Really not sure where your anger is coming from? You're the one who claimed that the Spanish came over "in sailing ships the size of small Inca cities", I'm just pointing out the historical inaccuracy of this. Machu Picchu was just an estate, as you note not even able to feed itself except as part of the overall Incan economy, and that estate was already larger than the crew sizes of the larger Spanish vessels.

Not sure what your point is about carracks? Those were the predecessors to and usually smaller still than galleons -- the Santa Maria was classed as a carrack, and that had a crew complement of only 40. The largest carrack built as of 1502 was the Portuguese Frol de la Mar with a complement of 500, but it looks like most carracks were substantially smaller. Bearing in mind the context we were talking about of when European diseases were brought over, that historical timing makes galleons irrelevant anyway, since they don't really become a thing until the late 1500s. I used that ship size as a quick-and-easy estimator, as I had tried to make clear in the wording of my earlier post.

About settlement size, "city" in general parlance, even in modern contexts, refers to the larger size of community. If you intended something smaller, even smaller than the 40-person crew of the carrack Santa Maria, then yes, you should have used a different word. I would never consider a community of a few tens of people to be a "city", more of a "hamlet"; a few hundreds on up I might consider a "village", a "town" would be up to a few thousands, whereas "city" even in antiquity calls to mind populations of several thousands. The ancient city of Uruk, for instance, regarded by some as the first known real city, had a population of some 40K.

About “As for "you're not sure you can agree"? Are you serious?” — that's an example of being politely indirect.

Spanish galleons were bigger than the earlier conquistador exploratory ships. Apparently they had crews of up to around 400 people on a single ship. Let's use that higher number, for sake of argument. That's close enough to the entire size of Cortés's expedition force when he set out to conquer the Aztecs, about 500 men, albeit spread across 11 ships.

The Incan outpost of Machu Picchu was only ever a small settlement, in its early days basically a royal estate. Even then the town had about 750 people, larger than the crew of a galleon. The proper city of Chan Chan in the neighboring Chimor empire had a population estimated at some 40-60K, yet again a wee bit more than could fit on a galleon. The Chimor empire was conquered by the Incas around 1470. By comparison, the population of London in 1377 was estimated at some 40K, growing to an estimated 50K by 1500.

Just in terms of the numbers of people, your math ain't mathing.

If we pay attention to recent developments in lidar and surveys of now-overgrown areas in Amazonia, archaeologists are finding more and more long-forgotten settlements, showing that what we now think of as remote and largely unpopulated jungle regions were actually home to extensive human settlements in the past.

I'm not sure I can agree with cusco's claim of Incan advancement, but their death-toll estimate might not be far off. It is increasingly clear from mounting archaeological evidence that the advent of European diseases in the Americas caused a rapid and enormous depopulation.

Any details you could post for those interested in reading more? Case name, date, which district, etc.?

As dense as this stuff is made out as, I wonder how workable it would be?

Would a contractor be able to just drive a nail into it, using a regular hammer and a normal swing? Or would the nail simply refuse to go in, and you're wasting time, energy, and possibly getting injured, just trying to figure out how to fasten the damn stuff?

Likewise for screws: will this need special drivers? Or special drill bits? Etc., etc.

Interesting, thank you for the reply, this prompted me to look deeper into things. It looks like Japanese law regarding educational positions has changed some since I last had much exposure to the educational system over there, with a bit of a revamp in 2007. Upon further inspection, I think you're right that the jun kyouju position might be equivalent to a tenured position in the west, although "tenure" works differently in Japan, and might better be expressed as simply an open-ended contract. That said, from reading around just now, it also looks like only Japanese nationals are eligible for this form of tenure, with foreign nationals offered explicitly temporary contracts.

Even assuming that Lockley has (the rough equivalent of) tenure, that would be for his position as a professor of English. This qualification as an English professor seems orthogonal to any judgment on his publications about history.

Thomas Lockley is a jun kyouju or associate professor (not tenured), and he uses history content as the medium through which to teach English. He is not trained as an historian, but rather as a language teacher. Here is one of his earlier papers from 2011 about "self-access learning", more focused on pedagogy. Here is his listing in the Foreign Language - English faculty at Nihon University (in Japanese), explicitly noting his associate professor status and showing that he teaches several English classes, something about "fundamentals of self-creation" (?), and some kind of seminar.

Here is his own description of his English course offerings for 2024, from page 11 of this PDF course listing archived from the Nihon University site:

Welcome to Nihon University College of Law. Congratulations on your entry. My classes are content-based English classes with a focus on the international history and culture of Japan, containing themes and stories of people from history to help you improve your English and learn content at the same time. I also hold a zeminar class in the final two undergraduate years. I hope you will have a stimulating and informative four years in our College.

Professor Mihoko Oka, whose bio page you linked to, also states that Lockley's work is not academic. From a post of hers on X (in romanization, since Slashcode is still incompetent shit when it comes to Unicode support):

Watashi wa Rokkurii-san no chosaku wa, Nihongo mo Eigo mo "rekishi yomimono" de ari, gakujutsu kenkyuu de aru to wa kangaete orimasen.

My own quick-and-dirty translation:

For my part, Lockley's works in both Japanese and English are "history light reading", and I do not consider them to be academic research.

Considering also that his English-language writings and Japanese-language writings about Yasuke make different statements, I would not personally go so far as to call him a fraud, but I think it is reasonable to not take him as an expert on history, and to approach his works on history with a modicum of caution.

You seem to have greatly mistaken the point of the post you replied to.

That is entirely possible! :D

My points were reacting more to your statements that Yasuke was a samurai because he was kashin, who fought, was granted a stipend, and was allowed to wear two swords. Half of this is not backed up historically (kashin; two swords), and the other half isn't germain to samurai-ness (fighting, at least at Honnou-ji; stipend).

Cheers!

The word fuchi is translatable as "stipend", but historically this was basically just the payroll of a household — even servants were paid fuchi at that time. This word alone is insufficient evidence for Yasuke being anything but an employee.

Prof. Hirayama's post on X takes some liberties with terminology. Per point 1, see above. Per point 2, primary sources state that Yasuke was given a shitaku or "private residence", not the yashiki or "house with land; a manor, a landed estate", the word that Prof. Hirayama uses. A shitaku could well have been a matter of Nobunaga giving Yasuke exclusive use of an empty gardener's hut, quite a different thing than an estate with land. Per point 3, primary sources state that Yasuke was given a sayamaki or literally "scabbard-winding", which tells us only that he was given some kind of bladed weapon with this kind of scabbard. That might well have been a short-sword with no hilt-guard, as described here at Kotobank (in Japanese). Despite Prof. Hirayama's mention of nitou-zashi ("having two swords in one's sash"), we also have no indication in the original documents of how many blades he was given.

Granted, Prof. Hiroyama's points 1 through 3 might have played out the way he suggests, in which case Yasuke could circumstantially be said to have something equivalent to "samurai" status, despite never explicitly being described as such. But then again, points 1 through 3 might have played out instead along more meager lines, in which case the circumstantial evidence would point towards Yasuke not having the equivalent to "samurai" status.

The problem is that we just don't have enough information in the original documents from that time to be able to say much at all definitively about Yasuke's status and role. While we can't say that he certainly wasn't a samurai, we also can't say that he certainly was.

The page you linked is from 2016 and is on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) site, with content specifically about overseas development assistance (ODA). I've read elsewhere on the Japanese web that the Ministry put out a statement that the page was not vetted for historical accuracy, and was intended to promote good-will relations between Japan and Mozambique. Just now, I found this 2023 PDF on the MOFA site (in Japanese) that mentions Yasuke as one of the early instances of people from Africa visiting Japan, wherein they make no mention of samurai status, and they even explicitly include a footnote stating that the Ministry makes no claims as to Yasuke's origins or status.

About the word kashin, this word has a broad range of meanings during that period of time. Saying that Yasuke was a kashin does not specify anything about his specific role or status in Nobunaga's household organization. Perhaps more importantly, none of the original historical documents describe Yasuke as a kashin: the closest we get is a mention that Yasuke was granted a fuchi or "stipend", which was basically a household salary, paid to employees of both samurai and non-samurai status, including basic servants.

About fighting, we only have evidence that Yasuke was present and fought in the Honnou-ji Incident (Wikipedia article), where Oda Nobunaga was killed. That said, this was not a battle so much as an ambush, where anyone and everyone capable of wielding a weapon would likely have done so. Yasuke's documented participation in the Honnou-ji Incident tells us nothing about his status in the Nobunaga household. When Yasuke was surrounded by Akechi Mitsuhide's forces, he surrendered to them, handing over his sword. Yasuke's captives then brought him before Akechi to ask what to do with him. As recorded in Portuguese by the Jesuits at the time, Akechi stated that, since Yasuke was a beast that knew nothing, and was not Japanese, he should be spared his life, and sent back to the Jesuits ("esse cafre he bestial, que não sabe nada, nem he Iapão, não no matem, la o depositem na igreja dos padres da India", letter from Luís Fróis of the Jesuits about the death of Nobunaga, dated 1582-11-05). Even had Nobunaga granted Yasuke samurai status at some undocumented point, it is clear that other samurai did not view Yasuke as a samurai.

About the swords, we again have no firm clarity in the original historical documents. These mention that Nobunaga specifically gifted Yasuke with a sayamaki. This literally means "scabbard-winding", and refers to the style of the scabbard. We don't know if this was an older-style tachi (traditional Japanese single-edged longsword) for which this scabbard style was first developed (with the winding added to protect the lacquer from wearing, as the tachi was suspended from the obi or sash and would rub against the wearer's thigh), or alternatively a more ceremonial short-sword with a fancy scabbard and no hilt-guard (for example, as described in Japanese here at Kotobank, a Japanese resource aggregator). We also have nothing in original documents to indicate a pair. Moreover, the whole "two swords = samurai" as a defining qualification doesn't happen until later in the Tokugawa period, so the number of swords isn't all that indicative anyway.

The key issue is that, going by the original documents in Japanese and Portuguese, we have nothing stating that he was granted the rank of "samurai". The lack of any such mention could be seen as telling, but then again lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack. We just have a lot of lacking evidence.

That said, given what has been documented, we also don't have clarity that Yasuke ticked all those checkboxes. He might have, but then again he might not have. We just don't know. Circumstantially, there are arguments to be made either way. Evidentially, we don't have enough information to say.

(FWIW, I vetted in "Preview", and offer my apologies for any weird misspellings caused by non-ASCII letters disappearing when I actually post this. I continue to be disappointed in the idiocy of Slashcode not supporting Unicode. FFS.)

Welcome to Slashdot & editors that publish content even worse than AI summaries...

Hey now, don't knock it, that's the human value-add. :-P

I don't get why they don't just meet somone in person before hiring.

That would require, like, actual work. Ew.

Seriously though, HR departments at major companies have been striving for decades now to automate as much as possible and do (apparently) "sod tout" when it comes to actual in-person HR work. Actually meeting candidates in person would potentially require additional HR staff, as well as backtracking on years and years of earnest effort at "savings" for the C-suite types.

And then, intentionally making data portability difficult by altering file formats.

SCENE: INTERIOR HALLWAY.

DARTH GATER: "I have altered the format. Pray I do not alter it any further."

Unfortunately, apparently big companies still often stick to proprietary solutions for some reasons. I guess it must be something like "nobody ever got fired for using IBM or Microsoft".

I've had boss types in the past explain that the key issue is that the executive teams need to have someone suitably deep-pocketed that they can sue if things go sideways. If IT goes with a FOSS solution, and that solution falls through, all the egg is on the internal team's faces. If IT goes with a proprietary solution, there's at least some kind of hedge against any potential failure — suing the company that provides that proprietary solution.

Trying to walk through the logic of that has never been a satisfactory exercise for me. Somehow spending gobs of money on up-front purchases and ongoing licensing fees, plus all the hassle of fixes that may or may not ever materialize, customizations that cost an arm and a leg, and restrictions on how the software is used, seems to make more sense for them than software that costs nothing but your own time to maintain and even customize — time that you're spending anyway even with proprietary solutions.

Granted, I've never managed a large company, so I might just be ignorant of factors that I haven't included here. As far as what I can see, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. <shrug/>

And when the answer is no, I find a way to just take the money out of the company's bank account. There's a word for that!

I get where you're going with that. Thing is, it works out a wee bit differently when you own the bank, and you print the currency that the bank uses.

> If the fossil fuel industry has a stranglehold on public policy then why am I being spammed with phone calls about subsidies for putting solar panels on my roof?

Fact 1: YOU are getting phone calls because THE CALLER can EARN MONEY by selling something (solar panels or whatnot) directly to YOU.

Fact 2: One of the reasons that Exxon Mobil, BP or Equinor is not calling you is because do not have enough money to buy anything they sell directly.