HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Chinese Meet Romans?
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:26:47 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Aug27.041852.25125@anasaz> briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass) writes:
>> I don't think that 2nd Century Chinese would have much
>> cared that the Romans didn't look much like them.  After all, to a 2nd
>> century Chinese there wouldn't have been too much difference between a
>> Roman and member of the Toba tribe.  They're all barbarians anyway.
>> :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
>Exactly the point.  The Emperor as well as the Chinese within the Empire
>could not accept being the servants of a barbarian.  

I think you missed my reference.  After the fall of the Han empire,
North China was ruled by the "barbarian" tribes of the Toba Wei.  My
point was that if North China accepted (or more accurately was forced
to accept) rule by the "barbarian" Toba Wei, then it's not that much
of a shift to imagine West China being ruled by the Romans.  (And true
to form, the invading Toba Wei were assimilated into becoming
Chinese.)

One of the important things to remember is that in medieval China (and
in fact in China today,) the notion of "Chineseness" is more of a
cultural one than a racial one.  If the Romans learned to quote a bit
of Confucius, and started talking about how the "mandate of heaven"
demanded the Roman emperor rule China, I don't think that too many
people would have cared that they looked different.

After all, the founders of the Zhou dynasty, three thousand years ago,
were considered "barbarians."  The unifier of China, Qin Shi Huang,
himself was considered a "semi-barbarian" by the more cultured states
in the center of what was then China.  The founder of the Tang dynasty
probably had a lot of Turkic ancestors (and he could speak Turkic).

"Pure" ancestry is never has been necessary to assume the Imperial
throne. 

>Would pretenders to the throne accept such an alliance? I think not.

There are a lot of cases in Chinese history in which, Han Chinese
cooperated with non-Han in order to put a non-Han on the Imperial
throne.  The example that comes most quickly to mind is how Wu San-Gui
helped the Manchus topple the Ming dynasty.  

From the point of view of a Han Chinese, there isn't that much
difference between a Manchu and a Roman.  (except the thousand years
separating them :-) )




Xref: sparky soc.history:8102 soc.culture.japan:7764 soc.culture.korean:4212 soc.culture.china:24919
From: harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.korean,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Japanese Racist motivations in 1931-1945
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:21:42 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: Yokogawa Electric Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
In-reply-to: miklg@acuson.com's message of 3 Sep 92 14:53:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.145321.16310@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com
   (Michael Goldman ) writes:

 =}cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
 =}
 =}>Try Ienaga Saburo's "The Pacific War".  It's includes and excellent
 =}>treatment of pre-war Japanese attitudes toward other Asians.
 =}
 =}	   I followed up this suggestion (reluctantly, I didn't think I could
 =}	   read _yet_ _another_ history of the war) and I second your 
 =}	   recommendation.
 =}
 =}	   [...]
 =}
 =}	   The book is a translation of "Taiheyoo Sensoo" (1968).

   Is this the book that NHK based their documentary 'Taiheyou Sensoo'
on?  If so, they didn't give justice to the book...
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Tuesday, 8 September, 1942
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:22:36 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.165757.19214@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
# #Tuesday, 8 September, 1942
# #
# #Vichy officials dismiss General de St. Vincent.  The general, in his
# #capacity as Military Governor of Lyons, had refused to cooperate in the
# #arrest of Jews in his jurisdiction.
# 
# One of the things that Holocaust survivors from eastern Europe point out,
# and the Poles, Lithuanians, and Hungarians are explicitely identified,
# is the way the local anti-Semites jumped on the "kill the Jews"
# bandwagon that the German invaders brought into the country.
# -- 
# Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even

_The Good Old Days_ includes diary entries from Germans involved
in the Holocaust, and some of them express some amazement and
even some disgust at the enthusiasm of the Eastern Europeans for
murdering Jews.  Rather like the Germans were doing a disagreeable
job because they had to, and couldn't understand why the Eastern
Europeans were doing it for fun.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Evita's body
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:39:22 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Sep5.035641.11886@panix.com> jwp@panix.com (JongWoo Park) writes:

+>Accoring to a little booklet found in CD of Evita ( american version ):

+> .... But even in death she is denied obscurity.  The moment she dies the
+> embalmers move in to preserve her fragile body to be "displayed forever",
+> although this never happened.  The story of escapades of the corpse of
+> Eva Peron during the quarter-century after her death is almost as
+> bizarre as the story of her life.

	The idea was that Peron was going to build this massive shrine/tomb
for her, but before it got anywhere near completion peron was toppled from
power.  Evita was seen as a very powerful symbol by those who toppled Peron 
and even after Peron had gone into exile, Peronism as a belief still 
flourished in many people.  Because of this, the people in power had to 
play all sorts of games to keep her body hidden.  They could not bury it
for fear that the burial would lead to mass demonstrations and that the
burial site would become a place of pilgramiage.

	The storys about the corpse are in regard to one side trying 
to keep it hidden and the other side trying to find and recover it.


	After the perons got back into power 25 years (or whatever it actually
was) later, she was buried I think.  She may have been buried before the 
Perons came back though.



+>So, what happened to her body?

	I think that the original intention was to glass case her in the
same way that Lenin was/is.  She was finally buried, but the cult persists.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Hastings?
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:17:15 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 1@economics.adelaide.edu.au, ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au () writes:
>Edward the Confessor  died childless and it is thought that he desiganted
>William as his heir (William was his cousin).  This claim by William also had
>papal support (bloody Catholics at it again :-) ).  However on his deathbed
>Edward nominated Harold of Wessex as his successor.  Harold was at that time
>the most powerful of the nobles in England.

"It is thought..." doesn't tell us by whom.  By William, of course.  What objective
evidence is there that Edward ever thought to designate William?  We know that 
Harold visited the mainland before Edward died.  He was shipwrecked and taken
captive.  William purchased ("rescued") him from his captors and kept him as a
"guest" in Normandy, whence he embarked on a campaign against Brittany with
William.  William knighted Harold and got him to "swear an oath" on the most
sacred relics in Normandy that he would not seek the English throne.  (There is
some controversy here.  It is said that the relics were covered up at the time,
so that Harold didn't know the significance of what he was "swearing" on.)  But
this is what the tapestry reports to us, and the tapestry was obviously created
to justify William's claim to the English throne.  If Harold did swear an oath
while he was William's captive, why should he be held responsible for it after
gaining his freedom?  Talk about shotgun weddings. :-)  The fact remains that
he rushed to have himself crowned as soon as Edward died.  Had William not 
prevailed in battle, the so-called "oath" would probably never have become part
of the historical record, such as it was.

>... At least
>2 of Harolds brothers were killed  and late in the afternoon Harold was slain. 
>This was not by the legendary arrow in the eye as depicted in the Bayeaux
>tapestry, that actually shows a housecarl suffering such a wound.  The english
>broke at darkness and William moved to London where he was crowned king on
>Christmas day.

When I visited the museum and viewed the Tapestry in July, all of the materials
there claimed that the figure in the Tapestry was Harold.  These included the
exhibits and the documentary film that is shown before you go to view the
tapestry.  What is your claim based on, and why do they spread false information
at the Tapestry Museum?

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.japan
From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: The Russo-Japanese War (part 2)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:03:05 GMT

fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>; it was none other than William Adams, Englishman, pilot of
>the Dutch trader _Leifde_ and personal friend and hatamoto to Tokugawa Ieyasu,
>who closed off the islands and expelled the Christians. 

Err, umm. I think it was actually Ieyasu's grandson who did the expulsion.
Ieyasu had been dead for some years at that stage.

-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2345  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au  
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Battle of Hastings?
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
	 <1992Sep12.190318.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 01:16:39 GMT

Bob at adelaide.edu.au writes a very nice account of the Battle of
Hastings, but mentions that the famous arrow through Harold's eye of
the Bayeaux tapestry is spurious; that it's actually a housecarl.

Whose opinion is this?  I just read a book on the Bayeaux tapestry last
month, and the author set forth clear arguments why it was indeed
Harold.

What are your sources?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: there's more to history than war
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:27:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep8.223300.9346@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:

>	If I look at my local city library, for every 1 book by a
>	professional historian, I'll find 10 by retired Admirals and
>	journalists on wars.  The wars are interesting in so far as
>	they affected history, and the number of people involved.
>	I.e., there's hardly anything on the Wars of the Spanish 
>	Succession, while there are tons of books on WWII.

  But history is more than just entertainment -- it's a scholarly
  pursuit.  I'm not surprised that a public library should have the
  bias you describe, but I'm a bit surprised that this newsgroup
  does.
                           

>	It's more interesting to watch fireworks than to watch
>	wheat grow, though the latter is more useful.

  You'd be surprised.  The 19th century diaries I've been been
  reading lately have been impossible to put down.  It's like
  a pointilist painting: all these little details, individually
  very mundane but taken together you get a rich portrait of some-
  ones's life and community.   Yesterday I finished a one-year
  diary of Leslie Hyde, a hired man on a farm in Plymouth Notch 
  Vermont in 1886.   What was extraordinary about it was that 
  unlike most diary-writers, this was a 35-year-old single man
  who was just a day laborer (he *literally* spent much of his time
  just shoveling shit), by his spelling and punctuation he was clearly
  uneducated.  Yet he kept a detailed daily journal of his activities
  and events around him.   Most diary writers are at least a little
  educated, and may be say, schoolteachers.  It is very rare for
  someone of Hyde's class to keep a journal, and that made it all the 
  more fascinating.  
                  


>>   The educational system has propagandized that history is about wars,
>>   dates, kings, and conquest.  "Big Things".   
>
>	You went to a different set of schools than I did.  Most
>	historians seem to take your view about the lesser importance
>	of wars. 


   Oh, good, then things have improved since I went to school, 20-25
   years ago.   I guess the people in this newsgroup are all old-timers
   like me.


---peter
Newsgroups: soc.history,bit.listserv.history
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Nations that are in North America
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:05:42 GMT

In article <BuJsE8.93y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick) writes:
>
>Wish you folks had got this right the first time around.  Using the 
>Associated Press Broadcast News Handbook:
>
>North America = U.S., Canada, Mexico, AND the Danish Territory of
>Greenland

If this is what the Associated Press Broadcast News Handbook says, than it
is factually incorrect.  A geographer will tell you that Central America
is not a separate continent, it is part of North America. 

It is also my understanding that the West Indies (Cuba, Jamaica, etc) is
part of North America.  After all, Japan is in Asia, Britain is in
Europe, and Madagascar is part of Africa.


>South America = Everything south of Panama, but French Guiana, Guyana 
>& Surinam considered themselves part of the Caribbean "politically
>and psychologically."
>
>Central America =  Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
>Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

No argument with these definitions.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 3 September, 1942
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:20:34 GMT


stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:

>On July 20 (I think) there was the assassination attempt on Hitler
>in East Prussia.  Rommel had at least some link to the conspirators,
>and when it was discovered in August, gummint agents came to his
>home and made him an offer he couldn't refuse.  If he would accompany
>them, and commit suicide, his death would be reported as a consequence
>of the auto accident or something like that, he would be given a full
>state funeral, and no action would be taken against his family.

While it's true that Rommel was linked to the conspirators' plans to
control the army following the coup d'etat, I believe he was not in
on the assassination plot. Rommel preferred that Hitler be arrested
and tried.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@sco.com
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610
From: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: slavery
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:11:48 GMT
Reply-To: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Distribution: soc.history
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <JMC.92Sep2221453@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>What is the first statement anyone can find that slavery is wrong - and
>not just a natural consequence of being conquered?  I believe that in
>Britain in the 17th century, it was stated that any slave became free
>on entering Britain.  However, the Anti-Slavery Society wasn't
>organized until late in the 18th century.  I don't recall Montaigne
>every saying explicitly that slavery was immoral.  Did any of the
>early Christian writers say so explicitly?

Interesting question. I'd be very interested to see any answers. I'm
presently reading "Black Ivory - A History of British Slavery"

(whoops -forgotten the author) which states that a court case in the
18thC stated that a slave could not be removed from the UK against his
or her will, which is not quite the same as saying that they were free.


What I would love to knoe is - was slavery known much before the mass
slave trade in which millions of Africans were enslaved? The book
doesn't cover this yet ( I'm only half-way through).


M

--
Morna Findlay 					JANET:morna@uk.ac.ed.dcs 
	Thanksgiving For a National Victory (Robert Burns)
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for murther.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: slavery
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: soc.history
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:07:15 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <43448@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:



+>What I would love to knoe is - was slavery known much before the mass
+>slave trade in which millions of Africans were enslaved? The book
+>doesn't cover this yet ( I'm only half-way through).

	Could feudalism be counted as a form of Slavery?  The conditions
were certainly not comparable to the african slave trade, but feudalism
did control those working the land to a considerable extent.




Xref: sparky soc.history:8152 bit.listserv.history:4837
From: garyg@netcom.com (Gary Greene)
Newsgroups: soc.history,bit.listserv.history
Subject: Re: Oldest City in North America?
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:08:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:

>yeonwook@hardy.u.washington.edu (Mark Choi) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep7.184927.27052@cs.mun.ca> carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Carlos Borges) writes:
>>>Which is the oldest city in North America that is still around?
>>>I've been told it's St. John's, Newfoundland, but I thought
>>>Mexico City was settled by Europeans first.  Any others?

>>The most probable guess would be an Aztec city of some sort. Mexico
>>city was not settled by Europeans first. If you remember correctly, the
>>city was called Tenochitlan (spell?) before the Spanish.

>Mexico City is not exactly considered North American now, is it? 

Yes it is.  Central America starts at Mexico's southern border, and North
America stops there.  Perhaps you are confusing Latin America with South
and Central America.

Cheers,

Gary Greene
Santa Clara, California				garyg@netcom.com  
Newsgroups: soc.history,bit.listserv.history
From: garyg@netcom.com (Gary Greene)
Subject: Re: Oldest City in North America?
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 07:17:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

yeonwook@hardy.u.washington.edu (Mark Choi) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.184927.27052@cs.mun.ca> carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Carlos Borges) writes:
>>Which is the oldest city in North America that is still around?
>>I've been told it's St. John's, Newfoundland, but I thought
>>Mexico City was settled by Europeans first.  Any others?

>The most probable guess would be an Aztec city of some sort. Mexico
>city was not settled by Europeans first. If you remember correctly, the
>city was called Tenochitlan (spell?) before the Spanish.

Also, it seems to me that I read one history that placed Tenochtitlan's popu-
lation higher than any European city at the time Cortez first entered it.
I believe there was some contention that it may have been the largest in the
world by population, though I find that a little incredible.

Respects,

Gary Greene
Santa Clara, California				garyg@netcom.com  
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: there's more to history than war
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 15:19:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.223300.9346@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
			.
			.
			.
>>   Most people do not fight in wars at any point in their lifetime.
Anyone worked this out carefully?
I understand well the point that
there are "fashions" in warfare--
some 18th century battles were
civilized, little affecting the
locals, and so on--but my guess
has been that most humans *have*
been participants, if not comba-
tants.
>>   Even those who do typically spend only a few years of their lives so
>>   engaged.   Before the modern period of "total war", where the idea 
>>   is to make war on your enemy's economic and industrial base, wars
>>   typically had very little effect on people's lives unless battles
>>   happened to be fought on their land.  
			.
			.
			.
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
Newsgroups: soc.history,bit.listserv.history
From: hernan@pactech.gatech.edu (Hernan Astudillo R.)
Subject: Re: Oldest City in North America?
Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:54:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.060049.28411@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>
>OK.  Its time for a geography lesson for you both.
>North America = everything north of the Columbia-Panama border.

OK.  It's time for a geography lesson for you one.
The country south of Panama is COLOMBIA, not Columbia.

--hernan

--			| "If the misery of our poor be caused not by laws of
Hernan Astudillo R.	|  nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin".
hernan@cc.gatech.edu	|		-- Charles Darwin,"Voyage of the Beagle"
College of Computing, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 / (404) 853-9390
Xref: sparky soc.history:8150 bit.listserv.history:4834
From: phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)
Newsgroups: soc.history,bit.listserv.history
Subject: Re: Oldest City in North America?
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:19:36 +1000
Organization: Physics Department, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Sep8.184158.16049@compu.com>, fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
> yeonwook@hardy.u.washington.edu (Mark Choi) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Sep7.184927.27052@cs.mun.ca> carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Carlos Borges) writes:
>>>Which is the oldest city in North America that is still around?
>>>I've been told it's St. John's, Newfoundland, but I thought
>>>Mexico City was settled by Europeans first.  Any others?
> 
>>The most probable guess would be an Aztec city of some sort. Mexico
>>city was not settled by Europeans first. If you remember correctly, the
>>city was called Tenochitlan (spell?) before the Spanish.
> 
> Mexico City is not exactly considered North American now, is it? 

	Yes, where else is it but North America?  The Americas consist of
two continents North America and South America.  When you look at a map it
is clear that Mexico and Mexico city are in North America.  It becomes even
clearer when you look at a map of the continental plates.

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell
Xref: sparky soc.history:8285 talk.politics.misc:45406 alt.war:1947 alt.war.civil.usa:1193 talk.bizarre:30111