New CBB

This is the counterpart to the other thread.

Hate away!

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

Any history past 1918/1919 - because it's all about America. Or well, at least when it was being taught to me, so it turned me off. A lot. Not to mention that it doesn't interest me as much since there's still people alive to tell it - when there's no one alive to tell it, it really becomes fascinating, at least to me.

Pre-modern Japanese history. "Medieval" Japan is overrated, at least for me.

American history. Probably because of the way it was taught in high school, if anything else, to be honest.

17th and 18th century European history. No idea why, because I'm cool with 19th century European history and the Renaissance. Or maybe so that I have something else to hate.

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce

Pre-historic times and Modern History.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS

The World Wars, colonial America, pretty much all recent history...
What I dislike far outweighs what I like.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

I don't really have a "least-favorite" period. When it comes to conculture inspiration my feelings range from fascinated to totally indifferent, not really any negativity.

_________________
♀♥Ø

My least favourite period of history is everything past the 1st World War. And i don't hate even that, i just like it less than older history.

_________________
| | | (Nahuatl) | (Sanskrit & Pali) (Yaghan) | (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair

I hate the colonial age and all after it .

I again tried to read about the development of humans. Again, I didn't understand anything. Too many homos.
So, I don't like too much the pre-pre-history.

It might be the lack of sleep, but even seeing this in context amused me far too much...

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Hey, you're not the only one.

_________________
Proto-Hyảlim | Bjarmish

Ón gráti sem jett barn kvéner jag syggji jett lag um deiðan...
[oʊ̯n ˈgɾaːtɪ sɛmː jɛtː baɾn ˈkʰʋɛːnɛɾ jaː ˈsʏd͡ʑːɪ jɛtː laː ʊmː ˈdɛɪ̯an]

College level American History courses are much more interesting and less full of complete lies.


Yeah, I hate all those homos too.

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese

I know.

It still bores me to tears now, however - high school already did too much damage. To be honest I don't understand it, really, why I don't like it so much. Military tactics of American soldiers during the Civil War? Boring. Military tactics of Japanese soldiers during Boshin War at around the same time? Oooh, ahh. Social problems with the industrial revolution during the turn of the century America? Boring. Social problems with the industrial revolution during turn of the century Europe? Interesting! The colonization of the US? Boring. The colonization of Brazil at the same time? Wow, wee, I wanna know more!

I dunno. It is pretty irrational. My hatred for American history is almost (almost) as irrational as my hatred for the hard sciences. Hatred here as "f*ck this I don't want to deal with it" rather than a total disrespect for the discipline, of course. Or maybe because it's just too familiar, and everyone talks about it and everyone (should) know about it, and it gets trite and repetitive for me. Well, that's probably just the result of high school, again. I don't know.

Oh, yeah, and I forgot: I hate history from a Eurocentric point of view - or any "centric" or nationalistic point of view, for that matter, but especially Eurocentrism and American-centrism. In the last few years I have realized, to my horror, that it's more widespread than I previously believed, with even a few reputable historians believing in it. If anything, I think this is partly now one of the reasons I want to pursue my degree in history: to ensure that I can annihilate it from the face of the planet, or die trying.

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce

The 20th Century, and especially the first decade of the 21st.

_________________

PROTO-ONURE: Jutésa coconóco ga zuntús, na en rógcag ma pohús.

The reason for that is that every single palaeoanthropologist wants to be remembered as the one that found the "missing link", so they all call the fossils they find a new species. A palaeontologist i know once taught me that it's a lot simpler to divide direct human ancestors to three groups: Australopithecines, Erectus and species near it, and Sapiens, and species near it.

_________________
| | | (Nahuatl) | (Sanskrit & Pali) (Yaghan) | (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair

The British Medieval period. It's basically a bunch of farmers being hit by knights, who were hit by lords, who were hit by the king, who was hit by God.

_________________
초보

Isn't that pretty much medieval (Catholic) Europe in a nutshell (except for the periphery states)?

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce

Yeah, Richard Dawkins had a short rant about how daft these people are being. Basically, he points out that if the fossil record was absolutley perfect, one could line them up and be unable to tell each from its ancestor or decendant yet everyone would still try to put the mother in one species and the daughter in another.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

South Asian history bores me. Chinese history has also always bored me for some reason.

The overdone splitting is particularly bad among the Australopithecines. IMO the Australopithecine and human species are:

Australopithecus anamensis
The most basal Australopithecine.

Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy, et. al.)
ancestral to the Robust Australopithecines. includes the spurious A. aetheopicus.

Australopithecus africanus
Ancestral to Homo. Most of the spurious Australopithecus species belong here.

Paranthropus robustus
Paranthropus boisei
The "Robust" Australopithecines.

Homo habilis
Basically A. africanus with a slightly bigger brain.

Homo rudolfensis
Known only from a skull and a few leg bones, but seems to have been a larger body size like a modern humans, H. Habilis was smaller like the Australopithecines.

Homo erectus
Includes the spurious species H. ergaster, H. antecessor, and H. florensis. Was fully human below the neck.

Homo heidebergensis.
The common ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans. Some populations may have survived in West Africa as late as 17,000 years ago.

Homo neanderthalensis
The Neanderthals and the newly discovered "Desinovans".

Homo sapiens
Ourselves, of course. Though all non-Africans have some H. neanderthalensis in them.

_________________
Mekoshan
Alpic

No. They do not.

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese

Actually they do. And most non-european non-africans have some Denisovan in their genome too.

_________________
| | | (Nahuatl) | (Sanskrit & Pali) (Yaghan) | (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair