Wrong historical definitions

In a discussion elsewhere on AE on the term �Indo-Germanic�, it came to me that there are quite a number of historical misnomers in circulation, terms for historic ages or processes that are either antiquated, simplistic or simply factually wrong.
As proud and knowledgeable historians, members of AE should take up the task to set things right, to re-name the wrongly used terms and confront the world with the truth.

As an example, the �Age of Discoveries�, you know when Vasco da Gama, Columbus and the like had to run away from the bailiffs, set out on their scurvy infested nut-shells and stumbled by accident on a couple of tiny islands, and everybody got terribly excited afterwards and celebrated those guys as great explorers and declared that �America� had been finally �discovered�.

�Discovered�, gimme a break, surely America had been discovered before, by the Native Indians to start with, not to mention the Lost Tribes of Israel, the Egyptians, the Polynesians, a couple of Irish monks who had got lost on the way home from the pub, and the Vikings of course, in search of new victims, after they had nicked everything in Europe that couldn�t be nailed to the floor, and so on.
So what exactly was discovered, that hadn't been around for ages, known to everybody but some uneducated and uncivilized scholars in Europe?
See my point?

Anyway, another great misnomer is �The Dark Ages�. I mean, what the heck, does that mean? It doesn�t really explain anything!
So, my first challenge is, let�s find a better definition for the latter half of the first millennium!

My suggestion would be: �The Age when the barbarian Germanic hordes trampled around Europe and chased the Romans before them�, but that isn�t really catchy enough.

Can you come up with anything better?


Edited by Komnenos

I agree that Columbus did not really discover the Americas. The indigenous people had already discovered it during that ice age. That is why 50 million were living there. Also, it's very possable that the Chinese landed in south America in 1421. Likewise it's even possible that the Romans had knowledge of the new world in some circles. A Roman artifact was found near Mexico City.

Edited by Winterhaze13

Native Americans.......not Indians!!!

I was thinking exactly the same about the term "Anti-Semitic" and the wrong wide-spread use of it as a kinda synonym of Jew-hater. Lets see its historical background...

Se�mit�ic (sə-mĭt'ĭk)
adj.

1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures.
2. Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.

and

Ar�ab (�r'əb)
n.

1. A member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern Africa from the seventh century.
2. A member of an Arabic-speaking people.
3. An Arabian horse.
4. Offensive Slang. A waif.

In other words the term anti-Semitism is refering to sentiment against all Semites, had they be Arabs or Jews or both, none the less  people who speak Semitic languages and have Semitic Origin. So accusing Arabs of being anti-semitic is another misnomer. The right term should be anti-Jewish.

Originally posted by Aeolus In other words the term anti-Semitism�is refering to sentiment against all Semites,�had they�be�Arabs�or Jews or�both, none the less� people�who speak Semitic�languages and have Semitic Origin. So accusing Arabs of being anti-semitic is another misnomer. The�right term should be anti-Jewish.

Very good point!
The Nazi "Anti-Semites" had no problem in enlisting a Semite, the Arab Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husanyi, for their Anti-Jewish cause.
About his collaboration with the Nazi regime read
Wikipedia on the Grand Mufti,
but here's a photo of Hitler having tea with his Semite friend.

The Dutch War - We didn't start it, so it should be called the English French Colonian and Munsterian War.

Edited by Mixcoatl