall as the average American of the day and so were probably well fed. But, the article mentions that the slave children were small and so the slave owners probably only felt it was important to feed the workers.
Slavery, of course, is abhorrent on many levels, independent of the care given the enslaved.
[QUOTE=tremorviolet]
Check out this fascinating article from the New Yorker. It discusses height as a way to measure the overall health of a population. Relevant because when they examined the height records of American slaves, they discovered they were almost as tall as the average American of the day and so were probably well fed. But, the article mentions that the slave children were small and so the slave owners probably only felt it was important to feed the workers.
[QUOTE]
There was a very good Nat’l. Geo documentary on PBS recently about slave archaeology in Virginia (Williamsburg, Carter’s Grove, Monticello and Jamestown in particular). One of the discoveries was that many slaves built excellent root cellars under the floors of their house to preserve their own foods. Though there were very few remains of domesticated animals (including chicken) in their diets, it was realized through the digs that they supplemented their rations by hunting and fishing in their “spare time” much more than previously realized; selling fish and snared game was also a major source of income to slaves. (Another surprise was the number of flints and other evidence of at least some limited musket ownership among slaves, though these digs were before Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, et al.)
Oh, I completely agree. It’s just an issue that’s been raised in an attempt to discredit Shakespeare, and one I find amusing if not entirely obsessive and saturated with a pretty heavy dose of tunnel vision.
There’s a spelling difference between some of William Falkner’s earlier works and some of William Faulkner’s later works, too;) Spelling in general was not as heavily emphasized back in the day as it is now (I’d be interested to know when it started to be really emphasized, but that’s a separate thread), so IMO it’s a matter of modern importance attached to a time when it really wasn’t of such import … like plagiarism:D
“What we know about him” being the key phrase:D And hell, Chaucer picked up as much about the world and the world of academia by being around the docks and the bars as he did anywhere else, I’d say:
(cite).
I’m unable to find the equivalent of the text in my British lit book, which does mention Chaucer’s adolescence and childhood spent around docks, which is very possibly (more than likely, IMO) where he picked up those languages.
Anyway. What we know of Shakespeare, other than some family stuff, is not a whole lot, so IMO the arguments based on “from what we know, he wouldn’t have known about X or Y topic in classic literature/mythology” don’t hold much water.
Oh, hell, anyone who says he was working purely off original material is whitewashing history:) Even ignoring the notion that there is only one basic plot ever (“shit happens”, which covers most everything except “Waiting for Godot”), even a decently thorough survey of the writings of Europe (I completed part 1 of Survey of British Lit where I’m going, and am doing part 2 now) reveals recycling and reusing of characters, basic plot lines, etc. Arthurian legend is evidence enough of this.
In the Greek tradition, of course, but not so much in British - at least not from the sources I read, which mainly said that Marlowe was the first to popularize it for the modern world (apart, of course, from the Oedipal trio, among other works).
The sources I saw (which obviously were focused on Marlowe, as he was the topic of my uncomprehensive research) indicated that Marlowe made popular - or at least acceptable for “public consumption” and financial wellbeing - the tragedy and the history play. I’d ultimately just be happy if people would quit doing these things:
-
Thinking Shakespeare was some great conspiracy theory, and it was actually bacon/marlowe/drake/elizabeth writing it all.
-
Thinking Shakespeare is the alpha and omega of literature.
That ink I’d say is as much due to the importing of blank verse on Marlowe’s part (again, from what I know) which was subsequently used by, ah, a few other writers:D It had been used sporadically before, as far as I’m aware, but Marlowe made it more acceptable, Faustus being one place.
The most well-written non-SDMB sources I’ve seen/heard on authorship (in general, not limited to this specific sub-category) seem to indicate that A) the modern sense of ownership is so vastly different from the sense people had back in the day that B) it’s really pretty pointless to examine it with a modern perspective and say, with great scorn, “Shakespeare PLAGIARIZED!” as if it were The Cardinal Sin Nobody Else Ever Committed.