Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2446. page

>>1938233
>We technically fulfilled your campaign slogan
>Implying anyone gives a damn about technicalities in politics.

>>1938233
I think the British gov't knew that giving a colony even a single MP would be the thin end of the wedge. Next their other colonies would want them. Soon enough you have orientals and savages being elected to public office. Then if they get outvoted they'd bitch all the time. Their messages to MPs in London would take forever to get there - remember this is the 18th century, no radio or telegraphs or anything. Not to mention it'd probably be unpopular among actual Britons if the gov't started treating colonists like citizens. It would be a big shitshow and I think they knew it wouldn't really help at all.

>>1938250
White settler colonies would perhaps be given a more favourable view at home compared to India and so on. There was quite a bit of popular discussion and opinion about the Revolution in Britain and it wasn't necessarily so pro-British as one might expect.

In any case when the white dominions gained self-governing status in the mid-19th century other areas of the empire went without, and by and large without much pressure for representation until post-WWI

WTH. Where do you live?

>three pixel dissertation on Althusser due in four epochs
>haven't even edited yet
Just kill me

>>1938205
>got a 200 word essay due in four days
If you can't pull 200 words of bullshit out of your ass you don't deserve education.

Taiwan is not a dictatorship anymore. At any time, it was never as bad as communist China.
The answer is in Communism.

Taiwan because it needed to be held as a base for further Chinese invasion, which required dictatorial power to get the Taiwanese moving and suppress local warlordism once the mainland was reached. Jiang Jieshi had a policy of dictatorship until China could be normalised.
As for why the communists won, they were better operators, more fluid, gained themselves more legitimacy, and got tons of weapons from Russia.
They also had a tremendous intelligence service, believe me.

The KMT had no democratic legacy. Sun and Chiang subscribed to a belief (whose name is unfortunately slipping my mind) that China was not ready for a democratic republic and required a dictatorship beforehand, to prepare the country for eventual democracy. And this wasn't necessarily like a military coup for a few months or years, but was intended to be long-term. Exactly as it played out in Taiwan.

IIRC Chiang actually went to the USSR to evaluate Marxism-Leninism-Revisionism but decided that it wasn't the right system for China.

Spaghetti-Os

Limited Italian advances.

File: Gen_Melchett.jpg (65KB, 797x598px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 797x598px

>>1938083
Graduate in Melchett's military academy of advanced battle tactics.

Shut up cuck shill!!

>>1937926
They just wanted to make Rome great again.
Besides goths were rapist crossing the border illegaly and bringing crime.
They were not sendin their best.

>>1937926
I can't be the only one who thinks this is a thinly veiled NATO thread.
Especially because of the 2% GDP figure.

>>1937923
So, born out of chaos, the god of darkness before light?
I have that correct, right?

File: images_2.jpg (7KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 205x246px

Tfw no brown skin sand woman to be my sex goddess

>>1937947
"It's always darkest before the Don."

Also feel free to add any input. It's much appreciated.

>>1937807
United State was neutral and upon arrival in Europe decide that french weapon were the way to go.
AH got seven mobilisation plan in case of war, but were Poland tier level of developpement.
French were more prepared but their will to not go in war fuck them hard in the first day of war.

>>1937807
The US dindu nothin. They are good boys.

>>1937777
Very.

>>1937777
Are you kidding?
He's the leader of the arguably most power military in the world and has direct access to thousands of Hydrogen Bombs

>>1937783
but does he really?

I mean really?

there are a lot of links in the chain behind the process of launching a nuke, he can't really do it in a wanton manner as many people like to think

>>1937755
French Canadians are fucking retards, they should be allowed to seperate so that they'll quickly come crawling back and be forced to return as official second class citizens.

there's a screencap that really explains the situation well, but I didn't save it

also, just dropping this here, still PET's biggest dick move
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Meeting

Its hard to struggle against British occupants, but Quebec will be free.

>>1937545
I dunno. Why don't you just read it?

>>1937548
I just read a bit of it. It seems like the whole story is going to be said since he had axecuted the hag and her sister.

>>1937545

The epilogue doesn't add anything useful, in fact I think it weakens the narrative.

>>1937542
Trump is empty of spooks.

File: 352352421.jpg (139KB, 647x768px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 647x768px

You got a lot of nerve comparing a huckster who may beat a war criminal in a popular vote in postmodern-day Gomorrah to the World Spirit who Robe Atop a Horse.

>>1937554

Hence, why he's the Weltgeist of Postmodernity, not the Romantic Era.

[DESIRE TO KNOW MORE INTENSIFIES]

You'd be better of posting this on reddit, more specifically /r/criticaltheory, good community there.

check tiqqun

>Austria
>Luxembourg
>Lichtenstein
Wow Krauts, how come your mom lets you have FOUR states?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast#History
>The Birobidzhan experiment ground to a halt in the mid-1930s, during Stalin's first campaign of purges. Soviet authorities arrested and executed Jewish leaders, and Yiddish schools were shut down. Shortly after this, World War II brought an abrupt end to concerted efforts to bring Jews east.
>After the war ended in 1945, there was renewed interest in the idea of Birobidzhan as a potential home for Jewish refugees. The Jewish population peaked in 1948 at around 30,000, about one-quarter of the region's population. Stalin's anti-Jewish purges that same year essentially criminalized Jewish activities.
>Judaism is practiced by 0.2% of the population.
What a shitty jewish state.

>>1937390
>Switzerland
Make that five actually.

>>1937315
duh

How does any of that make it out to be a spook?

>individualism is a spook
>1. the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
being independent by habit is not spooky. being independent by principle is, however, spooky.

>2. a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
spook.

>Without the systems we are embedded in (social political, cultural, technological, ecological, economic) we are nothing.
objectively false. if you were to discontinue participation in such systems, you could continue to exist.

>Consequently, "picking yourself up by your own bootstraps" is as impossible as a perpetual motion machine.
nice poetry. what does it mean?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/

A human being, looking at the natural world, sees a thousand times purpose. A rabbit's legs, built and articulated for running; a fox's jaws, built and articulated for tearing. [...]

But when you look at all the apparent purposefulness in Nature, rather than picking and choosing your examples, you start to notice things that don't fit the Judeo-Christian concept of one benevolent God. Foxes seem well-designed to catch rabbits. Rabbits seem well-designed to evade foxes. Was the Creator having trouble making up Its mind?

When I design a toaster oven, I don't design one part that tries to get electricity to the coils and a second part that tries to prevent electricity from getting to the coils. It would be a waste of effort. Who designed the ecosystem, with its predators and prey, viruses and bacteria? Even the cactus plant, which you might think well-designed to provide water fruit to desert animals, is covered with inconvenient spines.

The ecosystem would make much more sense if it wasn't designed by a unitary Who, but, rather, created by a horde of deities—say from the Hindu or Shinto religions. This handily explains both the ubiquitous purposefulnesses, and the ubiquitous conflicts: More than one deity acted, often at cross-purposes. The fox and rabbit were both designed, but by distinct competing deities. I wonder if anyone ever remarked on the seemingly excellent evidence thus provided for Hinduism over Christianity. Probably not.

>>1937247
Similarly, the Judeo-Christian God is alleged to be benevolent—well, sort of. And yet much of nature's purposefulness seems downright cruel. Darwin suspected a non-standard Creator for studying Ichneumon wasps, whose paralyzing stings preserve its prey to be eaten alive by its larvae: "I cannot persuade myself," wrote Darwin, "that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." I wonder if any earlier thinker remarked on the excellent evidence thus provided for Manichaen religions over monotheistic ones.

[...]

The main point is that the gene's effect must cause copies of that gene to become more frequent in the next generation. There's no Evolution Fairy that reaches in from outside. There's nothing which decides that some genes are "helpful" and should, therefore, increase in frequency. It's just cause and effect, starting from the genes themselves.

This explains the strange conflicting purposefulness of Nature, and its frequent cruelty. It explains even better than a horde of Shinto deities.

Why is so much of Nature at war with other parts of Nature? Because there isn't one Evolution directing the whole process. There's as many different "evolutions" as reproducing populations. Rabbit genes are becoming more or less frequent in rabbit populations. Fox genes are becoming more or less frequent in fox populations. Fox genes which construct foxes that catch rabbits, insert more copies of themselves in the next generation. Rabbit genes which construct rabbits that evade foxes are naturally more common in the next generation of rabbits. Hence the phrase "natural selection".

>>1937258

Why is Nature cruel? You, a human, can look at an Ichneumon wasp, and decide that it's cruel to eat your prey alive. You can decide that if you're going to eat your prey alive, you can at least have the decency to stop it from hurting. It would scarcely cost the wasp anything to anesthetize its prey as well as paralyze it. Or what about old elephants, who die of starvation when their last set of teeth fall out? These elephants aren't going to reproduce anyway. What would it cost evolution—the evolution of elephants, rather—to ensure that the elephant dies right away, instead of slowly and in agony? What would it cost evolution to anesthetize the elephant, or give it pleasant dreams before it dies? Nothing; that elephant won't reproduce more or less either way.

If you were talking to a fellow human, trying to resolve a conflict of interest, you would be in a good negotiating position—would have an easy job of persuasion. It would cost so little to anesthetize the prey, to let the elephant die without agony! Oh please, won't you do it, kindly... um...

There's no one to argue with.

Human beings fake their justifications, figure out what they want using one method, and then justify it using another method. There's no Evolution of Elephants Fairy that's trying to (a) figure out what's best for elephants, and then (b) figure out how to justify it to the Evolutionary Overseer, who (c) doesn't want to see reproductive fitness decreased, but is (d) willing to go along with the painless-death idea, so long as it doesn't actually harm any genes.

There's no advocate for the elephants anywhere in the system.