Lucretius suggested essentially the same thing (as an uncaused “swerve” in an atom, whose resulting collision with other atoms created the universe originating from a single point) 1800 years before Poe. Many people since have assumed he was doing it as an excuse to drink too much and frequent prostitutes.
A syllabus, or better yet a quality analysis of syllabi from around the country would provide actual evidence of what is taught in American history classes.
Anecdotes in support of sweeping characterizations are much less convincing, whether they involve accusations of “American exceptionalism” or “the Left is teaching children to hate America”.
As far as the Soviet Union and WWII, it’s fine that Soviet efforts get sufficient credit for defeating the Nazis, as long as we remember that Stalin’s connivance with Hitler helped lead to war in the first place.
it’s a revolutionary medical discovery in the 80’s that in fact, ulcers (peptic ulcers, the stomach lining painful kind most people think of) are cause by a form of bacteria that can actually survive in the stomach. Until then, it was “common knowledge” that ulcers were cause by stress - the evidence of which was the dour disposition of those in constant pain.
Much appreciated at the time in the UK, too, though on a less significant scale. Being canned, it came under a more flexible rationing regime than fresh meat, and in the large size came with a layer of fat that was a welcome supplement to the meagre ration of cooking fat.
But by the 50s and 60s institutional catering had become just a bit too reliant on spam fritters and the like (hence Monty Python, but I’m not going there).
I would then suggest you read the work of Christopher Martell who teaches out of Boston (I think Boston University). That would be a start. (I think I suggested him the last time you asked for evidence on this topic). I haven’t come across anyone who has specifically quantified this, History Ed is my kid’s field, not mine - and since syllabi aren’t standard (except for something like AP coursework, where it still isn’t standard, instead they provide a framework). Jeremy Stern has also written about this (he’s more of a traditionalist that Martell) and has written specifically on the AP framework - this piece isn’t behind JSTOR or another journal’s paywall: Left and Right May Not Be Happy with the New AP Standards. Here’s Why You Should Be. | History News Network. Or this from Stern: http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2011/20110216_SOSHS/SOSS_USHistory_Texas.pdf It doens’t say exactly what I’m saying, but it gets to some of the issues and controversies (it is also from 2014). That will get you started. There is specifically the work that has been done in evaluating U.S. History textbooks, but I haven’t done a deep dive on that and cannot point you to literature without spending more time than I wish on research to meet your curiosity on the topic. History education in high school has been a controversial topic for generations now, so you could also look to the current coverage on the 1619 Project (I think the 1619 Project is poor scholarship, myself - there are some really biased leaps in that thing that don’t have evidence - but there are plenty of parts of it that are good and the point of the project is valid).
and the criticisms of Critical Race Theory to understand the current situation.
I think that its now thought that Dragons myths are anicnet people digging up dinosaur fossils?
Surprisingly enough, it’s rarely dinosaur fossils that are thought to be at the root of dragon myths and the like, but generally things like mammoths, wooly rhinoceros, and the like. There’s been speculation along these lines for a long time, but the idea was revived recently by books like Adrienne Mayor’s The First Fossil Hunters and Fossil Legends of the First Americans But you can find a lot of earlier writings on the same topic, including several by science popularizer (and rocket pioneer) Willy Ley.
Mayor suggested that griffins were inspired by bones of ceratopsians, chiefly protoceratops. Ley suggested that the bird-like feet of the Babylonian Sirrush were inspired by dinosaur skeletons. Both suggested that elephant skulls inspired the myth of the Cyclops.
But many of the supposed “dragon” bones that both Ley and Mayor wrote about were definitely fossil mammal remains.
It was always possible. It could have come from Wuhan Market AND the lab, if the lab was buying live animals from the market.
But, ultimately, there’s no rule that you can’t have sanitary markets AND refrain from certain types of scientific research. If both hypotheses for the spread are realistic and plausible then the right course of action is to act like they’re both correct, not to choose one and ignore the other.
But if it was the lab then, even if the lab was controlled by the Chinese military, the research that spawned the disease would still have been research into saving lives.
If you want to create a weaponized disease, you need to make it:
- Safe for your home country (e.g. it doesn’t affect Chinese people).
- Make it unable to evolve, so that #1 continues to to stay true.
- Have a fairly long gestation time.
- And be crippling to the enemy.
From #4, you would want to start with a fairly crippling disease. Coronaviruses are not that. Most people don’t have symptoms at all and, even when you’re sick, you’re still able to do most things. #2 is probably impossible - trying to weaponize diseases is asinine. And, for #1, you would really want to be custom making your disease, not just inducing random genetic shift. With crispr, there’s just no reason to do that. You induce randomness to see what all of there could be in the world, so you know how to prevent it.
Preventing disease is the profession of good, likable doctors. So even in the lab scenario, it’s still just a truly unfortunate mistake. But, see the point that there’s no rule against improving safety, regardless of the original cause of the outbreak.
The Troy stuff always reminds me of the similar status of the Jomsvikings and their Jomsburg fortress. Mentioned several times in various sagas and other records and a whole saga devoted to them. Plus individual Jomsvikings are mentioned in quite a few records.
Yet considered totally legendary by many for a long while and still grudgingly called “semi-legendary” by the old school types. This despite finds in recent years that confirm more of the stories. (Including one that gives a quite precise location of the Jomsburg fortress.)
I remember reading a text on Viking-era history where the guy was totally against them being real and in particular mocking the claim that they participated at the Battle of Fýrisvellir.
Problem was that between the publication of that edition and my reading it a runestone turned up confirming that a Jomsviking was there. (And two more since then.) In a later edition that particular denial was removed but the overall dismissive attitude remained.
“We’re having a lab potluck lunch on Wednesday. There’s a signup sheet for bringing in raccoon dog and fox meat.”
I was thinking more along the lines that they might have been buying live animals from a vendor, there, for their experiments.
I was under the impression that live animals used in experimentation in (modern) biomedical research had to have known provenance (genetics, medical condition, parasite free, etc.) and that animals procured from other sources (shelters, markets) had little scientific value.
I’m certainly willing to have my ignorance fought. What’s the source for the likelihood of the Wuhan lab procuring experimental animals for scientific research, at a live market?
The latest news (out a few days ago) is that the Wuhan wet market is the source.
Animals used for experiments (“What happens to an animal when we do this to it?”) should be from a controlled source. But not all studies are experiments. Maybe the question you’re asking is “what diseases are endemic in the local fauna?”, in which case those uncontrolled animals are exactly the ones you want.
Tuchman is a great author, but she was seduced by the fact that the Russians and the French hid their proclivities. She wrote in 1962, but Russia released a bunch of old secret stuff, and in July 1914 by Sean McMeehan (2013), Sean had access to that later data, such as the dairy of Schilling at the Russian Foreign Ministry. It shows that Russia and France bear the main responsibility, altho there is certainly plenty to go around- Serbia assassinating the Grand Duke, in AH the Minister Berchtold fucking up, Germany giving AH carte blanch, and so forth. France was lusting for revenge, and was “loaning” Russia millions of francs to build rail-lines to mobilize against… Germany.
As McMeehan makes it clear- the timeline is all important:
Sazonov , the Russian Foreign Minister had decided on War before Serbia even replied to the Ultimatum.He also froze German funds and ordered the army to prepare for Mobilization. The Tsar signed the order to prepare for war around noon, July 25th. This was kept secret until recently, Tuchman had no way of knowing these facts. The mobilization was against Germany, and started July 29.
The great scene Tuchman dramatizes about the President of France being woke up in the middle of the night on July 31/Aug 1, did not happen then, it occurred two days earlier.
France and Russia mobilized first and attacked Germany first, as was the plan and secret treaty agreed. The French simply changed a few dates around to show that Germany was the cause.
Mind you, of course Moltke and the Kaiser bear the blame for the invasion of Belgium, but that didn’t cause the war.
But you must also consider that the basic plot of the Troy story … There’s a city in Asia Minor and the Greeks come and destroy it. Greece vs Anatolia ???
1750 BC to 1300 BC … “Foreign pottery found at the site includes Minoan, Mycenaean, Cypriot, and Levantine items.” Um, seems to show that Troy was a friendly port , trading across the Med… " In the poem, the city appears to be a major regional power capable of summoning numerous allies to defend it Um, its allies were the Minoan, Mycenaean, Cypriot, and Levantine ? The people of Troy hadn’t been adopting Anatolian culture. Their buildings, and pottery show they are Minoan Aegaen mix… ie GREEK.
That the greeks could rejoice in destroying Troy ? No, that would just be the melancholy of ending a civil war. Or the attack was following on from some other city-state power there in Anatolia ? Some cousin got a little out of control… like a civil war
For example, Troy never became part of the Hittite Empire. It would seem to always be more of a greek friendly port than a dire enemy. Who would be likely to jump into ships and sack the Hittites when they were weak (eg weak due to famine … ) ? The Greeks would have possessed many ships… having a very large archipelago , spreading all the way to Troy… The idea that Troy was on the far side , of a solid line between greek hegemony, and no greek influence whatsoever… ? nope, Troy was strongly greek.
The story just reads like a statement of Greek military power, “if you build a big fortress city in,or at the edge of, our territory , this is what we will do !”. Also explains why the greeks didnt try to fortify Troy as a big greek outpost… they wouldn’t build that ,as it would be a waste, it would prompt a war rather than defuse it. They would see it destroyed and its citizens massacred, before their ships arrived to rescue it.
One wonders at Putin’s motivation now in finally proving the west’s point…
The 1619 Project is an interesting book, but as a foreigner I can’t help wondering if it’s an example of the old saying “when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Slavery and the racism that goes with it may have been critical for the southern states’ economy, but was largely irrelevant in the North. The South may have needed crowds of simple cotton pickers to maintain it’s plantation economy. The standard northern and western homestead needed maybe one helping “hired” hand for the family, and that person had to be competent and invested or they could cause a lot of damage for a small farm, if only by neglect or lack of enthusiasm. (As evidenced by the singular lack of the helping hand being a slave in the vast majority of farms) I suspect the North did not give the slavery issue much thought, except to condemn a practice whose moral aspects were… negative, and it was easy to condemn it where economic benefits were irrelevant to small farms and factories. Yet the 1610 Project suggests the entire political soul of the Republic revolved around the issue.
When it’s protected by various parts of the federal Constitution, it’s fair to say it was a national matter.
And when the northern states make significant compromises to protect slavery in the nation, like the Missouri compromise, it’s fair to say slavery was a key part of the national political debate.
NO NO NO. there was nothing of such significance to say the Russians started the military attack… For the germans , it was enough that Russia issued the order for General Mobilization.The germans quite definitely gave the ultimatum "cease mobilization, or we will declare war against you ". And then they declare war… While declaring war triggers defensive actions, such as arresting people caught on the wrong side of the borders, the germans certainly started shooting at russia or its allies first …