What is /his/ opinion about Vendeen Genocide(War in the Vendée). Does Republican forces were too brutal?
>What is /his/
What is /his/'
>Does Republican forces were too brutal?
Were the Republican forces too brutal?
Look up who benefitted from the assignats and how land was redistributed to the nascent bourgeois farmers.
>Look up who benefitted(...)
I am asking about your fucking opionon man, not what i should search up.
"Too brutal" only attains meaning in a political, not a historical context. >>>/pol/
Opinions are like arseholes, uninformed and disinteresting once you've fucked a few bloody.
Either start citing and summarising Bloch, or someone equally interesting, or fuck off back to your shitty undergraduate seminar in a third rate school.
>Either start citing and summarising Bloch, or someone equally interesting
For what purpose?
What is the appropriate level of brutality? Answer without a political basis.
Appeals to deontology or consequentialism will get you laughed out of the thread.
You have one hour. This question is worth 60% of your final grade.
The point is obviously not about "appropriate level of brutality" in the moral sense. For fuck sake you /phil/ kids are cancer. I wasn't in favor of separating the boards before but now I'm not so sure.
Why would I insinuate something about your political beliefs?
If the point isn't about an appropriate level of brutality then why have you stooped to the rhetorical lows of fundamentally colouring your historiographical position with cheap rhetorical appeals to emotion which situate your narrative as a political intervention into a long dead debate over who should profit over the distribution of the estates?
>Why would I insinuate something about your political beliefs?
Well considering that the thread is about the time a bunch of republicans brutally crushed most of an entire province for going against the grain and you equated me to an ardent supporter of democracy, I think the misunderstanding is easily understood.
>and you equated me to an ardent supporter of democracy, I think the misunderstanding is easily understood.
I think you're touchy and jumping at paper tigers. Rummel is rather famous for his idea of "democide," and for being pretty much the only person who thinks it is a useful term.
>Rummel is rather famous for his idea of "democide," and for being pretty much the only person who thinks it is a useful term.
And equally famous for pushing his idea that Democracy is a civic magic bullet.
For which he is even less qualified to make a statement upon than his ridiculous concept of democide or his laughable "statistical analysis."
Never trust UoHawaii's honorary appointments.