Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#111

Post by minikites » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #99

martinko wrote: post #73

"Note from Robert Krulwich: I see that this column has offended a whole bunch of you. Yes, as many of you point out, my viewpoint was white, male (and hung up on fame and power) and many of you have serious, and totally legitimate arguments with my assumptions. Now that I read your comments, I’m a little surprised, and a touch ashamed of myself. But the thing is—those were my assumptions. They were wrong. I say so."…

Why is it bullshit to consider the feelings and dignity of people who are different from you?

Why did this comment inspire this quantity of downvoting?

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#112

Post by JoeDaDude » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #8

Other brief discussions about this topic suggesting other candidates: http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question114584.html http://ask.metafilter.com/103405/Who-was-the-first-person-in... One Metafilter user ("Riemann") makes the interesting point that a huge number of clay tablets that have been excavated remain untranslated, so it's quite possible that new candidates would turn up over time as scholars examine those a…

Cuneiformist? I am intrigued! I will be looking for some volunteer work when I retire. How do I prepare to be a cuneiformist? TIA,

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#113

Post by adekok » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:26 PM UTC

erdevs wrote: post #109

adekok wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. I have serious ethical concerns with such a claim. It gives a simplistic view of history, to the point of severe distortion. It implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. That's simply not true. What is true is that the Mesopotamian civilizations were violent, hierarchical, racist, genocidal, poor, etc…

> > That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. > ...[This] implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. That's simply not true. No. The preceding statement does not imply either of those things. At all. Let's take patriarchal societies which also had male slavery of hard labor, since hard labor slavery is nearly the antithesis of a "life of unrelen…

> Your logic is unsound to the extreme. Your entire line of reasoning is specious at best and employs reduction to absurdity throughout.

You are reacting emotionally to the first sentence of my comment. And are then ignoring the rest of it. Labeling my argument "specious" is not a counter argument.

> You make these stark, extreme claims and assertions

Such as claiming that the Biblical story of Esther shows that women were not powerless.

Such as claiming that many men also had a terrible life.

Which are both true.

But it's easier to dismiss my argument out of hand, than to address it via facts and logic.

> Are you simply making bombastic statements for the sake of controversy?

Is asking a loaded question good practice?

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#114

Post by adekok » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

mjmsmith wrote: post #108

adekok wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. I have serious ethical concerns with such a claim. It gives a simplistic view of history, to the point of severe distortion. It implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. That's simply not true. What is true is that the Mesopotamian civilizations were violent, hierarchical, racist, genocidal, poor, etc…

> It implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. No, it doesn't. It says nothing about "all men" other than their status relative to women. If I said "Alabama society in the 1950s was blatantly racist," why would you conclude that every white person in Alabama lived like a king?

True.

However, as shown in another comment, the typical "everything is misogynistic" comment is due to intersectional feminism. Which in my experience, largely does claim that men have it very good just for being men, and women have it very bad, just for being women.

A blatant statement of "the culture was misogynistic" is an overly simple classification. The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wasn't of the highest class.

I just don't believe that a rich woman like the Biblical Esther had it worse than a poor free man living in the city at the same time. So her experience with misogyny gave her a better life than 99% of the rest of the population.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#115

Post by erdevs » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

adekok wrote: post #113

erdevs wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. > ...[This] implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. That's simply not true. No. The preceding statement does not imply either of those things. At all. Let's take patriarchal societies which also had male slavery of hard labor, since hard labor slavery is nearly the antithesis of a "life of unrelen…

> Your logic is unsound to the extreme. Your entire line of reasoning is specious at best and employs reduction to absurdity throughout. You are reacting emotionally to the first sentence of my comment. And are then ignoring the rest of it. Labeling my argument "specious" is not a counter argument. > You make these stark, extreme claims and assertions Such as claiming that the Biblical story of Esther shows that wome…

Your opening line was incendiary. The first line of logic you used to backup that incendiary claim was completely specious, as I took time and care to explain. With limited time in a day, opening this way leaves little motivation to take the rest point-by-point. And since your entire "ethical" position and the arguments that flowed forth from it depend on that opening foundation, all that's required is to point out the flaws in the foundation.

How about you address, point by point, the obviously flawed logic I called out. If you either demonstrate how my rebuttal is incorrect or accept that maybe you were being illogical and/or unfair there, it might enable a more reasonable discussion of the remainder. If you can't even address the first part of your own statements though, then what is the point?

> > You make these stark, extreme claims and assertions

> Such as claiming that the Biblical story of Esther shows that women were not powerless.

Read carefully. Think logically. Did I say all your claims and assertions were extreme? What statements did I specifically address in my reply? Why would you then point to only your statement about Esther. If that single statement of yours was not extreme, would that somehow necessarily mean no statement of yours was extreme? How is this any kind of logical counterpoint to what I actually, specifucally said? Logic.

But related to your comment on Esther, it is indeed an example of the extreme (eg reducing my statements to absurdity) and flawed logic I was discussing. Nowhere did I say that all women in all ancient civs (or even all women in any particular ancient civ) were powerless. I didn't say women were "powerless" at all. You are creating a straw man and then arguing against it.

I simply said that, in the ancient civs which we're aware of today, it seems many were patriarchal and/or misogynistic. By definition, women are less likely to have official functions/jobs (eg government officials, accountants, merchants, scholars) which involved frequent writing and conferred power in a patriarchal or misogynistic government and civilization.

You are not arguing any of my points. You're making up entirely different points (which are also extreme to the point of absurdity) and then making arguments against those separate, made-up, extremist points.

Stop strawmanning. Read carefully. Use clear logic. It will engender a better discussion.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#116

Post by mjmsmith » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

adekok wrote: post #114

mjmsmith wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. No, it doesn't. It says nothing about "all men" other than their status relative to women. If I said "Alabama society in the 1950s was blatantly racist," why would you conclude that every white person in Alabama lived like a king?

True. However, as shown in another comment, the typical "everything is misogynistic" comment is due to intersectional feminism. Which in my experience, largely does claim that men have it very good just for being men, and women have it very bad, just for being women. A blatant statement of "the culture was misogynistic" is an overly simple classification. The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wa…

> The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wasn't of the highest class.

Yes, yes, "all lives matter". It doesn't change the fact that given a man and woman of the same class, it was generally more oppressive to the woman, Biblical queen exemptions notwithstanding.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#117

Post by adekok » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

erdevs wrote: post #115

adekok wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your logic is unsound to the extreme. Your entire line of reasoning is specious at best and employs reduction to absurdity throughout. You are reacting emotionally to the first sentence of my comment. And are then ignoring the rest of it. Labeling my argument "specious" is not a counter argument. > You make these stark, extreme claims and assertions Such as claiming that the Biblical story of Esther shows that wome…

Your opening line was incendiary. The first line of logic you used to backup that incendiary claim was completely specious, as I took time and care to explain. With limited time in a day, opening this way leaves little motivation to take the rest point-by-point. And since your entire "ethical" position and the arguments that flowed forth from it depend on that opening foundation, all that's required is to point out t…

As I wrote below:

However, as shown in another comment, the typical "everything is misogynistic" comment is due to intersectional feminism. Which in my experience, largely does claim that men have it very good just for being men, and women have it very bad, just for being women.

A blatant statement of "the culture was misogynistic" is an overly simple classification. The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wasn't of the highest class.

I just don't believe that a rich woman like the Biblical Esther had it worse than a poor free man living in the city at the same time. So her experience with misogyny gave her a better life than 99% of the rest of the population.

> Yoy are creating a straw man and then arguing against it.

No. I'm arguing against the ideas proposed by certain groups of people. People who (in my experience) typically argue that "that culture is misogynistic" means "all men have it better than all women".

I've run into many of these people online and in daily life. If you don't believe this, I'm sorry for insinuating you do. I was reacting to the normal use of that terminology, which, in my experience, does have the meaning I said.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#118

Post by schoen » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

FroshKiller wrote: post #90

schoen wrote: post #8

Other brief discussions about this topic suggesting other candidates: http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question114584.html http://ask.metafilter.com/103405/Who-was-the-first-person-in... One Metafilter user ("Riemann") makes the interesting point that a huge number of clay tablets that have been excavated remain untranslated, so it's quite possible that new candidates would turn up over time as scholars examine those a…

The title of Aczel's book is Finding Zero: A Mathematician's Odyssey to Uncover the Origins of Numbers. The premise was interesting to me, but it's hard for me to recommend to anyone. I couldn't even finish it. It wasn't hard to read or dry, just not well written or edited in my opinion.

I just skimmed it because a family member had it and I thought the story was interesting. I agree that the writing quality wasn't that great.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#119

Post by adekok » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

mjmsmith wrote: post #116

adekok wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. However, as shown in another comment, the typical "everything is misogynistic" comment is due to intersectional feminism. Which in my experience, largely does claim that men have it very good just for being men, and women have it very bad, just for being women. A blatant statement of "the culture was misogynistic" is an overly simple classification. The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wa…

> The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wasn't of the highest class. Yes, yes, "all lives matter". It doesn't change the fact that given a man and woman of the same class, it was generally more oppressive to the woman, Biblical queen exemptions notwithstanding.

> It doesn't change the fact that given a man and woman of the same class, it was generally more oppressive to the woman,

Please define "oppressive"... using either gender neutral measurements, or measurements which balance comparisons against both genders.

As a case in point, I can cherry-pick the following facts, which are all true:

* women live longer than men

* more money is spent on womens health care than mens health care

* more men die in violence and wars than women

* about 80% of homeless are men

* more men are mentally ill than women

etc. Does that mean that men are "oppressed"?

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm poking this subject with a sharp stick in order to question our assumptions. Someone says "women are oppressed", and everyone nods in agreement.

OK... what does that mean? Are the stats cherry-picked like I did above? Maybe sometimes women have it better than men, and sometimes they have it worse?

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#120

Post by c3534l » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

huuu wrote: post #71

c3534l wrote: post #51

Traditionally history is said to start where we have written records, the time before the being relegated to anthropology and archeology. But they say that the scope of economic history is larger because we have accounting records before we have written records. Before we had any clay tablets telling legends and recording the events of kings, we have the exchange rate between fish and barley, records of indebtedness,…

"that's a very modern idea of a job" I don't agree. A vizier [1] is very related to an accountant. For example: Joseph (book of Genesis) became a vizier and had to account for the supplies in storehouses. Maybe he didn't do the accounting himself, but I'm sure they had a way to write down what was in stock and what not. They also traded with surrounding countries that were out of stock, so I'm sure this was bigger th…

"The vizier's paramount duty was to supervise the running of the country, such as a prime minister, at times even small details of it such as sampling the city's water supply."

That doesn't sound like much of an accountant to me.

It would be even more strange that Kushim could be called an accountant at a time where double-entry bookkeeping hadn't been invented. There were always people who kept records, sure. But a person who went to school to learn specifically about keeping and organizing financial records and, in all likelihood, is licensed by the state to ensure that all records are kept in a consistent manner - that's what's modern. It took a very long time for accounting to be a job instead of a task you did in certain jobs. There were even auditors who worked for the government and were basically tax-collectors. But they would actually go to a business and have the owners read aloud their financial records to ensure that they were being kept and they made sense ("audit" basically means to hear).