Things everybody knows that are actually wrong

[King]

The oldest continuously inhabited city is Jericho.

Jericho was destroyed/abandoned way too many times to be considered continuously inhabited.

[minionofmidas]

The oldest continuously inhabited city is Jericho.

That, at least, is the received wisdom. I've no idea how much truth there is to the claim... was Jericho really inhabited continuously? And as a city?

It also wouldn't surprise me to hear people chime off some Egyptian city like Cairo even though Cairo was long after ancient Egypt.

Oh, but some of the cities of ancient Egypt are still cities today. Same caveats apply, of course. Although the dates usually given for Jericho are millennia before the Pyramids, in the very early days of cities full stop.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The oldest continuously inhabited city is Jericho.

     I remembered it was somewhere in that exact area, but I was thinking it was Hebron rather than Jericho.

BRTD, while I agree that Damascus is overlooked as the oldest city, I disagree that Rome is commonly referred to as the oldest.

I'm pretty sure most people would say Athens or Jerusalem.  Granted, they are both wrong.

It also wouldn't surprise me to hear people chime off some Egyptian city like Cairo even though Cairo was long after ancient Egypt.

     I have never heard of Rome or Athens even being considered by anyone for oldest city. I've experienced that most people are aware that it would have to be Africa/Middle East.

[GMantis]

The oldest continuously inhabited city is Jericho.

That, at least, is the received wisdom. I've no idea how much truth there is to the claim... was Jericho really inhabited continuously? And as a city?

The same doubts exist pretty much for all other candidates.

[dead0man]

The oldest continuously inhabited city is Jericho.

That was going to be my guess.

[minionofmidas]

The oldest continuously inhabited city is Jericho.

That, at least, is the received wisdom. I've no idea how much truth there is to the claim... was Jericho really inhabited continuously? And as a city?

The same doubts exist pretty much for all other candidates.

Oh yes, I would assume so.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As far as cities in Egypt go, Alexandria dates back to being much older than Cairo, though also long after the construction of the Pyramids and what not. Not sure if any cities from that era still exist.

[Platypus]

As far as cities in Egypt go, Alexandria dates back to being much older than Cairo, though also long after the construction of the Pyramids and what not. Not sure if any cities from that era still exist.

Luxor?

[minionofmidas]

Aswan (anciently called Swenet) has been the largest city and administrative center of the South of Egypt for 4 millennia or so.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder what most people would answer as the oldest continuously inhabited city in the US is. Probably something stupid like Boston.

The answer is St. Augustine, FL by the way for European settlements, though there are some remote Native villages in Arizona and New Mexico which go back as far as the 12th century.

[The Mikado]

I wonder what most people would answer as the oldest continuously inhabited city in the US is. Probably something stupid like Boston.

The answer is St. Augustine, FL by the way for European settlements, though there are some remote Native villages in Arizona and New Mexico which go back as far as the 12th century.

The only reason I knew that is because the map I had over my bed when I was a kid had that on it.  If not for that, I'd have guessed Jamestown.

[minionofmidas]

The answer is St. Augustine, FL by the way for European settlements

Only if you count only the time of European occupation. Otherwise, the answer is Hampton, VA (which was continuously occupied, despite the change in occupants in 1610 or some such year.)

[minionofmidas]

Also that people were somehow much shorter only 200 years ago.

They were.
Or their feet and inches were longer.

Actually, people were much shorter even fifty years ago.

Germans grew five inches over the past 150 years. 18-20 year old Germans currently are an inch taller on average than the entire 18+ population.

[Coburn In 2012]

The myth of the noble savage and white european aggression

The founding fathers intending seperation of Church and State.

You can tax your way out of a recession.

Want more?

[GMantis]

The myth of the noble savage and white european aggression

Yes, the myth of the noble savage is untrue. However, how would you qualify the conquest and oftrn destruction of most native cultures? As a defensive reaction?

[Coburn In 2012]

The myth of the noble savage and white european aggression

Yes, the myth of the noble savage is untrue. However, how would you qualify the conquest and oftrn destruction of most native cultures? As a defensive reaction?

They were savages intent on mass murder of white settlers so we defended ourselves.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

They were savages intent on mass murder of white settlers so we defended ourselves.

Bullshit.  They weren't savages, first of all.  Second of all, we came in and took their land; they were the ones defending themselves.  Finally, we're the ones who committed mass murder, not the Indians.

[justfollowingtheelections]

They were savages intent on mass murder of white settlers so we defended ourselves.

Bullshit.  They weren't savages, first of all.  Second of all, we came in and took their land; they were the ones defending themselves.  Finally, we're the ones who committed mass murder, not the Indians.

You're trying to reason with an idiot?  Good luck.  Coburn is everything that's wrong with the conservative movement in this country.

[2952-0-0]

There are several settlements in Central China which are certainly contenders for the "most continuously settled human settlement ever" title.

[2952-0-0]

That the current Standard Rail Gauge is derived from the standard width of a chariot, which is in turn derived from the width of a horses's rear.

[King]

The myth of the noble savage and white european aggression

Yes, the myth of the noble savage is untrue. However, how would you qualify the conquest and oftrn destruction of most native cultures? As a defensive reaction?

They were savages intent on mass murder of white settlers so we defended ourselves.

I have a feeling this guy is 10% Native American.

[Sbane]

Oh, and Torie, sure competition played a great part, I'm sure (one of the reasons the EU is such as poor idea; it removes Europe's key historical advantage). But I don't think it is solely responsible. The whole germ thing I don't really buy either. Europeans died from stuff they got on other continents too. I think it's more about being the stronger party that determines the outcome of disease-mixing. Sort of being the spreader as opposed to the spreadee, as well as having the advantage of better medical equipment.

And I would give the Greek a little credit too. They did come up with the idea of the city state, breeding the competition that you talk about.

Germs were a very crucial factor. Why do you think Europeans were only able to settle the Americas and Australia? The thing is that since the population in the Americas were very low compared to the rest of the world, they didn't live in close contact with each others(cities) and thus weren't able to cultivate germs like Europeans, Middle easterners, Indians and Chinese did. Epidemics have always affected society but they become less and less deadly as immunity builds in the population. When the Europeans reached America they inadvertently released all of these deadly diseases at once, diseases that were maybe a mere nuisance to the Europeans themselves. On the other hand they gave us syphilis so damn them. ( Interestingly this disease occurred in the parts of the Americas with the greatest concentration of population, Central Mexico)

Also the reason Europeans took to the sea was due to events to their east. The muslims fought multiple wars and finally took over the trade routes leading into Asia. Thus Europeans couldn't access their priceless peppers of Kerala and the silk of China. Thus they had to think outside the box and which meant sailing into the open oceans. Also Europe is much more susceptible to invasion than either India or China. India is protected on 3 sides with the highest mountains in the world and one side by the ocean. It is a similar case with China. I am not saying there were no population pressures, or they would have been like Native Americas, but not to the extent of 15th century Europe. Facing this population pressure and invasions etc., the Europeans had to innovate or perish.

[Nym90]

That the "free market" actually leads to more economic freedom.

[Coburn In 2012]

They were savages intent on mass murder of white settlers so we defended ourselves.

Bullshit.  They weren't savages, first of all.  Second of all, we came in and took their land; they were the ones defending themselves.  Finally, we're the ones who committed mass murder, not the Indians.

Another product of a government education. Great. 

First, it is true some bad things were done to the indians on ocassion. The worst had to be what the Spanish explorers allowed to happen but they were just so shocked by the human sacrifice and mass butchery of the Aztecs and Incas they over reactions.

 But second, countless times the indians murdered white women and children.  I am talking about in north america like the Pilgrim times and the French and Indian war.  We had every right to settle here and yes, some times land was wrongly stolen.  But lots of these indians were nomads who left their land for long periods.  Others were just stagnating and not developing.  Progress is a good thing not a bad thing.  Liberals want you to believe it is bad but white Europeans brougth progress to America.

And now the indians are on the welfare dole AND raking in the bucks with their casino gambling.  Favored minority status...hmmm...who really came out on top?

[ilikeverin]

That the "free market" actually leads to more economic freedom.

Please stay off politics

They were savages intent on mass murder of white settlers so we defended ourselves.

Bullshit.  They weren't savages, first of all.  Second of all, we came in and took their land; they were the ones defending themselves.  Finally, we're the ones who committed mass murder, not the Indians.

Another product of a government education. Great. 

First, it is true some bad things were done to the indians on ocassion. The worst had to be what the Spanish explorers allowed to happen but they were just so shocked by the human sacrifice and mass butchery of the Aztecs and Incas they over reactions.

 But second, countless times the indians murdered white women and children.  I am talking about in north america like the Pilgrim times and the French and Indian war.  We had every right to settle here and yes, some times land was wrongly stolen.  But lots of these indians were nomads who left their land for long periods.  Others were just stagnating and not developing.  Progress is a good thing not a bad thing.  Liberals want you to believe it is bad but white Europeans brougth progress to America.

And now the indians are on the welfare dole AND raking in the bucks with their casino gambling.  Favored minority status...hmmm...who really came out on top?

Please stick to facts