1. laurier. clearly.
2. trudeau.
3. pearson.
4. mackenzie-king
5. saint-laurent
6. chretien
7. diefenbaker
8. mulroney
9. borden
10. bennett
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poll-on-best-prime-ministers-of-the-20th-century-suggests-regional-divide-1.4748705
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
so, what was it like to live in the year 1020?
in western europe, you had a dominant christian church that hoarded knowledge for itself and outlawed reading by the death penalty (unless you were in a few specific classes of people, like monks), which was opposed by periodic uprisings of indigenous pagan groups that saw christianity as a kind of absurd death cult. this history was largely suppressed, and hard to put together. most people lived in feudal relationships, and lived miserable lives. life wasn't too bad, or too backwards, for the rich, though - who had access to most of the same classical texts that existed in the greek world, and sometimes perhaps later than they did there, as they were destroyed there.
in eastern europe, you had byzantine hegemony, and the dying remnants of the last classical culture of european antiquity. they were so much more advanced than their neighbours on all sides, and than pretty much everybody except the chinese, that it's hard to contemplate. imagine the british building a city like canberra in australia; it was that disproportionate. so, they tried very hard to protect their scientific superiority by keeping it a secret. they would even encrypt their writings, that's how paranoid they were. the byzantines held on to something like a classical society, which is a primitive version of our own, but it was fraying and there was both slavery and feudalism. had the byzantines fallen sooner, it's an open question as to whether there would have been a renaissance at all.
and, in the former roman & persian regions of africa and asia you had this muslim empire that was hell bent on destroying any literature that contradicted their religion, while aggressively pushing their language as the status quo. they saw their religion and their culture as inherently superior, and thought they had manifest destiny to take over the world. in the end, we would all speak arabic, and all be muslims. while the society was in many ways still fundamentally classical, they also invented the african slave trade, and it was african slaves that performed that vast majority of the labour in the empire. this allowed for what we would today call a "middle class". we give them credit for saving certain texts, but don't understand the context, and so don't criticize them for all the books they destroyed.
which is better? i don't see a total ordering.
but, i'd rather live in 2020 than 1020.
in western europe, you had a dominant christian church that hoarded knowledge for itself and outlawed reading by the death penalty (unless you were in a few specific classes of people, like monks), which was opposed by periodic uprisings of indigenous pagan groups that saw christianity as a kind of absurd death cult. this history was largely suppressed, and hard to put together. most people lived in feudal relationships, and lived miserable lives. life wasn't too bad, or too backwards, for the rich, though - who had access to most of the same classical texts that existed in the greek world, and sometimes perhaps later than they did there, as they were destroyed there.
in eastern europe, you had byzantine hegemony, and the dying remnants of the last classical culture of european antiquity. they were so much more advanced than their neighbours on all sides, and than pretty much everybody except the chinese, that it's hard to contemplate. imagine the british building a city like canberra in australia; it was that disproportionate. so, they tried very hard to protect their scientific superiority by keeping it a secret. they would even encrypt their writings, that's how paranoid they were. the byzantines held on to something like a classical society, which is a primitive version of our own, but it was fraying and there was both slavery and feudalism. had the byzantines fallen sooner, it's an open question as to whether there would have been a renaissance at all.
and, in the former roman & persian regions of africa and asia you had this muslim empire that was hell bent on destroying any literature that contradicted their religion, while aggressively pushing their language as the status quo. they saw their religion and their culture as inherently superior, and thought they had manifest destiny to take over the world. in the end, we would all speak arabic, and all be muslims. while the society was in many ways still fundamentally classical, they also invented the african slave trade, and it was african slaves that performed that vast majority of the labour in the empire. this allowed for what we would today call a "middle class". we give them credit for saving certain texts, but don't understand the context, and so don't criticize them for all the books they destroyed.
which is better? i don't see a total ordering.
but, i'd rather live in 2020 than 1020.
at
04:46
no, listen.
i want you to understand the scope of what happened. this was a major project, and it took a long time.
the rulers of the islamic empire (they called themselves caliphs, but they were emperors, and truly quite roman) very quickly inherited a number of major literary centres: alexandria, jerusalem, ctesiphon. they didn't get all of the books, but they got a large proportion of them.
at the time, people mostly wrote things in greek. so, you had to learn greek to read them. the muslim emperors wanted to change that - they wanted people to read things in arabic.
so, they literally walked into these massive libraries and went through all of the books, one by one, and translated them into arabic. all of them. no exceptions. then, when they were done, they deleted the originals.
so, now you had to learn arabic instead of greek, thereby cementing arabic as the central cultural force in the region. this was very successful - it's still there.
but, they didn't convert these books blindly. they had religious clerics overseeing this process, to ensure that only the books that upheld the koran were saved. so, it wasn't just a process of replacing the greek with the arabic, it was also a process of ensuring that all extant writing was consistent with islam.
they really, actually did this - they went through all of the libraries, one by one, and made a choice, book-by-book - translate or destroy.
the vast majority was destroyed, not translated.
again: be careful with what they tell you.
i want you to understand the scope of what happened. this was a major project, and it took a long time.
the rulers of the islamic empire (they called themselves caliphs, but they were emperors, and truly quite roman) very quickly inherited a number of major literary centres: alexandria, jerusalem, ctesiphon. they didn't get all of the books, but they got a large proportion of them.
at the time, people mostly wrote things in greek. so, you had to learn greek to read them. the muslim emperors wanted to change that - they wanted people to read things in arabic.
so, they literally walked into these massive libraries and went through all of the books, one by one, and translated them into arabic. all of them. no exceptions. then, when they were done, they deleted the originals.
so, now you had to learn arabic instead of greek, thereby cementing arabic as the central cultural force in the region. this was very successful - it's still there.
but, they didn't convert these books blindly. they had religious clerics overseeing this process, to ensure that only the books that upheld the koran were saved. so, it wasn't just a process of replacing the greek with the arabic, it was also a process of ensuring that all extant writing was consistent with islam.
they really, actually did this - they went through all of the libraries, one by one, and made a choice, book-by-book - translate or destroy.
the vast majority was destroyed, not translated.
again: be careful with what they tell you.
at
04:16
for example, one story you hear by the revisionists is the idea that medieval europe forgot how to read, and had to relearn everything from books in spain, which was under islamic rule.
it's a half-truth.
they forget to tell you about the byzantines, for example, which were both there the whole time and were by far the most advanced society on the planet. in the end, the byzantines were actually ultimately badly weakened by french crusaders, who were the ones that really destroyed them. they weren't able to recover from that, and in the end fell to the turks - after a very, very long siege.
the turks then benefited greatly from their usurpation of roman power by inheriting all of the advanced technology. they don't tell you that, either. they make it seem like it was invented by turkish scholars, which is actually somewhat of a contradiction in terms. the turks were not an advanced people, at the time.
and, they forget to tell you about the importance of byzantine back-migration into rome at the start of the renaissance.
nor do they talk about the reasons that western europe, particularly, was so stunted for what was a relatively short period of time, which had to do with the authoritarian powers pushed down by the church. it was illegal to read; they'd kill you for it. what kind of society would you expect to come out of a social, political, religious and legal system that literally bans reading?
so, of course they forgot how to read greek and latin. they were literally forbidden to do so, under penalty of death.
then, they tell you that the muslims saved all the books, which is worse than a half-truth - that's a lie. the muslims burned thousands of books! specifically, they burned the ones they didn't like. but, they also burned the ones they liked, after they translated them into arabic. the revisionists want you to think this was a curator process, that they saved the knowledge from certain destruction; you're only falling for that because you're so ignorant about the history. what the muslims did was launch a systemic analysis of all of the knowledge in alexandria (and elsewhere) and rigorously sort through all of it, find the parts that contradicted islam, destroy them, and save the parts they thought upheld or otherwise complemented the koran by converting them to arabic and destroying the greek. so, it's technically true that the reason we have some specific greek texts is because this process happened. but, the reason we only have these specific texts is also because this process happened! there's all kinds of things by classic authors that disappeared in this period because the muslims felt they were heretical.
(and, yes, the muslims were just doing the same thing the christians did. in fact, muslims and christians in that region would have looked roughly similar and spoke roughly the same language, too. quite a few contemporary historians labelled islam a christian heresy or a branch of judaism rather than a new religion. the lines were really kind of blurrily drawn, up until the crusades.)
so, they tell you about the good things the muslins did, but forget to tell you about the bad things. what does that remind you of?
then, they have the nerve to call this a "golden age" and assign it to islam. but, this "golden age" they speak of was a process of systematically destroying anything that contradicted islam, and then trying to make sense of the rest of it. worse, the actual thinkers involved were almost entirely persians and kurds. so, if this "golden age" is made up of iranians sorting through greek mathematical sources, what is islamic about it? if it's a golden age, what it is is a babylonian renaissance. again: if you actually read some good sources, you'll see how easy it is to debunk this revisionism. you just have to actually educate yourself about what actually happened...
and, don't get me started on slavery. y'all know muslims invented slavery, right?
i've been clear, repeatedly, that i don't think that islam is an eastern religion or an eastern culture. islam is basically the same thing as christianity - it's a synthesis of jewish religion and greek philosophy. and, the cultures actually developed with more similarities than differences. what that means is that islam is a western culture, and needs to be understood that way. i will reject orientalism on it's face; they're the same as us, so there's no basis in othering them.
but, what that means is that you should realize that islam is essentially going through the same period of backwardsness that christianity went through 1000 years ago. saying "but, we were kings", or "make arabia great again" and then gloating about the situation being reversed 1000 years ago (however half-true that actually is) isn't an intelligent approach to the situation. you should have the humility and smarts to see the parallels between saudi despotism and papal authoritarianism. and, that means you should be on the side of the enlightenment, and in favour of expanding it.
i know i'm arguing with an imaginary person, but i don't think this is a straw man, and i think that more specific discussions will double down on my positions rather than contradict them.
they key point is to do your own research, and be careful about believing things people tell you when you don't have the expertise or background to critically analyze it by yourself.
it's a half-truth.
they forget to tell you about the byzantines, for example, which were both there the whole time and were by far the most advanced society on the planet. in the end, the byzantines were actually ultimately badly weakened by french crusaders, who were the ones that really destroyed them. they weren't able to recover from that, and in the end fell to the turks - after a very, very long siege.
the turks then benefited greatly from their usurpation of roman power by inheriting all of the advanced technology. they don't tell you that, either. they make it seem like it was invented by turkish scholars, which is actually somewhat of a contradiction in terms. the turks were not an advanced people, at the time.
and, they forget to tell you about the importance of byzantine back-migration into rome at the start of the renaissance.
nor do they talk about the reasons that western europe, particularly, was so stunted for what was a relatively short period of time, which had to do with the authoritarian powers pushed down by the church. it was illegal to read; they'd kill you for it. what kind of society would you expect to come out of a social, political, religious and legal system that literally bans reading?
so, of course they forgot how to read greek and latin. they were literally forbidden to do so, under penalty of death.
then, they tell you that the muslims saved all the books, which is worse than a half-truth - that's a lie. the muslims burned thousands of books! specifically, they burned the ones they didn't like. but, they also burned the ones they liked, after they translated them into arabic. the revisionists want you to think this was a curator process, that they saved the knowledge from certain destruction; you're only falling for that because you're so ignorant about the history. what the muslims did was launch a systemic analysis of all of the knowledge in alexandria (and elsewhere) and rigorously sort through all of it, find the parts that contradicted islam, destroy them, and save the parts they thought upheld or otherwise complemented the koran by converting them to arabic and destroying the greek. so, it's technically true that the reason we have some specific greek texts is because this process happened. but, the reason we only have these specific texts is also because this process happened! there's all kinds of things by classic authors that disappeared in this period because the muslims felt they were heretical.
(and, yes, the muslims were just doing the same thing the christians did. in fact, muslims and christians in that region would have looked roughly similar and spoke roughly the same language, too. quite a few contemporary historians labelled islam a christian heresy or a branch of judaism rather than a new religion. the lines were really kind of blurrily drawn, up until the crusades.)
so, they tell you about the good things the muslins did, but forget to tell you about the bad things. what does that remind you of?
then, they have the nerve to call this a "golden age" and assign it to islam. but, this "golden age" they speak of was a process of systematically destroying anything that contradicted islam, and then trying to make sense of the rest of it. worse, the actual thinkers involved were almost entirely persians and kurds. so, if this "golden age" is made up of iranians sorting through greek mathematical sources, what is islamic about it? if it's a golden age, what it is is a babylonian renaissance. again: if you actually read some good sources, you'll see how easy it is to debunk this revisionism. you just have to actually educate yourself about what actually happened...
and, don't get me started on slavery. y'all know muslims invented slavery, right?
i've been clear, repeatedly, that i don't think that islam is an eastern religion or an eastern culture. islam is basically the same thing as christianity - it's a synthesis of jewish religion and greek philosophy. and, the cultures actually developed with more similarities than differences. what that means is that islam is a western culture, and needs to be understood that way. i will reject orientalism on it's face; they're the same as us, so there's no basis in othering them.
but, what that means is that you should realize that islam is essentially going through the same period of backwardsness that christianity went through 1000 years ago. saying "but, we were kings", or "make arabia great again" and then gloating about the situation being reversed 1000 years ago (however half-true that actually is) isn't an intelligent approach to the situation. you should have the humility and smarts to see the parallels between saudi despotism and papal authoritarianism. and, that means you should be on the side of the enlightenment, and in favour of expanding it.
i know i'm arguing with an imaginary person, but i don't think this is a straw man, and i think that more specific discussions will double down on my positions rather than contradict them.
they key point is to do your own research, and be careful about believing things people tell you when you don't have the expertise or background to critically analyze it by yourself.
at
03:46
actually, i'm going to take a nap.
but, first...
there is some historical revisionism making the rounds right now that is broadly written around a series of half-truths and omissions. historical revisionists, including marxists (who have a theory of history called historical materialism), tend to operate from ideologically warped places, and are broadly not afraid to present dishonest arguments, because their real purpose is not historical but political.
it's usually less that they're bluntly wrong about what they do say and more that they didn't point out some other things that are needed to put the situation into context. and, like i say, it's not accidental.
if you know the facts, it's often easy to work through this kind of thing. if you don't, they can often trick you. this is the importance of independent verification and critical thinking; it's why it's so important that you don't believe everything you hear or read, and don't rely on fact check sites or other dubious internet sources to verify your biases. it's why it's so important to actually read books.
but, all of that aside, i gotta say it: 1000 years was a long time ago, and if your cultural identity is rooted in a perception that you were great 1000 years ago, you're basically making the same arguments that donald trump is. it's kind of pathetic, really.
history is important; unfortunately, the history you're consuming is deeply flawed. i'm being vague on purpose. but, if we're going to have stupid cultural pissing matches, can we be contemporary, please? thanks.
i mean, frankly, i'm not sure i'd even consider capetian france and post-napoleonic france to be the same culture. they barely even speak the same language....
but, first...
there is some historical revisionism making the rounds right now that is broadly written around a series of half-truths and omissions. historical revisionists, including marxists (who have a theory of history called historical materialism), tend to operate from ideologically warped places, and are broadly not afraid to present dishonest arguments, because their real purpose is not historical but political.
it's usually less that they're bluntly wrong about what they do say and more that they didn't point out some other things that are needed to put the situation into context. and, like i say, it's not accidental.
if you know the facts, it's often easy to work through this kind of thing. if you don't, they can often trick you. this is the importance of independent verification and critical thinking; it's why it's so important that you don't believe everything you hear or read, and don't rely on fact check sites or other dubious internet sources to verify your biases. it's why it's so important to actually read books.
but, all of that aside, i gotta say it: 1000 years was a long time ago, and if your cultural identity is rooted in a perception that you were great 1000 years ago, you're basically making the same arguments that donald trump is. it's kind of pathetic, really.
history is important; unfortunately, the history you're consuming is deeply flawed. i'm being vague on purpose. but, if we're going to have stupid cultural pissing matches, can we be contemporary, please? thanks.
i mean, frankly, i'm not sure i'd even consider capetian france and post-napoleonic france to be the same culture. they barely even speak the same language....
at
03:10
so, i'm out of the shower and ready to go.
the dry air in here is really absolutely vicious on my hair. i can't let it get as bad as last year, though. i have to ensure i'm staying hydrated, in all of the senses of the term - drinking water, showering regularly (i can admittedly get a little rutty), etc otherwise, it's going to knot itself up and fall out.
and, i don't actually know what i'd do after that. i certainly would not detransition just because my hair fell out - that would be a strange idea of womanhood. it's certainly a very challenging prospect to imagine existing as a bald woman of any type, and it's just that much harder to imagine existing as a bald transwoman. but, like, the world would have to get used to it. because, that's not an argument for accepting testosterone all of a sudden. it just isn't. sorry.
and, i'd like to imagine that i wouldn't be so shallow as to kill myself, but it would certainly be overwhelmingly depressing, and it may force me into a clinical state, for really the first time. i'd like to hope i could get over it. it would be really, really, really hard.
would i wear wigs? well, i guess i'd probably have little other option.
i'd probably choose to stay in than go out in a wig, though.
if you think i'm a hermit now, take away my hair and see what happens. i'd probably order my food on amazon. i'd go agoraphobic.
i don't think i'm having actual difficulty with actual hair loss; it's not falling out, so much as it's getting damaged by environmental factors. i'm pretty convinced that the answer is undoing the effects of the chronic dry air (and pollution) via hydration...
but, it's probably, ultimately, another argument to get out of this city.
but, for now, i'm back to work for the night, and probably the week. i don't expect to go anywhere until around the 10th or so, when i'll need to go out and pick up some more estrogen.
the dry air in here is really absolutely vicious on my hair. i can't let it get as bad as last year, though. i have to ensure i'm staying hydrated, in all of the senses of the term - drinking water, showering regularly (i can admittedly get a little rutty), etc otherwise, it's going to knot itself up and fall out.
and, i don't actually know what i'd do after that. i certainly would not detransition just because my hair fell out - that would be a strange idea of womanhood. it's certainly a very challenging prospect to imagine existing as a bald woman of any type, and it's just that much harder to imagine existing as a bald transwoman. but, like, the world would have to get used to it. because, that's not an argument for accepting testosterone all of a sudden. it just isn't. sorry.
and, i'd like to imagine that i wouldn't be so shallow as to kill myself, but it would certainly be overwhelmingly depressing, and it may force me into a clinical state, for really the first time. i'd like to hope i could get over it. it would be really, really, really hard.
would i wear wigs? well, i guess i'd probably have little other option.
i'd probably choose to stay in than go out in a wig, though.
if you think i'm a hermit now, take away my hair and see what happens. i'd probably order my food on amazon. i'd go agoraphobic.
i don't think i'm having actual difficulty with actual hair loss; it's not falling out, so much as it's getting damaged by environmental factors. i'm pretty convinced that the answer is undoing the effects of the chronic dry air (and pollution) via hydration...
but, it's probably, ultimately, another argument to get out of this city.
but, for now, i'm back to work for the night, and probably the week. i don't expect to go anywhere until around the 10th or so, when i'll need to go out and pick up some more estrogen.
at
02:35
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)