Hi "friends". I have about 3 hours until a history project is due, and I need to know what immigrations occurred in Canada during the time period of 1850/1867.
Does anyone think its possible to achieve transcendance through war? If anything, Ernst Jünger's experience is a glaring example. Evola also wrote of it.
The /lit/his/ WAR STARTER PACK
The Iliad - Homer
The Peloponnesian War - Thucydides
Storm of Steel - Ernst Junger
Goodbye to All That - Robert Graves
The Raid, War and Peace - Tolstoy
Alcibiades I - Plato
The Bhagavad Gita
TRANSCENDENCE —OF THE WORLD— CAN BE ACHIEVED EITHER VIA WAR, OR VIA PEACE, THE LATTER NECESSARILY ENTAILING THE FORMER, BUT THE FORMER NOT NECESSARILY RESOLVING IN THE LATTER.
WAR WITHOUT THE PURPOSE OF TRANSCENDENCE IS MERE BRUTISH BELLIGERENCE, RATHER MARTIAL STRUGGLE, AND PEACE WITHOUT THE PURPOSE OF TRANSCENDENCE IS MERE CONTENTED PACIFISM, RATHER THAN INTROSPECTIVE SERENITY, AND AS SUCH, WAR, AND PEACE, BECOME DEVICES FOR FURTHER IMMERSION IN THE WORLD, RATHER THAN MEDIA FOR TRANSCENDING IT.
Ob fucking liga fucking tory
What does /his/ think of Cornel West? I caught him on Bill Maher the other night, he seems like a pretty interesting dude.
Garden variety race baiter and sophist.
A lack of responsibility is what has held us back. Taking agency away from ourselves and blaming every single fault and flaw on some all encompassing White boogeyman has done our people no good and continuing to do it will not fix anything. The man doesn't give a shit about African Americans, only his pocket book.
>Tu eres muy frijolero
What did he mean by this?
Before we start, I am new to this board, so if what I'm saying sounds stupid, please forgive me.
I am looking for a "complete" history book(if there is such one).
One that covers everything from the start of human kind until today.
I just feel that my history knowledge is trash and I want to learn more.
Do you have anything to suggest me?
Uh book like that would be thousands and thousands of pages long.
First you need to know from which perspective you want to view the world. Generally you can divide it into the European perspective, the Middle-eastern or the Chinese (and maybe Japanese) perspective.
To cover the entire history of humanity you would need at least three books to cover hunting and gathering to the agricultural revolution to civilization, globalisation and industrialization.
I'd recommend reading Guns, Germs and Steel.
Who really settled America before Clovis?
I personally believe that the pre Clovis culture 50,000 BCE was probably part of the second wave out of Africa which first colonised Arabia, India, Southeast Asia and Australia. The group left Africa 60,000 years ago and rapidly reached Australia 40,000 years ago, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that one group travelled North along the Asian Pacific coast and across the Bering strait. We know that the group which colonised Australia had basic canoe technology because they colonised Australia. I would assume that the...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>We know that the group which colonised Australia had basic canoe technology because they colonised Australia.
Very basic then, because you could probably island-hop your way to Australia just by swimming back in those days.
It's extremely unlikely that anyone ever swum to Sahul, the distances between islands may look small on a map but in reality they are tens of kilometres across. It's more than likely they crossed either by tying up a load of bamboo to make a raft or created a dugout canoe from a log.
What happened to the patrician families after the fall of Rome?
They have their economic bases damaged by the Vandalic conquest of Africa, bu at least a part of the Roman Aristocracy survived and focussed their wealth in Sicily and Italy herself.
Some went to Constantinople.
The ones who remained were fucked by the Gothic Wars.
Relevant noble families still existed around Rome, and Rome herself through the Middle Ages, some could have been related to the Old Roman Nobilitas.
I cry every night
Is the situation for male "losers" worse today in terms of access to resources and relationships than it was ~100 years ago? Or is it better than ever? If so what changed?
Or have male losers historically been losers in any time period?
>Is the situation for male "losers" worse today in terms of access to resources and relationships than it was ~100 years ago? Or is it better than ever? If so what changed?
>Or have male losers historically been losers in any time period?
Given that this answer has nothing to do with the contents of history, and everything to do with your personal beliefs about what "better" and "worse" are, why don't you fuck off...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Short version: the arabs were one of the advanced nations. Now they are not quite as advanced.
A while ago i have listened to a podcast about the mongols in the Genghis the Khan era and one of the peoples the mongols fought and practically erased were the people of the islamic religion, i believe they were the arabs but i cant remember.
Then this question arose, what happaned to the arabs that led to this cultural descent?
Can any of you shed some light on this subject?
Sorry for bad english. Fucking third language
The Ottomans and Mamluks supressed Arab out of fear of them growing too strong
the Ottomans themselfs failed to keep Up With the European Industrial Revolution mainly due to policies during their golden age (mid 1500's/1600's )
And even before that, the Mongols straight up fucked their shit up ruthlessly. Baghdad, former capital of the Islamic world, has not even come close to recovering even 1/8th of its former glory.
Why is this guy the poster child of psychology?
First attempt to scientifically systematize face to face counseling methods for patients with psychiatric disorders. Emphasis on unconscious mental processes being the cause of psychiatric problems. Eventually leads to cognitive behavioral therapy, which has helped countless patients around the world without resorting to medication or incarceration.
If meth production methods had been of been developed by the Ancient Greeks, where do you think civilisation would be today?
The same as if alcohol production methods had been of been developed by the Ancient Greeks.
>smoking meth would be as normal and acceptable as drinking alcohol
>maybe some writers and engineers would have been more prolific with access to a powerful stimulant like methamphetamine
nothing else would change. Idiots with no self control will find a way to ruin their lives regardless of what drugs they have access to
What was the classical religion of Ancient Rome like, in practice?
Did they literally think Zeus/Jupiter lived ontop of a mountain and threw lightening or was it allegorical? What were the practices? Were there sacred texts or was it more of an oral tradition?
They definitely believed in the gods, but they weren't really dogmatically faithful as a modern person would understand faith. They believed the gods required certain rituals and respect, but not much else besides that. It wasn't important to spread the word of Zeus or Athena or whatever, as much as it was important to make sure there weren't any dead birds in Athena's temple and that the statues were in good condition.
It was actually a collection of sects focused almost exclusively on making sure that the gods were never pissed off.
What I mean is that in many theistic religions, there's a focus on constant worship, whether the gods were happy or not. In the grecco-roman sects, worship happened seasonally unless you felt the gods were pissed at you and then you worshiped extra hard but, for the most part, you lived your daily life with a belief of the gods and just a general hope that they wouldn't shit on you.
Should I read a bunch of more modern stuff before jumping into Gibbon's Decline and fall? Should I read it at all? Regardless, are there any other works regarding the fall of Rome that are required reading?
Most modern works are influenced by the decline and fall, so you don't need to. However, it is important to remember that Rome never really "fell", it just sort of faded away sometime in the early middle ages.
Did plutarch just not try hard enough?