(Part 2) Top products from r/badhistory

> I've never actually read Maccabees I and II as its outside the Tanach

Yea the only reason I looked into it is because my Rabbi brought it up.

>and any learning I did, but is it a retelling of the same narrative twice or part I and part II respectively?

The first book shows the struggle between Pious Jews (The Maccabees) vs Seleucid King & The Jews that supported the king. The second book creates the terms "Judaism" and "Hellenism", which were coined by the author. Really this is an internal civil war between a pious people and those who were wanted to assimilate into Greek lifestyle. The Maccabees of course forced converted these non-pious people by forced circumcision and massacre.


It is also worth noting that neither book actually mentioned the 'miracle' of the oil. They talk about the re-dedication and the second book talks about 8 days (again going back to Sukkot). The second book even calls back to the feast of booths, and they talk about what could even be the lulav and etrog.

To quote:

1 Maccabees 4:52-59 reads:

Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Kislev, in the one hundred forty-eighth year, they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of the burn offering that they had built. At the very season and on the very day that the Gentiles had profaned it, it was dedicated with songs and harps and lutes and cymbals… So they celebrated the dedication of the altar for eight days, and joyfully offered burnt offerings… Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Kislev.

2 Maccabees, is a more stylized and less historically accurate account. 2 Maccabees 10:5-9 reads:

It happened that on the same day on which the sanctuary had been profaned by the foreigners, the purification of the sanctuary took place, that is, on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which was Kislev. They celebrated it for eight days with rejoicing….therefore, carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place. They decreed by public edict, ratified by vote, that the whole nation of the Jews should observe these days every year.

The entire story of the oil lasting for 8 days comes out of the Rabbinic tradition.

It is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud in tractate Shabbat 21b:

What is [the reason of] Chanuka? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev [commence] the days of Chanukah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day’s lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving.

> I've never seen this nor read this anywhere but I'd love to hear you out on that one!

I could type this up, but it is easier to scan it, apologies for my laziness.

Here is the album of 5 pages.

It compares the story side by side with Exodus, and shows the similarities in the names essentially one letter difference (which was commonly switched in Aramaic) is the only change from Moses to Mattathias is essentially a one letter difference in transliteration.

>So they had to wait the seven days THEN as purified people make some NEW oil then light the menorah. So yes it could've been any oil but they had to be pure when it was made and when they lit the menorah

The stories don't follow those accounts, they speak of very long times between victory, and re-dedication. Although I think the latter part of your comments are answered already in the sources in the first part of this posts.

Oh also it is worth noting that the Talmud only tells us to light a single candle and only the very zealous should light more:

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat, page 21b

Our Rabbis taught: The commandment of Chanukah requires one light per household; the zealous kindle a light for each member of the household; and the extremely zealous -- Beit Shammai maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit and thereafter they are gradually reduced [by one each day]; but Beit Hillel say: On the first day one is lit and thereafter they are progressively increased. Ulla said: In the West [Eretz Yisrael] two amoraim, R. Jose b. Abin and R. Jose b. Zebida, differ concerning this: one maintains, the reasoning of Beit Shammai is that it should correspond to the days still to come, and that of Beit Hillel is that it shall correspond to the days that are gone. But another maintains: Beit Shammai's reason is that it shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival [of Tabernacles; i.e. Sukkot], while Beit Hillel's reason is that we increase in matters of sanctity but do not reduce.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: There are two old men in Sidon: one did as Beth Shammai and the other as Beth Hillel: the former gave the reason of his action that it should correspond to the bullocks of the Festival, while the latter stated his reason because we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce.

Our Rabbis taught: It is incumbent to place the Chanukah lamp by the door of one's house on the outside; if one dwells in an upper chamber, place it at the window nearest the street. But in times of danger it is sufficient to place it on the table. Raba said: Another lamp is required for its light to be used, yet if there is a blazing fire it is unnecessary. But in the case of an important person, even if there is a blazing fire another lamp is required.

Also to note a lot of this is covered in The Jewish Holidays a Guide and Commentary

Chag Sameach!

I've been reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari, due to an interest in the history of the human species brought about by an Intro to Biological Anthropology class I'm in. I'm maybe three chapters in so far, but I'm engrossed. Harari theorizes that the reason that Homo Sapiens were able to outlive all the other Homo species is our ability to conceive fiction, our ability to conceptualise things that don't exist, like religions, nations, etc. This isn't really a historic text, but it's well written and seems to be worth reading if you have an interest in the topic. I'd like to read some critical reviews from experts in the field, though.

Hey guys, just a reminder: we're having a big Cinema Saturday Movie event on Saturday at 4pm EST we, as well as the good people of /r/conspiratard and /r/badscience will be watching a 1 hour and 40 or so minute montage of conspiracy theory nonsense brought to you by /u/lesshatefulbullshit

As such, I think it best that we come up with a suitable drinking game for the event

On a more serious note, do any of you guys have experience with this book or its author?It's for my Modern Russia course and it does seem to have a slight anti-communist/anti/Russia slant, although it is bringing up some good points which are very valid, especially when it comes to Putin.

Also, there's this one, and this one
which seems to include some stuff on the purges and the practices of Soviet Russia, which I like subject-wise. Should prove to be interesting.

Also my books are rather thin this semester, only a few hundred pages per book, interesting. Even the primary source books are a bit on the thin side, I'm just going o assume that there's a reason for this--projects maybe.


Also plug for /r/BadEverything , /r/confederacy, and Badoysters. Also just because activity has slowed down a bit, /r/BadCGI

Also I'm sitting on /r/Maputo if anyone wants it. I just wanted to save it from any possible racists. That and /r/TotallyRealConspiracy redirects to /t/conspiratard

Jazz A Century of Change is wonderful!(http://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Century-Change-Lewis-Porter/dp/0028647130)! You can get it used for a decent price.

If you get your hands on this get it! It taught me so much about New Orleans at the time: http://www.discogs.com/Jelly-Roll-Morton-The-Complete-Library-Of-Congress-Recordings-By-Alan-Lomax/master/651198 Just take some things critically.

I'd highly suggest Ken Burns documentary too. It's pretty accurate and informative till about 1959 since Wynton Marsalis did have a huge part and he's in the traditionalist school.

Good idea on r/badmusicology!

Currently enrolled in a history/political economy of education course. The content has been quite enjoyable.

Two of the main texts used thus far:

The Death and Life of the Great American School System by Diane Ravitch

The American School, A Global Context: From the Puritans to the Obama Administration by Joel Spring

Positive: I just got a batch of books from my museum's annual book sale! Relevant to here are: The Stolen Prince, Hugh Barnes; Women in an Industrializing Society: England 1750-1880, Jane Rendall (1990); Warrior Women and Popular Balladry, 1650-1850, Dianne Dugaw (1989); To Ornament Their Minds: Sara Pierce's Litchfield Female Academy 1792-1833, Litchfield Historical Society (1993); Our Own Snug Fireside: Images of the New England Home, 1760-1860, Jane C. Nylander (1993); and Women's Life & Work in the Southern Colonies, Julia Cherry Spruill (1938, but reprinted in 1977 and it seems to be good scholarship). Good deals on a few of those! It would be more handy to have them as ebooks but at 50c-$1, you can't beat the price. I fully intend to read them soon but read Rachel Dratch's memoir first and am now on the complete short stories of Dorothy Parker. It was a good sale.

Negative: It's an awful sale. We got an insane number of books donated this year and I was run ragged setting it all up with only a couple of volunteers, only one able to really do anything physical. Very few books have sold, and we're going to be left with a still-insane number to get rid of. All the local libraries are having their sales this weekend so nobody wants the remainder. What are we going to do??

Here are some secondary sources worth checking out.

From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 by Pauline Maier. Explores the Whig philosophy justifying resistance and the group nature of such resistance.

American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People by T.H. Breen examines the Committees of Safety, though his focus is on the Committees throughout the colonies.

The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America Nash examines the roots of the class struggle in America. There are some problems with this work, particularly in Nash's characterization of many of the influential men in early America, but I think it's still a worthwhile source to look at the class struggle and how group action impacted America.

The Revolution Is Now Begun
The Radical Committees of Philadelphia, 1765-1776 by Richard Alan Ryerson actually focuses on the various committees in Philadelphia.

As I think of more sources I'll add them here.

Since you're asking specifically about '68 and '72, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, and might have read it, but...

The Selling of the President, 1968?

You might be asking for something more academic, but it's a classic, in case you haven't read it.

How do you feel about this book?

Have I got the book for you

Here is a book in the subject https://www.amazon.com/Falling-Up-Shel-Silverstein/dp/0060248025

So I got Arnved Nedkvitne's recent book Norse Greenland: Viking Peasants in the Arctic.

It seemed like he was proving wrong a claim I've made many times; that Scandinavian historians don't refer to Viking Age Scandinavians in general as 'Vikings'. But once I look through the e-book, I find he does use the title's term "Viking peasants" once in the preface and introduction but after that there's zero references to any person or persons in the whole book as viking(s). Just the term "Viking Age" and such. I strongly smell an editor at work here!

Other than that, not a bad book.

Except for the godawful cover. WTF is up with that, Routledge? If you want me to pay €130 for the hardcover, you could at least spend ten minutes online finding some public-domain image with some sort of relevancy to the text. It looks like it belongs on a maths textbook from the 1960s; "Introduction to Graph Theory" or whatever.

Devil's advocate:

I don't think this is a work of bad history as such. I think this is written from the perspective of someone who has never done a bit of manual labor in their lives, and probably stands in awe at the thought of an ordinary human being being able to take a car apart and put it back together again, or whatever. This Redditor is probably half-convinced that carpenters and plumbers are secretly warlocks. As /u/Ilitarist says, the average peasant probably knew some basic metalwork and carpentry and so forth.

Or this Redditor recently read Reaper Man, in which a blacksmith exposits the quasi-mythical qualities of blacksmithing.

And that's terrifying, so don't think about it!

Is his book about Siemund Warbung decent? Or is it another example of bad history?

>In 2014, after Overy's book on the campaigns was published last year, there's really no argument in favour of the strategic bombing campaign. It was a war crime.

This book?

Hang on, if we're talking history here then Afghanistan was already a training ground for jihaddists by the time the Taliban came to power. The Taliban were one faction to have been trained and battle hardened in the mujahideen resistance to the Soviet invasion.

As far as the law and order thing goes, they were welcomed at first by poorer Afghans who thought that because they were imposing theocratic rule that this would result in less corruption in public life. Of course this gradually turned to dissatisfaction once they were consolidated in government and started outlawing haircuts and the like.

The human rights abuses were horrible but to put it in perspective those practices were the same under the Northern Alliance, Karzai and whichever warlords are locally in power. I would venture so far as to say that if you want to improve people's human rights then government by warlord is not the way to go.

As unpalatable as just standing by is the alternative strategies of intervention firstly covert during the 70's and 80's and secondly by invasion in the 2000's have done little or nothing to improve Afghan's human rights.

There is a book called Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden by an American journalist called Steve Coll which traces the whole mess back to the time of the Soviet Invasion.

http://www.amazon.com/Making-President-1972-Landmark-Political/dp/0061900672

Maybe? I'm no historian. I know Roger Stone's books (he has a long and good one about Nixon - recently did some on Clinton and Bush as families), but Roger Stone is biased as hell and a conspiracy theorist through and through.

Picked up this biography of George C. Marshall and holy hell, it's bad. It hardly delves into the man himself, but rather wastes space writing about the context of the times and what was happening in the world. And there, these two dive into bad history repeatedly and repeating nostrums that were abandoned decades ago. Awful.
It appears these two authors are "professional biographers" with little to no background in history. Most of the biography was shallower than a pool of spit.