Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Wasn't there a thing like 'you eventually either are the common ancestor of every human, or none of them'?
I imagine people like Ragnar who got around (and whose name got their descendants around) probably have a higher shot at it.

That is very true, but I can track mine, and that makes all the difference

[TD1]

I can go back to late Elizabeth England to the Drinkmilke family. Thankfully the name was lost through marriage.

[Teneb]

I'm a historian, and written records are not mandatory for it to be history. Oral history is a thing.

The concept of pre-history in general is considered outdated in historiography.

"Prehistory" is just a word meaning "before written records in a given area", it doesn't have to be prejudicial. And it's still perfectly current in anthropology and archaeology.

It's also a perfectly healthy concept in history, given that I'm "an historian" also. You seem to be assuming that 'Prehistory' means 'absolute lack of sources even oral history'. That's not the case; it's just, as others have said, that the sources available aren't written records.

It's also important to note that a period in which we have no or very little sources is often known as a Dark Age, not prehistory.

My understanding was that history=we have written records (that we can understand and aren't mythology) and that pre-history=before then. Under this definition pre-history ends and history starts at different times in different places as actually writing factual stuff down on materials that last for long periods of time becomes a thing at different times in different places.

Yes, that is it. Swedish/Nordic pre-history is considered to end as Sweden leaves the iron age and enters medieval times, ca 10th-11th century. It also gets bonus points if the records are a people's own - eg Swedish history do not begin in 100 just because Tacitus wrote a one-liner description of some "suitones" guys in his book on Germanic tribes.

I'm a historian, and written records are not mandatory for it to be history. Oral history is a thing.

The concept of pre-history in general is considered outdated in historiography.

I find that highly conceited.

Why would it not be history, though? It's still history, even if it is lost to us. Your people's predecessors were not a bunch of animals before entering history thanks to finding the light of civilization. And what others have to say about you is still a source about you.


EDIT: Also, pleople please: historiography is a science and not "just my opinion". Reason I say this is because I'm facing that a lot in meatspace right now ("The Nazis were leftists! They had social in the name! Saying they were not is just your opinion!").

[TD1]

Not quite the case. A dark age is a period of time in which sources decline and then (typically) resurge again. There are sources before, after, and during. It's just that there are less sources in the "during" section than after or before. Even the capitalised "Dark Ages" are being reexamined as more historically rich than once supposed.

Prehistory is the period of time when there were either no written sources or so little as to amount to nothing. It's not a lull in the written historical record - it is a lack of one.

And history may be a science based on empirical research, but it is also highly interpretative. It's not merely your opinion, but it is not "truth" either. As a lecturer said recently, "all history is auto-biography." Our lives shape our interests, our bias in choosing sources, and ultimately our results. Objectivity is the ideal of historical studies, but it is never obtained.

[Teneb]

And history may be a science based on empirical research, but it is also highly interpretative. It's not merely your opinion, but it is not "truth" either. As a lecturer said recently, "all history is auto-biography." Our lives shape our interests, our bias in choosing sources, and ultimately our results. Objectivity is the ideal of historical studies, but it is never obtained.

I should've clarified it was not said in relation to the thread, more as a response to nazis being invoked. I am actually really pissed off that fascists are using that argument against me and others of my field CONSTANTLY that I failed to point it out. So I am sorry.

But yeah, there are schools of thought and interpretations. For instance, on the whole pre-history debate we just had.

FFS am I tilted with what's going on around me.

EDIT: One of the reasons prehistory is frowned upon by brazilian historians is because it is often used to erase particular groups from being studied. Like, say, the peoples of Africa before the Europeans showed up. Or the many amerindian cultures.

[Tack]

Well, Hitler.

I thought the dog was way before the bunker.

Also, it was mostly going to be nitpicking, as Nazis have been so far understood on here to be both white supremacist and authoritarian, and the removal of either of those make them not Nazis. Which would make freedom-loving american white supremacists... not Nazis?

[Lord Shonus]

Well, Hitler.

I thought the dog was way before the bunker.

No, it was in the bunker. Hitler wanted to make sure the cyanide capsules he and Braun were about to use were fatal, and tested them on the dog. The rest of the dogs in the bunker were killed by gunshot to deny them to the enemy.

[Ultimuh]

All this talk about prehistory makes me recall an old DOS game called Prehistorik.
You basically play as a cave man hitting dinos with a wooden club.
Good times.

[Hanslanda]

Well, Hitler.

I thought the dog was way before the bunker.

Also, it was mostly going to be nitpicking, as Nazis have been so far understood on here to be both white supremacist and authoritarian, and the removal of either of those make them not Nazis. Which would make freedom-loving american white supremacists... not Nazis?

They only want freedom for white males and more specifically, those who believe in white supremacy...

Which means they are Nazis, just Americanized Nazis.

[Maximum Spin]

They only want freedom for white males and more specifically, those who believe in white supremacy...

Which means they are Nazis, just Americanized Nazis.

There are totally white supremacists who think white people are better but want other races to have freedom, somewhere else. I've met at least one before. Online, of course, they aren't common enough to exist in real life.

[TD1]

So... segregationists?

[Maximum Spin]

So... segregationists?

Exactly! It's totally a thing that is different from Nazis.

[Magistrum]

Just tell me where you live, and I'll go there to have a bowl of açaí, and discuss DF projects!

Bah, that stuff tastes like dirt!
Come over toma mate, tchê!

So... segregationists?

Exactly! It's totally a thing that is different from Nazis.

Wow, I am so not relieved.

[Rolan7]

It's kinda tricky because the Nazis initially presented themselves as segregationists, and arguably didn't exactly stop.  At least in public.

[Teneb]

They only want freedom for white males and more specifically, those who believe in white supremacy...

Which means they are Nazis, just Americanized Nazis.

There are totally white supremacists who think white people are better but want other races to have freedom, somewhere else. I've met at least one before. Online, of course, they aren't common enough to exist in real life.

One of my great-aunts was pretty much this, so they exist in real life. Or existed, since she's dead now.

Was pretty much the norm though. A lot of abolitionists wanted slavery gone not because they cared for non-whites, but because they thought slavery "tainted" the white soul. Lovely stuff all around, really.