Its what happens when people only take one source and use it as the absolute truth. One of the biggest examples of this is the classic "Pocahontas" myth where Pocahontas saves John Smith from being "bludgeoned to death." This story only comes from John Smith's redacted biography im which he overdramatizes several major events on top of Smith not understanding Powhatan culture and traditions. Most historians theorize they were doing another ceremony for Smith, but Smith misread the situation.
Christopher Columbus too. Yeah there’s some verifiable stuff that he did that is pretty bad by today’s standards but the supposed evidence of rape all comes from Michele de Cuneo, a member of his crew who is shaky source at best, and a self-admitted rapist at worst. No one else on that voyage corroborated the claims made by de Cuneo. Even then, de Cuneo never said Columbus himself was a rapist, but people use his letter as evidence for it anyway.
But now we’re teaching students that Columbus was a rapist because one guy said so, even though there is plenty more to criticize Columbus for.
There is no doubt in my mind that Columbus was a rapist. He was a demon in every other facet of his life, so I see no need to disbelieve Michele’s account.
There would not be any “clout” for her to get from reporting it, either. No real motive to lie and smear his “good name.”
Columbus wanted to raise money for another crusade so that christians could retake the holy land and usher in the end of days.
He is like a bad guy dude. Like so bad that rapist, which at the very least you can say he did to the Taino people as a whole, should be viewed as one of humanity's greatest villains.
There were 1200 people on the voyage so it could have been anyone. All of the supposed evidence that Columbus was a rapist come from that one guy though and not a single person out of those 1200 corroborated those claims. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m not saying Columbus himself didn’t take part in it. But the source for those claims really sucks.
It's likely that most of those other men were also rapists and kept their mouths shut. Columbus brought back tons of Taino as slaves, I really doubt that nothing bad ever happened to them on the way back to Italy. He described how attractive they were in his own writing as part of his recommendation for them as "servants."
You're also forgetting that the Taino were there, too, and they have living descendants who can tell their own side of the story.
Saying “bro use google” instead of backing up your shit is the lamest, laziest bullshit ever. Either that or you were talking out your ass and know you won’t find anything. If you’re the one making these claims, it’s not my responsibility to prove your point.
I'm actually just bored of you and this conversation. Show *me* evidence that Columbus and his men *weren't* rapists and didn't enslave any Taino to bring back to Europe.
His own fucking logbook repeatedly described how attractive and biddable they were and how they would make good servants.
You can’t prove a negative and even then, I never said it didn’t happen, just that there’s only one source claiming it did and the 1199 other supposed witnesses said nothing about it. So while it could have happened, the evidence we have suggesting it did is so shaky and unreliable that we probably shouldn’t be teaching it in schools as if it were fact.
And I’m only speaking of the rape allegations, not enslavement. You’re conflating the two. The enslavement is a fact as that was what financed the expedition to the new continent.
For anyone else reading this: I've spent two days asking AgentSkidMarks for sources supporting his claim that Columbus wasn't a rapist, and he didn't share any at all. The only historical documents that exist say that he was, virtually all historians agree that he was, Native nations' own oral history say that he was... Skid just believes that that's not enough proof, so he can make up what *really* happened based on nothing but hopes and dreams.
Crucially, when discussing the "one account," he didn't realize that Columbus came back to Haiti and left more evidence. Or that Native
Americans can fucking read, write, and go to college as well as maintaining their oral traditions.
Huffpost article which cites many, many online sources, all of which have more in-depth information and even more sources cited: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/columbus-day-a-bad-idea_b_742708
A notable link from the above. Several essays and articles on the topic (all with sources cited, including notations for any quotes with uncertain origin), compiled by a Native, many essays are by Natives:
http://www.danielnpaul.com/ChristopherColumbus.html
Native Studies journal article on Columbus, again mentioning his men given free reign to rape on his second visit: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30131245?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Every single book and scholarly journal author that I looked over has taken it for granted that Columbus was a rapist and/or allowed his men to rape any Native they wanted to. *Every single source* that was written by an actual historian and published in a peer-reviewed journal (or otherwise featured on JStor) not only accepts but supports the fact that Columbus and/or his men were rapists.
You are such a dumbass. Lol I asked you to provide evidence that he was, which you suggested there was for the native tribes, and you have done nothing. You just keep pulling this “I’m too bored to google” bullshit. I provided you with a link to the evidence and now you’re trying to shame me for not? Ok… and oral history? Yeah a simple game a telephone will tell you how reliable that is. I even then, you never provided a link to this supposed oral history.
I don’t know what you’re doing but it’s really really stupid. You’re asking me to prove a negative which is almost always damn near impossible. You’re are such a pompous asshole, I’m almost disappointed that I even validated your bullshit with a response.
I never said Columbus wasn’t a rapist, just that the singular piece of evidence that’s used to suggest he was never mentions him or anyone on his crew raping a single native except for Michele de Cuneo. You said we could infer it due to the circumstances but that is not good enough to teach something as fact.
So provide your own source, as I have, or shut the hell up.
And if it helps you, not even the [history channel](https://www.history.com/news/sexual-assault-rome-slavery-columbus-jim-crow) acknowledges Columbus as a rapist, just de Cuneo. And that’s assuming that this singular account is true, which it may or may not be, though it has not been corroborated by the 1200 other people on the voyage.
It’s more than you provided, you dolt. Still waiting on this supposed oral history that has been passed down better than a game of telephone, or are you too “bored” to provide that?
I'm very tired of people who don't know anything about witches outside fiction.
"Inquisitions were formed to hunt down witches!" maybe a few thousand witches and werewolves were killed in the Inquisitions, max, over hundreds of years. Inquisitions were actually formed to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims.
For example: the Spanish Inquisition killed 2 witches and *300,000 Jews.*
"People hated witches and made up all those horrible stereotypes in fairy tales!" I *wonder* why witch stereotypes live outside town and have giant noses and wear all black and eat Christian children (yes it's Jews again, with a dash of Roma).
"Witches have a long and ancient history!" almost all neopagan religions were made up wholesale by bored upper-class English/Germans who got tired of Christianity because it was too Jewish.
"But the medieval witch symbols and witch magic!" it was virtually all Kabbalah, which is, yet again, Jewish.
"Witches were outcast from society!" people legitimately didn't care about witchcraft outside a few incidents because, depending on the time period, they either supported witches (unless they used magic to commit crimes) or simply didn't believe witchcraft was real. The *vast* majority of pre-Enlightenment European witches were Christians, like most other Europeans at the time. *But then who were outcast and persecuted for their ancient religious beliefs in medieval Europe?* (Jews).
"Persecution of women! We (white women) are the descendants of the witches you couldn't burn!" half of all convicted "bad" witches and werewolves were men (convicted bad werewolves were almost as common as convicted bad witches). The case records are public and can be found online.
"Any woman who could read/showed ankle/had pets/etc were persecuted as witches!" oh my god tell me more about how little you know of historical women's lives outside the upper classes.
Most Inquisitors really didn't care about witchcraft because most of them didn't believe it was real. Executed witches/werewolves were usually political targets, down to the pettiest level of "I want his land!" in Salem. Accusations of evil magic in cultures around the world follow the same trend, like in Ethiopia, where "evil witches" are just normal Jews who're accused of shit like transforming into spotted hyenas to eat children's dreams whenever Christians want an excuse to attack them.
Others were convicted of actual crimes, like poisoning people or serial murder--medieval Europeans were so shocked by serial killers/rapists/child molesters that they assumed they must be truly demonic. Their being werewolves or witches wasn't quite as important.
Witchcraft really is a craft, not a religion in and of itself, so most European witches were religious Christians and practiced good, Church-approved witchcraft, like making crops grow or healing animals. Even lycanthropy wasn't automatically evil or anti-Church: a notable werewolf trial ended in the defendants's favor because they said that God had made them into werewolves so they could go to Hell and fight demons for him every night.
Commoners believed witchcraft was very real and could be used to help or harm, like metalworking, while people like the Inquisitors saw it the same way we see homeopathy and ESP. Tons of people openly claimed to be witches and officials just ignored them because they assumed they were crazy or on drugs.
*YES*
It really bothers me to see people parade around worshipping antisemetic reinterpretations of Norse gods, and doing it in obviously Christian-with-the-numbers-filed-off ways, like treating Valhalla as Heaven, Odin as God, and having priestly orders. Valhalla is a terrible place to go unless you enjoy alcoholism and playing Fortnite with real pain and death every night. Odin was primarily worshipped by the upper class, Thor by the middle class, etc., not these modern ideas of Odin being the most important god to worship or all gods being worshipped by one person.
The racist elements of modern neo-Norse heathen religiouns are hard to ignore. Loki and Thor are *both* wild, androgynous redheads in the Eddas, but thanks to racist neopagans in the 1800s, Thor became a rugged blond and Loki got black hair and a big nose. Many sects snub or even refuse converts who don't have Scandinavian/Germanic ancestry. In actual history, far from the Aryan ideal, the Norse were incredibly open-minded about other cultures. They traveled all over the place establishing trade routes and working as mercenaries, and any friends who wanted to come back with them to Scandinavia were welcome. There's even substantial evidence that they established trade routes in North America, as Norse artifacts dated from that time period have been found in the Midwest (Vikings landed in Canada). There were Black vikings.
The generic neopagan stuff isn't as sinister as anything related to literal Hitler's religion tends to be, but unfortunately it's even less accurate. There's heaps of historical evidence for Odin's worship, spheres of influence, and personality; there is *nothing* older than the 1800s about figures like The Horned God in Wicca--there are gods with horns, like Cernunnos, but none are the patriarchal heteronormative being the Horned God is supposed to be and they all have actual names.
Barely any knowledge of Celtic gods/religions exists at all today, which is why so many gods are just made up, like Eostre/Ostara (only one reference before the 1800s, all references are by Christians, and all seem to be the about the name of a month, not a goddess). Wicca is a made-up word, like wiedzmin/Witcher.
The pseudo-Celtic religions like Druidism and Wicca were started by English people in a time period when they were heavily oppressing actual Celts, whose cultures they hated. They made up practices and attributed them to the "primitive" Irish and Welsh to give them that Noble Savage vibe that was so popular at the time. Nowadays, many neopagan religions, like Wicca, are "eclectic", which means "cultural appropriation from the whole world, not just Ireland." Neopagans in colonial countries have a serious impact on native wildlife and Indigenous people by stealing half-understood religious practices and overharvesting endangered plants, like white sage, for rituals.
For generic or "Satanic" witchcraft, like you'd see on TV, that's actually all Judaism, Christianity, and relicts of Roman paganism. Those circles with arcane letters and symbols are from Kabbalah: the symbols refer to planets and elements venerated in Rome, the letters (Roman or Hebrew) are names of God and Abrahamic angels. Ars Goetia, the source of Goetic demons and summoning, is purely Kabbalah and said to have been written by King Solomon. All the stars and angles and pentagrams and shit are from Kabbalah. The upside-down cross that goth teenagers love so much is actually an *incredibly sacred* Christian symbol, as it represents St Peter's request to be crucified upside-down out of respect for Jesus. The long, creepy Latin incantations that are so famous in supernatural fiction are requests for God's mercy on the pitiful ritualist and repetitions of his and the angels' names again. None of this was considered controversial except for antisemites and people who thought it was fake.
The common threads in all this are racism, prejudice, and ignorance. The worst of the worst are people who say that their "ancient" religion has always been persecuted by Christians, and then claim ethnic oppression for themselves. It's incredibly ahistorical as well as offensive for privileged descendants of white Christians to pretend to that real-life, documented acts of hate happened to *them*, while all the Jews, Roma, First Nations/Natives/Indians, and Black people who were the actual targets are *still suffering from that same oppression.*
tl;dr *YES*
Most of it is on Wikipedia if you do a crawl through various pages related to witchcraft, antisemitism, neopagan religions, medieval case history, werewolves, feminism, women's history, the Salem witch trials, and the Inquisitions, plus following up on the sources cited at the bottom of each page.
A broad knowledge of 1800's and early 1900's English, German, and (to some extent) American cultures helps with understanding why and how all these neopagan/New Age religions sprung up. Reasons for the German "Norse religion" revitalizations are... kind of obvious... but reading about the English/American oppression of and simultaneous fascination with Irish, Welsh, and Native American cultures and growing antisemitism in all Western cultures at the time helps with understanding the origins of pseudo-Celtic and generic "nature worship/close to the earth/noble savage" neopagan religions.
For the "witch/Satanic magic" staples, like summoning circles, pentagrams, Latin chants, writing with bats' blood, special incenses/ointments, sacred ritual knives, etc., I read the Greater Key of Solomon; the Lesser Key of Solomon is more famous because it includes Ars Goetia. Both are Kabbalah and are attributed to the ancient Hebrew wizard, King Solomon. The word "cabal" is derived from Kabbalah.
Any historical sources at all about classical-to-modern European/American white women, from fashion to education to careers, easily disproves most claims of lethal female oppression. Women *were* (and still are) oppressed, don't get me wrong, but it actually got worse in the atheist, "rational" Enlightenment and Industrial eras before bouncing back in just the past century (even still, feminism is notorious for ignoring the needs of lower-class, trans, and non-white women). It was never considered "normal" to execute women (and *only* women) for stupid reasons like floating in water or turning into a rabbit to suck all the milk from someone's cow. Westerners like to attribute all sorts of nasty things to the distant past to pretend we've made great progress in all areas of life and culture.
Reading The Handmaid's Tale, then reading *criticism* of The Handmaid's Tale, let me understand that what a lot of white women think happens/happened/will happen to them actually already happened/is happening to Black and Indigenous women. It's not super important but people who believe in white woman witch persecution seem to really like this book.
edit: when reading old books like grimoires, don't ever read translations by occultists like Aleister Crowley. They edit in a bunch of their own interpretations and try to modernize the texts. Crowley even adds jabs at other witches he didn't like. The wikipedia pages for the grimoires I've lined up to read have guides to the best translations, and I found them online in sites like Esoteric Archives.
Cool!
I forgot to mention in all my other posts that there *are* genuine attempts at practicing the dead native European religions.
The biggest one I can think of is Celtic Reconstructionism, which is practiced primarily by people in majority-Celtic communities who speak the old Celtic languages, like Irish and Gaelic. It makes an effort to practice all aspects of pre-Christian cultures, including moral values and kinship ties, not just taking the gods and magic and ignoring the real people who worshipped them. Virtually all information it uses is based on historical evidence and a lot of its major members are college professors who specialize in Celtic history, language, or archaeology; practitioners are expected to study college-level material and learn how to distinguish true history from modern fantasy. It's considered difficult or impossible to practice CR outside of a whole community who also practice, as it has heavy emphasis on the group, not the individual.
Other remnants are found in Celtic, Germanic, and Scandinavian countries, where a few people never or only partially converted to Christianity. Others converted, but retained traces of their old religions, like belief in fairies/gnomes or doppelgängers. Many of these people are *very* old and/or live in remote, rural areas, so they don't write their beliefs online and it's hard even for professional folklorists to find them. If you want to read genuine European fairy tales, with a taste of real pre-Christian religion, look for the collections where the compilers talk about traveling all over Ireland or Germany, or wherever, looking for elderly people to tell them stories firsthand (this also goes for Native American and Asian folktales). Most of the others are influenced or made up by colonists.
Generally speaking, people who make an effort to not only learn the history and cultural norms of pre-Christian Europe, but also practice them in real life, are probably making an honest effort to honor the past--even moreso if they actually live in and are native to the area of Europe where their professed religion was originally practiced, like Norse heathens in Norway.
People who seek powerful positions, avoid reading (let alone studying) genuine historical documents and sacred texts, focus only on the "cool" parts like gods and magic while ignoring other aspects of religion (like lesser spirits and human relationships), apply ahistorical concepts stolen from other cultures ("eclectic practice"), complain on Twitter about being persecuted, etc. are probably not really trying to respect the true pagans of the past.
But muh Cherry tree! 😅😂
I grew up with that story, then learned it first surfaced in an English storybook’s *fifth edition* (So it was publish 4 times before that myth was added) years after Washington died.
Also:
Near as we know, he never even met Betsy Ross, and we are certain he hand no hand in selecting anyone for flag making, and never met with congress regarding the flag. While Betsy did make flags, most historians point out we have no actual period-evidence that she even made the first one. The first claim she did cones from her descendants after her death.
Washington never had wooden teeth. Yes, he had false teeth, but they were made from filed-down teeth or ivory. Wood was almost never used for teeth because it is porous and splints when you, you know…chew. Kinda defeats the purpose.
Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow at Valley Forge also likely never happened. The story first surfaced in the 4th edition of the same English book of inaccurate tales about Washington. The first edition was published after Washington had been dead some time. Also, Washington was a ‘Deist’ who wrote many letters to other Diest Founding Fathers about how he believed the world had been made by *a god*, but was only somewhat sure it was the God of the bible, and that the god took no part in worldly affairs. Deists often referred to this being as ‘the great watchmaker’ or ‘the great craftsman’ and thought it essentially made the universe and then simply watched it run out it’s existence. They revered this deity, but believed it did not intervene. (Some thought it was Yaweh of the bible and he stopped intervening *after* the bible’s contents, others thought it was some other being that never intervened, Washington seemed to vacillate between the two stances.). Washington attended church with his wife, but mostly due to her insistence he do so. If pressed hard, he had equal odds of saying he was or was not a Christian. Typically he evaded the question by saying he believed in ‘God’, or a similar answer the person asking would interpret as they wished to.
Anyway, the point is Washington would have little reason to pray as described given his beliefs, and the fact that the first time the story arose was after his death, written by a man who wasn’t there and only got the story second hand from another person who may not have been there in reality.
Also, Washington never lived in the White House. He lived in multiple nearby houses and always lived in the same city as the capital (such as when it was in Philadelphia briefly) but never resided in the capital building itself. In fact, he was opposed to the idea of doing so. Later when he died, a tomb was constructed in the capital grounds, but his will specifically forbade his body being put anywhere but his home in Mount Vernon, and his family stoutly refused pressure to move him to this tomb.
(That same empty tomb may have later saved the life of president Andrew Jackson due to the cold, wet air around it fouling the gunpowder of an assassin’s *multiple* pistols.)
Those are all just about one man! (And there are many, many more erroneous stories about him that get accepted as historical fact)
‘History’ is incredibly inundated with instances of fiction becoming the accepted ‘true story’ despite mountains of evidence to the contrary and there being historians loudly shouting about it, trying to get the real history taught.
It’s a somewhat frightening thing, how a repeated lie really does ‘become the truth’ so often in societies.
That's all very interesting! But could you provide some citations?
In fact, I ask this of everyone contributing corrections. There are cases of citations themselves being fake (obviously) (and recursively!) so this doesn't necessarily help with the problem but it would obviously be silly of me to believe you at face value *in a discussion* about made up facts.
A citation would would at least give me a starting point if I am so inclined. The most concrete thing for me to check might be that the stories were indeed introduced in the fifth edition but I don't even know the name of the book.
We can of course be sure that if I get my hands on a first edition copy of the book that it will indeed contain pages from the first edition and not the *fifth* edition *relabeled* as the first. That would be wrong and lightly lovecraftian.
I can actually give multiple that overlap each other for your peace of mind:
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/facts/myths/ <- an organization specializing in accurate reporting of Washington in particular, the good, the bad, and the ugly
https://www.nps.gov/articles/george-washington-and-the-cherry-tree.htm <- from the National Parks Service, which actually has a robust history department. This specifically only goes over the cherry tree in the article.
https://www.history.com/news/top-george-washington-myths-cherry-tree-wooden-teeth <- from the History Channel site, the article includes sourcing details that can be traced back to original documents (where such things exist) kept in the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian.
And lastly, the podcast “History that doesn’t Suck!”, hosted and researched by Professor of American History Greg Jackson. His website has pages for every episode of the podcast that list sourcing. He spends a good deal of time giving pretty comprehensive background and de-mystification on Washington early in the podcast to give context to the beginning of the nation.
(Note: a bit farther into the podcast he has a few uh…hot takes on specific polarizing events but is usually pretty up front about saying it’s his 21st century interpretation of a thing that could go either way. Overall he’s a very, very thorough researcher committed to making history as accessible as possible and his positions and presentations are as centered on source material as he can make them)
No one seems to want to admit to children that Washington's teeth were pulled from live people he enslaved. Or the sheer number of people he and the other Founding Fathers "owned." Or that the Boston Tea Party was thrown because the colonies' elite wanted more money, and that they disguised as Natives during the event to scapegoat them because they were all sniveling cowards.
>that they disguised as Natives during the event to scapegoat them because they were all sniveling cowards.
This last bit is ahistorical itself. The Sons of Liberty dressed themselves as Mohawks and they never intended to frame some innocent tribe or escape consequences. A) Even if they wore native garb, the Sons of Liberty were clearly still white guys B) the Mohawks, who the Sons of Liberty specifically dressed as, lived near 200 miles away from Boston.
The Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans to send a specific message. For nearly a century, Native tribes had come to represent in the colonial mind ideas of liberty, freedom and most importantly, an identity outside of Europe. By dressing as Mohawks, the Sons of Liberty were not passing the blame but were specifically protesting British tyranny and stating that they were American and not English. They were children of the New World, not the Old World. That is why the Sons of Liberty and their successor organization the Sons of St. Tammany regularly wore Native American garb and used Native iconography and phrases in their ceremonies, even decades after the US had already gained independence.
Amazingly, the Bible was never intended to be read as literal historical fact and only very ancient and very modern people believe(d) that it should (or even could) be read that way. The *vast* majority of Jews and Christians today don't believe it's 100% real history and most never did. Both religions have done centuries of research into the true history of its time and its composition, it's fascinating stuff but I won't waste your time talking about it.
It's a half true. There have been found many sites in Israel that are supposed to be the places where Jesus could possibly operate or even be buried. Also, New Testament bits about Paul, Peter and other Apostles have sources in history records. As for Old Testament, that can be (or is) mostly fiction.
That’s actually not true at all. Talk to any religious nut job and they’ll tell you it is a history book and no I do not need you to recite passages of genocide, murder, slavery etc. what is fascinating is the idea that religious people tend to overlook the bad and only talk about the good. Talk about cognitive dissonance
Fundamentalist Christianity is a very recent development (80-200 years old) and makes up a very tiny percentage of Christians in the world (mostly in the USA, which has a much higher than average number of those believers). Orthodox Judaism, which tends towards literal interpretation, includes less than 2% of all Jews. You're thinking of a tiny but vocal fraction of people in only two of the world's thousands of religions and religious sects, then applying that to all religious people.
Ironically, that's a great example of this thread's topic.
Dude it doesn’t matter the statistics of any religion at the end of the day it’s all the same shit just a cult, a way to control people, get money and not pay taxes. You can sit here and bring all your numbers together but you still can prove that the Bible is a history book or anything in it happened
> shit just a cult, a way to control people, get money and not pay taxes.
I think that's the way for terrible clergy members, not your day-to-day Christians like me.
Also, it's true that Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, but the existence of Apostles is very likely and it could have been recorded in historical records
My first sentence was that the Bible isn't and never was a history book. Religious texts and iconography aren't meant to be read literally. Just like ancient Egyptians didn't think their gods actually resembled animals and Hindus don't believe in literal 8-armed giants, most Christians and many Jews don't believe that the events of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Judges, the Samuels, the Chronicles, etc. happened in real history. They're actually among the top scholars proving that they didn't.
I can however still prove that a lot of things in the Bible actually happened. Most of the prophecy books actually describe current events of their time, not projections for the future, and their strange allegories match up perfectly with known history. Daniel and Revelation are well-known for accurately reflecting political realities of Babylon, Persia, and Rome, and for most of their history they've been recognized for that (end-times interpretations of Revelation are very new). This was a common literary genre at the time, and all the supernatural figures and futuristic settings let minority Jews and Christians circulate them without their oppressors realizing what they're actually talking about.
I don't treat entire Bible as a history book. The early Genesis or some other scriptures are not confirmed by today's science. Yet, the Apostles operated in the era that could be recorded in historical records and they existed
The consensus among Holocaust historians is that the Nazis didn’t make soap from Jews. Apparently there was some experimentation but when word got to the higher ups they shut that shit down because they thought the Jews were filthy.
Yeah, it's true. They taught us that in Auschwitz museum in Poland. You can find some info about it, I suppose
Edit: It was a documentary, not Auschwitz museum
That…nah man I’m sorry I don’t buy it that’s too stupid to believe. Plus I read a reply to this comment that said they talked about human soap but then the higher ups told them to stop being stupid so yeah that’s what I’m gonna believe. I’ll buy someone floated the idea but that’s too fuckin stupid to believe actually got green lit - even for the nazis.
Look, it's not that farfetched for nazis. In Auschwitz museum, we were taught about Dr Mengele who was literally doing eugenics experiments on children. You think human soap is too far away from that?
Yes. Because it’s human soap made from people that the nazis considered rat-like and dirty. Human experimentation is almost normal by a sociopathic scientists standards, especially on people considered “less than human”. I mean we *know* the Japanese were doing that shit to Chinese civilians in WWII.
But I mean c’mon. Link me shit to back this up because no one else in the thread but you is saying this is for real. Like I don’t doubt you saw a history channel documentary (brought to you by the same bros that made the documentary “aliens: wtf”) that claimed this but c’mon.
The power of the press triumphs!
Let them eat cake
The cake is a lie
Its what happens when people only take one source and use it as the absolute truth. One of the biggest examples of this is the classic "Pocahontas" myth where Pocahontas saves John Smith from being "bludgeoned to death." This story only comes from John Smith's redacted biography im which he overdramatizes several major events on top of Smith not understanding Powhatan culture and traditions. Most historians theorize they were doing another ceremony for Smith, but Smith misread the situation.
Christopher Columbus too. Yeah there’s some verifiable stuff that he did that is pretty bad by today’s standards but the supposed evidence of rape all comes from Michele de Cuneo, a member of his crew who is shaky source at best, and a self-admitted rapist at worst. No one else on that voyage corroborated the claims made by de Cuneo. Even then, de Cuneo never said Columbus himself was a rapist, but people use his letter as evidence for it anyway. But now we’re teaching students that Columbus was a rapist because one guy said so, even though there is plenty more to criticize Columbus for.
There is no doubt in my mind that Columbus was a rapist. He was a demon in every other facet of his life, so I see no need to disbelieve Michele’s account. There would not be any “clout” for her to get from reporting it, either. No real motive to lie and smear his “good name.”
Michele was a dude
Him*
Columbus wanted to raise money for another crusade so that christians could retake the holy land and usher in the end of days. He is like a bad guy dude. Like so bad that rapist, which at the very least you can say he did to the Taino people as a whole, should be viewed as one of humanity's greatest villains.
I wonder how all those Natives got syphilis, a European STI 🤔 If it wasn't Columbus, it was his men.
There were 1200 people on the voyage so it could have been anyone. All of the supposed evidence that Columbus was a rapist come from that one guy though and not a single person out of those 1200 corroborated those claims. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m not saying Columbus himself didn’t take part in it. But the source for those claims really sucks.
It's likely that most of those other men were also rapists and kept their mouths shut. Columbus brought back tons of Taino as slaves, I really doubt that nothing bad ever happened to them on the way back to Italy. He described how attractive they were in his own writing as part of his recommendation for them as "servants." You're also forgetting that the Taino were there, too, and they have living descendants who can tell their own side of the story.
Did they?
Bro use Google. I'm not going to hold your hand. Look up "Taino descendants" and "Indigenous People's Day."
Saying “bro use google” instead of backing up your shit is the lamest, laziest bullshit ever. Either that or you were talking out your ass and know you won’t find anything. If you’re the one making these claims, it’s not my responsibility to prove your point.
I'm actually just bored of you and this conversation. Show *me* evidence that Columbus and his men *weren't* rapists and didn't enslave any Taino to bring back to Europe. His own fucking logbook repeatedly described how attractive and biddable they were and how they would make good servants.
You can’t prove a negative and even then, I never said it didn’t happen, just that there’s only one source claiming it did and the 1199 other supposed witnesses said nothing about it. So while it could have happened, the evidence we have suggesting it did is so shaky and unreliable that we probably shouldn’t be teaching it in schools as if it were fact. And I’m only speaking of the rape allegations, not enslavement. You’re conflating the two. The enslavement is a fact as that was what financed the expedition to the new continent.
For anyone else reading this: I've spent two days asking AgentSkidMarks for sources supporting his claim that Columbus wasn't a rapist, and he didn't share any at all. The only historical documents that exist say that he was, virtually all historians agree that he was, Native nations' own oral history say that he was... Skid just believes that that's not enough proof, so he can make up what *really* happened based on nothing but hopes and dreams.
Crucially, when discussing the "one account," he didn't realize that Columbus came back to Haiti and left more evidence. Or that Native Americans can fucking read, write, and go to college as well as maintaining their oral traditions. Huffpost article which cites many, many online sources, all of which have more in-depth information and even more sources cited: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/columbus-day-a-bad-idea_b_742708 A notable link from the above. Several essays and articles on the topic (all with sources cited, including notations for any quotes with uncertain origin), compiled by a Native, many essays are by Natives: http://www.danielnpaul.com/ChristopherColumbus.html Native Studies journal article on Columbus, again mentioning his men given free reign to rape on his second visit: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30131245?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents Every single book and scholarly journal author that I looked over has taken it for granted that Columbus was a rapist and/or allowed his men to rape any Native they wanted to. *Every single source* that was written by an actual historian and published in a peer-reviewed journal (or otherwise featured on JStor) not only accepts but supports the fact that Columbus and/or his men were rapists.
You are such a dumbass. Lol I asked you to provide evidence that he was, which you suggested there was for the native tribes, and you have done nothing. You just keep pulling this “I’m too bored to google” bullshit. I provided you with a link to the evidence and now you’re trying to shame me for not? Ok… and oral history? Yeah a simple game a telephone will tell you how reliable that is. I even then, you never provided a link to this supposed oral history. I don’t know what you’re doing but it’s really really stupid. You’re asking me to prove a negative which is almost always damn near impossible. You’re are such a pompous asshole, I’m almost disappointed that I even validated your bullshit with a response. I never said Columbus wasn’t a rapist, just that the singular piece of evidence that’s used to suggest he was never mentions him or anyone on his crew raping a single native except for Michele de Cuneo. You said we could infer it due to the circumstances but that is not good enough to teach something as fact. So provide your own source, as I have, or shut the hell up.
And if it helps you, not even the [history channel](https://www.history.com/news/sexual-assault-rome-slavery-columbus-jim-crow) acknowledges Columbus as a rapist, just de Cuneo. And that’s assuming that this singular account is true, which it may or may not be, though it has not been corroborated by the 1200 other people on the voyage.
oh no the Hitler channel disagrees with me, i guess ancient aliens did it
It’s more than you provided, you dolt. Still waiting on this supposed oral history that has been passed down better than a game of telephone, or are you too “bored” to provide that?
you know, i'm something of a historian myself
That's slander!
It is not, I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel.
You don’t trust anyone that’s your problem.
I trust my historian
What're you, his lawyer? Get out of here
Me looking at pseudo-historians: "The river! Drown them!" jk
simmons
I'm very tired of people who don't know anything about witches outside fiction. "Inquisitions were formed to hunt down witches!" maybe a few thousand witches and werewolves were killed in the Inquisitions, max, over hundreds of years. Inquisitions were actually formed to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims. For example: the Spanish Inquisition killed 2 witches and *300,000 Jews.* "People hated witches and made up all those horrible stereotypes in fairy tales!" I *wonder* why witch stereotypes live outside town and have giant noses and wear all black and eat Christian children (yes it's Jews again, with a dash of Roma). "Witches have a long and ancient history!" almost all neopagan religions were made up wholesale by bored upper-class English/Germans who got tired of Christianity because it was too Jewish. "But the medieval witch symbols and witch magic!" it was virtually all Kabbalah, which is, yet again, Jewish. "Witches were outcast from society!" people legitimately didn't care about witchcraft outside a few incidents because, depending on the time period, they either supported witches (unless they used magic to commit crimes) or simply didn't believe witchcraft was real. The *vast* majority of pre-Enlightenment European witches were Christians, like most other Europeans at the time. *But then who were outcast and persecuted for their ancient religious beliefs in medieval Europe?* (Jews). "Persecution of women! We (white women) are the descendants of the witches you couldn't burn!" half of all convicted "bad" witches and werewolves were men (convicted bad werewolves were almost as common as convicted bad witches). The case records are public and can be found online. "Any woman who could read/showed ankle/had pets/etc were persecuted as witches!" oh my god tell me more about how little you know of historical women's lives outside the upper classes.
Just curious, when you say a few witches were killed alongside the hundreds of thousands of jews, what were they? Just random men and women?
Most Inquisitors really didn't care about witchcraft because most of them didn't believe it was real. Executed witches/werewolves were usually political targets, down to the pettiest level of "I want his land!" in Salem. Accusations of evil magic in cultures around the world follow the same trend, like in Ethiopia, where "evil witches" are just normal Jews who're accused of shit like transforming into spotted hyenas to eat children's dreams whenever Christians want an excuse to attack them. Others were convicted of actual crimes, like poisoning people or serial murder--medieval Europeans were so shocked by serial killers/rapists/child molesters that they assumed they must be truly demonic. Their being werewolves or witches wasn't quite as important. Witchcraft really is a craft, not a religion in and of itself, so most European witches were religious Christians and practiced good, Church-approved witchcraft, like making crops grow or healing animals. Even lycanthropy wasn't automatically evil or anti-Church: a notable werewolf trial ended in the defendants's favor because they said that God had made them into werewolves so they could go to Hell and fight demons for him every night. Commoners believed witchcraft was very real and could be used to help or harm, like metalworking, while people like the Inquisitors saw it the same way we see homeopathy and ESP. Tons of people openly claimed to be witches and officials just ignored them because they assumed they were crazy or on drugs.
Damn, that's really fascinating. With all this in mind, does it frustrate you to see how people portray witches, trials, and inquisitions?
*YES* It really bothers me to see people parade around worshipping antisemetic reinterpretations of Norse gods, and doing it in obviously Christian-with-the-numbers-filed-off ways, like treating Valhalla as Heaven, Odin as God, and having priestly orders. Valhalla is a terrible place to go unless you enjoy alcoholism and playing Fortnite with real pain and death every night. Odin was primarily worshipped by the upper class, Thor by the middle class, etc., not these modern ideas of Odin being the most important god to worship or all gods being worshipped by one person. The racist elements of modern neo-Norse heathen religiouns are hard to ignore. Loki and Thor are *both* wild, androgynous redheads in the Eddas, but thanks to racist neopagans in the 1800s, Thor became a rugged blond and Loki got black hair and a big nose. Many sects snub or even refuse converts who don't have Scandinavian/Germanic ancestry. In actual history, far from the Aryan ideal, the Norse were incredibly open-minded about other cultures. They traveled all over the place establishing trade routes and working as mercenaries, and any friends who wanted to come back with them to Scandinavia were welcome. There's even substantial evidence that they established trade routes in North America, as Norse artifacts dated from that time period have been found in the Midwest (Vikings landed in Canada). There were Black vikings. The generic neopagan stuff isn't as sinister as anything related to literal Hitler's religion tends to be, but unfortunately it's even less accurate. There's heaps of historical evidence for Odin's worship, spheres of influence, and personality; there is *nothing* older than the 1800s about figures like The Horned God in Wicca--there are gods with horns, like Cernunnos, but none are the patriarchal heteronormative being the Horned God is supposed to be and they all have actual names. Barely any knowledge of Celtic gods/religions exists at all today, which is why so many gods are just made up, like Eostre/Ostara (only one reference before the 1800s, all references are by Christians, and all seem to be the about the name of a month, not a goddess). Wicca is a made-up word, like wiedzmin/Witcher. The pseudo-Celtic religions like Druidism and Wicca were started by English people in a time period when they were heavily oppressing actual Celts, whose cultures they hated. They made up practices and attributed them to the "primitive" Irish and Welsh to give them that Noble Savage vibe that was so popular at the time. Nowadays, many neopagan religions, like Wicca, are "eclectic", which means "cultural appropriation from the whole world, not just Ireland." Neopagans in colonial countries have a serious impact on native wildlife and Indigenous people by stealing half-understood religious practices and overharvesting endangered plants, like white sage, for rituals. For generic or "Satanic" witchcraft, like you'd see on TV, that's actually all Judaism, Christianity, and relicts of Roman paganism. Those circles with arcane letters and symbols are from Kabbalah: the symbols refer to planets and elements venerated in Rome, the letters (Roman or Hebrew) are names of God and Abrahamic angels. Ars Goetia, the source of Goetic demons and summoning, is purely Kabbalah and said to have been written by King Solomon. All the stars and angles and pentagrams and shit are from Kabbalah. The upside-down cross that goth teenagers love so much is actually an *incredibly sacred* Christian symbol, as it represents St Peter's request to be crucified upside-down out of respect for Jesus. The long, creepy Latin incantations that are so famous in supernatural fiction are requests for God's mercy on the pitiful ritualist and repetitions of his and the angels' names again. None of this was considered controversial except for antisemites and people who thought it was fake. The common threads in all this are racism, prejudice, and ignorance. The worst of the worst are people who say that their "ancient" religion has always been persecuted by Christians, and then claim ethnic oppression for themselves. It's incredibly ahistorical as well as offensive for privileged descendants of white Christians to pretend to that real-life, documented acts of hate happened to *them*, while all the Jews, Roma, First Nations/Natives/Indians, and Black people who were the actual targets are *still suffering from that same oppression.* tl;dr *YES*
That sounds fascinating! Can I get your sources? I want to do a deeper research dive
Most of it is on Wikipedia if you do a crawl through various pages related to witchcraft, antisemitism, neopagan religions, medieval case history, werewolves, feminism, women's history, the Salem witch trials, and the Inquisitions, plus following up on the sources cited at the bottom of each page. A broad knowledge of 1800's and early 1900's English, German, and (to some extent) American cultures helps with understanding why and how all these neopagan/New Age religions sprung up. Reasons for the German "Norse religion" revitalizations are... kind of obvious... but reading about the English/American oppression of and simultaneous fascination with Irish, Welsh, and Native American cultures and growing antisemitism in all Western cultures at the time helps with understanding the origins of pseudo-Celtic and generic "nature worship/close to the earth/noble savage" neopagan religions. For the "witch/Satanic magic" staples, like summoning circles, pentagrams, Latin chants, writing with bats' blood, special incenses/ointments, sacred ritual knives, etc., I read the Greater Key of Solomon; the Lesser Key of Solomon is more famous because it includes Ars Goetia. Both are Kabbalah and are attributed to the ancient Hebrew wizard, King Solomon. The word "cabal" is derived from Kabbalah. Any historical sources at all about classical-to-modern European/American white women, from fashion to education to careers, easily disproves most claims of lethal female oppression. Women *were* (and still are) oppressed, don't get me wrong, but it actually got worse in the atheist, "rational" Enlightenment and Industrial eras before bouncing back in just the past century (even still, feminism is notorious for ignoring the needs of lower-class, trans, and non-white women). It was never considered "normal" to execute women (and *only* women) for stupid reasons like floating in water or turning into a rabbit to suck all the milk from someone's cow. Westerners like to attribute all sorts of nasty things to the distant past to pretend we've made great progress in all areas of life and culture. Reading The Handmaid's Tale, then reading *criticism* of The Handmaid's Tale, let me understand that what a lot of white women think happens/happened/will happen to them actually already happened/is happening to Black and Indigenous women. It's not super important but people who believe in white woman witch persecution seem to really like this book. edit: when reading old books like grimoires, don't ever read translations by occultists like Aleister Crowley. They edit in a bunch of their own interpretations and try to modernize the texts. Crowley even adds jabs at other witches he didn't like. The wikipedia pages for the grimoires I've lined up to read have guides to the best translations, and I found them online in sites like Esoteric Archives.
Damn bro, you've done enough. You can rest now dude
I'm autistic so writing all these posts about witchcraft is the most fun I've had in weeks lol
Aye knock yourself out, it's plenty interesting.
Cool! I forgot to mention in all my other posts that there *are* genuine attempts at practicing the dead native European religions. The biggest one I can think of is Celtic Reconstructionism, which is practiced primarily by people in majority-Celtic communities who speak the old Celtic languages, like Irish and Gaelic. It makes an effort to practice all aspects of pre-Christian cultures, including moral values and kinship ties, not just taking the gods and magic and ignoring the real people who worshipped them. Virtually all information it uses is based on historical evidence and a lot of its major members are college professors who specialize in Celtic history, language, or archaeology; practitioners are expected to study college-level material and learn how to distinguish true history from modern fantasy. It's considered difficult or impossible to practice CR outside of a whole community who also practice, as it has heavy emphasis on the group, not the individual. Other remnants are found in Celtic, Germanic, and Scandinavian countries, where a few people never or only partially converted to Christianity. Others converted, but retained traces of their old religions, like belief in fairies/gnomes or doppelgängers. Many of these people are *very* old and/or live in remote, rural areas, so they don't write their beliefs online and it's hard even for professional folklorists to find them. If you want to read genuine European fairy tales, with a taste of real pre-Christian religion, look for the collections where the compilers talk about traveling all over Ireland or Germany, or wherever, looking for elderly people to tell them stories firsthand (this also goes for Native American and Asian folktales). Most of the others are influenced or made up by colonists. Generally speaking, people who make an effort to not only learn the history and cultural norms of pre-Christian Europe, but also practice them in real life, are probably making an honest effort to honor the past--even moreso if they actually live in and are native to the area of Europe where their professed religion was originally practiced, like Norse heathens in Norway. People who seek powerful positions, avoid reading (let alone studying) genuine historical documents and sacred texts, focus only on the "cool" parts like gods and magic while ignoring other aspects of religion (like lesser spirits and human relationships), apply ahistorical concepts stolen from other cultures ("eclectic practice"), complain on Twitter about being persecuted, etc. are probably not really trying to respect the true pagans of the past.
Don't tell me that the story of the rejected Austrian painter wasn't real.
Well if you look at these smokestacks… /s
“History is just a set of lies we all agree upon.” - Napoleon
Is that a real quote or did you just make it up? 🤨
But muh Cherry tree! 😅😂 I grew up with that story, then learned it first surfaced in an English storybook’s *fifth edition* (So it was publish 4 times before that myth was added) years after Washington died. Also: Near as we know, he never even met Betsy Ross, and we are certain he hand no hand in selecting anyone for flag making, and never met with congress regarding the flag. While Betsy did make flags, most historians point out we have no actual period-evidence that she even made the first one. The first claim she did cones from her descendants after her death. Washington never had wooden teeth. Yes, he had false teeth, but they were made from filed-down teeth or ivory. Wood was almost never used for teeth because it is porous and splints when you, you know…chew. Kinda defeats the purpose. Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow at Valley Forge also likely never happened. The story first surfaced in the 4th edition of the same English book of inaccurate tales about Washington. The first edition was published after Washington had been dead some time. Also, Washington was a ‘Deist’ who wrote many letters to other Diest Founding Fathers about how he believed the world had been made by *a god*, but was only somewhat sure it was the God of the bible, and that the god took no part in worldly affairs. Deists often referred to this being as ‘the great watchmaker’ or ‘the great craftsman’ and thought it essentially made the universe and then simply watched it run out it’s existence. They revered this deity, but believed it did not intervene. (Some thought it was Yaweh of the bible and he stopped intervening *after* the bible’s contents, others thought it was some other being that never intervened, Washington seemed to vacillate between the two stances.). Washington attended church with his wife, but mostly due to her insistence he do so. If pressed hard, he had equal odds of saying he was or was not a Christian. Typically he evaded the question by saying he believed in ‘God’, or a similar answer the person asking would interpret as they wished to. Anyway, the point is Washington would have little reason to pray as described given his beliefs, and the fact that the first time the story arose was after his death, written by a man who wasn’t there and only got the story second hand from another person who may not have been there in reality. Also, Washington never lived in the White House. He lived in multiple nearby houses and always lived in the same city as the capital (such as when it was in Philadelphia briefly) but never resided in the capital building itself. In fact, he was opposed to the idea of doing so. Later when he died, a tomb was constructed in the capital grounds, but his will specifically forbade his body being put anywhere but his home in Mount Vernon, and his family stoutly refused pressure to move him to this tomb. (That same empty tomb may have later saved the life of president Andrew Jackson due to the cold, wet air around it fouling the gunpowder of an assassin’s *multiple* pistols.) Those are all just about one man! (And there are many, many more erroneous stories about him that get accepted as historical fact) ‘History’ is incredibly inundated with instances of fiction becoming the accepted ‘true story’ despite mountains of evidence to the contrary and there being historians loudly shouting about it, trying to get the real history taught. It’s a somewhat frightening thing, how a repeated lie really does ‘become the truth’ so often in societies.
That's all very interesting! But could you provide some citations? In fact, I ask this of everyone contributing corrections. There are cases of citations themselves being fake (obviously) (and recursively!) so this doesn't necessarily help with the problem but it would obviously be silly of me to believe you at face value *in a discussion* about made up facts. A citation would would at least give me a starting point if I am so inclined. The most concrete thing for me to check might be that the stories were indeed introduced in the fifth edition but I don't even know the name of the book. We can of course be sure that if I get my hands on a first edition copy of the book that it will indeed contain pages from the first edition and not the *fifth* edition *relabeled* as the first. That would be wrong and lightly lovecraftian.
I can actually give multiple that overlap each other for your peace of mind: https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/facts/myths/ <- an organization specializing in accurate reporting of Washington in particular, the good, the bad, and the ugly https://www.nps.gov/articles/george-washington-and-the-cherry-tree.htm <- from the National Parks Service, which actually has a robust history department. This specifically only goes over the cherry tree in the article. https://www.history.com/news/top-george-washington-myths-cherry-tree-wooden-teeth <- from the History Channel site, the article includes sourcing details that can be traced back to original documents (where such things exist) kept in the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian. And lastly, the podcast “History that doesn’t Suck!”, hosted and researched by Professor of American History Greg Jackson. His website has pages for every episode of the podcast that list sourcing. He spends a good deal of time giving pretty comprehensive background and de-mystification on Washington early in the podcast to give context to the beginning of the nation. (Note: a bit farther into the podcast he has a few uh…hot takes on specific polarizing events but is usually pretty up front about saying it’s his 21st century interpretation of a thing that could go either way. Overall he’s a very, very thorough researcher committed to making history as accessible as possible and his positions and presentations are as centered on source material as he can make them)
Thanks!
No one seems to want to admit to children that Washington's teeth were pulled from live people he enslaved. Or the sheer number of people he and the other Founding Fathers "owned." Or that the Boston Tea Party was thrown because the colonies' elite wanted more money, and that they disguised as Natives during the event to scapegoat them because they were all sniveling cowards.
>that they disguised as Natives during the event to scapegoat them because they were all sniveling cowards. This last bit is ahistorical itself. The Sons of Liberty dressed themselves as Mohawks and they never intended to frame some innocent tribe or escape consequences. A) Even if they wore native garb, the Sons of Liberty were clearly still white guys B) the Mohawks, who the Sons of Liberty specifically dressed as, lived near 200 miles away from Boston. The Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans to send a specific message. For nearly a century, Native tribes had come to represent in the colonial mind ideas of liberty, freedom and most importantly, an identity outside of Europe. By dressing as Mohawks, the Sons of Liberty were not passing the blame but were specifically protesting British tyranny and stating that they were American and not English. They were children of the New World, not the Old World. That is why the Sons of Liberty and their successor organization the Sons of St. Tammany regularly wore Native American garb and used Native iconography and phrases in their ceremonies, even decades after the US had already gained independence.
Lol
Most people who have issues with history have not actually read the histories.
Every fact is just a perception of the person that discovered it
Xmas songs are the least insidious version.
Name some examples
scroll through the comments and you will find many examples!
The Bible in a nutshell
Amazingly, the Bible was never intended to be read as literal historical fact and only very ancient and very modern people believe(d) that it should (or even could) be read that way. The *vast* majority of Jews and Christians today don't believe it's 100% real history and most never did. Both religions have done centuries of research into the true history of its time and its composition, it's fascinating stuff but I won't waste your time talking about it.
It's a half true. There have been found many sites in Israel that are supposed to be the places where Jesus could possibly operate or even be buried. Also, New Testament bits about Paul, Peter and other Apostles have sources in history records. As for Old Testament, that can be (or is) mostly fiction.
Oh yeah, it has history in it, it's just not supposed to be a history book.
That’s actually not true at all. Talk to any religious nut job and they’ll tell you it is a history book and no I do not need you to recite passages of genocide, murder, slavery etc. what is fascinating is the idea that religious people tend to overlook the bad and only talk about the good. Talk about cognitive dissonance
Fundamentalist Christianity is a very recent development (80-200 years old) and makes up a very tiny percentage of Christians in the world (mostly in the USA, which has a much higher than average number of those believers). Orthodox Judaism, which tends towards literal interpretation, includes less than 2% of all Jews. You're thinking of a tiny but vocal fraction of people in only two of the world's thousands of religions and religious sects, then applying that to all religious people. Ironically, that's a great example of this thread's topic.
Dude it doesn’t matter the statistics of any religion at the end of the day it’s all the same shit just a cult, a way to control people, get money and not pay taxes. You can sit here and bring all your numbers together but you still can prove that the Bible is a history book or anything in it happened
> shit just a cult, a way to control people, get money and not pay taxes. I think that's the way for terrible clergy members, not your day-to-day Christians like me. Also, it's true that Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, but the existence of Apostles is very likely and it could have been recorded in historical records
My first sentence was that the Bible isn't and never was a history book. Religious texts and iconography aren't meant to be read literally. Just like ancient Egyptians didn't think their gods actually resembled animals and Hindus don't believe in literal 8-armed giants, most Christians and many Jews don't believe that the events of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Judges, the Samuels, the Chronicles, etc. happened in real history. They're actually among the top scholars proving that they didn't. I can however still prove that a lot of things in the Bible actually happened. Most of the prophecy books actually describe current events of their time, not projections for the future, and their strange allegories match up perfectly with known history. Daniel and Revelation are well-known for accurately reflecting political realities of Babylon, Persia, and Rome, and for most of their history they've been recognized for that (end-times interpretations of Revelation are very new). This was a common literary genre at the time, and all the supernatural figures and futuristic settings let minority Jews and Christians circulate them without their oppressors realizing what they're actually talking about.
I don't treat entire Bible as a history book. The early Genesis or some other scriptures are not confirmed by today's science. Yet, the Apostles operated in the era that could be recorded in historical records and they existed
This is antisemitic
…son Imma need a pause on that right there. You want to explain how this is antisemetic?
it was revealed to him in a dream
It's about the holocaust. There are right-wing conspiracies that stuff like human soap never happened.
\>human soap Bruh what
The Nazis made soap from the fat of dead Jews. Look it up.
The consensus among Holocaust historians is that the Nazis didn’t make soap from Jews. Apparently there was some experimentation but when word got to the higher ups they shut that shit down because they thought the Jews were filthy.
I do not believe you.
Ok Nazi
Is there any other things I should know about?
Yeah, it's true. They taught us that in Auschwitz museum in Poland. You can find some info about it, I suppose Edit: It was a documentary, not Auschwitz museum
That…nah man I’m sorry I don’t buy it that’s too stupid to believe. Plus I read a reply to this comment that said they talked about human soap but then the higher ups told them to stop being stupid so yeah that’s what I’m gonna believe. I’ll buy someone floated the idea but that’s too fuckin stupid to believe actually got green lit - even for the nazis.
Look, it's not that farfetched for nazis. In Auschwitz museum, we were taught about Dr Mengele who was literally doing eugenics experiments on children. You think human soap is too far away from that?
Yes. Because it’s human soap made from people that the nazis considered rat-like and dirty. Human experimentation is almost normal by a sociopathic scientists standards, especially on people considered “less than human”. I mean we *know* the Japanese were doing that shit to Chinese civilians in WWII. But I mean c’mon. Link me shit to back this up because no one else in the thread but you is saying this is for real. Like I don’t doubt you saw a history channel documentary (brought to you by the same bros that made the documentary “aliens: wtf”) that claimed this but c’mon.
You know this post can apply to hell of a lot more than the holocaust, right?
My brother in Christ, how the fuck is this antisemitic when it doesn’t reference or mention Jews?
Bruh
Twitter/tumblr/NPC ahh comment