How was Egypt before the arrival of Hyksos?

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,738
#31
Is this a trend here, or did people always do it . I have noticed it more and more lately, it seems to come from people that either have some problem with the people of culture in question. It arises mostly when we compare older cultures (like Australian Aboriginals ) or other prehistory periods ;

" They didnt have proper agriculture ..... there was no complex trade ..... they didnt do x y z 'as we do now' ...... there was no real communication ..... "

:rolleyes:
Thank you!
I have noticed this trend, not just in history, but in many things lately. Film analysis and criticism (or TV episodes, etc...). Not exactly the same modifiers, but that they use some form of comparative analysis to determine how close something is to their idea of how it ought to be. The reviewer frames the "proper" way of how a film plot should be done with the themes in question: then judges said film as worse based on how far it deviates from that hypothetical framing. Not the same thing, but similar to the comparative analysis of history in abstract terms meant to mean something concrete. In both cases, the observer fails to properly assess the items based on their own merits.

I am not sure what to call this general trend: "Millennial Post-post-modernism" or something like that? I hate to throw millennials as a whole under the bus (since many don't think in those terms), but this trend seems to come out of that generation. Millennials weren't the first to do this sort of thing, it's part of the trait of modernism to judge the past as "primitive" and the future as more advanced, but we learned long ago that things weren't nearly that simple: and even modernists didn't judge actual things based on hypotheticals, but rather allowed the actual things to destroy the hypothesis - rather than impose it.
 
Mar 2018
728
UK
#32
Thank you!
I have noticed this trend, not just in history, but in many things lately. Film analysis and criticism (or TV episodes, etc...). Not exactly the same modifiers, but that they use some form of comparative analysis to determine how close something is to their idea of how it ought to be. The reviewer frames the "proper" way of how a film plot should be done with the themes in question: then judges said film as worse based on how far it deviates from that hypothetical framing. Not the same thing, but similar to the comparative analysis of history in abstract terms meant to mean something concrete. In both cases, the observer fails to properly assess the items based on their own merits.

I am not sure what to call this general trend: "Millennial Post-post-modernism" or something like that? I hate to throw millennials as a whole under the bus (since many don't think in those terms), but this trend seems to come out of that generation. Millennials weren't the first to do this sort of thing, it's part of the trait of modernism to judge the past as "primitive" and the future as more advanced, but we learned long ago that things weren't nearly that simple: and even modernists didn't judge actual things based on hypotheticals, but rather allowed the actual things to destroy the hypothesis - rather than impose it.
It's called "no true scotsman" fallacy. It's been around forever, and I really doubt it's on the increase. Possibly you've only recently become good at spotting it however.
 
Likes: Theodoric