In pretty sure that's just Africa, with some water in between because they never crossed the deep desert and didn't realize it connects to the southern bit.
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
38 points (91.3% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2495 readers
625 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think it's Africa too. It looks a whole lot more like Africa than North or South America.
Gonna be contrarian here and say that I see the North American resemblance. Arrow points at Greenland. St. Lawrence River has a small Hudson Bay above it.
Interesting to think about, but the scale of not only discovering but apparently circumnavigating it is where it becomes much more likely to not be NA.
The map has south at the top. Look in the bottom right quarter and you can see the Mediterranean, and the islands at the bottom right edge are Britain and Ireland
Why would North America be placed in the bottom half of Africa on the map than?
The first humans to discover America was the fucking Indians.... There I solved it.
The indigenous never count. Tasman discovered Tasmania. Cook discovered Tahiti. The Vikings (or Columbus if you like) discovered America.
Although it doesn't work the other way around for some reason. The Thule, ancestors of the modern Inuit in Greenland, got there after the Vikings. But somehow they didn't discover it.
Al-Masudi was a very able cartographer, and his 10th Century map of the world is really impressive. And yes, it includes a continent to the West of the Old World.
Obviously this doesn't prove a genuine knowledge or discovery of the New World, but its a noted oddity.
The theory that a Muslim population discovered and settled in the Americas is widely discredited and shouldn't been taken seriously, but it is a published theory and supported by at least some academics. Most though dismiss is as either 'psuedo-history' or even 'propaganda', so yeah...
This theory might be ahistorical, but how sinister it is is debatable ("Yeagley believed that Shabbas and the other authors were simply trying to gain acceptance for Arabs, further integrating them into American culture by making them ‘native.’"). The American myth making around Colombus might be more based in fact, but lets be honest, there's a lot of fake history there too.
The word 'admiral' does come from the Arabic 'amir', - circuitously via medieval Latin and Old French.
So yeah the post is untrue, but I wouldn't call it 'insane' necessarily. Its a reasonably common, and interesting, myth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masudi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/did-muslims-visit-america-before-columbus
It's pretty insane to look at that map in 2024, see that it looks in no way like the Americas, and say that's proof that Muslims had been there. Especially when that's apparently the only evidence.
Well, it was never going to look like the Americas even if it was true. The claim is that they discovered the land, not that they circumnavigated it or were able to chart the coasts with Renaissance-level precision.
There's no good or compelling evidence. But there's lots of 'evidence' that while dismissed by most academics, can be used in support of the theory in a vacuum, for example the existence of a pre-Colombian carving in Arabic (which isn't actually that, but was believed to be by some).
The idea isn't based on the map alone, it's only one piece of the corroborating 'evidence'.
Again, I'm not arguing that it's a true claim, just that it's not on the surface insane
You could use the same argument about the people not being crazy, just not believing experts, with a lot of the sovereign citizens in this community. They believe the non-experts who tell them there's a cheat code they can use to get what they want from the government just like these people believe the non-experts who think Muslims went to the U.S.
So maybe it's not 'on the surface insane,' but that's only because they are similar people who both don't question what they're told by amateurs and reject authorities. Which I would say is pretty crazy of them.
On the other hand, belief in a widespread historical myth that has been argued by professional historians isn't exactly 'soveriegn citizen' level - even if that myth has been overwhelmingly dismissed by the majority of their colleagues.
Its pretty easy to hear a credible-sounding claim and take it in, without doing the research to debunk it
I'm not sure why you think sovereign citizen beliefs aren't widespread. This community shows a ton of people seem to believe it. In multiple countries.
Its pretty easy to hear a credible-sounding claim and take it in, without doing the research to debunk it
Yes, that is exactly what sovcits do.
Its pretty easy to hear a credible-sounding claim and take it in, without doing the research to debunk it
Yes, that is exactly what sovcits do.
I suppose where we differ then is if sovcit beliefs are 'credible-sounding'
They are equally credible-sounding because they tell the person what they want to hear. SovCits are told they can get out of debt or a government fine. People who believe this are told that Muslims did something first due to their superior skills. It's the same.
Yeah i suppose you have a point. I never think of sovcit claims as credible, but if that's what someone needs to hear or believe in a tough time, could be a different story
If someone REALLY wants to believe something, they will.
Why is the continent described as "west of the Old World" when it's drawn exactly where the southern half of Africa actually is? I can't work out why he would think it's separated from the rest of Africa, but that definitely looks like Tanzania and Mozambique to me
Wow, 10th Century MS paint!
I'm convinced.
No one questions that this is a computer drawn map?
I assume it's a trace, since someone else is saying that guy did draw such a map, but it's funny that the Facebook nut don't suggest it.