Is there a worse criminal in human history?
>writes books about underage children having very detailed and descriptive sex.
>says Alexander the great wasn't great because he wasn't a woman
>said the Civil War was about slavery
>referred to Alexius IV as Alexius III
>once said European history was "just the worst"
>HATES men!
Fuck this overrated fat liberal cuck
>>2134059
>writes books about underage children having very detailed and descriptive sex.
Got any extracts?
>>2134065
You triggered bro?
Is there a worse criminal in human history?
>Took India out of peaceful British rule and threw it into decades of unstable government
>Split his own nation between Muslims and Hindus and brought on bloody infighting between them for years to come
>Unironically suggested surrendering to the Japanese as a way of ridding India of British rule
>Hated Africans and talked shit about black people all the time
>Was a MASSIVE paedo! Touched little children on a daily basis and even insisted on sleeping with them
>Tried to kill himself several times through his obscure sick fuck starvation fetish binges, literally didn't care that an entire nation was counting on him to lead them
>Publicly humilitated his wife by forcing her to clean out public toilets (was another obscure fetish of his)
>Wrote love letters to Hitler several times.
Fuck this overrated anorexic criminal cock
>>2134007
He is a good force in history simply because he helped guide Indian independence pretty much down the most peaceful path it could take at the time. Personal life doesn't really matter. Also independence was coming no matter what.
>>2134007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
>>2134007
t. brit
>France give money to the US for help their revolution.
>A revolution that wants to take off the colonial politic of US.
>France help a people that was against monarchy.
>France was a monarchy.
>>2133964
>implying that the American Revolution was fought to remove a monarchy and not to remove unfair taxes
>>2133964
Nothing beats Wilhelm II sponsoring Lenin.
>>2133968
>Implying France helped the US for any reason beyond "fuck England"
One of manny historical events that resonate with me, must be the Christmas truce of 1914. It showed what Christmas is, how it helps us unite and look at the common goal of hope.
For me it just shows how utterly insane pre-1945 Euros were.
I find it so droll when people bring this up because they only did it the first year after there was barely any fighting.
If it happened in 1917, then it would be truly impressive.
>>2133092
This, the fact they did it only once kinda devaluates the whole thing.
Has there ever been a time in history where LGBT citizens haven't been persecuted and generally treated on equal ground as others? Relatively speaking, is right now the best time to be a gay in the history of the world?
do you also accept gays who claim to be Christian? Are mainstream religious beliefs really compatible with being queer?
>>2132676
It used to be fine to be gay, as long as you were the one who got shit on his dick. If you were being penetrated you were considered to have been subjugated.
Being a man who receives has always been a sort of laughable offense in society, but I don't ever think they were "equal" in the sense you could get married to your Boyfriend.
I don't think that concept would have even registered with them, as marriage was a way to have children.
>>2132691
Marriage historically was about producing children. A homo sexual couple simply didn't make sense
Hardmode: nothing in the 20th century
1. you being born
2. your mother having to raise you
3. you making this thread
The splitting of rome
>Splitting of Rome
>Destruction of Al-Andalus (debatable)
>Unification of Germany
Bonus:
>Birth of Islam
Do we have the right to colonise other planets? Shouldn't we better limit our population, and/or suppress our species?
>>2131543
How fucking dumb do you have to be to unironically make a post like that?
That's some Facebook tier shit
>do we have the right
Kys and those who are not faggots will have the "right" to colonise other planets. You should start by cutting of ur dick and limit yourself from procreation.
>>2131543
>Do we have the right to colonise other planets?
Who will stop us?
>Shouldn't we better limit our population, and/or suppress our species?
To an extent, we already do and the environment does the rest. That said, why wouldn't you prefer a situation where we would grow sustainably?
So I'm in a course right now that is going over the reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spanish and my teacher says they were unbelievablely brutal to the Muslims they conquered and that's why there are no Muslims in Spain now.
What's the truth to this? I'm confused
>>2131253
>they were unbelievablely brutal to the Muslims
actually they were believably brutal considering what the Muslims did to them.
reverse jihad, then it continued on the other side of the atlantic
SANTIAGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>>2131264
Which was not much
Was he right?
MK-ULTRA really messed him up
>>2130682
Not an argument. How does that affect the validity of his statement?
>>2130673
Yes, in the long run, it will be the death of the planet
What would your patrilineal ancestors be doing 1,000 years ago?
>Which food would they eat?
>Which god(s) would they worship?
>Which language would they speak?
>Where would they live?
>Where would they sleep?
>What clothing would they wear?
>Who would they be at war with?
>Who would be their masters?
Pic unrelated
You mean a strict patrilineal line, i.e. one specific person out of probably millions of ancestors alive then? Does anyone who isn't nobility even know that?
being a Norman baron, things will get interesting in the next few decades but not much was happening in 1016
Probably a Muslim or a Christian living under dhimmitude in the Iberian Peninsula.
Can someone explain to a Europoor why there are people who sympathise with the Confederate States? I can't really find any reason to see them as the good guys and their cause respectable.
>Southern states were slave owners
>want to expand slavers to newly acquired territories
>some even wanted to re-open the Atlantic slave trade
>they got slavery forced on Kansas, even though the majority there didn't support it. states' rights amirite?
>get anti-slavery guy democratically elected as president of the USA
>refuse to accept the results of a fair election and try to leave even though Lincoln wasn't even inaugurated yet
>get defeated
>Northern victory turns the USA into more like a single nation as opposed to a federation and soon, into a great power
>meanwhile, Confederate veterans form the KKK, one of the most hated organizations in the US and push for shit like the poll tax and segregation.
Even I were a racist I would see no reason to respect them. They just hastened black emancipation. Lincoln wasn't even that radical on this issue, he probably would have agreed to some compromises if the South didn't sperg out before he even did anything. He was also against black suffrage and blacks probably wouldn't have got the vote if a Confederate supporter didn't kill him, eventually getting Grant elected president.
I think there are three main types of southaboos:
Dixie nationalists who think the south would be better off as a sovereign nation and don't care about slavery.
Misguided white nationalists that think importing black labor while postponing industrialization is some how desirable to them just because it sucks for blacks.
"CSA was clean and they had cool uniforms" people
Their top tier songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUjLE_N1Cuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LArGlfEVYqM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ot7amDyqbY
>>2128995
This is now a songs of the civil war thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmxZThb084
Why do historians feel qualified to comment on economics?
Why do linguists feel qualified to comment on politics (game theory, which is math)?
>>2127596
Do they?
I guess certain historians might feel qualified to talk about economics in the context of history.
I think you're just making shit up tho, and I don't think you could find anyone who cares if you searched for a million years.
>>2127610
Lots of historians talk about the causes (as they imagine them) of the Great Depression, or about whether the New Deal was a success, and so on.
Aint it more physicians that go into humanities with their bullshit.
Humanities is much broader than STEM.
To research stem you need specialization in a field, humanities is more of theory and assuming, its not "written on stone" , what if 6 was 9?
>humanities 6=9
>stem 6+9=15
>Polacks had to ally with shit eating lithuanians to defeat a knightly order
are polacks the worst fighters in history?
Do you have a reason to disrespect Lithuanians like that?
>>2137965
Yes they live in a third world shithole.
>>2137975
Lithuania is not a third world shithole at all. Have you even been here, or do you get your facts from /int/ memes? Are you honestly comparing Lithuania to Ethiopia?
how do i know im alive?
how do you know?
>>2137794
you can't without the triune God of the bible
>>2137797
hows that?
>>2137794
We can't know reality to be true, but we can know things about reality. According to reality, you are alive.
>I-I can still be a man of letters! I read for 20 minutes during my morning commute, 30 minutes during lunch and another 20 minutes on the way back home! Then I have 1 hour to spend on one of reading, internet, cooking a proper meal, going to the gym, socialising with friends, watching movies, or any other hobby!
Oh, but my wagie friend, what about the time necessary to do some writing of your own, the critical discussion and writing about the book you're currently reading, sombre and quiet reflection on your life and the times, reading the latest scholarly articles, and re-reading older works to actually analyse them rather than rush through them in 20 minute chunks like a businessman who thinks he can break the majesty of the Western canon in to "Getting Things Done" bite-size pieces. Not to mention the time consuming trial and error approach to discovery of new works and lines of thought that are *essential* for anyone who doesn't want to simply follow commoditised curricula and reading lists and who wants to make an intellectual contribution themselves. Pray tell, my wagie friend, do you seriously consider the act of reading to be all that is necessary in an intellectual's life? Surely not?
>Uh, well, uh...Sh-shut up... l-leech...
>>2137785
I know you're trying to stave off the crippling depression brought on by Christmas, but stop.
>>2137786
Why do you hate our Lord anon?
>>2137785
Except the "intellectual" on the left looks more like this