Should rights be limited to individuals or do we extend them to groups?
I don't understand the question. There are clearly two kinds of rights afforded by any civilized political system.
>>907929
so like limiting the rights of individuals in relation to the rights of minority groups.
I guess it boils down to multiculturalism vs melting pot.
>>907947
I still don't understand. So take for example the freedom of speech. We can think of hate speech laws as infringing upon non-minorities right to speak for the sake of improving the life of the minority. I think it makes sense in a particular historical context, for example, in post-war Germany because of the aim of denazification.
If Remus killed his brother Romulus instead of vice-versa, would we be today reading of the Reme empire? Or, would we be reading of an empire at all?
>>907707
No because Rome was named after a river in Umbria.
Romulus and Remus never actually existed.
The Roman founding myth is historicized Indo-European creation myth.
Remus is from an earlier *iemus, altered for alliteration, from Proto-Indo-European *yem-, 'twin', cognate with Old Norse Ymir and Sanskrit Yama. In all these stories he is killed by his brother.
>>907707
The Reman Empire
Redpill me on the Normans /his/
French people in Normandy
Were far more based than the vikings who contributed slightly to their lineage
>>907647
kek if not for the Norsemen Normandy would be just another irrelevant French province
>>907647
>descended from Norse
>vocabulary influenced by Norse language
>culture of conquest inherited from their Norse progenitors
Why can't Surrenderfags just admit they were a unique subculture of French?
Is currency the biggest con in the world? You're told something has value so it does, but what value does it truly have? It has no set value, so it cannot be truly defined. It will constantly fluctuate, so it'll be worth less or more.
People will kill for money, sell out their fellow human beings for money, slave away their days for it so they can buy useless things they really don't need to either appease themselves or others whose opinions should not matter.
It's not even the kikes that are to blame for this since currency was around for a long time. I'm not rich, but at the same time I'm not poor but I have my own garden, know people that I can trade labour to for meat or vegetables or really anything foodage wise. Barter systems still kind of exist where I live (in a rural area where most people already own their land/have farms/etc) and no one minds doing a helpful thing for a neighbour and receiving honey or meat or vegetables or what-have-you. No money involved. I don't even live in some weird hippie commune either.
What a strange thing money is. What do you think?
Are you 12?
>>907348
No.
>>907343
It's backed in violence, instead of gold. You have to pay your taxes in money or aggressive means will be taken against you. This goes for all of the other laws regarding money, as well. The money is good because the people with military power say it's good.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35922858
>Students are instructed to use the terms "Indigenous Australian people" or "Aboriginal peoples" in place of "Aborigines" or "the Aboriginal people", to avoid implying that all Indigenous Australians are the same.
>The guide also lists words such as "primitive", "simple", "native" and "prehistoric" as less appropriate than "complex and diverse societies".
>But UNSW says it does not mandate what language can and cannot be used.
What does /his/ think about this? I'm of two minds, honestly. I try to use the most precise language I when I talk about/write about history to ensure my perspective it totally clear, and the language you use to refer to the subjects you're studying can have a pretty significant influence on the way your work is interpreted.
I'm a grad student and I've studied, for instance, the WWII and the American south a lot. When I'm writing about slavery in the south, I use terms like "white Virginians", "black Americans", "enslaved persons", etc instead of "whites" or "blacks", to emphasize the importance of characteristics other than their racial identity. When I write about the Holocaust or WWII, I use "German citizens", "Jewish Germans", "German soldiers", "Russian Soldiers", and so on instead of the boring political vernacular that equates all of the belligerents/victims with their national, religious, or political status. Since good arguments are often founded on judicious and thoughtful phrasing instead of using simple language you might be reflexively inclined to use is a really important part of writing history, I'm sort of sympathetic to the idea that we should help students understand this stuff.
>Use of a term such as "nomadic" is discouraged on the grounds that it implies Indigenous Australians were not permanently settled, supporting the doctrine of terra nullius that English settlers used to justify occupying land in Australia.
This is a bridge too fucking far though.
>>907089
cont'd
The whole point of using the right terminology is to accurately reflect the reality of the historical record. As I understand it, indigenous Australians were absolutely a nomadic, non-sedentary people without permanent settlements. Assuming that somehow justifies the doctrine of terra nullis and altering the way you describe a group to reflect revisionist bias just demonstrates that whoever wrote this is more interested in dictating to students rather than actually arguing against the substance of colonial ideology. It's really shameful that historians would do something this disingenuous, imo - setting aside scholarly standards because of political bias is like the worst sin a historian can commit
Fucking abos didn't contribute nuffin. Its a shame more of the world wasn't colonized by large numbers of Anglos. The Anglosphere is basically the best collection of countries in the world.
>>907120
Thank you for your irrelevant and ignorant contribution
Why does equality valued so highly when it is self-evident truth that people aren't born equal and life isn't fair from objective point of view.
What do you call these kind of threads? /pol/ baiting?
>>906753
This is good philosophical and historical question.
>>906741
Because race has no bearing on a person besides arbitrary reasons.
>Not the greatest President of all time
-Won the Cold War
-Saved the economy
-Inspirational speaker
-Strong values
-Won two terms and a third via bae Dubya
>B..buh he's just le actor XD
The American Churchill.
A charismatic, determined leader that did well in a time of crisis.
Kind of shit otherwise.
>>906233
>Kind of shit otherwise.
Kill yourself. Seriously. Do it. Nobody will miss you.
>>906233
>Churchill's domestic record post-1950 = to Reagan's
Yeah ite senpai
During WW2 my family was driven out of Germany and put into concentration camps.
My grandma as a young girl was released and she feld to Bosnia/Serbia but had to change both her first and last name since Germans where hanged in the streets.
The only thing she took out of Germany is a painting of a Castle.
Her last name was Schafhauser.But it's not guaranteed since records have been destroyed.
I was hoping someone can recognise the Castle from this picture to give me further leads.
Do you know where she was from?
They told me it was a border region that was once under Germany and is modern day Austria.
>>906250
Hey there /his/ I've got something you guys might be interested in.
So earlier I was looking at French tonks during WWII and notably the ARL V39/ARL 40, where upon I came across something weird. After the French developed the ARL V39 instead of actually using it they decided to evacuate it to Morocco. Apparently there exists documentation that says that they safely made it to Africa but nothing after that.
So who wants to try and find out what happened to them with me?
>INB4 destroyed by germans
Probably target practice at some point.
That's what happens to most armored fighting vehicles that aren't in service.
It was abandoned. All you have to do is go to Wikipedia and check the source they cited for it being evacuated to Morocco.
>>906293
You mean reference 5? How do I view it? all the other links work fine for me except this one.
Age of Exploration contact between Europeans and Native Americans led to an exchange of infectious diseases with extremely one-sided results: 90-95% of Americans died of disease within a few decades, essentially wiping out every civilization.
What would the world look like today if the inverse had happened? Would Europe have been overrun by Inca, Aztec, and Iroquois colonists?
>>906082
>horses, sheep, pigs, goats, and cows all domesticated in the Americas but no easily domesticable variants present in Afro-Eurasia
>civilization develops across the world at relatively the same time but progresses more quickly in Americas due to more non-farmers and more connectivity
>highly infectious diseases develop in Americas
>Caribbean becomes the heart of naval technological progress on Earth
>around the year 2100 a Mississippian people sails across the Atlantic in caravels and discovers the backward peoples of Europe
>disease spreads across Afro-Eurasia like wildfire
>similarly infectious American religions and ideologies spread across the "New World"
>by 2400 Europe, India, and East Asia are 75% American or greater
The Americans were pretty much living at the stoneage when it came from metal use, them being able to overrun the western world would require them to start producing and even be able to sail ships to cross the Atlantic and Pacific ocean with.
>>906082
How would they ship in enough soldiers to Europe? I mean even with 90% of Europe killed there are still a buttload of soldiers with more advanced weaponry.
The Spanish got lucky they had native allies, disease and some other things on their side because without those their tiny armies would have been assraped. If Spain had to send European style and size armies to the other side of the ocean it would be quite a logistical operation, i'm not seeing Aztecs pull that off with canoes
Napoleonic Wars Thread?
Napoleonic Wars Thread.
Daily reminder that Napoleon a shit and was brought down by his own hubris
>Muh constant expansion
>Having a bigger army = being a better general
>Continental blockade is a good plan XD
>>906072
I mean he was good, one of the reasons he lost so many land battles towards the end of the wars was because other armies started using his own tactics against him
>>906085
>Use same tactics over and over again
>Wonder why they get countered
>'Good'
If the nation is a modern concept, then what did monarchs rule over?
States
Their personal property
>>905370
You mean medieval monarchs?
Feudal holdings. The Kingdom was a collection of feudal properties with the king as a primus inter pares among them.
If you are referring to ancient times, then it was empires, kingdoms or city states.
Would you watch Jousting if it was broadcast on TV?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVZgp-eQG8
Are there any other historical sports you would like to see return?
>>905331
That guy at the end was seriously lucky the lance broke.
The Aztec ball game!
>>905350
aye, his neck twisted in a nasty way when he took the hit
Are people who are consistently poor throughout their lives happier than rich people?
I am starting to seriously think so. Consider:
Poor are ok in shitty conditions: if a rich man moves to a poor neighborhood, he feels horrible, even suicidal, while the poor there are pretty much used to such bad conditions, they are often enough even happy with daily things.
Poor are big spenders: the rich man likes money because of its potential power, because of safety etc..., the poor man likes money because it mostly allows him to have quick fun. So it is fair to say that poor people spend mostly on entertainment, while rich people don't, therefore poor people are naturally more entertained. Poor people won't even get bored with their spendings, because soon enough they won't have money!
Richfags suicide: Rich people kill themselves very often. Holy shit, rich countries have high suicide rates, and a higher suicide rate than a homicide rate, often twice as high!
Religions propose voluntary poverty: Buddhism, Christianity, etc propose poverty, even extreme poverty, as a lifestyle towards happiness/heaven/nirvana. It seems poverty itself makes you happy.
Money, and wealth, requires work: The more money and wealth you have, the less free time you get. Wealth pretty much makes you a manager, a leader, and that is a hard full time job. Wealth spoils you, you won't be able to live without it easily, so you have a big motivation to worry. The kind of mental work expected from you will be equivalent to afternoons of hard math homework. As long as you are a normal human being, money will take a mental toil on you. Even if you start partying hard with it, unlike the poors, you won't run out of money before an overdose or high tolerance for entertainment. You will be either bored, or on rehab, or doing math, that is, if you don't die.
Fake friendships, fake life: Your personal life will be basically shit because of it. Everyone will lie to you, and you will lie to everyone.
>>905243
Fuck no.
t. third world.
it´s no fun lacking proteins to develop your intellect, dying from mild diseases, being a wage slave or cannon fodder, etc.
I often wish I was born into a poorer family that I actually loved.
But then I realize that I'd likely have the same social problems, only I'd lack money too.
>He who is without wealth amidst unlimited quantities of it, is either a coward, a born slave, or a lunatic; and no self-respecting woman should marry such an imbecile.
What did he meme by this?
He meant that the Jews are sexy ubermenschen.
>>904351
The whole book is advocating radical action.
If you're a poor, you kill the rich man and steal his possessions. > it heavily advocates amorality, consequentialism and psychological hedonism. In Might Is Right, Redbeard rejects conventional ideas of human and natural rights and argues that only strength or physical might can establish moral right
"Christs may come and Christs may go but Caesar is forever"
>>904638
NO; IT ADVOCATES EXTREME ACTION; YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT RADICAL ACTION IS; DO NOT USE TERMS, OR WORDS THE MEANING OF WHICH YOU IGNORE.
![8-the_normans[2].preview.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BzOo1j6.jpg "8-the normans[2].preview")
