Palestinian man: “We either live free or we die here.”
Interviewer: “What about the argument that if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel—”
Palestinian man: “No, no, this is not an argument. We have lived under blockade for the last seven years. We have been deprived for the last seven years. Don’t talk to me about rockets that is so tiny small. Look at this! [motioning to rubble of a destroyed neighborhood] This is a nonsense argument. We didn’t start it, they started it. In the 2008 agreement they fulfilled nothing. 2012 agreement, they fulfilled nothing. Why should we believe this time the ceasefire when they say let’s negotiate? Negotiating with the Israelis is a waste of time.”
"But a female dummy didn’t become a mandatory part of frontal crash tests until last year. For all this time, the average American guy stood for us all.
That may have had a substantial impact on women’s auto safety. If airbags are designed for the average male, they will strike most men in the upper chest, creating a cushion for their bodies and heads. Yet small women might hit the airbag chin first, snapping their heads back, potentially leading to serious neck and spinal injuries.
In some cases, according to tests with female mannequins, small women were almost three times as likely as their average male counterparts to be seriously injured or killed. A study of actual crashes by the University of Virginia’s Center for Applied Biomechanics found that women wearing seatbelts were 47 percent more likely to be seriously injured than males in similar accidents.”
How accurate do you think sites like Wikipedia are when it comes to history? Personally, I think the level of accuracy depends on which article you're reading, and I think it's pretty good for an overview, but I was wondering what your opinions are. Apologies if you've already answered something like this.
I think it does really depend on the individual article. I think of it as a place to start, not somewhere to end up, if that makes sense. Wikipedia is good for getting a general overview, then if you want to learn more, check out the citations and sources at the bottom and track those down. From there, you can usually find even more once you have the right keywords or search terms you need to get at what you really want.
For example, if the Wiki cites a book, you can go look up that book and read more on the topic, or learn about the context. Then you can go to that book’s sources and bibliography, and see why they make this or that claim. You can keep doing that until you’re just left with primary documents or objects, and having multiple perspectives on it and adding your own is sort of how academic research and writing is generally supposed to go.
I mean, one of the problems with Wikipedia is that in an article, they’ll phrase something as an absolute, when really there are definite counterarguments with support if you read someone else’s book on whatever topic. Obviously, the farther back you go, the fewer objects and documents that survive, so it becomes more open to individual interpretation.
And one of the problems there is that you get to a point where there are these interpretations that are considered beyond questioning or revising. It’s like, somewhere between “wicked rude” and “you’ll never get funding if you keep on like that”. As if revisiting primary sources is desecrating sacred ground; as if just kind of bypassing Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago is equivalent to summoning the Elder Gods to consume civilization as we know it.
Which is why I do get messages from historians and “historians” like, “your methods are disgusting and unacceptable!!!” because yes, yes, I’m breaking the rules; yes, yes, I’m Doing It Wrong. I am a Bad Historian. I think this fails to take into account that I’ll go ahead and cite Mr. I Wrote The Book on It 300 Years Ago, because the object or idea will be fully documented there (in other words, ‘proof this thing exists’), but then I’ll have the brazen gall to disagree on the interpretation of that evidence.
Am I wrong about this stuff sometimes? Absolutely! Do I speculate sometimes? Sure!! Do other people exist who know more about this specific detail than I do? Definitely. But the bottom line is, someone needs to be poking at this stuff. Sometimes “this stuff” turns out to be a beehive. Oops.
What does this have to do with the reliability of Wikipedia? Well, firstly, I link to it a lot because it’s accessible to anyone and that’s super important. Secondly, maybe the people who are mad I poked the beehive will go shore up those pages. I’ve already seen improvements and changes that have happened after I’ve linked to something, and I’m quite glad of it. It’s happened with other sites and databases I’ve linked to, and that’s actually an amazing and tangible form of real change.
Which is why I’ll probably continue to “answer” questions that have no answers, or at least none that we can claim are sure. It’s my hope that more people will look askance at those who claim to have easy answers, who claim absolutes about any of these topics, or shut down lines of discussion (no POC, no exceptions!!) that are worthwhile when we talk about art, history, race, and what they mean to us today.
Guys, you gotta stay for the Guardians of the Galaxy teaser at the end of the credits. Shit changed my life. I mean, you think you’ve seen Shakespeare the way it’s meant to be done, and then you watch this shit. Amaze.
Maybe this is a crazy question, but how did Europeans know what Africans looked like? I know that some of the paintings here are of North Africans/Middle Easterners, but others clearly depict people born south of the Sahara. I've heard of Prester John but I never imagined that medieval Europeans were aware that Prester John would have had brown skin. Am I missing something?
Like. There are a lot of things I could say here. But I’m just going to do my best to answer your question, and the answer is either very simple or very complicated, depending on your current point of view.
1. “They” knew what people with brown skin looked like because people with brown skin had been there literally THE ENTIRE TIME. Some (and father back, ALL) of “them” had brown skin themselves.
2. “People with Brown Skin” and “Europeans” are not separate and mutually exclusive groups.
3. No matter how far back you go, the mythical time that you’re looking for, when all-white, racially and culturally isolated Europe was “real”, will continue to recede from your grasp until it winkles out the like imaginary place it is.
We can just keep going back. In every area, from all walks of life, rich and poor, kings and peasants, artists and iconoclasts, before there were countries and continents, before there were white people.
The time when “EVERYONE” in Europe was White does not exist. They knew what people with brown skin looked like because they were there. They knew what “Africans” looked like because they were there, and they weren’t “they”, they were us, or you. I think what you’re missing is something that never existed.
“In its ‘personal experience’ articles, written by a team run by the site’s editorial manager Robert Evans, Cracked has created a unique blend of hard news, in-depth profile, memoir—and crude, bleak humor. In an era when everyone’s trying to invent some new kind of journalism, Cracked may have actually done it.”—
baby:w....w-we....Welcome! Foolish Mortals, to the Haunted Mansion, I am your host, your ghost host. Hmmmm. Our tour begins here, in this gallery. Here where you see paintings of some of our guests, as they appeared in their corruptible, mortal state. Kindly step all the way in please, and make room for everyone. There's no turning back now...
Your cadaverous palour, betrays an aura of foreboding, almost as though you sense a disquieting metamorphosis. Is this Haunted room actually stretching? Or is it your imagination, hmm? And consider this dismaying observation, this chamber has no windows, and no doors. Which offers you this chilling challenge, to find a way out! Of course, there's always my way...