Were fairy tales "sanitized" in the 20th century, as is so often claimed in various online articles?
Should people blame Disney for the sanitation of fairy tales--particularly starting with their animated films from the 1930s-50s (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty)--when only one of these (Snow White) was based on a version with darker elements that Disney removed? And some of the Grimm fairy tales, such as Aschenputtel, are considerably newer than earlier versions like Perrault's Cinderella, which contains none of the eye pecking or foot slicing of the Grimm version?
I think it was a result of fairy tales going from brutal cautionary tales to fetishistic escapism for children and/or little girls.
You would be amazed if you knew how many fairy tales have hidden sexual connotations.
To some extent, yes. But mostly no.
Those online articles tend to take the "Grittiest" version of a fairy tale and use it to imply Disney and/or parents sanitized them. But Aschenputtel is not The Little Glass Slipper, The Sleeping Beauty in the Wood is not Sun Moon and Talia, etc. So when an article brags about how Disney sanitized Cinderella because the stepsisters don't get their eyes pecked out, or because Sleeping Beauty wasn't raped, well... neither of those Disney films were based on those fairy tales.
The only Disney film based directly on a Grimm fairy tale was Snow White, which was altered. Instead of the piece of cursed apple being dislodged from Snow White's throat (because she was slapped by a servant tired of carrying her dead ass around in 1812, in later editions because the servant tripped on the way to the king's castle) it's true love that wakes her; instead of the queen showing up at the wedding and dancing to death in hot iron shoes, she falls off the cliff.
The Grimm brothers sanitized their own fairy tales, also. For example, in their first published version of Rapunzel, the witch finds out because Rapunzel's stomach swells and her clothes no longer fit aka the entire time the prince and Rapunzel had been fucking. In their edited version, Gothel finds out because Rapunzel asks "why are you so much harder to pull up than my prince, Frau Gothel?" In the Frog Prince, the just-turned-back-into-a-prince frog and the princess fuck on the bed she flung him on, whereas in the later edition they get married. in the original Snow White, it's Snow White's own mother who tries to kill her, and in the revised edition it's her stepmother. And so on.
Their original collection of fairy tales published in 1812 was meant to be a collection of folk and fairy tales, as-is. Then the book became popular with parents and they complained about the violence, sex and brutality, so the Grimm brothers complied and edited them down for younger audiences.
I'm new on this board, can someone explain to me this Holy Roman Empire meme?
>>1119879
Yep
>>1119879
The "state" known as the Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. It was a confederation of German principalities with completely autonomous leaders ostensibly under an emperor but the emperors were just as powerful and politically relevant as Queen Elizabeth, and their empire was the was a lot like the EU, only even less centralized and ineffective in the policies of the actual polities that existed within it.
>>1119879
Idiots who haven't even read Voltaire misquote him on his opinion of the late HRE.
So /his/, how accurate is this film?
>>1119856
It's actually pretty authentic if you consider early Islamic sources to be true.
Yes, some poetic license is taken like the scene in which Abdullah bin Ubay and Abu Sufyan meet and plan together to destabilize Medina while in reality Abdullah bin Ubay and Abu Sufyan had different goals. Abdullah wanted to be the Amir of Medina while Abu Sufyan wanted to finish Islam and keep his tribe's honour alive
>>1119856
Nice to see Arabs using straight swords for once.
>>1121833
The curved blades only appeared after the Mamluk takeover of Egypt IIRC, early to mid 14th century. Their blades were straight when they were crossing them with the Crusaders
Who are the three most important men in history, i.e. those who had the biggest influence on shaping our world into what it is today?
Protip: the correct answer is pic related.
Jesus
Confucius
Marx
>Caesar
Yes
>Napoleon
Yes
>Alexander
No
I'd put Jesus (or Paul) and Muhammad there too.
>>1119606
Literal memesters.
Was the reformation, in one way or another, inevitable?
There's always a schism from orthodox churches once in a while. See the Gnostics, Cathars, Unification Church etc.
>social and class inevitability is a thing
Marx please fuck off and never return.
>>1119078
I don't remember any of those spreading like wild fire and gobbling up half continents.
The Reformation was rather different to what that came before it.
What would you say is the first modern state?
France.
San Marino, or it at least behaved like one.
Better question OP, why is Westphalia seen as the first modern sovereign state when it answered to the Holy Roman Empire?
Does anyone have the book list for Catholic theology?
>>1118866
Read the backside of my ballbag, christfag.
who /lit/ here
>>1118866
Required reading for all Catholics.
Was the 1960's counter culture actually important and significant or are the people who went through it too self-important?
>>1118781
Nobody gave a shit about the hippies, not even Dylan or Hendrix, it's mostly a meme. Fuck, even Thompson realized hippies were useless by '72
>>1118787
Hippies were merely an initiation by Free Masons to try and usher into an attitude of counter-culture to destroy the Templar's Global Elite influence. It failed though so now they're doing it through Modern Liberalism
>>1118800
I have no reaction image for this.
What effect does deindustrialization have on the working classes in the countries it takes place in from a Marxist point of view, a Keynesian point of view, and an Austrian point of view?
>>1118181
Marxist:
>the unemployed proletariat will rise up and seize the means of production, since they now have nothing to lose but their chains
Keynesian:
>they will find comfort in the welfare state
Austrian:
>the free market will fix it
>>1118181
>Marxist
gibesmedat
>Austrian
dont wrry senpai ;)
How accurate is the Michiel de Ruyter movie in terms of character? I have no doubt that the events actually happened, but is the spin correct? I'm thinking mostly of William of Orange, although the other stuff is perfectly fine, too.
>>1117900
William of orange was not a faggot, I can tell you that much
>>1118270
A literal faggot or just a regular one?
>>1120028
literal. there were rumours that he was homosexual because he didn't have any offspring
Was Napoleon III an actual good leader?
Was he a good politician?
Did his election campaign actually speak to the people, or did everyone just jerk off to the name Bonaparte?
How exactly did he transition to Emperor from President?
And finally was France in a better position after he'd left, ignoring the whole beaten up by the Germans thing?
French socialism be like
Up until 1870 he was pretty good. France gained new clay, it was rather prosperous and stable, and he brought some social progress. Of course Sedan was a pretty gigantic fuckup.
His election is rather interesting. It was the first presidential election by universal suffrage (after Napoleon I's, which wasn't really contentious). In Paris nobody believed he stood a chance, Cavaignac seemed like the obvious winner, and Bonaparte was just some adventurer with nothing but a name. But Bonaparte realised that most French people weren't Parisian, so he was the first to campaign (in the original sense of the word, from campagne = countryside). He'd go all over France and organise banquets with saucisson and wine where he'd make his speeches. Of course the people looked at him and saw his uncle. And in a time without opinion polls, it came as a complete shock in Paris when Bonaparte won with 75% of the vote.
He made Paris great again. Destroyed all the old buildings, made the most beautiful city in the west.
How he would roll in his grave if he saw the African ghetto they call Paris today.
how and why did manicheism spread out more than Christianity and Islam, coming from the same region?
don´t know the reason, but looking at the map it´s easy to guess it was the Silk Road
Also support of Persian nobles
Because it's basically an idea that boils down to "there's good and bad, be good for god and avoid evil from the devil".
It's just basically a blank dualism that you can insert anything into and fits into the human desire to figure out what's right or wrong and doesn't require believing in these clearly fictional stories as actual fact.
So, with something that vague, it's bound to grow larger because it's also easier to adapt to various cultures.
>Were there any major battles in WW2 in Europe where American troops were outnumbered the entirety of the battle?
I know they were in the early stages of the Bulge however rather quickly they gained a numerical advantage.
>Pic is German Soldier with an american Weapon (M1 carbine)
>>1116696
A lot of naval battles.
>>1116713
>europe
>naval battles
wat
Not really. When you attack, you attack with a superior force. With the exceptions of the initial counterattacks at the D-Day beachead and the Battle of the Bulge the US was always on the offensive.
US playground.
Batista a shit. USA really fucked up Cuba. The Cold War really fucked a lot of things up. And who's to blame for the Cold War?
That's right, you guessed it, Churchill. Eternal Anglo strikes again.
Worse
>>1115353
Daily reminder that Russia was founded by a Finnish man.
>Rurik was a Finnic Kven, i.e. he was "Finnish", in similar way an average Savonian, Tavastian or a member of some other Finnish tribe is Finnish. Rurik was the founder of the early stage of what gradually became Russia, and his descendants ruled what today is known as "Russia" well beyond the Middle Ages.
>The results of the Rurikid DNA study referred to below are not surprising, considering that other DNA studies and other evidence point to Finnic people having inhabited the modern area of Sweden for thousands of years, including the modern-day area of Southern Sweden:
>• "The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to the modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden, about ancient skeletal remains excavated in Gotland: http://gotland.3000.BC.kvenland.org
>This DNA study is consistent with Roslagen in the northeastern corner of Uppland, a suggested birthplace of Rurik, having represented the southern border region of the land inhabited by Finno-Ugric people at the time of Rurik's birth.
>The DNA study also supports the view that Rurik descended from the Finnish-Kven royal ancestry introduced in many medieval accounts, similarly to many other members of the Scandinavian-Fennoscandian royal Yngling Dynasty, a.k.a. the Fairhair Dynasty.
>>1115279
That explains why He looks asian despite officially being "Nordic"
>>1115279
Daily reminder that Norway was founded by a Finnish man too.
>It is stated in Norse sources that Nór was the founder of Norway, from whom the land supposedly got its name.
>Parallel but not quite identical accounts of Nór the eponym of Norway appear in “Fundinn Nóregr” (‘Norway Found’), hereafter called F, which begins the Orkneyinga saga, and in Hversu Noregr byggðist (‘How Norway was Settled’), hereafter called B, both found in the Flatey Book.
>Both accounts state that great sacrifice was made yearly at mid-winter, either offered by Thorri (F) or offered by the Kvens to Thorri (B), whence was derived both the name of the mid-winter sacrifice and the name of the winter month Thorri corresponding to late January and early February in the Roman calendar.
>Thorri was father of two sons named Nór and Gór (Górr) and a daughter named Gói ('thin snow, track-snow').
>One year, at the time of Thorri's Sacrifice, Gói the daughter of King Thorri suddenly vanished. Thorri held a second feast the following month hoping to learn what had become of Gói. That sacrifice was afterward also observed regularly and known as Gói's Sacrifice and the name of the month was thence named Gói.
>When Gói was still not found after three years, her brothers Nór and Gór set out separately in search of her with many folk in their following, Nór and his folk going by land on skis while Gór went by ship and searched the islands and skerries.
>Eventually Nór and his following came to the Kjölen Mountains and passed into was later to be called Norway, defeating any who opposed him. F relates in particular that Nór defeated the folk around what as later called the Trondheimsfjord, that Nór also took possession of the eastern lands near Lake Mjors, then slew King Sokni, the eponym of Sokna Dale and Sognefjörd and took possession of his kingdom. But B mentions instead the defeat of four kings named Véi, Vei, Hunding, and Heming.
>>1115508
>Both accounts relate that Gór eventually joined Nór and the two brothers made an agreement that Nór would rule all the mainland but Gór would rule all islands around the mainland, that he would be lord over any island that was separated from the mainland by a channel through which a ship with a fixed rudder was able to pass. The mainland was then named Norway (Noregr) after Nór. Nór's new kingdom is now said to have been what is south-eastern Norway today, as it extended from Jötunheim mountains in the north to what was later known as Álfheim (roughly the modern Swedish Bohuslän) in the south, the southern border of Nór's land being what is now the Glomma river whose southwestern course is not very far inside the southeastern border of modern Norway.
>The sons and grandsons and later descendants of Nór continually divided their inheritances among themselves so that Norway became filled with many small kingdoms and lordships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B3r
![MTE5NDg0MDU1MDgzMjU1MzEx[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IYxpzn8.jpg "MTE5NDg0MDU1MDgzMjU1MzEx[1]")
