HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: What was the cause of the 1930s depression?
Organization: sgi
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 03:38:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.194006.638@acuson.com>, miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes: 
|> 
|> 	The German hyperinflation is believed by some historians to have
|> 	been a deliberate attempt by the German govt to stop France
|> 	from getting any money out of their seizure of German factories
|> 	France had seized the areas as a way to try to get some of the
|> 	indemnity owed her.  The German effort was successful, and
|> 	hyperinflation ended as soon as France withdrew.  The standard
|> 	US history texts talk about how the Versailles treaty caused
|> 	such hardship in Germany that it humiliated Germany and brought
|> 	about the collapse of democracy & the economy and thus brought
|> 	Hitler to power.  However, Germany borrowed to pay what indemnity
|> 	she did pay, and then renounced the debts when Hitler took power
|> 	There was a net inward flow of money during the pre-Hitler years.

Indeed.   In fact, between the end of hyperinflation and the start 
of the Depression, Germany was relatively prosperous, with a high
growth in the economy and low unemployment.   One of Hitler's
biographers (Bullock?) comments that during his time in prison,
after his failed putsch, Hitler came to the conclusion that 
economic conditions alone were probably not going to be bad enough 
for him to gain power, and so began to develop a more "demotic" 
message.     I assume that's a polite locution for racism.

Then the Depression started in earnest, and Germany's growth, which
was export-led, collapsed very fast, following which the National
Socialists, with their plan to produce a self-sufficient - ie: 
immune to the collapse in world trade - economy, came to power
quite quickly.

|> 
|> 	France, on the other hand, forgave the war debts owed her by the
|> 	her allies, and was unhappy to find that the US wanted full payment
|> 	plus interest on every penny loaned to France by the US.

Similar story for the UK.  The UK ended the Great War being owed 
as much or more by her allies, as the US was owed by its.  The UK 
offered to collect from her debtors only what she was required to 
pay by the US, but was turned down.    In the end, of course, very 
little was paid by anyone, and the UK and US ended up making even
more loans, notably to Germany.   But that's OK, since it meant that 
by the time the Second world War rolled around, at least everyone 
understood that wartime debts rarely get paid, and so they took
a much more relaxed attitude to the whole thing.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.history:8768 soc.culture.celtic:6453 sci.archaeology:2566
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.celtic,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Who lived in Great Britain before the Kelts?
Date: 3 Oct 1992 17:32:21 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

RAYMOND GABIN writes:
>	We should not apply modern customs with customs of long ago.  You and I

>better example is the following: immigrants are welcome - generally ....
> However, two thousand
>years ago, this may not be the truth: ancient literature abounds with stories
>of 'immegrants' having to fight to remain ( the Trojans in Italy, The swiss

On the other hand, there are many stories about immigrants who did not
have to fite to remain.  There were Jews scattered all over the middle
east & an enormous colony of them in Egypt.  Greeks colonized all over
the Black Sea & Mediterranean -- it's not clear what kind of battling
they did with whoever lived in Sicily or southern France at the time
but it seems like the colonization was mostly peaceful.  The
Phoenicians (also originally a colony) did similarly.  Southern Italy
was largely Greek-speaking in classical times.  The interaction of the
German tribes with the Romans is very complicated; many of them were
welcome & manned the frontier military posts.  Later whole tribes were
adopted as foederati by the Romans.  Some Germans were Romans -- see
the later history of the empire, Aetius, the general said to have
defeated the Huns at Chalons, was said to have been German.  In many
cases the people who fot their way in disappeared -- the Vandals
disappeared in Africa, the Goths petered out in Spain &c.  Neither
left their language behind.  Fairly substantial Viking military &
colonial invasions of Britan, Ireland, & Normandy didn't leave a lot
behind of their language or culture -- I suppose that's arguable, but
at least one can show that the original languages in those areas
rebounded & replaced Norse.  In other cases, conquest & replacement of
language & culture occurred, but what about the people?  Is there any
evidence that a substantial Roman colonization of Gaul took place,
with the original stock dying out & being replaced by Italians?  I
don't think so.

What may have happened is that the archaeologists & anthropologists
who cooked up all these invasion theories were from imperialistic
powers like Britain, France, Germany, & the US, & simply took their
own recent history of imperialism as the model for what happened in
the past; maybe in particular the took as model what was happening the
western hemisphere.  They hadn't had time to see or to think about the
problems with that model or how cultures had changed elsewhere in the
world &c.  One problem with that model is the massive population &
technological imbalance between the indigenous people of the western
hemisphere & the Europeans, for which there is no precedent.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<19764@ector.cs.purdue.edu> <1992Sep29.221407.146256@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:29:19

There is no clear superiority of any variety of Western traditional
cooking over Chinese or Indian cooking.  In fact Chinese and Indian
cooking penetrate the West more than the reverse.

Fast food is a more recent Western invention, and it seems to have
survival value.  The worldwide success of McDonald's is due to its
ability to train people from all over the world to produce
efficiently a product that people like in clean surroundings.
Probably it utilizes a part of the labor market that wasn't
efficiently used before.

Also capitalism and democracy are Western inventions that have
penetrated, because they are better than traditional societies
in the same sense that steamships are better than galleys.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:43:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.231025.17758@nntp.hut.fi> c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes:
>
>OBJECTION ! The Westerners are by no means anyhow more guilty in mass destruct-
>oin than any other culture. In fact the Westerners are absolute beginners in 
>tis area. Or don't you call, for example, the slaughter of some 120 million 
>Chinese during the Mongol Conquest as "mass destruction" ? Or the Japanese
>practise during the 30's in China ? 

Interesting. Mongol Conquest has finally come up in this thread.
First of all, Mongols could not have killed 120m Chinese, there just wasn't
that many people then. Imperial census at that time puts the population
at less than 60,000. Second, the Mongol practiced deliberate genocide as a
part of their terror strategy. To slaughter an entire city if it had been
seiged for 3 or more days, 1/2 the city if it surrendered in 2 days, a 1/4
in 1 day, and absolutely spared if it submitted without resistance. 
Surrendered generals and soldiers join their ranks for other expansions.
Killing was not a part of cultural virtues even for Genghis Khan.
Third, and most important, Mongols occupying other countries adopted
local customs, religion, habits, clothes, names, and language. Who
says military might is part of cultural superiority.
- HTL
Xref: sparky soc.history:8719 soc.culture.celtic:6386 sci.archaeology:2536
From: newt@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Michael Steven Newton)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.celtic,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Who lived in Great Britain before the Kelts?
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:20:47 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton) writes:

>Im reading Colin Renfrews 'Archaeology and Language, the puzzle of indo-
>european origins'. excellent, Id recommend it...

  Yes, I don't know *how* many times I've mentioned and recommended that
  book on this news group, and wondered if anyone noticed.  People seem
  more supportive of the antiquated image of the Celt (and IndoEuropean)
  being some enormous sword-wielding barbarian living out of his war
  chariot as he conquers his way across Europe.

>Renfrew seems to think that IE culture was not, for the most part, carried
>by nomadic invaders, but was spread from community to community, accompanying
>the superior tech (equestrianery, wheel, bronze working)... and IE languages
>of course.
> 
>If anyone would like, Im willing to discuss the Renfrew book...
>'Archaeology and Language, the puzzle of IE origins'

  I've been *trying* to discuss the book for a while, and glad someone
  else is interested as well, as it is of the essence of this whole
  culture-language-ethnicity debate that seems to cycle endlessly around
  this group...

  -- mn
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Sep28.164402.12608@kth.se> <BvBFrr.1oC@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:43:54

Manoj Ghayalod includes:

     Obviously the Western form of democracy is a better system
     than the others available and India is implementing this
     system, but the fact remains that no former Western powers
     ever used their systems to benifit their former colonies (as
     the orginal poster seems to claim).  But on the contrary all
     the colonies were ruthlessly exploited.

I did not wish to suggest taht Western powers were very often
motivated by benevolence, although I would suppose there is
an element of that in the 1829 suppression of sati.
Incidentally, that is 1829, and I suppose the Indian leaders
Manoj Ghayalod refers to were much later.

Motivations were mixed.  Individual desire to make money,
ego and some benevolence.  Even when there was benevolence,
part ot its motivation was a sense of superiority.  However,
the innovations were introduced and were useful, e.g. secular
universities, railroads and a British style judicial system -
even cricket.


--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky soc.history:8817 soc.culture.indian:33104
From: prem@prem.lbl.gov (Shirdi R. Prem)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: <None>
Followup-To: alt.test
Date: 6 Oct 1992 16:20:59 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA
Reply-To: me@here
NNTP-Posting-Host: prem.lbl.gov

In article <18635.2ace40fc@ecs.umass.edu> pmclaugh@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>In article <1afhv3INNkh2@overload.lbl.gov>, prem@prem.lbl.gov (Shirdi R. Prem) writes:
>>> John McCarthy writes:
>>> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>>> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.......
>> 
>> 	........Maybe you ought to start doing a little arithmetic too.
>
>By the way, history is not arithmetic, as the statisticians would have you
>believe. It's about thinking things out.

	The point seems to have missed you here...  ;-)

	My suggestion was that a little arithmetic might stop Johnny from
	being doomed to talk nonsense. Not that arithmetic would help him
	understand history! 
	
	I thought this was clear to the meanest intelligence, but apparently 
	this isn't so.......Maybe some folks need to think things out a bit 
	to understand this. 

	Prem!
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:44:41

In 1966 famine in India was narrowly averted when the U.S. shipped
a fifth of our wheat crop to India.  We sold it for $2.5 billion
in rupees which couldn't be converted.  In 1972 I advocated using
some of it to hire people in India to type in the U.S. Library of
Congress so we could have it on line.  An on-line Library of
Congress was considered too exotic in those days to get support.

A few years later as a gesture of friendship (and because
there was no hope of collecting it anyway) the U.S. forgave the debt.

The main reason there have been no further famines except in countries
racked by civil war is the Green Revolution which has permitted
India and other countries to greatly increase grain production.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky soc.history:8639 soc.culture.indian:32472
From: kavuri@lips2.ecn.purdue.edu (Surya N Kavuri )
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:51:58 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep29.030620.11614@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, sechrest@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest) writes:
> 
> I) The development of Science in the West is unique.  A variety of cultures
.....
> 
> Other cultures did not look spend time trying to take apart matter, or
> applying mathematics to planetary motions in search of God.  They failed
> to develop the materialist underpinnings of science, and the experimental
> perspective on the seeking of knowledge.  (None of my ancestors did either,
> they were all illiterate peasants, most likely, so I do not find some sort
> of reflected glory in the achievements of those with higher accomplishments.)
>


Excerpts from "History of Science by Stephen F. Mason"

* Varahamihira (505 AD) had an astronomical observatory in Ujjain, India.
Others in Astronomy from India are:
Brahmaputra (628 AD)
Mahavira (850 AD) at Mysore, India
Bhaskara (1114-1185 AD).
Aryabhatas (475-550 AD) patna, India


In his work Siddhantas, Varahamihira gave accounts of his work on
Astronomy.

India followed an algebraic tradition as opposed to the geometric tradition
of the Greeks.  

* Aryabhattas studies summation of arithmetic series and attempted solution 
  of quadratic and linear indeterminate equations.

*They also introduced the use of sines and cosines, instead of the length of
 chords used by Greeks, thus starting the subject of trigonometry.

* Mahavira discussed the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication
  and division.  He also introduced the use of zero.  

* Bhaskara introduced the concept of infinity and established that any number
  divided by sero is infinity.

Medicine and Chemisrty in India
------------------------------

The oldest medical work is the Bower manuscript, which dates about 400 BC

* 200 AD.  Charakahad written a medical compendium listing drugs and the
  lore of their use.

* 600 AD, Susruta was a treatise on surgery.  It describes 121 different
surgical instruments, and gives an account of most of the surgical 
operations known before modern times.  The connection between malaria and
mosquitoes was studied.  


The mos t important contribution is the modern numeral system and the 
 development of general algebraic operations.  

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --Stuart Sechrest



Read up a little before ...

Surya Kavuri
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.celtic,sci.archaeology
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: ice age British Isles (was Re: pre-Kelt Great Britain)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:01:43 GMT

In article <26575@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
|> Michael Steven Newton writes:
|> >Britain was connected via a land bridge to Europe (modern France I think)
|> >until only some 6000 or 8000 years ago (I forget which it was).
|> 
|> I know the distance is short, but 6000 BP seems awfully recent.
|> Does anyone have a reference for these dates?  As I mentioned
|> earlier the Irish Sea landbridge is thot to have disappeared at
|> least 10000 yrs ago.


	By 6000 bp the ice sheets had entirely melted, so sea level
	should have been high (even higher than today in NW europe, which
	was (and for that matter is) still rebounding from the
	weight of the ice.  I don't buy the existance of the land
	bridge that late, and am even dubious of the 8000 bp
	date.

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: "Jehovah" TRIBE OF SPACE CANNIBALS
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:16:54 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire


          
                          CONTRADICTIONS about God

               Christians should all HONESTLY and thoroughly 
          investigate the CONTRADICTIONS between the Old and New 
          Testaments in terms of their descriptions of God. 

               The God of the New Testament is described as a God of 
          LOVE, MERCY, and PEACE. 

               The god of the Old Testament is described as a JEALOUS, 
          VENGEFUL god, a WAR-MONGER.  He said "Thou shalt not kill", 
          and then proceeded to help the Israelites to kill TENS OF 
          THOUSANDS of Arabs in order to take their land.  [And the 
          zionist PIG$ from Israel are still doing it today!] 

               Can the two Testaments POSSIBLY be talking about the 
          same thing?! 


               The "god" of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF 
          RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS, with a leader named "Yahweh", who 
          was the commander of a UFO SPACECRAFT ("pillar of fire", 
          "pillar of cloud", etc.), and a GENETICIST who CLONED Adam 
          and Eve FROM HIMSELF and put them on this planet which was 
          ALREADY INHABITED at that time.  And the "first born sons" of 
          the Israelites became ROAST DINNER for the "JehovahS". 

               All of this may sound UN-believable to most Christians.  
          But try reading the Old Testament with these things in mind.  
          For example, read the part about one of the Old Testament 
          characters, Jacob, I think, WRESTLING WITH GOD, AND WINNING!  
          [ ALWAYS use the KING JAMES VERSION.  Later versions are PER-
          VERSIONS! ] 

               See also the book "THE LOST TRIBES FROM OUTER SPACE", by 
          Mark Dem (?). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC


Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.celtic,sci.archaeology
From: UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton)
Subject: Re: Who lived in Great Britain before the Kelts?
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:32:57 CDT

In article <1992Sep30.084037.9447@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
mongoose@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Conrad Leviston) writes:
 
>
>        I believe that the precursors to the Celts are referred to as
>Iberians, who had darker skin. There are also a lot of tombs and stone
>markings that predate the Celts. It is also probable that the Iberians
>were not the first people to live in Ireland either.
>        I appologise for not being as precise as I should be, I'll write
>again once I have the information at hand.
>--
Im reading Colin Renfrews 'Archaeology and Language, the puzzle of indo-
european origins'. excellent, Id recommend it...
anyways, the Iberian speaking people were in Spain and Portugal prior to the
spread of indo-european culture (Celts and others)...
The group of people in Britain prior to IE were the Bell Beaker Civ... They
were members of a wider Beaker civilization which covered much of central and
north europe. They were a neolithic culture, characterized by individual
mound burial, perforated stone axes, and handle-less pottery. (bell beaker
pottery).
The influx of IE culture into europe began as early as 3000bc, and should have
reached britain by the middle of the 2000 or so...
Renfrew seems to think that IE culture was not, for the most part, carried
by nomadic invaders, but was spread from community to community, accompanying
the superior tech (equestrianery, wheel, bronze working)... and IE languages
of course.
 
If anyone would like, Im willing to discuss the Renfrew book...
'Archaeology and Language, the puzzle of IE origins'
Colin Renfrew, 1990
isbn 0-521-38675-6
 
>Conrad Leviston  | Got to find a brightness in the soul,
>mongoose@yoyo.   | Not look outside to find out where we are,
>cc.monash.edu.au | Otherwise you won't be satisfied,
>Save the gherkin | 'Til you've made possession of the stars. (K.Wallinger)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Eaton                    | Opinions? We're not allowed to have
UC525655@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU | opinions at Mizzou... get back to me
                              | in 2 years when I graduate... ;)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.indian
From: mece21x@rosie.uh.edu (Yesudas, Michael)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:10:00 GMT

In article <JMC.92Sep28214354@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes...
>Manoj Ghayalod includes:
> 
>     Obviously the Western form of democracy is a better system
>     than the others available and India is implementing this
>     system, but the fact remains that no former Western powers
>     ever used their systems to benifit their former colonies (as
>     the orginal poster seems to claim).  But on the contrary all
>     the colonies were ruthlessly exploited.
> 
>I did not wish to suggest taht Western powers were very often
>motivated by benevolence, although I would suppose there is
>an element of that in the 1829 suppression of sati.
>Incidentally, that is 1829, and I suppose the Indian leaders
>Manoj Ghayalod refers to were much later.

True, the legal abolition of Sati was by William Bendick in 1829.

> 
>Motivations were mixed.  Individual desire to make money,
>ego and some benevolence.  Even when there was benevolence,
>part ot its motivation was a sense of superiority.  However,
>the innovations were introduced and were useful, e.g. secular
>universities, railroads and a British style judicial system -
>even cricket.
> 
> 
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Michael Yesudas         |  The control of the means of production   |
|  Mechanical Engineering  |  of wealth is the absolute control of     |
|  University of Houston   |  human life itself                        |
|  mece21x@jetson.uh.edu   |                    --   Hilaire Belloc    |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.history:8638 soc.culture.indian:32466