thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
Firstly, I liked this documentary that I randomly found on Youtube, I really did. But, after spending nearly an hour watching it, I ended up writing down a critique. I think there was too much focus on the battle and neither on the occurrences that lead to it and followed it. Mainly, I think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that a single man shaped modern Europe so much and that without this battle history would be so radically different.Secondly, I know that it's important for a documentary to try and engage the public with the subject addressed. But calling the Battle of the Teutoburg the origin of the rift between Europe sounded very over dramatic and overplayed to me. I think it overlooks many factors and, quite frankly, does obfuscate other important historical occurrences.Implying that the weight of future European history on that battle really sounded exaggerated to me. Conflicts and divides are much more complex than what a simple battle may cause and are part of human nature. It's not like there weren't conflicts before the battle. Neither it's like the Romans never crossed the Rhine again. Nor Romanizing that part of Germania would be guaranteed without the defeat. Furthermore, if the Romans succeed, it might not change history that much.The roman legions actually pushed forwards in punitive expeditions to avenge the lost Legios instead of just going there to bury the dead. Germanicus, the roman general in charge of the expedition, dealt several defeats upon the Germanic tribes. I remember reading several articles that imply Tiberius chose to retreat Germanicus from Germania due to political reasons, not allowing Germanicus to fully push his advantage. At least that is what I remember while reading about Calligula, Germanicus' son and successor to Tiberius.Tiberius seems to have feared the popularity and power that Germanicus' could gain from conquering a new province like that. Specially, a province which had proved difficult to conquer before. This sort of behavior might have been passed down from then on. Tiberius pulled Germanicus out and thus thrown away the possible conquest of Germania. With Calligula and his successors, the Imperium faced much more internal strife and so just didn't put much effort in seeing through with that. Again, the fear of suffering a big defeat might have played a part in these decisions. But I do not believe that it was the main factor.Still, although true that the Romans didn't push further, There were more reasons than just a single lost battle. Of course, we may never know what would have happened if there was no defeat, thus forever changing history. But Roman wasn't any more hurt by that loss than by every other combined nor than other big losses of the past and future to the Teutoburg. Neither was the history buried forever and forgotten. After all, the didn't necessarily ignore losses and their historians were the one who wrote about it. The romans were quite good at using infamous defeats as political and morale boosters as well.I would say that the main reasons
why the Imperium receded at the Rhine were the same as why they didn't push towards Scotland and over the Danube. It simply didn't seem very efficient and cost effective. Holding natural borders seemed easier than pushing forwards and having to colonize land. To an extent, the defeat at the Teutoburg probably played part in it, maybe a big one.But the Imperium Romanum also reached a territorial extent so big that they would have had trouble advancing much further anyway. To that, the documentary did mention but then partially ignored. To conquer more land had become increasingly difficult for the Empire.The lands beyond the already conquered would become exponentially more expensive to conquer and hold. Even today such an Empire would have trouble. So, the Roman's technology and systems weren't really ready. The findings suggest that they could have advanced further. But who knows how much more?I doubt it would be enough to Romanize the whole of Europe, much less the world. Therefore, the "rift in Europe" would probably be positioned elsewhere. Maybe near the Elba river, maybe towards contemporaneous Russia. It's impossible to say if there wouldn't be a similar timeline, just with slightly different characters. Even if Rome had taken Germania, it wouldn't guarantee that the divide wouldn't happen.Another factor that impeded Roman expansion was the same that ultimately contributed to their downfall, their inner politics. The internal politics produced a scenario of inner competition that gave birth to great leaders. But it also weakened their own power and lead to awful leaders as well as internal bickering that weakened their power.For many Romans might have seemed simpler to compete against other Romans for land than expand towards new land. So, without resolve for bigger extents, and the fear of suffering similar losses of the Battle of the Teutoburg. It might have seemed like a fruitless effort or simply a hard task. Like I said before, I believe Tiberius was the one who mainly threw away the possibility of advancing further. After that, no other Emperor took the task upon themselves and instead the Imperium declined.To be fair, I see that it may be possible to envision a world where the Roman expansion on Germania and Britannia succeded. That could embolden and strengthen the Imperium for many years to come. But that in itself would require a completely different scenario, if not a different Empire. Even then, I would expect this hypothetical Empire, oh so similar to the Roman, to reach the same problem that I mentioned before and becoming unable to further advance.Finally, Augustus had other priorities and achievements during his lifetime, he expanded the Imperium and conquered lands in several different regions. I find a bit hard to believe that Octavian was "brought to his knees" so easily. I would say that the defeat was a shame and showed the flaws of the Roman approach to many things as well as military tradition. It probably shocked the Romans and their winning streak. I also see it as a big show of the flaws in their models.But I wonder
if Augustus was so weak minded at this part of his life. Suetonius, the historian who have attributed the infamous phrase "Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions" also wasn't alive at the time to know the exact reactions of Octavian. Suetonius was born in 69 CE, Augustus died in 14 CE, the Teutoburg Ambush happened in around 9 CE. It could be a slight dramatization. Maybe Suetonius just changed a bit of the story. Still, historians also suggest that, by the end of his life, Augustus had become quite easily manipulated by his wife and inebriated by his own achievements, titles and the flattery of others.Conclusively, I think it's a bit of disservice from a documentary to overplay a single battle to that extent, ignoring the prior and post events. The main ones being that Germanicus didn't simply bury the fallen roman, he made sure to kill those who had inflicted losses upon the Imperium. The mentioned rift wasn't born out of one battle and there were further Roman expeditions in Germania. Of course, the battle is of big historical importance and I find it deeply interesting. But I believe that there should be a balance on how the documentary approach it.Still, I enjoyed the documentary. I do enjoy documentaries quite a lot and even more when they are about subjects which I find somewhat related to my daily life and/or important historical events. It's also good to see different views on the same subjects.
The Terrifying Cost of "Free Websites by CollegeHumor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pFX2P7JLwASo, big companies and governments commune together to maintain constant surveillance over everyone, acquire the most information possible and turn that information into practical use over me, you and everyone else. It's actually no real surprise for me and quite natural. They use their acquired power to maintain it and coerce those who have less. It's a manner to maintain the status quo while also trying to improve their own position, an usually natural instinct. This is a subject which most of the people who live in a modern life style sort of subconsciously knows, or at least suspects, and has been encourage to think about but also constantly encouraged to ignore it. There are several fictional and scientific works in galore, be it theories, movies, books, games, television series, internet videos like this one and/or whatever else people use to convey messages to each other.Honestly, I can't really say that anyone is wrong about gathering information. It's a natural course of action to develop a good understanding of how the world works to then devise a better plan of action altogether. So, I can't really say that websites are really wrong in doing so as well. I also can't blame the big websites and technology companies for doing what I already consider a natural course of action, gathering and analyzing information to develop better plans using their acquired power. Specially since they oh so kindly don't charge for their services.After all, this is a capitalist society and so they need to make money to survive. The companies are run by humans who have the same basic needs as everyone els. Besides, they can't operate huge expensive systems without any sort of pay. Somehow, they need to get their investment back as well. It's naive to ignore that. Naive to expect people and companies to be above or different from the way the overall society is. I also am not up to pay a single buck for Facebook's services. I wouldn't mind paying for Google's services, though. Still, the real problem that I see and can't ignore is when they start selling information to more than simply companies looking to sell their products and gain public. They also sell information to other types of customers whose uses of such information are seriously dangerous to society as a whole. They sell it to governments so they can track and coerce you, they sell it to politic parties so they can manipulate you into voting for them and they might as well sell to whoever pays for it. It creates an unprecedented market of information in human history. It leaves every single person and organization exposed to manipulation and outright attacks by whoever wants to harm them and has the money to pay for the information.It may seem exaggeration but surveying every online action of their users is not even all they systems do. Their systems really are becoming more and more invasive, to actual dystopian levels. Ever talked to someone with your phone nearby
and got an ad related to the subject later? Yeah, there are several claims that they literally use our smartphones to record our conversations and use their voice recognition software to analyze it. It's not just creepy but really serious.It really rings a bell to fictional stories usually considered far fetched like The Matrix and 1984. Still, such scenarios just seem more and more likely by the day. There are reasons why the world created by Orson Welles in 1984 and the figure of the "Big Brother" are generally considered negative and dystopian. I don't think I even need to really unravel it to anyone, it's the image of a world where no one can act without the fear of repercussion from someone whose objectives and morals they don't even know.It's quite sad to imagine that right now it isn't unnatural or a conspiracy theory to expect such world to be a possibility for the not so far future. And the real problem is that to change the course of this sort of system, it would require conscientiousness and awareness of people worldwide. Not only that, but it would then also require serious talks about the pros and cons of such models and finally decisive actions from the consumer's part. After all, lots of people wouldn't even see any problem with that and I believe that, if they wish so, it's their choice to live in what I consider a dystopian world as it's my right to live in a world they might also consider dystopian.All the while those who benefit from the current models would fight to their utmost to avoid change. Why would governments, companies and other heavy weights want to change a system which benefits them? Why would those who have power want to change the status quo in a manner which took power from them and redistribute it? I am really pessimistic about even changing it, I see it as a probable natural course of society. Which I guess only proves the success of the de-motivation and conversion campaigns created by those who do not wish for a change. Then again, it might just be that such a world isn't so bad. Maybe the natural course of society is something good. I really don't know for sure.
As usual, I was consuming a lot of history related material with the intention of obtaining more knowledge. And I came around to an argument which I constantly mention and even outright discuss. But I don't think I ever had any conclusive thoughts said or wrote down about it. The issue is the one of how to learn from tradition and stay adaptive, finding the balance between following tested methods and trying out different things. In sum, how doctrines are something I consider important and useful but that also should not overweight the decision making when faced with new situations. How following tested and refined methods is good, but each situation may require further specialized refinement for it.Firstly, as anyone who reads my blog or talks to me for longer than an hour, it's quite obvious that I am more of the "bookshelf unexperienced" type of person. Therefore, most of the things I talk about are usually derivative from second and third hand experiences. It means that I am not experienced and instead I rely on sources that I trust. Thus, I am prone to inquire the world accordingly to the templates of others.I actually believe that to be the most common way for a person in the 21th century to acquire knowledge. In a society where books are no longer so hard to produce and there are so many ways of recording and pass messages along, such as video and audio, I find that it has become very easy for people to acquire a sense of the world through the experiences, knowledge and messages of others. Not that it didn't happen ever since human primitive times. After all, parents and tribes sharing knowledge was paramount for their survival. But, in this world where technology made it so much easier for anyone to record their knowledge and pass along, it's possible for many more people to study about people whom they would never have a chance of even hearing about. A quick example would be of how, even in the poorest and most deprived areas of the Middle East, several groups records messages of their leaders in cassette tapes and such or broadcast it in radio waves to reach even the farthest regions. It means that their leaders' messages are able to reach people regardless of even if the original speaker is still alive or the target of such messages would be able to pay for expensive methods of learning. Even illiterate people, living in poor mountain villages and cities ravaged by war, can hear the words of deceased leaders. Practically speaking, most people on the world are now able to record their beliefs for posterity and dissemination.That being the world where I live in and am familiar with, I consider completely natural to acquire knowledge from sources which we have no relation with whatsoever. Consequently, it also means that both the flow and the bombardment of different ideas and ideals is most probably unprecedented in history. After all, every single idea and ideal can acquire a different altercation on the minds
of each person. And so each of these people and their thoughts have to struggle against one another. Of course, the factors that decide which of the messages prevails are many and never really fair and equal. I consider it to be just the natural evolution of ideologies.One of the consequences of this type of society, is that first hand knowledge can easily get smothered by older more stable and refined ideologies. After all, a lot of people and their ideas are quite similar to the ones already registered by others. Perhaps you have already heard the saying: "Whatever you think, say and do, someone has probably already thought, said and done before. They might have even done it better than you". I am not trying to disagree with this saying. Per contrarie, I do believe to also be obvious that, due the course of history, although never completely equal, incredibly similar, situations and the experiences deriving from them are bound to happen. International estimates and population census say that there are more than 7 Billion human beings alive on this planet right now. And, even with the varying situations of each one, we are all already part of a global community. So, we like it or not, our cultures and knowledge have been melding and somewhat standardizing our experiences. Considering what this means, it's just probable that, at least another person in this world, if not more, is or are doing and thinking something very similar to me right now. Actually, considering how many people of my age have access to the internet, it's pretty much a given situation. Their experiences are also bound to not be equal, but really similar. Similar to the point of being almost indistinguishable.So, what I consider to be the advantages of maintaining and following through with the knowledge passed on by others. The one I consider to be the most obvious one is the economy of time and effort. Instead of trying to create something from scratch, humans are bound to use what we already learn and adapt it into the conformity's of our situations. It's something which I believe that we humans developed to utilize our life time in a more productive manner. After all, humans are social animals who have always instinctively lived in packs and initially had much shorter life spans than today's standards. Consequently, like in my mention to the knowledge passed from parents and tribes in the early human development age, we seem to agree that it's initially easier to create things with the tools provided to us than create new ones. There are many sayings that come to mind when defending this stance, such as "Why try to fix what isn't broken?" and "No need to try and reinvent the wheel!". In other words, letting others' achievements and knowledge help and guide us can be useful, saving time and effort. It allows the progress made by others to not be lost, forcing each generation to start a new and rediscover everything the last one already knew so well. Instead,
it allows us to further advance their knowledge and add our own to it. Following such natural evolution, ignoring the retrogresses, it implies that future and new generations would be better formed and informed than the previous ones. Climbing on the shoulders of the previous generations and furthering their advances was what allow many human societies to grow as big as they did. The one I am most inspired by, therefore biased to use as example, being the Imperium Romanum (Roman Empire). By systematically adopting and furthering the knowledge of the older generations, through expansion and research, the Roman Empire became one of, if not the most, influential Empire to ever exist.I think the Roman influence cannot be denied. After all, usually the fall of the Western Roman Empire is used to mark the start of the Dark Medieval Age in Europe and the fall of the Byzantine Empire used to mark the start of the "Era of Exploration". Era of Exploration that was mainly started by Iberian kingdoms that spoke languages derivative from Lower Latin. Latin itself is considered a key part on most western words. Even English, nowadays considered the international language, has a lot of influence from Latin. But, to be fair, let me admit that I am biased. I am a "westerner", my natural tongue and culture are heavily inspired by the Roman Empire and their ways due to those Iberian Nations that I mentioned.What I mean by that is to say that the Imperium Romanum became really powerful because they learned how to use past knowledge and further refine it. I am no historian, but I think it's no secret how the Roman Republic and Empire systematically integrated different people and nations to further their knowledge on all areas. The same happened to pretty much every other big Empire. So, adopting knowledge from others can be really useful and give you a better start.Utilizing knowledge provided by others doesn't necessarily blocks following other paths of advancement and refinement either. It's possible that, usually after following down a certain path for a long time, it naturally leads to learning similar things that one would have learned by themselves. Per example, studying a school of philosophy doesn't mean that one won't ultimately study another and/or develop their own school.Before I mention the downsides, I would also like to acknowledge that I understand human behavior to never be a 100% based on our first hand experiences. Like I already said, humans are bound to use what we already learn and adapt it into the conformity's of our situations. So, we are bound to use what others taught us and, just like I stated above, it's actually something that makes humans capable of exploring our life spans in a more efficient way than creating everything from scratch. So, even when not necessarily trying to follow tradition, we are bound to still use knowledge not strictly acquired by our experiences.Now, the disadvantages of being overly attached to customs and rituals. The most clear one being that the lack of adaptability and the