discuss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Port_Kaituma_airstrip_shootings
How were the american reactions back then? Those numbers are insane
>>1471210
Pretty insane. People's Temple were a radical leftist/communist group in San Francisco, but they were pretty popular, even a mayor of San Francisco endorsed them and had Jim Jones in his administration. They were vaguely like the Branch Davidians at Waco, people who joined a charismatic cult to escape a world they thought was evil.
After some bad press on PT and a few people leaving it, Jones convinced everyone they were under assault so they were moving to an agricultural community in Guyana to escape the evil US.
I'd say what allowed it to happen is that people, both in the PT and outside of it, trusted Jim Jones too much, they thought he was a great guy because of all the nice things he said. By the time they had moved to Jonestown, people were afraid of him and thought they were the only ones in the group who were afraid of him; meanwhile, he was out of his mind on drugs and paranoia.
There's a good documentary on Jonestown, can't remember what it's called, and Jim Jones' son says he doesn't hate his father, but everyone was afraid of him and that what he did was terrible, even if he himself didn't realize it.
Why did societies criminalize drugs?
>>1491845
DUDE
>>1491848
VICE
Because they're outlawed when they're bad for society. They're promoted when they're good for society.
Society doesn't care that you're happy as an inherent good. Society only wants you to be happy so that you are motivated and complacent.
Were there any revolutions involving - and carried by- the aristocracy?
Memefully, revolutions are either associated with the lower classes (muh oppression) or the intelligentsia/middle classes (muh educmation, enlightenment).
>>1489713
The Meiji Restoration was one.
Literally Aristocrats VS. Aristocrats.
>>1489713
Most revolts were revolts by the aristoracy. Especially those before 1900.
The American Revolution.
The Civil War.
Is it incorrect to use the word "nation" regarding the United States? I think "union" would be more accurate. This isn't some smug Voltaire meme attempt to say a country isn't actually what its name is or anything, but rather an attempt to put aside post-Civil War stigma against sectionalism to find some truth (the pic is not what I believe, just an example of this kind of thinking I found). just take a look at the Merriam-Webster definition of the word:
>a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory
>united by common descent
Certainly not. Even in the US's first iteration (the thirteen colonies), I believe the Southern states were predominately of Scots-Irish stock as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon north. And this is even without the succeeding century of massive European immigration.
>history
While what we now know as "Americans" have existed arguably since the early 17th century with the foundation of Jamestown, the component parts of the American union have mostly had long histories independent of each other. For instance, while Jamestown was first being settled, one could go to Spanish New Mexico and eat at a restaurant or sleep in a hotel. Hawaiians are an established ethnicity with, of course, a long history outside of the US. It, Texas, and California all existed as independent countries for a time and this is still widely recognized by the people living there today. In fact, I would say that all of the current United States have actually had a very small amount of common history together.
(cont)
>culture
Now, the difference between cultures in the US is far less marked than it used to be, but there are still clearly defined differences between US regions. If you think about it, there is actually very little that holds the US together culturally. Respect for the constitution and fairly similar political ideology being one of them, as well as a few "national" dishes that are actually overwhelmingly outnumbered by regional ones. Americans, depending on their culture, will enjoy different sports, listen to different music, wear different clothes, practice different inherited traditions from their European ancestors, and approach the day-to-day drudgery and challenges of life very differently from each other.
>language
While it carries much political stigma to say this, especially on 4chan, it is important to recognize that the United States have no national language, and to join the union there is no explicit requirement that a state must be a primarily English speaking one, and many have been admitted when this was not the case. The US southwest did not last very long as a solely English-speaking region, and it is perhaps an inevitable consequence of the US's size and the history of these states that they would not remain purely Anglophone, even factoring in proposals that illegals HAVE TO GO BACK or BUILD WALL.
>inhabiting a particular state or territory
How can a nation inhabit a specific state or territory when it is a federation of states and territories? Putting the contentious issue of state's rights aside, US states are still members of a union. They are not provinces, they are not federal administrative divisions. If every state in America besides Wisconsin became another country or became part of an existing country, and Wisconsin alone carried on the name of "United States of America", it would be an absolute laughing stock. On the other hand, if Germany invaded and annexed all of France all the way to the Pyrenees, leaving only a small Francophone buffer state in the mountains the size of Switzerland, people would still call it "France", its citizens would be recognized as "the French", and nobody would ever question it.
What are the implications of this?
>The US is not a nation, it should be referred to as the "American nations" plural perhaps
>"Nationalism" as an ideology in regards to the US is a very confusing use of the word. What we think of as nationalism in America is really more of a sort of nativist federalism
>the use of the phrase "the United States is" instead of "the United States are" in historical or other humanities should be completely disposed of, as it plainly defies reality and grammar to make a political statement about what the modern US should be
>>1486855
>Is it incorrect to use the word "nation" regarding the United States?
Yes.
Nation nowadays is so fucking mangled by the modern languages to refer to state entities.
Original: https colon slash slash news dot gamme dot com dot tw slash 1386619
The article in question is unfortunately slightly long when translated, so in order to avoid exceeding the character limit I have put it on pastebin. I apologize also for breaking up the link to the original like I did, but it was triggering the spam filter otherwise. In any case here's the pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/tku883jv
>>1485916
I'd like to learn Japanese for my Chinese cartoons, but even I know that Japanese isn't going to benefit me business wise
>a language with three different alphabets, including Chinese characters, should be used for international communication
I mean seriously that's as bad as suggesting that German should be a international language. It would be better to encourage countries to tech at least two secondary languages instead.
Besides, Esperanto already exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ2ei7e6aAs
>>1485974
>Esperanto
Yuk
If we are going to use an artificial language, it should be developed with phonoaesthetics in mind, as well as grammatical simplicity.
Was Hannibal the greatest general of all time?
>1483811
Considering that his entire strategy was based around a misapprehension, namely that field defeats would prompt Roman allies/vassals to revolt against them, I'd have to say no, whatever his merits as a tactician.
>>1483811
He lost, so no.
Was he the greatest black general?
Is he ever coming back /his/?
>>1494156
>implying england has ever needed him to come back
RULE BRITANNIA
>>1494156
nope
As far as he would be concerned, the Saxons are just getting a taste of their own medicine.
Sherman did nothing wrong, discuss.
You're absolutely right.
And the best part is that it's all the South's fault for being autistic about election results.
>>1493980
Even being the winners you faggots are more butthurt than us about the civil war
>>1493980
his problem was that he didn't kill enough, the Southern culture needed to be wiped out down to the last man, woman, and child, and we still have that backwards redneck region dragging us down because of our failure to do so.
Why isn't this the Russian flag? Aren't these supposed to be their national colors? I know nothing about Russian history
Because it's a republic and not an empire anymore.
>>1493839
Tsar Peter went to the Netherlands and was turned into such a Dutchboo that he adopted the colors of the Dutch flag for his cuntry.
colours of their royal family and it's a republic now
Are psyops a modern phenomenon or were they used in historical conflicts?
What is the earliest psyop we know of?
>>1493653
>What is the earliest psyop we know of?
Probably something like public executions of enemies and rebels.
>>1493653
Psychological warfare has always been a key part of war.
>>1493653
During the Roman-Judean war at the Siege of Jerusalem, Vespasian in an attempt to demoralize the defenders who were already starving to the point of eating their children, lined up his soldiers right in front of the walls and paid each and every one of them their monthly salary to show how he was generous and how the Romans were cool and shit. Didn't really work because the people in charge would just kill anyone who was showing signs of leaving the city.
What was the biggest waste of time in history?
>Cold War
- Divided Europe for many years and partially enslaved them
- Invested in many programs and wars that never actually accomplished anything
- Aided in training terrorists
- Overall, nothing dramatically changed or improved outside of removing communism from Russia
>>1493631
>Overall, nothing dramatically changed or improved outside of removing communism from Russia
This is bait, right?
the first iberians was ruled by kings who was irish. Tarquinius superbus the last irish king of iberia was overthrown by the iberians who ruled iberia for a couple of centuries. Until sulla the great irish general overthrew the iberians and exterminated them in the social war. Now irish was running iberia again and a iberian wasnt seen in the region again until it was sacked by alaric and the iberians eventually killed or sent the black irish to ireland. Julius caesar was irish
>>1493631
Add to that:
- Nobody in the Eastern Bloc except a small clique of power hungry """"communists"""" really wanted to maintain it
Although my parents got to taste a careless life.
In terms of prosperity for Spain, was Franco winning the Spanish Civil War a good thing or a bad thing?
A good thing. Imagine if the stalinists and crypto-stalinists (CNT and such) had won.
>>1493598
Basically, to put it into perspective...
If any of the fascism's within Europe did not come to power, the socialists and Leninist's would've won power. So, in the long run, the fascist nations that emerged within Europe between 1922 to 1945-ish, salvaged Europe from immediate communist takeovers. Doesn't mean they are safe, nowadays.
>>1493598
If the leftists had taken over in Spain they probably would have destroyed all of Spanish history and the churches etc. like Mao's Red Guards. Also it would already be majority muslim today.
Why did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fight each other instead of the capitalists and liberal democracies? Weren't they both socialists?
Hitler.
Germany wasn't under a socialism. The Third Reich was a heavily mixed economy, but they still possessed private industries. This includes the majority of their civilian enterprises. The Reich did invest in nationalizing all of their major manufacturing facilities, but they were not driven to nationalize all facilities and companies under their roof. Adolf Hitler stated that he disliked the socialist systems because of their internationalist tendencies and their drive to abolish national image - sort of how lot of communists wanted to conglomerate the Eastern half of Europe into Russia, during the 1930's.
>>1493502
FPBP
Did Nordic gods interact with humans at all?
It seems to me like they were busy with fighting giants and shit and didnt really give a fuck about the mortal realm
Odin did all the time
In Gautreks saga Odin tricks Starkad into sacrificing his king to him. In return he gives him a series of blessings, but Thor who hates him because he had Jotun ancestry gives him a series of curses to balance it out.
I´ve read that Odin was a real person, a later-deified chieftain
Thor loves humans
Odin & Loki like wandering the earth and interacting with people, mostly character testing
If the USA was teleported back to antiquity would it collapse much like Rome did due to its sheer size? Would successor states seek to emulate it? Would the nation divide between east and west and the center of power shift from D.C to some other city? Stupid question, I know, but it has been bugging me and I need to hear your guys' opinion on it.
Pic semi-related
Who the fuck knows
>>1493124
Rome wasn't divided due to size, it was divided so more emperors could take turns ruling, instead of fighting and killing each other.