So, I'm not terribly well-versed on the American Civil War or the Antebellum period, but it seems to me like all the "it was about state's rights" people either don't really understand the situation, or are simply excusing the secession with something that sounds more righteous than slavery. For example, it seems that southern states had no qualms about the Dredd Scott trial, despite the fact that it essentially forced anti-slavery states to conform to pro-slavery laws (ironically the same thing the south was worried that Lincoln would do to them). The whole "states rights" thing wasn't really an issue to them until their pro-slavery laws were threatened, which would indicate to me that they were more concerned about slavery than state's rights. But, as I said, I'm not 100% on this part of history, so please explain if I'm wrong and how.
>>1926510
It was 100% about slavery and anybody who says otherwise is just being revisionist.
>>1926510
Dredd Scott was not an infringement of State's Rights. It was upholding Sandford's constitutional rights, which states could not abrogate.
>>1926510
It was about the major differences between the north and the south, slavery chief among them.
The south was almost wholly agrarian compared to the industrial north and their political power was slipping away as the north grew faster and added more non slave states.
To say that the war is about slavery is asinine. The two regions where headed in opposite directions and men fought for the south as they felt they no longer fit with the north.
>If workers struggle for higher wages, this is >hailed as “social gains”, if businessmen >struggle for higher profits, this is damned as >“selfish greed”
She's not even wrong though
>Workers struggles for higher wages generally work to the benefit of their employers, increasing production and quality
>Businessmen struggling for higher profits generally come at the cost of the worker, outsourcing jobs and cutting back benefits.
It's half baked nonsense that can easily be dismissed by a 15 year old, just like the rest of the garbage that Rand spewed.
>private property is important therefore the Indians and Africans deserved to be conquered because they didn't value it enough
What did she mean by this?
>>1926278
>Workers struggles for higher wages generally work to the benefit of their employers, increasing production and quality
Paying someone higher wages does not have a direct casual effect on production and quality.
Who were the Aztecs and were they a loss?
I've been reading a bit about them, and as I go along, carefully not reading about thier autistic religious practices, I start to feel a bit sad tbqh.
They had city states, a written language, some form of universal education.
It doesn't seem like these people were just stupid and barbaric.
So, /his/, who were the Aztecs? were they based?
I'd love to bone some ancient brown skin American natives.
>>1922361
Not too sure. I considered the Conquesadors and the Aztecs to be pretty fucked in the head. (rape, human sacrifice, etc)
That being said, Aztecs had some pretty interesting shit. Not going to lie, would have loved to have seen Technochitalin in it's prime.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aztec/
>In his/her capacity as educator, moralist, and role model -- i.e. as "teacher of people's faces" (teixtlamachtiani) -- the sage is akin to an artist who skillfully shapes a formless block of stone into a beautiful statue. The sage shapes a child's "faceless", lump of human flesh into a genuinely human "face and heart". Of the sage the Nahuas said:
The wise man: a light, a torch, a stout torch that does not smoke.
A perforated mirror, a mirror pierced on both sides.
His are the black and red ink, his are the illuminated manuscripts, he studies the illuminated manuscripts.
He himself is writing and wisdom.
He is the path, the true way for others.
He directs people and things; he is a guide in human affairs.
Teacher of truth, he never ceases to admonish.
He makes wise the countenances of others; to them he gives a face; he leads them to develop it.
He opens their ears; he enlightens them.
He puts a mirror before others, he makes them prudent, cautious; he causes a face to appear on them.
He attends to things; he regulates their path, he arranges and commands.
He applies his light to the world.
Thanks to him people humanize their will and receive a strict education.
You are forced to go back into time and serve in any war in history, what war do you choose /his/?
>>1921869
The War of Jenkins Ear.
>>1921869
war between ghent and bruges, which ended in the battle of beernem... WE FUCKING BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF THOSE FUCKING BRUGES FAGGOTS
Spanish conquest of the Aztecs. Very little chance of death and all the native women I can rape
No matter how bad you're doing right now, at least take some solace for the fact that you're not this fucking guy living in 17th century.
jokes on you, I have several genetically inherited diseases AND I'm poor as shit.
>>1932329
>>1932329
He was the purest human being ever. Don't spread your stupid lies here you heathen fuck.
Why did they fail? With so much land the universal monarchy should have been successful and Spain would rule the world.
>>1932187
Is this another "I am gonna imply that Spain is not a rich and developped country centuries after it was the hegemon of its time?
>>1932187
They didn't. All the natives were killed or marked as a lower caste. They took tons of gold, resources, labor, etc. They fucked all the native women they wanted to. They were living the dream.
How could that be a failure?
Whats the moral justification of censoring nipples?
Or any part of the human anatomy for that matter?
>>1931690
whats the moral justification of censoring a dog's face?
>>1931690
don't know but posting lewds now
>>1931690
Dunno, puritanism has a rather complicated relationship with the human body, sexuality and nudity. Catholics and Europeans are much more relaxed in that opinion.
Do you have a moment to talk about the attempted ethnic cleansing of Highland Scots from their homes by the English? I wish we joined forces with the tattie munchers to permanently remove crumpet from celtic lands.
>>1931347
rule Britannia
>by the english
We superior Scots were crushing you pathetic papists too.
>>1931347
I was walking two weeks in the Assynt region, pretty sad when you see all the ruins of the old villages. Also, I highly support crofters who want to get their land back, albeit I think you cannot undo what happened.
What the fuck was his problem?
>HOLY
small dick
What the fuck was his problem?
was it ultimately a defensive war waged by Christians against Islamic aggression?
The crusading ideal was born as a defensive warfare ideal. Bringing it to the Palestine (and the Baltics) was offensive warfare.
>>1929208
The trigger for crusades was undoubtedly defensive - the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert and consequently the almost complete collapse of Byzantine power in Asia.
>>1929208
It was religious revanchism. Whether that's defensive or offensive depends on the side you identify with.
Did actual slave-owners ever apologize for slavery?
t. White Apologist
Hell no
>>1928938
One of them might have.
Was it autism?
You're an autism
Daily reminder the Puritans did nothing wrong
>>1929553
They are literally Salafists except hundreds of years ago and Christian.
>Puritan clothes
>Cover the hair with bonnets and as much skin as possible because modesty
>Puritan warlord
>Beheads head of government and sets up caliphate where things like dancing is forbidden
>Puritan immigrants
>Refugees that do not assimilate, bring their culture and extremist views with them, cause international instability, perform terrorism, genocide the people already living there
What did ordinary people do for "fun"?
>>1927987
>What did ordinary people do for "fun"?
Killing afgans mostly
>get monthly cards for food, cigs, vodka and chocolate
>if you don't smoke, exchange cig cards for vodka cards
>get to store, 5 hour line, 2 items on the shelf
>wait 15 years for an apartment
>save up for 10 year to get a car
>>1927987
Everything to a certain degree as today, just a severe lack of outside influences and watchful eyes.
About to read "Guns, Germs and Steel". I know the book gets a lot of bad rep from this board, just wanted to know your opinions on it and why you think the way you do.
Also general book thread.
>>1927189
Its a good book, its just a little to rational for stormfags.
Read the book first to come with your own opinion first, anon.
These threads should be bannable.
Why is it that most of Africa's history has been long forgotten?
being mostly verbal probably made it worse
>>1933334
That's the risk of relying on oral transmission.
because it's made up