tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post6797142206153635817..comments2024-02-22T19:21:40.330-05:00Comments on Muhlberger's World History: Wimps?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-33552795305036934642009-10-19T19:10:17.331-04:002009-10-19T19:10:17.331-04:00Hahahahahahaha ... oh, wait, he's serious.
Th...Hahahahahahaha ... oh, wait, he's serious.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing to this other than a series of unsubstantiated guesses. I'll almost certainly be buying this book as part of my ongoing collection of ridiculous pseudoanthropological crapdoodle, and will let you know more then, but it seems like he has absolutely no critical eye for evaluating the inflated claims of chroniclers and makes wild estimates based on supposition. <br /><br />We have good records of athletic prowess going back at least 100 years and if his theory had any merit, we would have seen a decrease in ability over time rather than the reality, which is of course just the opposite.<br /><br />And don't even get me started on the extraordinarily sexist assumptions embodied in the title ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-10907970865086796852009-10-19T17:53:14.048-04:002009-10-19T17:53:14.048-04:00The theory sounds fishy to me. He seems to be dra...The theory sounds fishy to me. He seems to be drawing his examples from times and places where comprehensive health statistics aren't available and anecdotes were likely to be inflated.<br /><br />It does remind me of a fascinating article I read some time back in the New York Times. Apparently someone went through the health records of draftees for the American Civil War and discovered that a number of conditions like arthritis, heart disease and lung disease were much, much more common then and they showed up earlier in life than they do today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/health/30age.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">This is the article</a>.<br /><br />Ariella ElemaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19833734.post-15589891412419023772009-10-19T05:17:48.491-04:002009-10-19T05:17:48.491-04:00I've read a bit of press coverage on this book...I've read a bit of press coverage on this book, and while I'm no anthropologist, it just seems way too simplistic to me, and a pretty blatant attempt to use catchy soundbites and dubious comparisons to sell books. And the fact that it is very much targeted at men only seems to be a rather cynical attempt to cash into the whole 'be a real man' anti-feminist backlash.<br /><br />I'd like to see the quality of the evidence he uses to back up some of his claims. My understanding is that in the Western world at least, humans of both sexes are on average taller, stronger and live a lot longer than they did 100 or even 50 years ago, so surely that must call into question his 'you're the worst men in history' thesis? And yes, anyone who has read accounts of factory workers from the 19th and early 20th centuries know those were no cushy jobs. Working people were worn out and in their graves by their 30s or 40s.Bavardesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10737120234578385755noreply@blogger.com