What are
/r/badhistory's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/badhistory:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/badhistory:
Google Play Books
Academia.edu
Project Gutenberg
Encyclopædia Britannica
Wikimedia Commons
Wikipedia
Internet Archive
Worldcat
Quora
Ancient History Encyclopedia
Wikiquote
ResearchGate
Wikiwand
Wayback Machine
MetaFilter
The most popular VPNs mentioned in /r/badhistory:
The most popular reviews in /r/badhistory:
There is literally a brand new history book on this topic by Paul Hanebrink, reviewed favorably by Mark Mazower called “A Spectre Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism”... amazing that this shit keeps getting repeated.
Also amazing that YouTube has allowed this video to remain up given its clear racial line...
Openculture.com does a fantastic job flagging high quality stuff like this. Here is their list of free online history courses
http://www.openculture.com/history_free_courses
My rough count pegs 80-90 options.
That's terrifying.
My recommendation: Get a local library pass if you don't have one already and start reading. Books on everything, but especially history (world history in particular), politics, sociology, philosophy, natural sciences. Mix in some classic fiction, from old Greek plays to the most important authors of the last couple of centuries. Access to many classics is also legally possible via online libraries such as Project Gutenberg and www.archive.org.
You're really at a disadvantage here and this homeschooling program could seriously impact your academic future, it probably already has. Time to take matters into your own hands.
Edit: This was probably a stupid recommendation, since you recognized the error yourself and appear to already have an interest in history. It could also be considered to be patronizing/condescending. I apologize.
For anyone who wants to know more about Mildred Burke, who was way cooler than Fabulous Moolah and should not be forgotten in favor of the two women who undid all her hard work, I recommend
https://www.amazon.com/Queen-Ring-Muscles-Diamonds-American/dp/0802144829
Which is a darn good book.
Also, if people are interested, I may be writing more on bad wrestling history from WWE.
I've not come across any good youtube history channels. They all have the same problems that televised history has, they editorialize a lot and don't give much context, if any.
The only half decent ones are always about battles and simply report "that happened, then this happened". Which doesn't give much insight.
Really, you need to crack ~~a~~ book(s) open to learn history. A general history is fine for periods you just want an overview of. But there's tons of books that will go into more detail for those areas you might be more interested in.
In this particular case:
https://www.questia.com/library/history/asian-history/japanese-history/japan-postwar-period
And
https://www.amazon.com/Embracing-Defeat-Japan-Wake-World/dp/0393320278
So, this isn't really bad history directly, but has anyone else seen this? It seems that there is a group of Silicon Valley types who've come up with some incredibly silly political notions almost entirely influenced through exclusive application of badhistory.
He's cleared it all up, turns out everything we know is just conspiracy by the bourgeoisie.
>The fact that burgeose Russian governemnt manufactures documents to support this Goebbels lie cannot deny the evidence.
Link to the entire comment thread since HN doesn't have "view all comments" link.
Yeah, some YouTube commenters thought that they could argue with someone who has a PhD in ancient history and who wrote a book on Greek warfare. That episode from Invicta is basically just an amalgamation of several /r/askhistorians answers and podcast appearances by Iphikrates.
>The idea that medieval people would be too stupid to figure out how to boil water to get rid of bacteria is ridiculous
Maybe someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that before the microscope nobody knew bacteria even existed. We are talking about a time when scholars thought that spontaneous generation was a reasonable and correct theory.
And yet, you claim that that medieval people boiled water with the intention of not getting sick?
So, I found the answer you talked about (right here, I even had to sign up and go through a colonoscopy in order to see it) and it says that
>But because they had no understanding of bacterial infection they did not know to use these techniques to make all water "safe". These techniques were known to be effective in making water that could be seen to be contaminated or which smelled or tasted bad more palatable.
This means that they didn't go around boiling all the water they drank, only water that smelled/looked unsanitary.
So, at the end of the Spanish Civil War in 1939 Pius XII sent a congratulatory message to Franco (I am not all that fond of the blog that hosts this document, but it is the best english translation online that I have found). Most histories of the war do mention this, and they often quote from the first paragraph. But that's about all they mention about this document.
My question to you: is there any interest in me doing a writeup regarding how some of the big authors in the subject (Preston, Thomas, Beevor) seem to miss the entirety of the message that Pius XII was sending? It's not quite "bad history" as much as "incomplete interpretation/blind spots," but it's a bit above the level of mere nit picking. It would necessarily be long--the speech itself nearly hits the character limit and I would want to go paragraph by paragraph to explain my argument. I would also have to include portions of other documents to illustrate my point, and include a fairly lengthy section on how neither I nor the Catholic Church as a whole were/are supporters of the Generalissimo.
Would anyone really want to read a 3 (or more) part explaining why the first sentence of this paragraph isn't quite as nuanced as it could be?
The Morill Tariff DIDNT EXIST before the southerners left Congress. They had already decided to leave before the Tarriff was passed.
Moreover, slavery WAS an economic issue for the south, as in their entire economy was based off the production of cotton by slave agriculture.
Slaves themselves were a speculative investment for southerners, which increased in value all the way up to 1860, and the future wealth of the south was dependent on the expansion of slavery into the new Western territories. The reason slaves had such value was that cotton was the main raw material for the early industrial revolution, both in England and the US.
Being critical oh historical sources is fine, but when nearly all the contemporary sources before/ during the civil war from the south say "We are fighting to preserve/ expand slavery", I think its safe to take them at their word.
Further reading for how the slave economy actually worked, and the debates leading up to the war.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HXM0R9Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Well I suppose if we're just throwing appeals to authority at each other here's the Cambridge Dictionary definition that says:
"one of the religious wars (= crusades) fought by Christians, mostly against Muslims in Palestine, in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 17th centuries" (Emphasis mine)
You can't disagree with that definition btw cause it's from a University dictionary. Looks like I win again kiddo
I cannot help but repost something from Usenet newsgroup soc.motss from 1995:
> Brian Shore: "There's the Black Irish - decendents of the Moorish invaision of the Emerald Isle".
> Rod Williams: "To be filed under 'Blarney, examples of'. Moorish invasion???"
> Arne Adolfsen: "Yes. Right after the Moors defeated the French at Roncesvalles, they continued on up to Brittany, crossed the Channel and beat the English, then set off for Ireland, where they kicked out the Vikings and settled down. The Caliphate of Eire, which lasted for several hundred years, can in some ways be considered the high point of Irish history.
> "Besides, how else can you explain all those mosques and minarets that are strewn about Ireland, especially in the west?"
42 is the answer!
Putting Douglas Adams aside I'd say 41.5. Newton was born towards the end of December in 1642 and Halley approached him with the question in the summer of 1684.
Personally, I like the number 41 more than 42. 41 is the first in a nice sequence of primes.
Correct, Yeshua, (Or Yeshu, as his closest friends would have called Him) is the right understanding of His name. I forget my source material's Author, but that is right.
Edit: Found source: The Sage of Galilee by David Flusser. Amazon
Anytime the War of 1812 gets brought up, I'm reminded of this Gotta love the image of a guy just taking his leg off and beating someone else over the head with it.
Not in the English Caribbean colonies in the 1640s and 1650s. The distinction then (before racialised slavery was codified) was between "Christians" and "Negroes". Christians, which in Barbados was synonymous with white Europeans, were unenslaveable. Not being Christian, the "Negroes" could be slaves.
There's an episode in Ligon's book (writing about Barbados in 1647-50) that illustrates the distinction very sharply indeed. A black slave asked Ligon if he could be made a Christian; according to Ligon, this is what happened next:
> I came home, spoke to the Master of the Plantation, and told him, that poor Sambo desired much to be a Christian. But his answer was, That the people of that Island were governed by the Laws of England, and by those Laws, we could not make a Christian a Slave. I told him, my request was far different from that, for I desired him to make a Slave a Christian. His answer was, That it was true, there was a great difference in that: But, being once a Christian, he could no more account him a Slave, and so lose the hold they had of them as Slaves, by making them Christians; and by that means should open such a gap, as all the Planters in the Island would curse him. So I was struck mute, and poor Sambo kept out of the Church; as ingenious, as honest, and as good a natured poor soul, as ever wore black, or eat green.
(Source.)
(Edit: if you read the source, make sure you read the previous page too; it's heartbreaking stuff. But the whole book is remarkable. He was acutely observant, and interested in absolutely everything - from architecture to animal husbandry and music, to what people ate and what they did for fun. He also emerges as one of the few genuinely likeable people in the period: an extraordinarily compassionate and humane man.)
>Someone also suggested that there were alternatives, such as bombing the open ocean. No clue what the point of that would be.
Actually, this was something that was suggested at one point by the Interim Committee (at a lunch held on 5/31/45) and then in the Franck Committee Report issued on 6/11/45. So whoever brought up the open ocean comment wasn't entirely off basis.
The idea to demonstrate the bomb on the open ocean or another area that would make the bombing demonstrative but non-combative in nature was summarily rejected by the Scientific Advisory Panel (on 6/16) and the Interim Committee (6/21) for a few reasons. One being that there was a possibility that if the bomb did not work as intended (remember this is before Trinity took place), it would only cause the Japanese to become bolder and more adverse towards surrender. The other was the fear that a demonstration would encourage the Japanese to move Allied POW's into potential target areas or the demonstration area itself as human shields (not that I think it would have made much of a difference on the final decision).
It also ultimately came down to the general lack of strong feelings against avoiding using the bomb on the Japanese when the time came. Though I doubt whoever brought up the dropping the bomb into the open ocean argument in the askreddit thread bothered to mention the idea was scrapped quite quickly for the reasons I mentioned.
I actually happened to be reading about the nonsense that is the rule of thumb myth today. This claim is exhaustively eviscerated in Henry Ansgar Kelly (1994), "Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick," Journal of Legal Education 44:341. I've uploaded it here for anyone who's curious.
A couple extra twists in the story that henry_fords_ghost didn't mention:
- An 18th century British judge, Francis Buller, got himself mocked in some cartoons for supposedly ruling that a husband should be able to beat his wife with a rod no thicker than a stick.
- A couple of 19th century American state court rulings called the finger-width rule an ancient principle, but rejected it.
- Blackstone's Commentaries is even more slender a thread than it seems here, because Blackstone was actually talking about an old rule that he said had been rejected, and when you actually look at his citations, the old rule he's talking about wasn't widely accepted anyway.
There was a mass shooting in NZ today, and the shooter was from Australia, which is an equally surprising turn of events.
​
On a more positive note, a new book on the Achaemenid army has been released, which I have ordered and am awaiting:
​
​
I have also been doing a whole lot of unit mods for Total War: Warhammer 2, and I cannot seem to stop.
One thing I haven't seen yet in the comments here is that although disease caused mass death, it is also reductionist to say the mass deaths of American indigenous were solely war or solely disease. The two work hand-in-hand and the conditions created by colonization and forced migration later on exacerbated the effects of disease and prevented recovery. Source
> He claims that the native Americans did not actually live in harmony with nature
This is just a really stupid 'rebuttal' because no historian claims this. The myth is also racist noble savage stereotypes that attempt to portray indigenous people as uniquely environmentally sound. It is not even unique because the original European settlers also wondered at how the Americas were an unspoiled Eden and the Indians were too innocent and stupid to cultivate the land.
Hey, glad it helped! Unfortunately not; I've been out of the graphics/video editing world for a while.
I do have a suggestion though: take a look at YouTube channels that you like the look of, take a screenshot of their font, and use a font detector like this to figure out what they're using.
No one will judge you if you steal a font idea or two!
I think this is basically correct. The Commanche were rapacious and brutal even by the brutal standards of Plains warfare, and their entire culture was basically all about warfare and raiding.
I have been meaning to read The Comanche Empire to see if it gives a more balanced view.
That said, Gywnne does address this point a bit:
>It seems that, even if the Americans had honored their treaties with other tribes (lol), the Comanches would have attacked their settlements anyway.
He points out that Commanche did honor agreements... but what Anglo settlers and the US government didn't understand was that there was no one "Commanche Empire." There were (IIRC) six independent bands, completely autonomous from one another, though they shared a language and a culture. So Anglos would make a treaty with one Commanche band and think they had made a treaty with all Commanche, and then be shocked and angered when some other band pillaged a settlement down the river.
Checking Wikipedia sources is fun:
> The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors. After the end of the transatlantic trade, a few African societies at the end of the 19th century put captured males to productive work as slaves, but this usually was not the case before that time.
> Encyclopædia Britannica, <em>Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History</em>, 2007
Seriously, they claim 2007 not 1907.
Ah, thank you. "Victims and Survivors: The Nazi Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands 1940-1945" by Bob Moore in case anyone's curious.
Richard 'Equal-to-Hume-and-Aristotle' Carrier has started a Patreon.
>Dr. Carrier has escaped the interdepartmental politics and tanking fortunes of the formal academy to write independently and pursue his interests as an educator, activist, historian, and philosopher.
An interesting way to write 'Dr. Carrier is unemployed'.
Should we roll a few coppers his way, just to keep us with something to do?
Is it possible you're just a fanboy? Who knows. But here's a Quora discussion on his Moral Landscape Challenge
tl;dr Sam Harris reduces 'the moral landscape' to a pseudoscientific talking point and fails to prove his point that ethics and morality have sources and will be part of science, rather than arbitrarily constructed by societies.
>This is a weird one, because I've always seen people make out that all the Founding Fathers were Christian, when they were not, and that would be the Bad History post.
Generally, but I have occasionally seen some doctored quotes that make them out to be atheists. The one I've seen the most is probably this one by John Adams (cherry-picked part bolded):
>Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.
My personal gateway was The Baron's Cloak by Willard Sunderland, which focuses on the life of Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (one of the aforementioned White Army generals). Besides that, I've mainly stuck to Wikipedia binges.
So I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Tuesday. It had been a while since I had been to the Temple of Dendur (I never had much of an interest in ancient Egyptian history honestly) but my friend really wanted to see it so we went and I have to say that I never noticed all of the nineteenth century graffiti on that thing. It's seriously everywhere, I found a couple photos of it here and here. My favorite was the one that said "1891 NY US", I really wonder how shocked that guy would be to find the Egyptian temple he carved his name into made it's way all the way back to his home city.
The best part though was the Islamic and South Asian art sections. I spent forever looking at the various Quranic manuscripts, Persian rugs and of course the Mughal miniatures. Then I ate a chicken kebab in the rain, so it was a pretty good day.
Edit: since it's sort of relevant to my post, plug for /r/southasianart
Christianity is the fastest growing religion in china, with more people attending some form of Sunday services than in the US and Europe combined. Source: The Souls of China: The Return of Religion After Mao.
Edit: Also, it’s hilarious to me that the highly upvoted response to my book recommendation is a straight copy and paste job from Wikipedia looooolll
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1101870052/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_RWCJAbMGQHPSN
>Siths become stronger as a whole due to this relationship.
I think you are wrong here. Adam Smith addressed these Sith apprenticeships in his The Wealth of Nations. A man should be able to use his "strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper." If a man is a bad Sith, then no one will hire him to fight the Jedi and he will be forced to find a new profession. The apprenticeship requirement just discourages those who might be a good Sith lord from entering that profession because they can go into something more profitable.
Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans tells the story of WW1 from the Ottoman side. It's something you might not have heard much about. It covers things like the Sykes-Picoult agreement, Lawrence of Arabia, and the Armenian genocide.
Well Pat Conroy once referred to the popularity of Gone With the Wind as "the last great posthumous victory of the Confederacy," which is a quote that's stuck with me.
I'm pretty sure Mead never claimed to have found a matriarchy, unless you can show me where.
I'm also not sure why we're taking 19th century evolutionists' account of the Paleolithic at face value now, especially since his ideas about ancient matriarchies have been debunked a zillion times.
But, but, Hitler liked his mother and bad guys are cartoon-evil all the time. Therefore he was just a misunderstood poet like Tupac, and it's not his fault that the Allies went all Biggie Smalls on him.
I don't think the claim that divine right as a paradigm was collapsing during the reign of James I is at all tenable. It will show up from place to place but I believe that this is a remnant of the Whig/Parliamentarian interpretation. This book covers the issue and helped to solidify a revolution in scholarly opinion on Stuart governance.
No he was extremely self conscious about his teeth. So to an extent, he didn't smile out of embarrassment. Many of his dentures were ill fitting and gave him an enormously bulging jaw and lips. They also made speech difficult.
I have a copy of the "The Maxims of George Washington" here next to me. Nowhere does it mention smiling. Nor did Washington's own "Rules of Civility" mention smiling.
Edit: I'm not saying he never smiled, but in public he was known for being rather stoned face.
I read an interview with him during which he said that he wrote the book to inspire a socialist revolution in the US: "A quiet revolution is a good way of putting it. From the bottom up. Not a revolution in the classical sense of a seizure of power, but rather from people beginning to take power from within the institutions. In the workplace, the workers would take power to control the conditions of their lives. It would be a democratic socialism." (that's not the article I read but I can't find it). He also rejects the idea of objectivity in writing, academic or otherwise, so his book is more an opinion-editorial piece, not a history book. He clearly has an agenda, and it's not one he's shy about pushing onto you, the reader.
That said, I think Zinn's motivation for writing the text was that certain groups were left out of traditional narratives, so I think that his book does a good job at being a fresh lens for people to look at our history through. He deserves some credit for saying, hey, our history needs to be more honest and inclusive. I agree with his conclusion that his book filled a void culturally/societally, even if I don't agree with his take or think it should be used as a textbook. /opinion
I spent this week, and especially the weekend, pushing through Česlovas Gedgaudas's "Mūsų praeities beieškant" ("Searching for Our Past", I even found an Amazon link), and after skipping some chapters bashing Christianity in the name of the "Baltic Aryan religion", I managed to finish it yesterday night.
Reading it, I almost seriously thought I was going to die from what was presented... It's laugh through tears, and what's worse is that the man had genuinely good intentions - breaking the myths and the downplaying of Lithuanian history made by Interwar Polish and Russian historians. Except that he swung too much to the other side...
If any one of you happen to find an English version of this book, I suggest you give it a try.
Basically, it tells that Lithuania is a 3000 year old empire that spanned the entire European continent on numerous occasions and the Balts (Aryans) had a profound impact on the history on the planet like none other. Nations and cultures like the Goths, Vandals, Scythians, Franks, Sarmatians, Urartu, Gupta, Maya and others were either Balts or at the very least highly influenced by them, and such historical figures like Alexander the Macedonian, Charlemagne, Odoacer, Rurik and even some Roman emperors like Vespasian were Balts. Kievan Rus' before Christianization was also Baltic, and so were the Vikings. Seriously, it's really a trip.
It has a very New Chronology-ish vibe, too. If I ever find free time, I'll make a post here detailing it in it's entirety.
Edward E. Baptist's The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism is a good work with a lot of research on how the growing credit/finance industry in the 19th century basically was cycling equity from southern slaves into northern production, and the industrialization of the north was concurrent with the industrialization of slavery in the south as part of a single economic cycle.
It's a wonderful work to demonstrate that even if the North had no direct slavery, the entire United States rise to economic superpower was very closely tied to the productivity of slavery
My favorite combo is Rome and the Barbarians: 100 BC to 400 AD, which argues that Rome and the Barbarians slowly developed a sort of synergy or acculturation that gradually transitioned into a Roman-barbarian hybrid society by the 400s. This is contrasted with The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, which argues that in the 400s there was a major shift in the balance of power that ultimately lead to aggressive barbarians invasions actively destroying the Western Empire. It's just interesting to me because whenever I read one of the books, I nod my head and agree 100%, and when I read the second book, I nod my head and am thoroughly convinced, and then I realize that they are arguing opposite positions.
She wrote a letter to Hussites around 1430 threatening exactly that if they didn't come to the fold. The link has an English translation of her letter if you're interested.
i've recently read [listened to] GK Chesterton's history of the English and was surprised how well he described this era of history, really interesting take on the tireless battle between the workers and tyrants - well worth a listen https://librivox.org/a-short-history-of-england-by-g-k-chesterton/
I don't know how obscure the conflict is, but the Congo Wars are definitely less well known than they should be. Dancing in the Glory of Monsters is a fantastic book which is engrossing and very easy to read. Available on Amazon. Africa's World War is another excellent but more academic/dry book about it. Also widely available.
I was just reminded of the "Destroy This Mad Brute" poster, but apparently that's actually American? Also TIL the Germans fighting in World War I were actually mandrills.
I was watching war movies on Netflix and saw they have Torra Torra Torra! Which got me excited, then I clicked "more like this" and got a sad.
The desert Fox: the story of Rommel
Wehraboo shit circa the 50's.
It's from a novel by Richard Hildreth. It's an anti-slave novel that was first published in 1834 and then revised and expanded in 1852 as The White Slave; or, Memoirs of a Fugitive.
The person being whipped is a slave and is one of the main protagonists of the story. The girl is also a slave--she's just very light skinned. The novel was originally published in 1834 and was then revised and expanded for another edition in 1852 as "The White Slave" (the white slaves being in reality the mulatto slaves).
I haven't read the whole thing but it's available at archive.org should you wish. The context seems to be that Archy (the mulatto slave and husband of Cassie the light skinned slave) has just been recaptured and is to be punished and probably sold away. Thus the title "Trials of Affection". Also probably the title because slaves were not allowed to marry and if they did fall in love they could be separated at any time by their masters, or their masters could do as they wished with them (another form of trial).
(9:40:34 PM) deathpigeon: I don't have sex with fascists.
(9:42:29 PM) ProbablyNotLying: That's an oddly specific denial.
(9:42:34 PM) ProbablyNotLying: Have something to hide?
(9:43:07 PM) deathleaper: what would the word for that fetish be
(9:43:11 PM) deathleaper: fascophiliac?
(9:43:28 PM) dancesontrains: authoritarianism?
(9:43:58 PM) winterd: "deathpigeon's enormous milky-white breasts were slick with perspiration as they heaved against the cruel bonds of her black leather bodice. She struck mayonesa again with the whip and said 'Do you like zat, little boy?' 'Oh yes deathpigeon, I do,' he said."
(9:44:43 PM) dancesontrains: i
(9:44:47 PM) deathleaper: what
(9:45:06 PM) ProbablyNotLying: wat
(9:45:23 PM) deathleaper: "That's Duce deathpigeon to you, worm!"
(9:45:34 PM) deathleaper: thwack
(9:46:37 PM) deathpigeon: ...I'd read that fanfic...
(9:46:48 PM) deathpigeon: ...Though I should note I'm a guy.
(9:47:32 PM) winterd: "Silence vorm! You will now refer to me as Oberfrau Pain! Prepare for de Wundersex!"
(9:47:53 PM) ***deathpigeon giggles.
(9:48:16 PM) deathleaper: oh man this is great
(9:50:44 PM) dancesontrains: bai
(9:51:25 PM) dancesontrains left the room (quit: Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client).
(9:51:54 PM) deathleaper: oh great the weird smut drove him off
(9:52:02 PM) winterd: "Ve are taking our relationship to ze next level. Your safe word is FARFELKUGELEINEKLEINESCHNITZELBANK und from now on you're my dirty altar boy"
Beginning of the desription of "John Dee and the Empire of Angels: Enochian Magick and the Occult Roots of the Modern World":
>A comprehensive look at the life and continuing influence of 16th-century scientific genius and occultist Dr. John Dee
Well, he was a pretty interesting figure in Elizabethan Engl-
>Piecing together Dee’s fragmentary Spirit Diaries and scrying sessions, the author examines Enochian in precise detail and explains how the angels used Dee and Kelley as agents to establish a New World Order that they hoped would unify all monotheistic religions and eventually dominate the entire globe.
UHHHHHHH
"Presentism" is a pretty standard term in historiography, and has been for quite some time; it predates Tumblr by decades.
Yes! By a guy called Bi Sheng, according to Shen Kuo's Dream Pool Essays. This chapter describes the history of Chinese movable type.
Edit: " These controversial fictional diaries chronicles the overthrow of the Jewish Occupied United States of America Government (also known as the Jewish Lobby, The Lobby, The Zionist Lobby, ZOGUSA or JOGUSA, Zionist Occupied Government, and Jewish Occupied Government, respectively) by patriots of Western Civilization." Wtf
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bengal_famine_of_1943 - this is often compared to Holodomor and Churchill is blamed for it. Though I myself mostly heard about it from Stalin apologists in context of West doing the same and only we are blamed.
It was. Well, maybe not the artefacts themselves, but their supposed use for torture in the Middle Ages.
It reminds me of a book I've read long ago. There were two kids who explored the cellar of an old mansion their parents inherited and found a mysterious shredding machine. Naturally, they decided it was a torture device and were appalled by their ancestors' cruelty. Later it turned our it was designed to cut cabbage for sauerkraut. People tend to take the wildest version and run with it.
dude vertical land mass theory lmao
dude germs lmao
I'm so glad that book sat in my amazon cart to eventually delete it like 2-3 years ago. I opted to buy basic ass bitch WW1 and WW2 books instead... which are dry as fuck and kinda boring.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-Antony-Beevor/dp/0316023752
Bloody Mary gave us the burning at the stake of the guy who said this:
> Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.
Bad ass quote, made slightly less bad ass by the realization that he himself had offed a fair number of Catholics in his time, like his involvement in the martyrdom of John Forest.
For what it is worth, Mark Hopkins, 1739 - 1776. According to this book, he was NOT a Colonel in the French and Indian Wars. He would have been a lawyer at that time. He joined the Continental Army in 1776, dying that year at White Plains.
So clearly the hat was not passed on during the French and Indian Wars if that is, in fact, the Col. Mark Hopkins in question.
the 72nd Regiment of Foot only gained the "Duke of Albany's Own" title in 1823 - nor was he even the Duke of Albany at all until 1784 -so Albany clearly isn't related to that.
So it clearly can be established this hat actually came into the possession of Col. Hopkins in 1775-1776, but why it says Albany would seem to be much less clear. The only explanation is that there was a previous Regiment which was titled after the previous Duke of Albany, but he died in 1767.
Edit: The Royal Marines has a "Duke of York and Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot" existed from 1664 to 1689.
So, Honor & Glory (the guys behind the realtime sinking of Titanic video on youtube) went over the recent coal fire theory on their podcast. EDIT: Link for those curious http://mixlr.com/titanichg/showreel/titanic-fire-ice-discussion/
TL:DL: it presented nothing new (the coal fire was reported in both the British and American inquiries), the evidence provided is spotty (the mark on the photos, if you watch closely, does not actually move with the ship in a way that would line up with the angle change, suggesting it was something else instead, nevermind the fact that it was well ahead of the reported location of the fire) and borders on siding with conspiracy theories (apparently the documentary in question had a wink towards the switch theory)
In my experience, you cite the translator in lieu of an author, so: Last name, First name, trans., The Epic of Gilgamesh. City: Publishing House, Year.
Edit: See here
...Anyway, I remember in school they've told me Chech were still most atheist guys on planet even though communism hasn't touched them that hard and they still have many nice cathedrals. I've expected to see much higher Atheist rates. And wikipedia says only 20% have some defined religion.
Also nearly the entire rest of the comment section of this NPR [article] is also pretty bad as well. (http://www.npr.org/2013/05/13/180594428/camus-chronicles-a-history-of-the-past-a-guide-for-the-future)
I saw Linda Manzanilla present the initial findings of this paper at the SAAs two years ago in Austin. It's some great stuff.
I really enjoyed The Delhi Sultanate by Jackson, Princes of the Mughal Empire by Faruqui and The Art of War in Medieval India by Jagadish Narayan Sarkar. Al-Hind by André Wink also looks very good but I haven't found it at a decent price yet. The Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi by Barani and The Travels by Ibn Battua are also good primary sources if you can find them.
Other stuff I've read but aren't history books per se are the Baburnama, the Tughlaqnama and the Prithviraj Raso (epic poem).
We have archaeological evidence of the Easter Islanders starving to death and being killed in endemic warring? Then who did Europeans encounter? And why do Easter Islanders continue to live today? It sounds like you haven't read the book or any subsequent research.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2016.00029/full
> Anasazi
Ancestral Pueblo*
> Maya who were forced to leave their declining urban centers as refugees
Where's the evidence they were refugees and instead "voted with their feet" by moving to other centers or choosing to live in towns and villages?
https://www.academia.edu/29498508/THE_SEVENTEENTH_CENTURY_BUFF-COAT
I found an article on 17th century buff coats you might find interesting. Apparently Wallhausen complained that they could have problems with soaking up moisture and take multiple days to dry:
> However, buff coats were not entirely free from drawbacks. On a hot day the wearer can become extremely warm and uncomfortable. 31 When wet, the coat is hard to dry out and becomes heavier, although a good coat should not become fully saturated as this would indicate the tanning process had not been properly undertaken. Nevertheless, Johan Jacob von Wallhausen, the famous military writer, noted that buff coats could act like sponges taking a number of days to dry. 32 In the cold a buff coat alone was not always sufficient to keep the wearer warm as we hear of Edmund Ludlow in Ireland, a former lifeguard in the Earl of Essex’s Horse, complaining he needed two extra layers over his buff coat to keep warm during a fever. 33
I'll have to try to look up more information on why buff coats eventually fell out of use. it might help explain why they weren't used as often much earlier.
Happy weekend. Here's a video of Miguel Cabrera playing air drums to "In the Air Tonight" to set you off right.
In other news, I need a good history of the British East India Company, since I got switched into that committee for Chomun. George Dudley (my guy) needs to do something more important than just drink large quantities of gin. I figure that since Chicago is near a lake, there may be flies and since flies spread disease (and I can't keep mine closed), I'll be forced to pretreat with quinine. We will not be accepting feedback on this course of action.
Thanks, don't know where I got Belfast from.
Edit:It was this article that said they stowed away on a flight to Belfast previously. /r/badreading on my part
You're very wrong about yoga, and what a Yogi is. Aurobindo, a contemporary of Gandhi, and Tagore, another contemporary of Gandhi, all freedom fighters, but also deep philosopher had a very clear conception of Yoga, as Yoga is not a set of exercises, but a philosophy expounded through physical actions (Karma).
Samkya-Yoga, Raja-Yoga, Hatha-Yoga, Karma-Yoga, are all yogas, with many more, for example Gandhi's personal views on yoga with philosophy of Anasakti-Yoga combines many aspects of the different type of Yogas we see throughout India.
> Well, the post-WW2 expulsion of ethnic Germans from various countries is at least in the same neighborhood of ethnic cleansing if not an outright example of it. I'm not sure what you mean by nonsense in that context.
Sorry, there were two results about German ethnic cleansing, one of which I didn't check. This is a fairly legit source about what you mentioned (except for being called the "Greatest Unknown Genocide"). However this result is from Mark Weber, a famous Holocaust Denier who claims that the spreading of the "Holocaust Myth" is tantamount to ethnic cleansing of Germans. I'm guilty of looking at the Mark Weber link first and assuming the former was on the same topic.
Edit: I updated the post to reflect the two different examples.
>High school history classes are time constrained (as is every high school class). And that's probably the level of education the average redditor receives on the Holocaust (and most history subjects).
I don't feel it's an adequate excuse. Commemoration for the Holocaust exists well beyond the classroom, and same for other events as well such as veterans day. History is very accessible to people now via documentaries and literature. Making the claim that something is "unknown" because it couldn't fit into a high school curriculum is ignorant of any other means such knowledge may be accessed.
>Septimius Severus biopic
I agree. It would be nice to watch the ignorant implode when they are forced to acknowledge the fact that Septimius Severus was unequivocally caucasian. http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/358.jpg?v=1485681253
As I've said a few times, theoretically, yes. But the only way I've seen it done is to Make A Point about centuries of African chattel slavery being equivalent to decades of Irish slavery/indentured servitude. That's the way it was being done in the post that this post is in response to (or maybe I'm just too sensitive to memberships in ridiculously racist subs, idk). If you're going to defend it as not inherently Oppression Olympics, it makes no sense to defend it when being used as Oppression Olympics. This paper explains the rhetoric and context pretty well.
I'm in favor of adding nuances to history, but this specific area is dominated by intentional distortion of the truth, uncited web pages, and fiction. It has a higher standard of rigor applied to it because of that.
>And Barbados was one of the anomolous places in the Slave system where there was a signifigant proportion of the black and coloured population that were expressly favoured over the poor white population.
Can you source this? Or at least explain it further?
I saw a review a little while ago for a biography of Caterina Corner, a queen of Cyprus, and her relationship with her Venetian overlords. From the Amazon blurb:
>This study considers for the first time the strategies of her reign, negotiating Venetian encroachment, family pressures, and the challenges of female rule. Using previously understudied sources, such as her correspondence with Venetian magistracies, the book shows how Corner marshalled her royal authority until and beyond her forced abdication in 1489. The unique perspective of Corner’s life reveals new insights into Renaissance imperialism, politics, familial ambition, and conventions of ideal womanhood as revealed in the portraits, poetry, and orations dedicated to her.
That might be in the general vicinity of what you're looking for.
>Was leather armor ever really that widespread? Padded jackets, sure, but I've never really seen any substantial evidence for leather armor being used, especially not as plate armor started to become widespread. It seems like another one of those 'I think I read this in a D&D manual somewhere' examples of pop history.
Yeah, this is all rubbish. Leather was of marginal use throughout the medieval period, one would think mainly because padded armour was so cheap and effective. Here is a shortish video that's a nice introduction to the extent of the use of leather in medieval armour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUPIUHpkK88
>On that note, if people have additional reading recommendations for this topic (military history, weapons development, what have you), GIVE THEM TO ME. I don't have enough reading to do.
Verbruggen's The Art of Warfare in Western Europe is a text that gives a lot of detail about military strategy for the target period and location. It may be a little dated by now, I'm hardly a military historian or an expert on this topic, but around the time it got translated into English a number of people were quite excited about the care and seriousness with which it portrayed medieval stategy. Verburggen himself was one of the foremost experts on medieval warfare in the Low Countries.
For use of weapons, Jeffrey Forgeng is one of the go-to figures. I've got some of his translations of period fencing manuals, but that's probably further down the rabbit hole than you want to go.
>This leads to battles which on paper don't seem very impressive as he only attacked when he had a clear advantage.
But... That's basic a military tactic that's been around for millenia. Sun Tzu talks about exactly this in The Art of War, and I can say with a good amount of certainty that he wasn't the first to come up with the idea.
To be fair, the word "capitalism" has like 20,000 goddamn definitions. Each ideology and field of study likes to redefine for their purposes, so from a microeconomics standpoint capitalism can be argued to always have existed while from a historical economics standpoint (AFAIK) it pops up in the 16th-17th century with the nation-state.
Your point stands, however, as I'm unaware of any definitions that exclude charity. It's like people think Adam Smith only wrote "The Wealth of Nations", and not "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".
Comixology is offering a bunch of free digital comics to celebrate SXSW- they're listed here https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/186337 Just use the code at https://www.comixology.com/redeem, they should be added to your account automatically if the code still works.
> I see tons of idealist "solutions" that would never work in the real world, or could never actually be implemented in a million years, or that would actually make things worse.
Funny you should bring that up just after I post this thing to Facebook, which is about as lionizing as you can get.
I mean, I've been on the opposite side - so to speak - of student protests before, and the rhetoric is certainly uncomfortably familiar. Buuut I tend to lean towards the protestors on this. I can't really see the PRC being the good guy in this scenario.
This might not quite be what you are looking for, but the theme of the book is a comparison between Tang China and Byzantium:
https://www.amazon.com/Eurasian-Way-War-Seventh-Century-Byzantium/dp/0415460344
A large stack of books mostly unrelated to history (On Writing, Einstein and the Quantum, 2312, The Difference Engine, 1227 QI Facts To Blow Your Socks Off, and an Amazon card which supplied Cryptozoologicon, The Lowest Heaven, and The American Civil War: A Military History), a jacket which mostly fit (damn you gorilla arms), and a nifty rearview mirror for my computer desk complex.
Christmas was hosted at our house this year, and so to one-up the elk we served last time (we told my younger cousins it was Rudolph), we roasted a shoulder of wild boar. It was delicious.
I also got a link for the savefile if anyone wants to take a look before we start. Also KUKK
I do tend to view the constitution as the Thermidor Period of the American Revolution, but it's much more complicated than that. (On a side note, we are currently in the Thermidor month and tomorrow is 9 Thermidor).
However, I will suggest two different views. One is Gordon Wood, who I'm sure you're familiar with. Wood, like you, describes the Revolution as radical. He just breaks it into phases of the Long Revolution, so the constitution was the Republican period and Andrew Jackson was the Democratic period. He sees continuity, rather than change.
The other historian I want to point out is Eric Nelson. In his Patriot Royalism, he also argues for continuity, but continuity of conservative thought. To him, John Adams, Wilson, Hamilton, etc. were not only conservative, but ardent tories born out of Whig thought (if that makes any sense). To him, the radicals of the revolution were the exceptions. He quotes and argues against Gordon Wood's response here.
As I said, I tend to view it the same way you do and that the Revolution was more of a radical republicanism and the constitution was the conservative (and more authoritarian) pushback. But I view the Revolution itself as a shaky alliance between liberal and conservative influences. I think some bought into the dominion argument. I think some were more radical. And I think some were deeply conservative, but believed the crown/parliament was too restrictive on U.S. westward expansion.
The archaeologist David W. Anthony gives this account in the first chapter of The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, available here:
He explains it in the context of the unfortunate politicization of Indo-European studies since that first translation of the Sanskrit--everyone from new-agey feminists to the Nazis had their own take on the subject.
Then again, he also admits that no sooner did the Europeans realize the Indo-European connection than they started trying to move the Aryan homeland as far from India as possible, culminating in the German declaration that the Aryans originated in Pomerania.
> The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
I think you mean "movable type". Of course Dan Brown's printers would probably used something modern like offset lithography.
For the next five days, they're offering digital copies of a bunch of Image published comic books in exchange for a donation of whatever amount you like to a charity. Some pretty decent stuff there, worth a look imho.
> if you didn't read Kim you probably didn't read Riki-Tiki-Tavi and a doubly feel sorry for you so read that right now. I mean it, right now. You will thank me later.
It's in the Jungle Book collection of short stories.
The fact that the term caused outrage when he used it indicates that it's older than Wayne Lapierre since it shows that the term was understood by intended audience (the subscribers of the NRA magazine), and those in the political landscape.
For what it's worth Google's NGram shows that the phrase jack-booted thug goes to the 50s, but it definitely shoots up in popularity in the written word after Lapierre used it.
What's interesting is that the phrase is very specific. Instances of "jack booted thug", "jack-booted thug" (and their plurals), and "jackbooted thug" don't show up in the NGram viewer. Just "jackbooted thugs".
Keep in mind that this doesn't represent written usage on the web or in magazines, but in printed works, because it seems to me that "jack booted thug" is more popular than either the hyphenated version or the combined version.
Oo can we submit links from HN? I wonder if r/badlinguistics will take this idiot talking about how homophobia shouldn't be used as it's a "bad word"...
I saw this review of Darwin's ghosts on Amazon and I'm pretty sure I'm gonna be depressed for all this week. Just scroll down to see the masterpiece I'm talking about by a certain Lindosland. I learned that " Joseph Priestly came close to losing his life... just for being outspoken on science" (??!), and the reference to the executive of Lavoiser in the context of religious repression of heretical ideas makes me think that the author believes that the giacobins were Jesuits in disguise. So apparently fundy atheists enrolled Priestly and Lavoisier in the long (?) List of Martyrs of Science (tm) that durst to raise their head and were killed/persecuted by Religion, together with Hypatia, Roger Bacon, Cecco D'Ascoli, Leonardo, Vesalius, Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Kepler, Darwin and I don't know who else. I wonder why this Lindosland didn't say that Ettore Majorana was kidnapped by the Vatican, I mean, it could be, right?
Edit: I had forgotten Leonardo and Vesalius
A scholar actually wrote a book about what Jesus looked like. I haven't picked it up yet, but I have heard good things about it. Might be worth checking out if you're curious. Looks like she wrote an article for the BBC a few years before the book was published. She says an image of Moses in Dura-Europos (picture at bottom of article) is probably the closest to what Jesus looked like. The skin tone in that image looks similar to the reconstruction that the person you are replying to linked.
>With the Jewish population of the middle east you especially have the
problem of the fairly high numbers of European and Iranian Jews who've
moved in
Wait, what do you mean "moved in?" Are you talking about moving in to Israel?
I feel that, especially since I want to get into the animation industry as an animator and writer.
It's more frustrating for PoC authors to express themselves for their art without comforting to the cultural expectations and being put on the pedestal for "good representation".
One comes to my mind was a YA novel who got under a controversy for depicting slavery differently, despite that the author was born in China and moved to US as a young adult. So it doesn't leave room for people to realize that Chinese view toward slavery is different the the American's because of this (and that the story doesn't set in America anyway).
There wasn't a single person responsible, but rather a whole lot of people. Adam Smith wrote about it in The Wealth of Nations (1776) as division of labour. The moving assembly line came much later, but still before Ford used and refined the idea of a moving assembly line. It had been used other places, such as a butcher factory and such as well. Ford just had a nicer version of it.