How does Germany feel about its Celtic history and heritage? How much is it and how is it studied in Germany? What do the genetic examples show?
My mother has mostly Irish background and she really loves Celtic heritage and culture, and I remember when I was a kid she told me Celtic peoples came from Germany, and although linguistically we can't really make connections between German and say, Irish or Scots of Welsh, they do have some of the same sounds with the throaty -ch.
Any interesting academic articles to read for someone interested?
http://m.dw.com/en/archeologists-revise-image-of-ancient-celts/a-16528844
>>1007218
>celts
>germany
>>1007226
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Celts_in_Europe.png
>Mimetic theory explains the role of violence in human culture using imitation as a starting point. Human imitation is not static but leads to escalation and is the starting point for innovation. Girard’s great insight was that imitation is the source of rivalry and conflict that threatens to destroy communities from within. Because we learn everything through imitation, including what to desire, our shared desires can lead us into conflict. As we compete to possess the object we all want, conflict can lead to violence if the object cannot be shared, or more likely, if we refuse to share it with our rivals.
>Girard believes that early in human evolution, we learned to control internal conflict by projecting our violence outside the community onto a scapegoat. It was so effective that we have continued to use scapegoating to control violence ever since. The successful use of a scapegoat depends on the community’s belief that they have found the cause and cure of their troubles in this “enemy”. Once the enemy is destroyed or expelled, a community does experience a sense of relief and calm is restored. But the calm is temporary since the scapegoat was not really the cause or the cure of the conflict that led to his expulsion. When imitation leads once again to internal conflict which inevitably escalates into violence, human communities will find another scapegoat and repeat the process all over again.
Thoughts?
>>1007181
I think he's spot on. The interesting question this raises it: what should we project our violence on, if not a (racial/cultural other) scapegoat?
>>1007195
>The interesting question this raises it: what should we project our violence on, if not a (racial/cultural other) scapegoat?
Aliens
>>1007181
A brillant theory.
How did Medievival Kingdoms such as the Spanish and Scandinavians manage to use their ancestors the Goths and Vikings for propaganda reasons while Viewing them as filthy Heretics or Pagans bound to hell?
Building your legacy on a bunch you think were all in the wrong and worthy of eternal punishment seems to be rather contradicting.
Goths were pretty much always Christian, they were converted to Arianism really early on and pretty much before any other major Germanic tribe.
Vikings as well were converted rather then having to be conquered like the Baltic pagans or the Saxons.
>>1007178
1. Virtuous pagans.
2. Humans are adept at ignoring what they don't like and what doesn't fit their world view.
>>1007178
People respect military strength. Also because those pagans no longer exist, you don't have to worry about being associated with somebody you currently have a feud with.
Discuss
>Who contributed most to the Allied war effort?
>What was the best campaign/battle?
>What was the primary cause of the war?
>Anything in general
>What was the primary cause of the war?
German ambitions and need for meme colonies
>>1006928
>>Who contributed most to the Allied war effort?
France bore the brunt but Britain was absolutely vital as well.
>>What was the best campaign/battle?
I am partial to the sweeping maneuvers of the dance of death early on the Eastern Front and the absolutely mindblowing steamroller of the 100 Days
>>What was the primary cause of the war?
Ultimately >>1006944 has it right with German ambition as far as a big war with loads of powers involved goes, although it was not colonies but rather continental strength that was the concernt (with regard to Russia and its potential threat).
>>Anything in general
Did you know that at the very least 246 British generals were killed or severely wounded or captured during WW1? Some hundred of those were deaths - and about a half of those from small arms fire or artillery.
>>1007055
>Did you know that at the very least 246 British generals were killed or severely wounded or captured during WW1? Some hundred of those were deaths - and about a half of those from small arms fire or artillery.
Oh and one died in a plane crash and three drowned.
>Crusades are from France
>Normans
>Chivalry
>Gothic architecture
>Paris was the biggest city in the western world
>Paris university was also the most famous university
>Most populated country
>The capetian dynasty defeated the pope, the empire, and their relatives ruled over Naples, Hungary, Poland, Portugal
Was France the most important country during the middle ages ? It seems that everything that defines this period actually came from France.
> not glorious Byzanitum
>>1006911
Yes, it was the leading European power until around 1815, but still remained as a big power
>>1006933
Well, it was conquered by french crusaders...
Just got a curious thought while doing some reading on the life of Alfred the Great. Who was history's most universally popular monarch? Taking into account the opinions of vassals, peasants, enemies, the clergy, and basically everyone else. Which monarch is universally agreed to be the most based?
Any thoughts?
probably a recent british monarch just because of population increases on earth, so elizabeth II
Louis IX
>>1006816
That's kind of cheating though, no?
>Once had the world most powerful and coolest military
>Defended Europe from Turk and Tartar
>Now a Joke country
What happened to them?
Sweden happened.
>>1006682
Comunism
I have a question /his/
Somewhere before WWII America had a law that said it would not make colonies of any other country, not within the American continent. They made an exception for the Philippines, which was under the Spanish rule. America tried so hard to obtain this country (Note: along with a few other colonies from the American continent) and even went off to pay Spain 20 million dollars in the Treaty of Paris.
Sometime before the signing of the treaty (Give it decades ago) Germany established a colony in New Guinea. (Note: This was because all other possible colonies were taken already by great Britain; This also meant that Germany was still looking for more places to colonise.)
I see a connection here.
Did America want to prevent Germany from colonising the Philippines?
Remember that colonising the Philippines would've given Germany enough resources to continue it's war effort in WWII. The Philippines also was a pivotal factor in winning the War because it is an archipelago. (Island Hopping)
Am I just overthinking this?
Wow, it's almost like countries do things to prevent other countries from getting things so they can get it themselves.
spooky conspiracy, anon. I reckon the Free Masons, the Jews and Lou Ferrigno are behind it too!
>>1006633
>Following Dewey's victory, Manila Bay was filled with the warships of Britain, Germany, France and Japan.[60] The German fleet of eight ships, ostensibly in Philippine waters to protect German interests, acted provocatively – cutting in front of American ships, refusing to salute the United States flag (according to customs of naval courtesy), taking soundings of the harbor, and landing supplies for the besieged Spanish.[62]
>The Germans, with interests of their own, were eager to take advantage of whatever opportunities the conflict in the islands might afford.[63] There was a fear at the time that the islands would become a German possession.[64] The Americans called the bluff of the Germans, threatening conflict if the aggression continued, and the Germans backed down.[63][65] At the time, the Germans expected the confrontation in the Philippines to end in an American defeat, with the revolutionaries capturing Manila and leaving the Philippines ripe for German picking.[66]
>>1006633
It's very unlikely. At the time I don't think Germany (or its imperial/colonial designs) ranked highly in America's geopolitical designs.
If there was any suspicion towards Imperial Germany by America it would've been towards Central/South America due to the burgeoning economic connections between German settlers and Imperial Germany, not the Philippines
Why haven't comunism destroyed religion in places like Russia or China?
>>1006520
lol, is there any video to that picture.
Francis be like, wtf, are you serious m8?!
It did destroy it in china for a long time.
>>1006533
But it's coming back. Even worse it's Christianity this time.
>America's first President was a literal Chad
Is that a problem?
>>1006160
Washington was the proto-chad, Andrew Jackson refined it and Teddy Roosevelt mastered it.
>>1006377
But Teddy was a weak ass nerd who just uplifted himself through GUTS and HARDWORK
>>1005758
>Red Eyebrow Rebellion
kek
It's not Mao's fault rice is such a bountiful foodstuff.
Rice caused those Chinese deaths.
>>1005758
I'm surprised WWII is so much more than WWI
Where did the officer/enlisted divide come from? It's ubiquitous among almost every culture, even the communist and revolutionaries had it. Is it just a remnant of aristocracy because I honestly can't see a valid reason to keep it.
>>1005524
so you will know who is competent enough for you to follow.
It's more like educated / uneducated divide.
>>1005524
Because they are two different disciplines.
One is doing the job, the other is administrative.
Yo /his/ what is your choice for the most comical moment in history?
I'll start with the obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
This was a tragedy.
It's still a little funny though
Is this man the most based philosopher to ever live?
>inb4 diogenes shits up the thread
>>1005137
Hume
u
m
e
>>1005143
/thread desu
His concept of humans as a Tabula Rasa is flat-out, objectively wrong.
Has there always been a divided opinion on this fella?
>>1004957
>there's a divided opinion on one of the jewiest jews who ever jewed
who'da thought?!
>>1004957
I guess you can think he's not a remarkably prolific war criminal and failure if you want
>>1004964
>missing the point
I know there is a divided opinion and I know why there would be one.
The question I am asking is whether there has always been sufficient enough knowledge of his actions (or to you, his Jewishness) that could cause a divide in opinion.
