Rewriting the past to suit current cultural norms is literally the opposite of what history is.
Museum reclassifies Roman emperor as trans woman
- Thread starter belmarduk
- Start date
Toons
Member
I dont disagree, I'm just not convinced that's exactly what this is. From what I can see this guy wanted people to refer to him with feminine titles and whatnot, at least at some point.
Terminology wise there are some who would consider such an individual a trans person.
Im not saying I would, in fact I wouldn't. but thats exactly what I'm getting at. How we view history is just as influenced by our own perspective as it is by what we can make of theirs.
For example ome cultures had instances of sex between males... we call this now as gay sex, homosexuality. Back then it would've been considered ritual, or even worship, or only "gay" in context of masculine roles, who was "receiving" and who was "giving". So if you had a guy who routinely had a preference for this, we'd today call him a gay man, but he might have described himself very differently if he could do so.
I will say I tend to fall on the stance that this museum is being... presumptuous to make a conclusion such as this. But this descriptor is not only not really a cultural norm now but it wasn't one then either based on how his contemporaries viewed the guy. I dont think this is going to be a consensus. I think this will be something debated by historians, and this museum fell on one side of that debate.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Here's the thing. This isn't just isolated to this incident. It's a widespread illness. But carry on with your disigenuous and intellectual dishonestly.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Normally I would find something like this funny but it's actually quite frightening what is going on with woke historical revisionism. Very, very worrisome.
Toons
Member
Doomsaying and incendiary verbiage, calling forth "illness" and "cultural resets" don't substitute actual honest discussion. It's lazy. Its also nothing new. But neither is change. And change comes regardless of how hard you fight it, its governed by people on the individual level, no movement or agenda can make it happen on its own. Its already been here a while, and you clearly can see that as can I. But you see it as a battle, I see it as an opportunity.
Im far more interested in discussion of what that means and how it reflects the various "cultural resets" we've already seen in the last century, even if i don't agree with all of it. At least, I'd rather that than to simply slap a hashtag friendly buzzword on it and meme about how my country as fallen because some museum reworded a plaque about a teenager from a billion years ago who wanted to be a princess. Thats far more disingenuous if you ask me.
Last edited:
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Exactly.
Which is why tagging past facts according to the latest cultural hoopla is, way more often than not, wrong.
When we say "well, today we know that..." about the past, it's because more data has emerged from the past. Not because our own society has changed, giving us better understanding of people who lived 2000 years ago based on the changes in current times.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
While true, the process of rewriting the past is basically what happens to history all the time. Every record that we have right now went through the same thing as people are doing right now - they took some real event and applied the norms of their time on that event. They we found it and now we are trying to apply our understanding on that event in the past.
winjer
Member
History is a science. And as such it is bound by facts, not by politics.
What we are seeing in this case is a change driven by politics, so it goes against scientific accuracy.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
History is either objective or not. From your point of view - it is not and I agree with that. But I don't consider it is a good thing or "an opportunity". What I want to see from history is facts, not "opinions". We get satirical articles on people all the time, but if some future historian will use them to say that "that exactly who a person was", then it would not represent the truth of the history.
Granted - as I stated before - history is not objective. And that's why it always repeats - because the people are redefining the meaning of the past. We know that various countries - and propaganda historically - portrayed various events differently, depending on the result. We still see that through the history. I want history to be objective, but it is not going to happen - the best objective thing we have is the dates. And only because you can't "have an opinion" on the time.
Last edited:
StabbyStabStabStabStab
Member
History is not a science, rather its often interpretations and assumptions based on what is know which leads to indicators of truth, not absolutes (which is why historians often disagree). The only things we can accept as facts are physical artifacts, but even these will require some assumptions as to their meaning/roles in society.
winjer
Member
That is the dumbest shit you said all week.
News flash, all scientists disagree, in all fields. And only evidence and facts resolve these disagreements.
History is no different. It's a science, and the facts are the artifacts that ancient people leave behind.
StabbyStabStabStabStab
Member
I don't think I've said anything all week but hey ho, no need to be wude :<
Yes of course history does apply a scientific methodology where appropriate/applicable, however what can be established based on interpretation of this ancient text in particular? What scientific methodology can be applied in this instance to ensure we derive a 'fact' from it? This isn't even some ancient commentary coming from the chap (or gal) him/herself, rather it's from a contemporary. You couldn't get much further away from 'science' if you wanted to.
winjer
Member
Historical texts are far from being the only source for Historical scientific data. And one of the things historians do is question these texts, be it with other texts, or physical data.
That you can't understand something as simple as this, speaks volumes to your misunderstanding of why History is a science.
Folks are using this as part of the current culture war, which I find to be boring as hell, but I'm a little more interested in the historical figure under discussion.
On the one hand, there is an actual historical document making the claim that this person may have acted in manner consistent with a voluntary change of gender. Of course, back in the day, nobody would have really used the same terminology, let alone with similar implications, so we should be careful about making too many assumptions in either direction.
On the other, whether the document is telling the truth is another curious point to debate. Either it's purely a character assassination that was simply used to spread lies and rumors about a political leader, in which case it could be dismissed, or it was a critical document that was nevertheless spreading more or less true facts, even if the intent behind its writing was to be negative and offensive. In other words, not all rumors are automatically fake. We would need to examine the context and try to find supporting evidence.
On the one hand, there is an actual historical document making the claim that this person may have acted in manner consistent with a voluntary change of gender. Of course, back in the day, nobody would have really used the same terminology, let alone with similar implications, so we should be careful about making too many assumptions in either direction.
On the other, whether the document is telling the truth is another curious point to debate. Either it's purely a character assassination that was simply used to spread lies and rumors about a political leader, in which case it could be dismissed, or it was a critical document that was nevertheless spreading more or less true facts, even if the intent behind its writing was to be negative and offensive. In other words, not all rumors are automatically fake. We would need to examine the context and try to find supporting evidence.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Banned
Not sure labelling a religious zealot, massive drunk, and colossal pervert as being 'trans' is quite the positive reinforcement they were going for, to be honest.
But then, the same kind of mindset also associates being disabled with being evil, so what the hell do I know?
But then, the same kind of mindset also associates being disabled with being evil, so what the hell do I know?
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
Isn't it weird that these creatures have their tentacles in most modern day lunacy.You consulted Stonewall.
It really is getting to the point where it does actually seem like a brain worm, alien or these people go through some form of brain washing most are not aware of. Brain snatchers, if you will
Scary times indeed.
Last edited:
Krappadizzle
Member
Toons
Member
Theres truth to your statement. But I think that it should not be, necessarily assumed that a current social climate or a new age perspective on something cannot be allowrd to influence over how things are recorded and remembered. In fact that was the case for this guys contemporaries. If the historical record itself is colored by this, then I think we should always be at least cognizant that its possible in the modern day as well. I'm not sure its even avoidable entirely
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Probably not. That's why we have stuff like "well his reign was quite good actually..."
Werewolf Jones
Member
LGBT desperate for history icons so we can have "relatable heroes" or "find ourselves in history" it's all bullshit. Yo what about that King who got a hot poker in the ass for being gay? Surely he's a Martyr for being a bottom in 2023.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
What primary sources are you referring to that confirms Elagabalus wanted to be referred to as feminine titles?
Happosai
Hold onto your panties
It's fitting daft 21st-century socialist ideologies into history. This would be similar to looking at a photo of someone like Churchhill giving a hug to a WWll soldier. It'd get to a point of seemingly humous to downright disrespectful. We're allowing the sick fantasies of people be accepted as 'fact' by overly interpreting things which simply don't have any meaning beyond. Not unlike a liberal arts student who visits a museum, stares at a points and says, "I think the artist was trying to say..." That's not science and opinions have never constituted for fact.
BlackSandrock10
Neo Member
I saw that floating around.....man, are these people pushing it? You give them an inch and they'll take a mile! The worst thing out of all of this is that 'people in current year' will fall for this! The future is looking damn well bleak!
winjer
Member
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Every western achievement came from a gay person or Islam.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Probably, corruption and a decline in masculinity was evident in art towards the fall of Greeks Civilization when the Roman's defeated them and it repeated it's self with the Roman's and the more barbaric civilization did the same to the Romans what they did to the Greeks
It where this quote comes from
We don't doubt it, we know we're heading down a path which has always ended with destruction.
And if you look at the world and what's going on, they are making their moves because we have become weak.
It where this quote comes from
We don't doubt it, we know we're heading down a path which has always ended with destruction.
And if you look at the world and what's going on, they are making their moves because we have become weak.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
As a history scholar I have to disagree. That's not how the study of history works.
Yes, some sources (secondary) are written after the event which could be biased and shouldn't be used exclusively to understand the past.
However, saying that every historical record we have right now has gone through a rewriting process is simply not true. Primary sources, including eye witness accounts do exist.
Yes. And even going back to Herodotus, his goal was to determine objective truth of events—by traveling to places himself, interviewing eyewitnesses, critically evaluating the available information for reliability and accuracy. Obviously the result wasn't perfect, but his work holds up very well to this day.
Ballthyrm
Member
Cleopatra will be non binary next?
Haven't you heard she is black and an african slay queen.
Not at it's worst, we used it in the past to justify slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide.
Some wars were fought over fake history.
I always thought the skirt on the legionaries looked gay AF.
That's Hollywood gay armor.
Actual roman armor is pretty different,
It looks like this
Or like this
Tams
Member
I just did part of a course to become a teacher today.
I'm ashamed. Not shocked ashamed.
I walk in. Rainbow lanyards on everyone. Intros: 'Please introduce yourself with your name, where you're from, and if you're comfortable, your preferred pronouns'. All the fuckers went along with it apart from me.
Oh, and there was a box of 'sensory toys'.
Eventually, a few copied me and gave up the pronoun shite. It was mainly the still in uni or just recently graduated ones who where not only into it, but eager to defend it.
The nonsense has reached adults now through the education system.
And to make this on topic: a fair few were hoping to become history teachers.
I'm ashamed. Not shocked ashamed.
I walk in. Rainbow lanyards on everyone. Intros: 'Please introduce yourself with your name, where you're from, and if you're comfortable, your preferred pronouns'. All the fuckers went along with it apart from me.
Oh, and there was a box of 'sensory toys'.
Eventually, a few copied me and gave up the pronoun shite. It was mainly the still in uni or just recently graduated ones who where not only into it, but eager to defend it.
The nonsense has reached adults now through the education system.
And to make this on topic: a fair few were hoping to become history teachers.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Totally not a socialized and systemic cult.
Faust
Perpetually Tired
I hate to ask. "Sensory toys"?
FunkMiller
Banned
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
its for autistic kids to calm themselves down during class. helps them focus. think fidget spinners.
its not for adults lol
Last edited:
Faust
Perpetually Tired
Ok, I was wondering if I should be worried and disgusted or not.
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
You and me both with the way schools are going
Tams
Member
This:
I'll admit I did end up taking one of the stress balls they had, but that was out of pure boredom. I took all my effort not to start bouncing it off the walls.
Burning Blade
Member
Brezhnev's eyebrows were simply irresistible.Funny you should say that, when this is the "socialist fraternal kiss"
