Posted on 03/24/2007 10:26:05 AM PDT by Dallas59
Apols for the (frankly stupid) error.
Still, we lack a sure understanding of what this 'history' thing actually is. Near as I can tell it is a compilation of not fallacies but incorrect names and dates. If this is all it is, even if the names and dates are complete and correct it is hardly something serious adults would study to the doctoral level and become professors of. The word had very definite and startlingly different meaning in its etymological root origin.
Edison did indeed invent the first practical incandescent electric light. The article claims that "English scientist Sir Humphry Davy invented arc lighting (using a carbon filament)." Arc lighting does not use a filament... it uses an arc of electricity, a plasma. Arc lighting consumed the carbon rods at a fairly rapid pace, requires high voltages to initiate and maintain the arc, and produces high quantities of damaging ultraviolet wavelengths.
Another error is the article's claim that Captain Cook was not a captain. All persons in command of a ship are called "Captain" regardless of rank. Captain Bligh, famous for the Mutiny on the Bounty was actually Lieutenant William Bligh... when he was not in command.
I would expect the real "first incandescent light" was probably invented by accident when somebody overheated a thin piece of wire. Refining things to the point that a filament can be hot enough to provide useful illumination and yet last long enough to be usable were big improvements that required additional non-obvious discoveries.
Another alternative might be simply to insist, as a society, that the legendeers and revisionists be stripped quite publicly of their academic credentials, and consigned to -- say -- ''teach'' the English language in -- say -- Washington D.C.
Or, do you suppose that would be ''cruel and unusual punishment'' within the meaning of Amendment VIII ?
More than two... see my previous post about a couple more... here is another:
The Magna Carta (Great Charter) is known as a landmark in history, limiting the power of the King of England and sowing the seeds of democracy. Paintings show King John reluctantly signing the Magna Carta in a meadow at Runnymede in 1215. Fair enough, except for one thing. As well as being a rogue, John was probably illiterate. As anyone could see from looking at one of the four original Magna Cartas in existence, he simply provided the royal seal. No signature required.
King John affixed his signature to the document by using his signet ring, a small, portable version of the royal seal that bears the signs signifying his authority and office. The very act of King John affixing his sign to the Magna Carta pre-dates the usage of "signature" as a word. From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"ORIGIN mid 16th cent.from medieval Latin signatura ‘signature of a sovereign on an official document,’ from Latin signare ‘to sign, mark.’
Handwritten signatures were a poor man's make-do for those who were not privileged to use a signet seal. Just because he did not write his name does not mean he did not sign the Magna Carta.
"When the legend become fact, print the legend!" - from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
It's interesting that the author mentions that as only one theory concerning the birth of Christ.
In consideration of today's (well, tomorrow's) date, a better explanation from a Christian perspective follows. Christian's celebrated, and still do today, the beginning of the Incarnation of our Lord on the feast day of the Annunciation - March 25th. Skipping the details of why this is so (it is related to Pascha, i.e. Easter, and the Julian Calendar, etc.), the celebration of the Nativity (Christmas) was set exactly nine months later on the 25th of December for obvious reasons.
The commander of a ship is always referred to as Captain, regardless of his actual rank.
"Columbus, on his fourth and final voyage, landed on the American mainland for the first time near present-day Trujillo, Honduras. The day was 14 August 1502, and he named the place Honduras (‘depths’ in Spanish) for the deep waters off the north coast."
http://www.newint.org/columns/country/2007/01/01/honduras/
Luke 2:7 "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."
Nobody ever said he was "born" in a manger, which would be pretty awkward at best. He was born in a stable, then laid down in a manger.
I give up. These "debunkings of myth" are usually just loaded with inaccuracies.
America has never had a "popularly elected President." Presidents are elected by the Electoral College, or occasionally by the House of Representatives.
I see nothing here about Catherine the Great and the Horse, or who's buried in Grant's Tomb (that last one stumped me for decades -- I thought the trick answer was "President Grant and Mrs. Grant").
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.