Richard Bulliet - History of the World to 1500 CE (Session 5) - New Civilizations, 2200-250 B.C.E.

Topic: New Civilizations in the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, 2200-250 B.C.E. Part II
Speaker: Richard Bulliet
Date: 9/21/2010
Course number: W3902
Course title: World History to 1500 CE
School: Columbia College
Session 5 (9/21/10)

[@km6206]

fascinating!

[@awesomecowsrock]

I watch this guys videos every night to fall asleep

[@theriversexitsense]

Sacrifice is about creating the psychological effect of what Buddhists call 'detachment'. Except its not simply about reducing material attachments, but reducing them relative to symbolic attachments.

[@eig2151]

where can I find that timeline thing on the board??

[@williamerdman4888]

I want to know also.... I'll buy one!

[@jasonmanassa8637]

@@williamerdman4888 @juic3d It's called the Adams Synchronological Chart

[@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505]

I've noticed how the professor's remarks about Somalia were edited and cut off..he was discussing the origin of humanity within africa and mentioned Somalia, contrasting the state of Somalia today with a brief history of the ancient trade of spices and richness that Somalia was known for, but his comments were edited and cut off as soon as he uttered the word 'but'..very suspect

[@km6206]

suspect of what?

[@nunyanunya4147]

put your tinfoil hat on... THEY KNOW YOU KNOW NOW!

[@ssppeellll]

jesbeard, I deleted my original response because I was ashamed of my somewhat snarky tone. I re-wrote it, keeping the message the same but hopefully using a more respectful tone. In any case, thanks for your response to my response. I still see it quite differently from you, but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[@JasonSmith-eo2hu]

i gotta agree with jesbeard on the youtube comment there, this isnt a place to argue or debate. the only positive thing that can happen on youtube is people agreeing with eachother. In other news, i like how this guy is just trashing all the ideas out there. i may not agree with thwm, but these common notions are fun to challenge.

[@ssrobot4809]

Why is every other word uhhh or uhhhmmm?

[@Rogers_Ranger]

specifically regarding bible

[@jesbeard]

Considering he earlier referred to the entire Bible as a "myth" (direct quote), and that the direct quote at 30 min in is, "There's a whole series of these... themes that have been clearly outgrown. Nobody who's likely to get into Columbia is likely to believe in these literal truths of these various troafs," (particularly the considering the "literal truths" wording), I stand by my interpretation of what he meant.

[@bolsasnara3746]

what? I didn’t understand what you wrote… could you explain better?

[@jesbeard]

@@bolsasnara3746 how about you address specifically what you did not understand?

[@bolsasnara3746]

@@jesbeard sorry, english is not my first language. What is your interpretation of what he meant?

[@jesbeard]

@@bolsasnara3746 my comment is from three years ago. I no longer remember the exchange or what it was about, and have no real interest in making the effort to remember. Sorry.

[@_ata_3]

@@jesbeard Smart Sr., tell me what is a "troaf" then.

[@jesbeard]

Rick, youtube is a remarkably poor venue for such a discussion, and as a result, even if you really, really want to have one... I'll pass.

[@godspeasant]

@jesbeard haha yeah the sirens go off in the background while he makes this claim. If you believe in a synchronized universe, then one can argue that he is talking bogus at that point and the universe makes it clear for people who are aware. If you do not believe in synchronicity, then you have to validate/debunk his ideas based on proof or internally based on your own experiences. If time exists, which it does not, God must have existed before the Bible was written. So in the end it is a book.

[@_ata_3]

what are you even talking about?!?

[@Rogers_Ranger]

i get his question, just dont know if its a valid argument

[@drkent3]

jesbeard - the 'quote' you refer to is at 24:11, and he is specifically referring to the myth of Adam and Eve, not in a belief in the Bible as a whole. Most Christians, except for the most fundamentalist believer that the Bible is a historical document, accept that Genesis is more of an allegory than an accurate historical depiction of how humanity was 'created'. Nonetheless, the statement regarding admittance to Columbia was in reference to the 'trope' (metaphorical reference) that all languages are derived from Noah's three sons - which is *clearly* not the case. Anyone who holds such a literal belief absolutely would not be accepted into Columbia, and most likely would never even have applied. If you see that as 'elitism', I suggest you should look at yourself with regards to your own attitude (and that of religious fundamentalists) regarding science and reason. Doesn't it seem odd that some people would accept that a single document that is purported to be 'directly from God', though no solid evidence exists to support this claim but plenty exists to suggest that it was written and translated (and re-translated) by humans (which at the very least means there are likely to be gross errors in interpretation), would be considered more valid than the myriad of actual direct evidence which, through the use of reason (that was purportedly given by God), contradicts that document?

[@Rogers_Ranger]

written and oral tradition..

[@gussetma1945]

There were and there are deer in Mexico.

[@_ata_3]

He literally said that "it is not a highly respected theory but it has been tossed around".

[@yisroelcohen6729]

he made a mistake regarding the blood of the red heffer

[@thecontentcr34tor85]

Did he say yems not gems?...ps ur way smarter than me and tbh u make me laugh but its sad ur student sometimes just laugh in context and didn't understand the joke, and just laughed because u pause as a true entertainer and linguist ...but for what its worth as a young man not able to afore or be excepted into your institution i appreciate the laughter but by far your stye of teaching/lecturing ...ps forgive all the ands cuz im am and drunk😂😂😂

[@jesbeard]

You know, you might want to schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist and get some meds. Could do you wonders.

[@jesbeard]

At roughly 30 minutes into the video he essentially says that anyone accepting a literal reading of the Bible (specifically related to the development of linguistic divisions resulting from the separation of Noah's sons) "would not get into Columbia" in the first place and that therefore there is little reason to discuss it further. This would mean anyone believing the Bible is either not bright enough for Columbia, or Columbia would not accept, regardless how bright. Pretty amazing admission.

[@jamiecullum5567]

also pretty accurate

[@_ata_3]

@@jamiecullum5567 Yes and Professor Bulliet is right. History researched and teached at universities must be a scientific matter. For people accepting a literal reading of the Bible there's the church. In fact up to this point, not all churches accept a literal reading on the bible so if you are going to have a reasonable discussion on how history is made, which is what this class is about, the Bible has its importance but it is not because of the exact literal contents of it, but how it has being used to make history.

[@markstuber4731]

The Aztecs had Turkeys.

[@_ata_3]

He literally said about that specific explanation that "it is not a highly respected theory but it has been tossed around".

[@markstuber4731]

@@_ata_3 Can you try not to use pronouns without clear antecedents when responding to a comment I made SEVEN YEARS AGO! What are you referring to as "it'?

[@_ata_3]

​@@markstuber4731 You gave a contradiction to the theory that Aztecs sacrificed humans because they did not had domestic animals. And i was clarifying that it is not a theory that Professor Bulliet is supporting. I consider this distinction to be important because there are comments of people offended because the Bible is not taken literally in a History class and are doing their poor intent of discrediting this course. Putting your comment in this context is why I replied that.

[@markstuber4731]

@@_ata_3 fair enough. Strawmen should be called out.

[@jesbeard]

And some folks wonder why anyone would contemptuously refer to the "intellectual elite."

[@MarcosElMalo2]

0:33 photobomber

[@Rob-je6vx]

Is anyone else in love with that girls posture and shoulders?

[@shint8160]

never imagined id see sexual harrasment on a fricking columbian video....

[@Rob-je6vx]

Shin T How is complimenting someone’s shoulders and posture sexual harassment? You must be one of the idiot woke mob!

[@gussetma1945]

Only the blood of Jews is forbidden by the Rabbis. Consult Pasqua di Sangre.