You think so? An Ameican Union leader who disappeared? Something that barely made the news outside of America. The rest of the questions are fairly generic general knowledge for most of us in the Western world, but i'm sorry, that question stands out a mile as one that non Americans are really going to struggle with.
Kicking and screaming because some questions are not perfectly matched to what you consider general knowledge. God forbid some of us learn something new here.
I was putting in 'habilis' for the homonin question. The quiz is for answers that start with H, so I dont see how just the word 'erectus' can be an appropriate answer.
"Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group" "Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; and Complicity in genocide." The Holocaust certainly falls into the category of genocide.
It certainly is genocide if the goal is to eradicate an entire group of people. Just because the Nazis failed to kill every single Jew in the world doesn't mean the Holocaust wasn't genocide. They sure tried hard enough.
FractalDoom: Excuse me, but your comment is so ignorant that it demands a response. The reason that there are still Jews is because: 1) Not all Jews lived in Europe; 2) Some managed to escape before the onslaught, and 3) There were some decent folks in Europe (Danish, Swedish, Schindler etc.) who protected them.
This is like saying JFK wasn't shot because there were still some of his brains left in his skull. There were large population centers in Poland and Germany where the local Jewish population was reduced by 95-100%.
I have an issue with "Jewish genocide during WWII" the holocaust was far for than just a Jewish genocide. Yes six million Jews died but another five million non Jews were also killed. I'm not down playing what happened to the Jews, it was one of the worst events in history, but too often the other victims seem to be overlooked.
It is difficult to imagine that the camps and crematoria would have been built if not for the Nazis' effort to kill the Jews. Granted, once the machinery of death was assembled, the Nazis threw many non-Jews in, too, but the whole purpose of that machinery was the annihilation of the Jewish people, i.e., genocide.
As importantly, while the Nazis killed many non-Jews, they did not kill (in the camps, anyway) a notable percentage of any group other than Jews--no other population was almost wiped out, or even came close.
The need to deflect attention from Jewish suffering, even in discussions of the Holocaust, is a symptom of modern left-wing antisemitism, which holds that Jews are a privileged, white race that is not "truly" capable of being oppressed. Any mention of bad things happening to Jews needs to be what-about-ed into a discussion of the suffering of "true" victim classes--gays, Palestinians, etc. I am not saying that the specific posters on this thread mean to minimize Jewish suffering for antisemitic reasons, but they do appear to be repeating the talking points of antisemites.
The Holocaust is the Jewish genocide that occurred during World War II. It is also true that much of the vitriolic propaganda targeted solely Jews, showing the Nazi regime's racial hatred. The anti-Semitic acts carried out by that regime culminated in one of the most inhumane and disgusting acts in modern human history.
However, I must respond to amm14's comment. It is inaccurate to say that Jews were the only population that was almost wiped out. Not at all to reduce the devastation experienced by the Jewish people, cultures, and communities, but the Romani genocide, or the Porajmos, was also devastating for the Romani people, cultures, and communities. Some historians estimate up to 75% Romani in Europe (between 1.5-2 million people) were murdered.
The eugenic, racist maniacs who orchestrated the Holocaust are evil, and all the human suffering they caused is a historic tragedy. But the Jews, and also the Romani, suffered an all-out assault on their very existence.
The quiz asks for "upright man," and while Homo sapiens may be "upright" the early hominid species Homo erectus was given that name because it was one of the first species to walk upright. "Homo erectus" is Latin for "upright man."
Few problems here. Why is Nagasaki not an acceptable answer? What about Goths or Vandals instead of Huns? Despite the established norm of accepting surnames, typing "Ho" does not get you Ho Chi Minh, which resulted in me not getting that question after I moved on, thinking there was some technicality I was missing.
The town (Battle) is named after the battle. Many historical battles didn't take place exactly where they're named for, just nearby, with obvious exceptions like sieges.
Ridiculously pedantic. We all know the name of the battle. Besides, A lot of battles don't take place in the actual place after which their named (but in the vicinity): Agincourt, Crecy, Midway, Waterloo, Trafalgar, Cannae, to name a very few for example.
The question does not ask "In which battle...?" it asks "Where...?" And so Battle is the correct answer, the only reason one knows that the required answer is "Hastings" is that it has to begin with "H". For this reason one can eliminate other possible answers such as Sussex, England, Europe, the Earth etc, which are all correct, just not that informative.
Not really. From Wikipedia, "History... is the study of the past as it is described in written documents. Events occurring before written record are considered prehistory". It's the invention of writing that separate the two. And obviously, writing was invented long after the hominin species got "Upright".
I don't remember the hanging gardens being referred to before as apocryphal. Since they were one of the 7 ancient wonders of the world, which I thought were promoted as a way to encourage tourism throughout the Hellenized world that had been united under Alexander, I assumed that they were real. Would kinda suck if tourists arriving in Paris found out that the Eiffel Tower was a myth...
but Wikipedia confirms that there are some who doubt the gardens ever existed, or that they existed in Babylon, or that they were accurately described in Greek tests. There are others who believe they existed as described and were simply destroyed. I'm not sure if I would call them apocryphal since there seems to be no consensus.
The few documentaries & articles I've seen (& read) which mention them almost all seem to take the stance that they never existed so it seems to be the generally accepted consensus to me. That's a long way from certain or universally accepted though
Is Henry VIII more famous than the previous seven? Or do we just know more about him. I mean, if you know here is a Henry VIII, it doesn't take Holmesian deduction to conclude that there have been seven before, called Henry I, Henry II, Henry III etc...
As importantly, while the Nazis killed many non-Jews, they did not kill (in the camps, anyway) a notable percentage of any group other than Jews--no other population was almost wiped out, or even came close.
However, I must respond to amm14's comment. It is inaccurate to say that Jews were the only population that was almost wiped out. Not at all to reduce the devastation experienced by the Jewish people, cultures, and communities, but the Romani genocide, or the Porajmos, was also devastating for the Romani people, cultures, and communities. Some historians estimate up to 75% Romani in Europe (between 1.5-2 million people) were murdered.
The eugenic, racist maniacs who orchestrated the Holocaust are evil, and all the human suffering they caused is a historic tragedy. But the Jews, and also the Romani, suffered an all-out assault on their very existence.
but Wikipedia confirms that there are some who doubt the gardens ever existed, or that they existed in Babylon, or that they were accurately described in Greek tests. There are others who believe they existed as described and were simply destroyed. I'm not sure if I would call them apocryphal since there seems to be no consensus.