←back to thread

540 points napolux | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
mxfh ◴[] No.42195789[source]
Since Know Your Meme doesn't give the reference for why it's a lake, maybe not everybody is familiar with british lore:

The mythical Lady of the Lake:

Probably best known via Monthy Python:

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

In short: She teaches Lancelot arts and writing, infusing him with wisdom and courage, and overseeing his training to become an unsurpassed warrior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_the_Lake

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnigmaticEmpower...

replies(5): >>42196519 #>>42196534 #>>42197574 #>>42197985 #>>42201196 #
mrandish ◴[] No.42196519[source]
This reminds me that Monty Python and the Holy Grail contributed actual historical knowledge about Arthurian legends to my knowledge base while growing up. Other examples of Python unintentional education include knowing the names of a myriad of obscure cheeses (the cheese shop skit), a shocking number of anachronistic synonyms for death (the parrot skit) and notable contributions of the Roman Empire (Life of Brian 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' skit).

While it didn't contribute to my GPA at the time, I'm sure I could name more notable philosophers than any other 8th grader in my school (philosopher's song skit). However, in high school it did spark the interest to look up and read about each of the philosophers in the song.

replies(1): >>42197622 #
graemep ◴[] No.42197622[source]
The problem is that comedy is frequently not factually accurate.

Roman Imperial contributions? Was Roman wine better than pre-Roman wine in that region? Did they improve sanitation, irrigation, medicine etc.? Rome was an oppressive slavery based society.

Then what about the Spanish Inquisition sketch? It keeps repeating "fanatically devoted to the Pope"" The Spanish inquisition was an arm of the Spanish monarchy, at least two Popes tried to shut it down, and some historians have suggested one of its aims was to reduce the power of the Papacy.

I do like the Philosopher's Song, the Dead Parrot and Cheese Shop.

Other comedies are no better. Black Adder has a witchfinder (an early modorn innovation) in a Medieval setting.

Pop culture is not historically accurate!

replies(6): >>42197874 #>>42198101 #>>42198580 #>>42198841 #>>42199176 #>>42202006 #
inglor_cz ◴[] No.42198580[source]
In a pre-industrial agricultural society, slavery or something similar (serfdom etc.) tends to be widespread, as human and animal muscles are the only reliable and ubiquitous source of energy. Humanity only really started getting rid of unfree backbreaking work by adopting steam engines. 300-400 years ago, most of us forists here would be unfree people working the fields in unfavorable conditions, with maybe 5 per cent being burghers and 1 per cent nobility.
replies(1): >>42198920 #
astrange ◴[] No.42198920[source]
It's not that pre-industrial society causes slavery, it's closer to the other way round. If you're pre-industrial then everyone has to do farm work, yes, but slavery is /economically inefficient/ because the slaves don't provide demand (since you don't pay them) and don't grow the economy.

This is why economics was called "the dismal science" - economists told people to stop doing slavery and the slaveowners called them nerds. They wanted to own slaves because they wanted to be mini-tyrants, not because they were good at capitalism. Adam Smith did not go around telling people to own slaves.

replies(2): >>42199372 #>>42200075 #
1. eru ◴[] No.42200075[source]
You are right that slavery is economically inefficient and that economists were one of the fiercest crusaders against slavery etc.

However: lack of demand is not a problem. People can create any amount of total nominal demand for basically free, as long as you have access to a printing press. (And with some minor caveats that's generally true in a gold standard setting, too.)

And even without that: your argumentation would suggest that as long as the slave-owners lavishly spend the money they save on wages, the economy would do just as well as without slavery. That's not the case; have a look at the arguments of the very economists you mention.