>>811675
Do it yourself you leech
muh smokes
Should we start a /his/ mailing list?
>>811612
AYY GUYS MATT EASTON HERE SCHOLA GLADIATORIA
>>811612
Don't you see enough dicks a day?
Yeah, there are some smart people here. We could develop a school of thought.
Is it any good?
What are the common criticisms of his thesis?
Are there any books or articles that address his argument?
What alternative arguments and authors would be ideal to read alongside/instead?
>asking for a review of Guns, Germs and Steel on /his/
>>811382
>not responding to the OP in a constructive fashion
>>811378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ny338t8pts&t=1392
What countries have the most boring history?
Cyprus.
Canada
>fuck all
>1812 enjoy your toasty white house
>fuck all
There's nothing boring about Irish history
Even when there isn't any war going on in Ireland itself it's fun to read about all the trouble Irish bishops got into on the continent, the rascals
Some people are saying this might be a new sokal hoax. What does /his/ think?
http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.full
>Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
>Glaciers are icons of global climate change, with common representations stripping them of social and cultural contexts to portray ice as simplified climate change yardsticks and thermometers
>A critical but overlooked aspect of the human dimensions of glaciers and global change research is the relationship between gender and glaciers. While there has been relatively little research on gender and global environmental change in general (Moosa and Tuana, 2014; Arora-Jonsson, 2011), there is even less from a feminist perspective that focuses on gender (understood here not as a male/female binary, but as a range of personal and social possibilities) and also on power, justice, inequality, and knowledge production in the context of ice, glacier change, and glaciology (exceptions are Bloom et al., 2008; Williams and Golovnev, 2015; Hevly, 1996; Hulbe et al., 2010; Cruikshank, 2005).
>>811185
This was published in a peer reviewed journal by the way, unlike the case in the sokal incident. So obviously this is a bit more important. Didn't have character space to put this in the OP.
>Tyndall, on the other hand, argued that glaciers moved more like a solid substance flowing over bedrock. He eventually triumphed in this debate, contends Hevly (1996), because Tyndall mobilized his greater fame as a mountaineer – having achieved many pioneering first ascents – and deployed a rhetoric of manly risk and exertion. There was what Hevly calls a ‘culture of field science’ in the 19th century that favored ‘authentic, rigorous, manly experience’, and scientists – let alone women – who did not explicitly demonstrate that their glaciological conclusions stemmed from heroic, manly adventures struggled to make their scientific claims credible. Glaciology was for muscular gentlemen scientists. Women could read about glaciers in the Alps, but they were not fit for glaciological research, field science, or even alpine tourism. And men like Forbes who lacked the manly heroism of risk-taking mountaineers lost scientific credibility that hinged on masculinism.
>>811185
>the relationship between gender and glaciers
"""""""""""humanities""""""""""""
Are there any historical examples of civilisations getting destroyed by its own policies and cultural change, instead of conquest? Is this phenomenon unique to the modern era?
;^)
>>810809
Cultural change always played a role in the downfall of large empires. An empire is based on conquest and growth. As soon as it has no more lands to conquer, it stops growing and a recession begins, socially on the inside as well as politically on the outside. This happened with the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans and all the modern colonial Empires as well.
But you're just aiming at the current refugee crisis anyway, aren't you
>>810809
All the conspiracy theories and disinformation aside, what is the goal of freemasonry? What is it about?
I checked some mason websites, and they often have a FAQ, where they state that they're not a fraternity, and that if you're looking fraternity, you should go elsewhere.
This puzzled by - what exactly is it about, then?
literally a cult for pretentious elitists
>>810573
Made a type, meant "me", not "by"
>>810573
I like how they skip everything between biblical times and the 18th century.
Is Hawaii considered American colonization?
>>810435
America is considered American colonization
>>810435
America doesn't colonize, it liberates.
>>810435
Er, it's not like they had a real choice about the matter.
Redpill me on Hamilton. Worth being put on the $10?
>>810386
>redpill me
First of all, fuck off. Second of all, who really gives a shit who is put on fiat currency? If you're going to start caring, campaign for Jackson to be taken off since it's an insult to the man.
>>810386
Worth putting on every bill.
>>810405
>insulting Andrew Jackson
But thats a good thing
Are there any history at all Anarchism is successful?
>>810332
>all scientific and artistic achievements made by people living under a state can be credited to the existence of the state
>all the best examples of idea X vs. all the worst examples of idea Y prove that X is better than Y
>>810356
Where are you getting that premise from?
So... what the fuck was Wittgenstein's point anyways?
>>810088
Philosophy is a disease yo
>>810136
Then what's the cure
>>810141
Philosophy.
Hey [s]/pol/[/s] /his/,
how backwards do you think Europe would have been by 1900, if it hadn't discovered the New World in 1492? When you think about it, Spanish aside, it took 100 years for them to even get into a good momentum of colonizing it anyways.
So in this alternate history they don't discover it in 1492, because either the reconquista ends, or Christopher Columbus misses the continent and comes back empty handed, or he dies, etc. Something happens.
Maybe they discover the New World, but much later, by at least 200 or 300 years, and then you have that same, or a similar delay for people getting into the whole colonization business. Not to mention attitudes towards colonization might be entirely different after another 200 or 300 years.
Also keep in mind that the renaissance and enlightenment eras were partially fuelled by the discoveries of the new world. We're talking Europe without the integral crop of potatoes. A Europe sans mass-produced, cheap sugar. Inaccessible coffee due to no cheap plantation coffee. No tobacco. Somewhat more expensive imported cotton from India. The European economy would lack the mountains of South/Meso America gold and silver that funded Spain and others. No cassava (terribly important in other old world colonies), no maize.
What do you think it would be like?
they would be muslims way quick bro
overrun
v
e
r
r
u
n
There's no way to push the discovery that far. Fishermen and whalers were already getting closer and closer to Labrador and Newfoundland, and the Portuguese independently discovered the eastern tip of Brazil just a few decades after Columbus while they were sailing around Africa and got blown off course.
>>810051
>Also keep in mind that the renaissance and enlightenment eras were partially fuelled by the discoveries of the new world
[Citation needed]
is there any proof or good source that this guy was a mass-murdering psychopath? literally all i can ever find is stuff written by extreme right-wing Cuban exiles, so of course they're not gonna like Fidel
He sure did put people in jail and still does but no mass murders, altought there were summary executions right after the revolution (happens in every revolution everywhere)
It depends on your definition of "mass-murdering psychopath".
Do you consider Pinochet a "mass-murdering psychopath"? Because he killed way less people than Castro, for example.
I, for one, do not consider him to be one, even though I'm critical of him. I actually think that his worst legacy has been his support of African dictators who were actually mass-murdering psychopaths, such as Francisco Macias Ngema and Mengistu Haile Mariam but not even right-wing Cubans remember that. Who cares about Africans, right? They're not even niggers.
>>809921
No, it's 100% all prop for mindless Americans.
What did Nazi racial eugenics include in the master race? Was Aryan just a propagated term for Northern and Western Europeans?
Were say, the Irish and Scots part of the master race? What of the French and Baltics? I know Hitler really liked England and the English, being admirable of their empire and considering them to be staunch Germanic folk. This makes me curious about their other islander neighbours though, especially since I know already that Hitler found the Italians and Spanish to be annoying and useless (can't disagree with him there).
Obviously it's all batshit pseudo-science with no legitimate biological science behind it, but I'm curious.
This map giving the British Isles Mediterranean background is pretty off tbqh. It would obviously and certainly be the green there instead. Ancient Mediterranean traces in the isles are minuscule.
With today's factual DNA science I think I saw that the Irish were closer to Norwegians than they were to Iberians, so that says a lot (partially probably from Spaniards and Moortugal getting enriched by the Muzzies for generations).
>>809838
The nazi propaganda was 100% phenotype based, and the more celtic parts of Britain can make southern Italy and Spain look scandi by comparison, so not really surprising.
There was no master race, they just thought Germans were the best.
Why Germans suck at war? They lost almost every major conflict in the past 200 years.
pic unrelated
Thread would have been less bait if you went for 100 rather than 200 years
>>809706
Apart from the Napoleonic Wars, they did pretty good, but, of course, Napoleon BTFO'd all the major countries in Europe other than Britain for a long-ass time. He was just something else.
>>809706
They went up against impossible odds and did quite well considering their circumstances both times