Recent comments in /f/history

AnaphoricReference t1_jb0peqb wrote

The Netherlands has had three female Kings in a row in recent history. The Consitution is quite clear the topic: the monarch is King, and King (written) may be read as "Queen" if a woman is monarch. This led to an interesting discussion about downgrading the title of Queen as consort of the King to Princess, in analogy to Prince for the consort of a regnant Queen, because people have gotten so used to equating "King" and "Queen". And in common parlance both King and Queen were used for Beatrix: without qualification it is "Queen", but it is for instance "the first Dutch King that [..]".

2

FixerFiddler t1_jb0m5jv wrote

Most museums have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of artifacts and only a handful of people looking after them and researching them. Unless someone get intrigued by one particular object it could sit unstudied for decades or centuries.

18

Wazzok1 t1_jb0grnf wrote

It's just so sad at how little a single archeologist can do in their careers, and like everyone they only get one life. Added onto that the dwindling number of jobs in the field... How is archeology going to survive if it takes a decade to get "yeah this deer antler is an instrument" published?

48

bangdazap t1_jazqn53 wrote

>Which leads me to add one remark, that the number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny; Asia chiefly tawny; America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who, with the English, make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth.

​Benjamin Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, People of Countries, Etc.” (1751)

Prejudice blinds you to the facts of reality I guess.

4