What is the most unlearnt lesson of history? I'd argue will

File: 1455062792301.gif (1MB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x250px

>>677901
um.....islamophobic much???

>>677904
kek

>>677904
The world needs more islamaphobia desu.

>>677904
>it isn't ethnic cleansing just because it's shitskins killing shitskins

>>677901

The most unlearnt lesson in history is that before medicine came along and fixed a lot of things had a death in childbirth rate of about 1 in 5. And that's per pregnancy, not per woman.

Women weren't educated in just about every society? It's not because of some patriarchal boogeyman, it's because most women would be dead by 25.

Why were people so willing to risk death to go off on foreign adventures and fight strangers? Because chances are, you weren't getting any, couldn't get any, and your opportunities for getting some were slim. If you conquer a new land you can bring back a war bride, and if you lose, well, problem's over that way too.

It means that demographic growth is extremely slow, once you add in infant mortality, and it's why men have always been viewed as so much more expendable than women, as well as why women have to be protected in traditional societies, often to the point of imprisoning them in the home. You don't have a lot of leeway for females to give up their chances of squirting out more babies before they kick the bucket.


The sociological effects of higher female mortality and the consequent demographics of renaissance on backwards societies are almost universally ignored.

>>677901
British conquest of India was far worse.

>>677931
absolutely not. muslims had the bigger body count and destroyed far more. An economic occupation is tamer than a holy war against infidels you apologist.

>>677927
>of things had a death in childbirth rate of about 1 in 5. And that's per pregnancy, not per woman.
you are truely a smartfag! thank you, just have noted it into my personal wisdom folder

>>677927
>death in childbirth rate of about 1 in 5
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SOdNT0xFnJsC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=death+in+childbirth

it was less than 1 in 50

>>677927
>most women would be dead by 25

Even accounting for child birth mortality women still had higher life expectancy than men throughout history. Do you really think if you traveled back to the middle ages you wouldn't be able to find any women over say 30? Gender ratios and life expectancy have always favored women.

I think that's enough /his/ for me today.

File: image.jpg (211KB, 669x960px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 669x960px

>>677952
>Bengal famine
>Massacre at Amritsar
>Bayonet practice in Sindh

About 30 k killed vs 30 million killed.
The British Invasion of India was far far more bloody and assholish than the "Muslim"
Tf does that even mean btw? The Muslims were brought in by the Mongols.

>the most unlearned lesson in history

Guerilla warfare works pretty damn well and you shouldn't underestimate the pajamasoldiers.

>>678067

>Even accounting for child birth mortality women still had higher life expectancy than men throughout history.

Not at all. Modern higher life expectencies are almost entirely attributable to women smoking and drinking less.

>Do you really think if you traveled back to the middle ages you wouldn't be able to find any women over say 30?

Extremely few. Almost all of whom would be women who were sterile or not sexually active.

>Gender ratios and life expectancy have always favored women.

I would suggest you check out the work of Barbera Hainswalt. Gender ratios and life expectancy have favored men for almost all of history.


>>678065

You do know that guy is citing Hainswalt himself, do you want to see the rest of the line he omitted?

Hanawalt, Barbara, Growing Up in Medieval London (Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 43 and 234

>This figure rises to approximately 20% when deaths resulting from complications of pregnancy or some condition related to child-bearing, rather than the birth process itself, are added.

>>678075
I don't recall the brits being as big on forced conversions, mass killings or the sacking of temples in order to erect their places of worship, but if only white people can be villains, so be it.

>>678085
In medieval florence it was 29.5 years life expectancy for women, 28.5 years for men. Even in shithole african countries like the congo where child birth is high there are more women than men and a higher life expectancy for women. In fact thats true for basically all southern african countries that aren't muslim.

http://content.ucpress.edu/chapters/11633.ch01.pdf

>>677901
>being racist

C'mon, it's 1981.

>>677927
correlation is not causation, so how would you iron out the relationship here? Is female contribution a too many cooks scenario?

>>677927
It's quite ludicrous to imply women at any point in time were dying at a rate similar to men.

File: anothervietnam2-14.jpg (567KB, 1200x1614px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1200x1614px

>>677901

I am not familiar beyond the understanding that Islamic campaigns went on for centuries. Can you point me to any interesting battles or campaigns?

I will pay penance for asking to be spoon fed via unrelated pic.

24 year old VC guerilla who had been widowed twice during the war-- losing both husbands to combat.

>>678275
He claims that few women lived past 30 even accounting for infant mortality when total life expectancy after infancy in those days was well into your 60s. Men would have to be living to 120 to come up with a skewed average like that.

Bump for interest