Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2255. page

>implying the genetics of your heir matters
adopt someone like cao cao

>>2059504
How old are you?
I hope I'll have a large family.

>>2059504
Are you still a youth?
I have hope that you'll have an heir.

File: buenaventura-durruti.jpg (71KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x333px

>Strongest voice against militarisation and PCE control over the war effort
>Mysteriously gets shot
Camillo Berneri was straight up murdered for speaking out against militarisation later on down the line as well.

franz ferdinand

>>2059407
His death is not considered an accident/suicide, nor was it carefully planned.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
>Some scholars also point at the genealogical snippet (verses 20-24) as containing a hint to the question whether Abraham sacrificed Isaac or not. First of all, the description of a rash of newborns placed right after the main story suggests the existence of some direct cause-effect connection between the two. From the perspective of a sacrificial economy, such a numerous progeny could not have been conceived without the preceding payment in an appropriate "currency". Secondly, the said passage is problematic due to its onomastic content. The verses 20-23 list the progeny of Nahor and Milkah while v. 24 adds the offspring conceived with Re’umah, said to be his concubine. However, whereas verses 20-23 have some significant links with other parts of the Hebrew Bible as well as with the historical and cultural entourage of the ancient Near East, such connections are absent in v. 24. The very name of Nahor’s concubine appears here exclusively and in no other place in the Hebrew Bible is Re’umah mentioned. The same applies to her children’s names with the exception of Ma‘akah which is sometimes utilized in the historical books. The extreme rarity of these appellations demands some alternative interpretation with regards to its purpose. Accordingly, the personal list may contain some "coded" explanation concerning the rest of the story: Re’umah (ראומה) – "see what"; Tevah (טבח) – "slaughtering" or "slaughtered"; Gaham (גחם) – "flame" or "burning"; Tahash (תחש) – "skin" often used to cover the tabernacle; Ma‘akah (מעכה) – "blown" or "crushed". In other words, v. 24 begins with an interpretational invitation and continues with the names which seem to explain the cause of the rash of newborns present at the conclusion of the pericope: somebody had been blown, slaughtered, put on the tabernacle and burned.[21]

>abrahamics are human sacrificing ritual slaughterists

they also worship cattle

File: 1479623673488.jpg (24KB, 387x461px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 387x461px

I have a better explanation, E fills in that part and then J takes over. E is known to have short events in the JEPD hypothesis. Though I believe that J and E are done by the same author. It's so simple.

Because he did great speeches, and was very folksy.

>neverbediscouraged.jpg

>>2059228
Because most conservatives try to focus on his grandfatherly appeal and ignore the disaster that was his economic and social policies. Aside from the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and numerous coups around the world, Reagan killed the fairness doctrine which fucked mainstream news media beyond repair. If you're wondering what happened to the quality broadcasts you see from the 80's and before, Reagan happened.

>>2059218
More like a chance to see what the American revolution would look like if it wasn't happening in a colonial shithole.

It would have been an actual revolution?

>>2059218
>Amercia is literally not in contact with any superpowers only other colonials
>Amercia's monarch is literally an ocean away
>Amercia had support from others in its war
Shut the fuck up OP

>>2059015
Yep. Completely true. Muslims have been trying to wipe white people out since jesus died

File: the Byzantines deserved this.jpg (244KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1162x850px

>>2059015
the Muslim conquests were bigger but that isn't even close to all of the battles either directly including the Crusades or caused by them. This is one of those things that I don't get about /pol/, if they just had the real amount of Crusader battles it would still be WAY less than the Muslim battles. Even when they're right about something they make themselves look so retarded by neglecting facts.

Proof: Does Constantinople have a dot on it?

File: 1480829660135.jpg (151KB, 848x716px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 848x716px

>>2059036
your absolutely correct.

>But that file name

>>2059012
>split
Communist infiltrate from China, then the US invaded and converted half the slanties to glorious Capitalism, no idea about Kims though

>>2059012
Like how far back do you want to go? all the way back to the Hwan?

>>2059024
Northerners became communist and was under the spoils system but famines happened, natural disaster happened and then it collapsed.

>>2059011
I know right? This proves the holocaust is a hoax

>>2059011
Mozart never died. He just became music.

>>2059011
Epistemology

No.

>>2058930
Ja.

>Roman

File: HGM_Kupelwieser_Porträt_Kaiser_Franz_I.jpg (36KB, 341x479px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 341x479px

>German

File: image.jpg (164KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1280x720px

>>2058680
>without any violence or major repercussions?

>>2058680
I'll answer your question

>>2058685
Deng didn't kill anybody as far as I know

If by "the Pope" you mean "Joseph P. Kennedy", then yes.

It's crazy how much of an abusive tyrant JFK's father was to his kids. JFK never wanted to enter politics, he just wanted to be a sports columnist; but once his older brother was killed in WWII, Joe put the responsibility of becoming America's "first Catholic president" on the next in line. JFK figuratively had no choice in the matter.

Also the Kennedy family differed in religiosity. While Robert took Catholicism very seriously, Jack was aloof to it, and even considered renouncing it entirely just to spite his bootlegging dad.

>>2058631
Nah mate he shook the Pope's hand not suck his dick

>>2058631
Kennedy took orders from plenty of people, namely his dearest family. He was a rich boy through and through. But he was notoriously hard to control, and many theories speculate that he was assassinated because of it.

The theory of him "taking orders from the Pope" was invented by angry Americans trying to bash the first Catholic President in typical Evangelical protestant fashion. Total fiction.

>>2058474
retarded polturds would spam it with cp or some shit

>>2058478
Poltards would get kicked, they're easy to spot out.

>>2058486
true, they're pretty much 99% anime weirdos and cringey teenagers

>>2058449
Couldn't really boil it down to 5 people, but for history my top 2 are Von Ranke and Carlyle. I'm kind of glad that there's now a large neo-Rankean pushback against post-modernism.

>>2058461
I know Von Ranke is often considered to be the father of modern history

but i always thought that title was given to Gibbon instead?

was Von Ranke more influential than Gibbon?

>>2058449

Bob dylan, Karl Friston, Anthony Giddens, Dr. Alice Roberts and Jimmy Newton

Literally no one on /his/ has written an academic paper.

We've just read a shit ton of Wikipedia articles.

>>2058422

I figured as much.

Long time lurker, never really post much. I refuse to believe, though, that there isn't *one* actual historian here on /his/.

>>2058446
When there is he'll make an AMA

>relitavism

Delete your account

>>2058291
Why not egoism?

The argument against relativism that you're referring to is an exercise in semantics.

If you say "There is no absolute truth" and you counter with "But isn't that statement an absolute truth?" you can simply amend your position of relativism to

"There is no absolute truth, other then the fact that there is no absolute truth"

Note that I am not a relativist, but your argument's dumb and your shits all retarded, so I still feel obligated to rebuke you.