And you also said it doesn’t count because its not recent. Make up your mind and stick to it
1 Like
Yep that’s why I bothered to respond.
Most commonly-accepted standards/rules of human history chart “modern history” as spanning from 1600 - present day, or even 1500 - present day.
But please, continue being offended by someone who clearly knows more about it than you.
2 Likes
Recent is Modern period! That’s why we include everything the 16th century onward in our analysis of Modernity within historical and cultural analysis.
Aki is gesturing to LATE ANTIQUITY and EARLY MIDDLE AGES lmao
Man, you’re the dude that said industrialization is a staple of British culture. Get out of here.
2 Likes
I think he means it more like: What happened to Eastern Europe like to Lithuania wouldn’t count any longer (one could argue about that sure).
I think at least that’s what he meant. The time period is of course clear.
I don’t care about your debatable history timeline. It is just a terminology. I didn’t bring it up.
Honestly? It feels like there is 4 separate conversations goin on at the same time
Lithuania was 14th century lmao
It’s the academic consensus of how history is divided dude
2 Likes
And I said i don’t care about it. It is terminology and i didn’t bring it up.
Yes ans everyone is just responding to me without responding to what I’m responding to 
Yup, please misquote me in order to fuel your own toxic argument.
For reference, what I actually said:
All y’all taking Aki’s comments as gospel simply because you don’t personally like Baal may want to consider the way she “cites” her sources.
2 Likes
… So you want to debate historical relevance limits but don’t care about academic delineations of history?
2 Likes
What’s so hard to understand here?
I wrote: I think he means Lithuania wouldn’t count for you, because pre-modern.
1 Like
Yall are just falling into Baal’s trap. He just wants to one-up everyone’s victim mentality so he can continue being the Gold Medalist of victimhood.
1 Like
The delineations were not relevant to what I said. You brought it up to erase whatever happened before “modern history”.
At the end of the day it is still terminology used for convenience in the study of history.
1 Like
…there’s literally nothing of logical or intelligent value in this statement.
If anything, it reads like a poorly-disguised attempt at character assassination.
3 Likes
Says the woman claiming what happened in Late Antiquity/Early Middle 8th century Scandinavia affects her personally today
That’s a gold medal reach
I have nothing against him personally. Besides, people can have different opinions on things and this just happens to be a touchy subject