31–40 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I put Facebook up there to point towards the beginning of social media.
There was social media before Facebook, though.
Seeing that it fails to portray the current map accurately, by not to separating PRC and ROC (taiwan), makes me question everything about older data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_o...
The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial s…
No it does not imply that.
The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial s…
The map certainly is not built in a eurocentric way. It does reflect the fact that the political history of Eurasia and the Mediterranean region are much better studied and better understood, but this is hardly the fault of the creator of the map. Do you have a better political map of the Americas two thousand years ago?
I always wanted something like a "History of human progress" which when zoomed out shows me something like this: -2000000 Stone tools -1000000 Using fire -6000 Metal tools -6000 Agriculture -4000 Writing 1550 Printing 1888 Telephones 1888 Cars 1903 Planes 1941 Penicillin 1941 First computer 1982 Homecomputers 1983 Mobile phones 1990 The internet 2001 Wikipedia 2004 Facebook 2007 IPhone 2022 ChatGPT And then I can zoo…
Facebook was not ”human progress”. Future historians will point to its founding as a pivotal point of regression of democracy and humanity.
https://landnotes.org/?location=xnd284b0-6&date=1923&strictD...
https://github.com/Zulko/landnotes
My plan has been to overlay historical map borders on top of it, like the Geacron one from this post, but they all seem to be protected by copyright - and understandably so, given the amount of work involved.
I've been having fun with the following AI prompt recently: > You roleplay as the various Ancient Roman (Year 0) people I encounter as an accidental time traveler. Respond in a manner and in a language they would actually use to respond to me. Describe only what I can hear and see and sense in English, never translate or indicate what others are trying to say. I am suddenly and surprisingly teleported back in time an…
Reminds me of this book for children I read when I was was young: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/974324.Crusade_in_Jeans
The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial s…
For example, I'm from Latin America, and the most important empires in South America (Incas for example) were using writing systems based on threads and knots (called Khipu). Sadly, these records didn't survive. While Mesopotamia and Northern Africa were already using glyphs carved in Stone (and bones, and wood, etc). These had a much better chance of surviving.
Then, what happened, is that modern "europeans" (starting in 200BC, roman times) invested a lot of time to research and learn about History. This is something MIND BLOWING. Most civilizations didn't even care about their predecessors (aside from deity or folk tales). And that's why what we know today about Parthia or Greece comes mostly from European sources. Don't get me wrong, multiple civilizations had the concept of "early historians", especially Chinese and arabs. But not everything always survives.
The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial s…
The map certainly is not built in a eurocentric way. It does reflect the fact that the political history of Eurasia and the Mediterranean region are much better studied and better understood, but this is hardly the fault of the creator of the map. Do you have a better political map of the Americas two thousand years ago?