You know, I'm really getting tired of November 5th...

[Beorning]

... I mean, in the whole "Remember, remember the 5th of November, gunpowder treason and plot" aspect.

Seriously, people should really stop embracing this date as some sort of pro-liberty, pro-democracy anniversary. I have this FB friend who is liberal leftist - and he just loves celebrating November 5th, posting the "Governments should be afraid of their people" quote, photos of V for the V For Vendetta movie etc.. And it makes me want to scream!

The Gunpowder Plot wasn't about liberty and / or anarchism, but about Catholicism vs Protestantism! Guy Fawkes was mainly considered a symbol of treason, not righteous rebellion - not until the Wachowskis made their adaptation of V For Vendetta! And that "governments should be afraid" quote is not an anarchist quote - and it's not even something that was in the original VFV comic book! It's a Jefferson quote, for crying out loud! Why are people conflating all of these things together???

Okay, I'm ranting, I know. But am I the only one who considers this fetishization of Guy Fawkes and Gunpowder Plot anniversaries totally bizarre..?

[Tolvo]

People often cling onto weird ahistorical things often based on modern media representations.

I don't 100% blame films and things, depends on the thing they are saying and whether they treat it as accurate. Like personally I don't think V for Vendetta is something people should have reason to trust as having a great grasp on history? Like if someone thinks the things stated in Inglorious Bastards really happened, I wouldn't blame the film makers on that one.

But people do have this knack for clinging on to people as symbols, who literally are the thing they hate.

Think about anti semites who like to use the Knights Templars as their symbols. The Knights Templar being religious zealots of the ruling class who controlled many banks who were secretive and influenced Western society at the time. The thing that they believe Jewish people do and hate them for. Their symbol, represents everything they hate.

You see so many different people in different groups doing this sort of thing.

[Beorning]

Oh, I'm definitely not blaming V For Vendetta! It's a really great comic book (the movie adaptation is really subpar, IMHO). It's one of my favourite comic books ever... But the thing is: when reading it, I do remember that Alan Moore used Guy Fawkes as a symbol. That he took a historical figure and reinterpreted him to fit his story. Again, it's a great story - but it has no bearing on the historical Guy Fawkes.

Meanwhile, a lot of people seem to be projecting the message of the comic book and / or the movie back onto the real Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot. The FB friend I mention keeps insisting that the Gunpowder Plot was some sort of "citizens' rebellion" in defense of civil rights and that Guy Fawkes has long been some sort of symbol for civil disobedience in the name of freedom etc. I've also seen people say that Guy Fawkes has always been an anarchist symbol etc. And none of this is actually true...

[Tolvo]

Yeah, that does happen with a lot of things.

Like keep in mind 300 where the Spartans are shown to be the good guys. Ignoring all the other incorrect things in the film and comic, the Spartans were early eugenicists and slavers, while the Persian Empire of that time was actually abolishing slavery in the places they ruled. But we need the Spartans to be heroes to really make the underdog story that actually wasn't all that impressive sell.

[Beorning]

Agh. Don't get me started on 300... Spartans as the defenders of democracy and freedom... don't get me laugh. It's so insanely inaccurate - and yet, people embrace this vision!

The one conforting thing here is that even some other comic creators seem to be annoyed by this. At least, there's this writer named Kieron Gillen - a few years ago, he released a historical comic book called Three, which explored what life in real historical Sparta was like. And he went on record saying that this series was a direct response to Miller's 300 and its glorification of Spartans...

[la dame en noir]

Not trying to derail here, but that's interesting

I just learned that Spartan culture was so far ahead as far as women's rights go, so it's hard for me to see them as truly bad. I'll have to do some research.

[Beorning]

Well, they seemed more progressive regarding women's rights than other Greek states. On the other hand, they murdered handicapped babies and they lived off the backs of the helot class: people who tended to Sparta's fields and who were of such a low status that Spartans actually made a sport of hunting and killing them.

Frankly, there's a reason why Mussolini's fascists or the Nazis had a fondness for Sparta...

[Tolvo]

Yeah they were pretty horrible. They actually went a really weird degree of far with their hunting and killing of people for sport. They'd take their slaves and give them simple weapons and a defunct old fort so the Spartans could practice for war by laying siege and killing them all.

You can also be somewhat better towards one group and be absolutely awful towards others.

[la dame en noir]

You can also be somewhat better towards one group and be absolutely awful towards others.

I'm well aware

[Lilias]

I just learned that Spartan culture was so far ahead as far as women's rights go, so it's hard for me to see them as truly bad. I'll have to do some research.

Spartan men existed solely for war, Spartan women existed solely for breeding warriors. You want a culture where women are treated as human incubators, you need look no further.

Girls did work out together with boys, and if you read superficially, that can look a lot like equality. In fact, it was a way for girls, together with a marriageable age of at least 18, to be in peak health to bear as many children as they were physically able. If a husband was much older than his wife and unable to father children, he would pick someone else to impregnate her, without as much as by-your-leave. Women had absolutely no voice in the Spartan state.

[Tolvo]

Hell in the 1500's in Japan there were clans with women in positions of power, and women soldiers. But it wasn't exactly great.

[la dame en noir]

Spartan men existed solely for war, Spartan women existed solely for breeding warriors. You want a culture where women are treated as human incubators, you need look no further.

Girls did work out together with boys, and if you read superficially, that can look a lot like equality. In fact, it was a way for girls, together with a marriageable age of at least 18, to be in peak health to bear as many children as they were physically able. If a husband was much older than his wife and unable to father children, he would pick someone else to impregnate her, without as much as by-your-leave. Women had absolutely no voice in the Spartan state.

I read everything lol. I know how to do my research.

[la dame en noir]

Source

"Spartan women had a reputation for being independent-minded, and enjoyed more freedoms and power than their counterparts throughout ancient Greece. While they played no role in the military, female Spartans often received a formal education, although separate from boys and not at boarding schools. In part to attract mates, females engaged in athletic competitions, including javelin-throwing and wrestling, and also sang and danced competitively. As adults, Spartan women were allowed to own and manage property. Additionally, they were typically unencumbered by domestic responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning and making clothing, tasks which were handled by the helots.

Marriage was important to Spartans, as the state put pressure on people to have male children who would grow up to become citizen-warriors, and replace those who died in battle. Men who delayed marriage were publicly shamed, while those who fathered multiple sons could be rewarded.

In preparation for marriage, Spartan women had their heads shaved; they kept their hair short after they wed. Married couples typically lived apart, as men under 30 were required to continue residing in communal barracks. In order to see their wives during this time, husbands had to sneak away at night."




Looking for more stuff on women in Sparta. They had freedoms - but like most cultures of that time(and even now) - women were expected to do the domestic shit and have babies. I mean, I wasn't surprised the first time I read it (a few weeks ago) - but I was shocked to learn about the things they could do.

This makes me want to do a shit ton of research about women's history in ancient cultures.

[Lilias]

In part to attract mates, females engaged in athletic competitions, including javelin-throwing and wrestling, and also sang and danced competitively.

The husband would still be chosen by the girl's father, without consulting her, unfortunately.

As adults, Spartan women were allowed to own and manage property. Additionally, they were typically unencumbered by domestic responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning and making clothing, tasks which were handled by the helots.

Slaves doing the chores was nothing new. It was the household that was a lot more stripped-down, what with husbands living in the barracks during their active duty years and boy-children being taken away to live there at the age of 7.

(Differences in culture between the Spartan metropolis and its dependencies apply, naturally.)

This makes me want to do a shit ton of research about women's history in ancient cultures.

Aim for primary resources as much as possible. A good searchable database for Greco-Roman times is Topos.

[la dame en noir]

The husband would still be chosen by the girl's father, without consulting her, unfortunately.

As it goes

Slaves doing the chores was nothing new. It was the household that was a lot more stripped-down, what with husbands living in the barracks during their active duty years and boy-children being taken away to live there at the age of 7.

Read that here

"Sparta was a warrior society in ancient Greece that reached the height of its power after defeating rival city-state Athens in the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.). Spartan culture was centered on loyalty to the state and military service. At age 7, Spartan boys entered a rigorous state-sponsored education, military training and socialization program. Known as the Agoge, the system emphasized duty, discipline and endurance."


"Spartan boys started their military training at age 7, when they left home and entered the Agoge. The boys lived communally under austere conditions. They were subjected to continual physical, competitions (which could involve violence), given meager rations and expected to become skilled at stealing food, among other survival skills."


And this about slaves

"The Helots, whose name means “captives,” were fellow Greeks, originally from Laconia and Messenia, who had been conquered by the Spartans and turned into slaves. The Spartans’ way of life would not have been possible without the Helots, who handled all the day-to-day tasks and unskilled labor required to keep society functioning: They were farmers, domestic servants, nurses and military attendants.

Spartans, who were outnumbered by the Helots, often treated them brutally and oppressively in an effort to prevent uprisings. Spartans would humiliate the Helots by doing such things as forcing them to get debilitatingly drunk on wine and then make fools of themselves in public. (This practice was also intended to demonstrate to young people how an adult Spartan should never act, as self-control was a prized trait.) Methods of mistreatment could be far more extreme: Spartans were allowed to kill Helots for being too smart or too fit, among other reasons."

(Differences in culture between the Spartan metropolis and its dependencies apply, naturally.)

Aim for primary resources as much as possible. A good searchable database for Greco-Roman times is Topos.

It'll be more than Greco-Roman history that I look up. Not enough has been taught about other fascinating cultures & histories

[Lustful Bride]

History is insanely complex. People with one hand can come up with very progressive ideals, and with the other do terrible atrocities. One minute they may champion a noble cause and the next become the same monsters they once fought against :/

We must recognize both the good and the bad and understand everyone and every group is both saint and sinner, and just have to hope that we can find more good than bad.

Its human nature to idealize the parts we feel are noble and just, and try to ignore the worst parts of that society. But the only way we can learn and improve is to accept that it happened, and that again, history is complex, just as people are. You get good people, bad people, bad good people and good bad people.

Or as I like to joke History is a real big case of IDKWTF! X3

[Twisted Crow]

^ I actually agree with this. I try to stress this more seriously when appropriate. Especially when arguing the "Recorded History = Fact" argument. As much of a cop-out as it seems, I also try to remind the given opposition that History (particularly the further back we go) is written by point of view of those privileged enough to hold the pen for it.

I might wonder if this is harder to do this now, given current technology and media, but... one could also argue that things like "abridging" History (or revisionism) might still remain just as much of a threat as it could have been prior to what resources we have now. :/

[Tolvo]

A good thing to check for usually is if different groups with different views actually record the same thing happening, or a lot of people who are witnesses who say the same thing happened. And there might be different interpretations that are valid. Then further ways to read the different possibilities as what they mean culturally.

Though revising history isn't wrong when you learn something new that gives a new view of it. A problem is how the term revisionist is used, because it is typically associated with Holocaust deniers who revise history with their horrible ideas and falsehoods. But actually revising things with new information or sources or understandings isn't really a bad thing.

[LisztesFerenc]

Okay, I'm ranting, I know. But am I the only one who considers this fetishization of Guy Fawkes and Gunpowder Plot anniversaries totally bizarre..?

  In Britain at least Guy Fawks is burned on bonfire night, since yeah, his greatest achievement was a failed attempt at treason.

[la dame en noir]

A problem is how the term revisionist is used, because it is typically associated with Holocaust deniers who revise history with their horrible ideas and falsehoods.

Yuck

I can't with those people

[la dame en noir]

History is insanely complex. People with one hand can come up with very progressive ideals, and with the other do terrible atrocities. One minute they may champion a noble cause and the next become the same monsters they once fought against :/

We must recognize both the good and the bad and understand everyone and every group is both saint and sinner, and just have to hope that we can find more good than bad.

Its human nature to idealize the parts we feel are noble and just, and try to ignore the worst parts of that society. But the only way we can learn and improve is to accept that it happened, and that again, history is complex, just as people are. You get good people, bad people, bad good people and good bad people.

Or as I like to joke History is a real big case of IDKWTF! X3

All of this is pretty obvious. To anyone that really looks at history.

[Lustful Bride]

All of this is pretty obvious. To anyone that really looks at history.

Yeah I kind of ran out of smart words so I just stated the obvious. :P  Still, TLDRs are important. ;D

[CyrodilicBrandy]

I'm more annoyed with 5th November because it means fireworks. And fireworks make loud noises. And people will often set them off days before and after- or after 11pm, or even during the day, just because. So as someone with anxiety triggered by loud noises that come out of nowhere, it's stressful. New Year's Eve is a lot easier to handle because they're more concentrated around midnight, and most people are too busy actively celebrating the new year, than actually going through the effort of lighting a fireworks display.
I also have a kitten now, and he's less than a year old; he's never experienced fireworks until Bonfire Night and trying to keep him comforted whilst also being uncomfortable is kind of hard.

[Tolvo]

You'd hate where I live, people set off fireworks all the time for everything. All of July is fireworks every night, 2 weeks of fireworks before Christmas, people are just setting them off all the time for everything or do it because they just feel like we need a month of fireworks every day at random times sometimes even at like 2 AM. My current dogs at least aren't too bothered by fireworks.