What is the strangest thing used as official/unofficial currency in history?
Early Chinese states apparently used knives as a form of currency.
>>529565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_money
A bunch of places used cowry shells
>>529565
Some places in Africa used bottlecaps. I think some of them continue the practice today.
Are low birth rates a kiss of death to a civilisation? I don't recall any examples of them being successfully reversed.
>>529528
Only when they allow themselves to be overrun by civilizations with higher birth rates (and the cycle continues)
>>529528
Remember France after the Franco-Prussian war
After WW2 their birth rates went up
Also which civilizations died because low birthrates?
>>529721
In 60 years Japan won't exist
I'm going to drop a truth bomb on you, /his/:
The measure of any given society's civilization and success is how well they respect homosexuals and other sexual minorities. It's true.
Just think about any of the admirable civilizations in history: The ancient greeks who gave birth to Western philosophy and democracy? Accepting of gays. The mighty Roman Republic? Accepting of gays. The culture of the fearsome samurais? Accepting of gays.
During the dark ages, when homosexuals were oppressed, society regressed. When homophobic religious influence was finally driven back by the age of enlightenment, Western societies started to eclipse all others. And today, the most successful nations in the history of mankind are those which are at the same time the most accepting of gays in the history of mankind, allowing them to marry.
At critical junctures in history, it's often gay people who helped further the progress of their nation: Who transformed Prussia into an European great power? Gay old Frederick II. Who was instrumental to the American victory in the war of independence? Gay old Steuben. Who was instrumental to British victory over Nazi Germany? Gay old Turing.
People who are opposed to gay rights effectively, even if unwittingly, are participating in destroying the success of their nation, as demonstrated by history.
>>529497
Dont know if this is bait or you're just retarded but no, just no.
>>529497
Omg, anon, you're so cute. So, any objective evidence to back up your claims, or just loose "hurr, this place accepted gays so that's why they were smart!"?
All those great civilizations would see homosexual marriage as a farce, so I hope that isn't the gay right you're arguing for.
Its easy to say something is wrong or right, logical or illogical, when you're the one who determines the criteria of judgement. And besides, being biased to neutrality still means you're biased. Science is overrated..
it is a fine idol for "atheists" who desperately seek some form of an absolute to fill the void made by rejecting God
modern science fetishists are basically priests of the machine
You are retarded
sage
>>529241
There are these two guys sitting
together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says:
"Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was fifty below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'"
And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive."
The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp." - david foster wallace.
post historical figures that genuinely meant to do good but
-something backfired
-they were prevented
-random stuff happened
>inb4 Adolf Hitler 14/88 hurr durr
keep the /pol/ memes to yourself, I mean real tragic figures of history
does oda nobunaga count?
He really tried to unite the japanese mainland and end the sengoku jidai, in the most bloody way possible, and almost managed to do it, but then got assasinated and everything he build up just crumbled back into its old state
>>529128
>I mean real tragic figures of history
so... hitler?
>>529156
What does /hist/ think of the upcoming miniseries War & Peace?
>You can watch the first episode online right now is you aren't a complete speglord.
>>528818
>upcoming
Hello, America!
>>528829
Ya it hasn't been released yet bro.
>>528836
Get a UK proxy from ZenMate and watch it on BBC iPlayer.
>"thou shall not kill"
>continue to use hand sanitizer
>kill 99% of bacteria
I'm going to hell.
>Do not wear blended cloth
Polycotton t-shirt
>Eat pussy
>Violate leviticine dietary laws
>>528807
When I was kid I didn't feel shit when killing a bug but when a grow up I feel bad about killing an ant
especially hearing the crack sound when I crash them
Russians keep saying they have never been conquered.
>Except that one time Naploeon captured your capital Moscow.
>Manletpoleon
>relevant
Mongols raped Russians back to stone age, and Poles conquered their capital.
Swedes were pretty close to destroying their capital as well as Turks.
>>528697
well i guess the british conquered the united states in 1812 then
Was it autism?
I don't know because you can't know nuffin
What's an entry level work to get into his philosophy?
>>528573
You don't
Here's one for you lads.
Did he ever stand a chance of winning? Or was the South just too resource poor to win? Could he have done more to achieve European recognition.
How could he have better handled the Bragg affair?
>>528553
>Did he ever stand a chance of winning?
yeah, kinda. The south was winning up until about 1863.
But then again, as the late great Shelbey Foote said, the North was fighting the war with one arm behind its back, and if it really got desperate enough, it would have just gone all out
>>528553
>Did he (Jefferson Davis/The South) ever stand a chance of winning?
Actually yes. In the initial stages of the war, when both sides were particularly even in force standing and minus Staff Generals, The South had its greatest chance. The strategy of both sides was to effectively make this a quick war.
Even then that's only accounting for manpower. Unfortunately the Confederacy was out gunned at sea. What was the major disadvantage to the south though was it was very agrarian. Although it had sectors that were industrialized, its majority was food production as well as textiles. Where as the North not only had industrial power but also the food production abilities out of Ohio.
The South needed a quick victory because The South didn't have the ability to uphold a long running war.
If the first few battles went more into the Confederacies favor as well as an early hard pushes into Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. It may have been a hugely different story. Most of the battles even though went into confederate favor or were indecisive. The victories were not significant enough to lay claim to a stable advantage.
As >>530133 said about 1863. The South had lost the ability to fight the growing advantage of the northern industrial power and man power that the North was able to maintain.
>>530429
>leaves out that tons of Indians fought for the confederacy
I'm not sure exactly where this question belongs but how exactly do nations eliminate both high level and petty corruption (Not to say that there is no corruption in Western nations but as far as I know petty corruption is largely extinct)? It seems to me that corruption is one of the biggest problems facing developing countries so my question is, how did Western countries manage to eliminate it? To add a further element, how was it dealt with in the past, in the Roman Empire or Qin China or any major civilization or note?
Pic unrelated.
>>528508
>Pic unrelated.
>Pic unrelated
I wondered the same, so here's a non-cute bump.
What does /his/ think of Austria-Hungary's role during the First World War? Do you think they contributed to the Central Powers or not? I'm really interested in hearing your opinion on this.
They suffered a similar fuckup as Germans in the beginning, name had to suddenly redeploy divisions from Balkans to Russia.
However how they held the frontline in the Alps, consistently outnumbered against Italy is commendable.
>>528504
They did pretty badly, being wrecked in Italy as well as the Russian front. Even the Ottomans ] had more victories IIRC
They got absolutely BTFO by Serbs initially, until Potiorek got replaced and Germans stepped into the fray.
Why is Critical Theory always aligned with the Left Wing? I generally agree with it but it almost always leads me to moral relativism which in turn leads me to very Right Wing beliefs. Is there an inherent bias already in academics who use Critical Theory so that they always come to Left Wing conclusions?
To describe my thought process. Like Critical theorists, I tend to see hypocrisies in all orthodox ideologies leading me down a path of moral relativism and materialism. Basically, humans are slaves to their emotions and desires, they will seek all avenues to fulfill them and when they come in contact with opponents they will abuse reason in order to rationalize their motives or demean their opponent's. This replaces right vs wrong with us vs them in which power is the only social fact. The Right only seeks to keep their power while the Left seeks to use a conflicting narrative to destroy it, in effect replacing the old power structure with their own. I see Leftists flocking to critical theory because it gives them a opportunity to demean the normative narrative, not necessarily because it's morally "right" although I'm sure many have tricked themselves into thinking so.
Thoughts?
What happens in marxist circles stays in marxist circles, basically. Same reason current social justice has a weird comic book obsession, two discussions which take place in the same network will tend to merge into one if their contradictions aren't great enough to cause a split.
>>528491
Because you are thinking of post-structuralism, which is not Critical Theory. The french deconstructivist school leads to New Right.
>>528491
>Is there an inherent bias already in academics who use Critical Theory so that they always come to Left Wing conclusions?
No, there's an inherent bias in people who aren't critical of the Left-Right paradigm to view product of critical theory as "Left"
Why on earth do Africans follow the Abrahamic faiths? Christians and Muslims enslaved them for centuries and many used theological justifications like the Curse of Ham
>>528455
>Why on earth do Africans follow the Abrahamic faiths?
Africans were some of the first christians, m8
>>528455
Because, for one, enslavement was not something unusual in Africa even prior to the arrival of Muslims and Christians. Many of the ones that were sold into both Christian and Muslim slavery were captured by their fellow Africans, regardless of religious standings.
Secondly, when it comes to the Christians, only West Africa really saw enslavement, and most of the people in Africa today don't have that great of interest in the past slave trade outside of general Post-Colonial resentments. Most of the conversions of African people to Christianity (minus the northeast part of the continent) happened in the later 19th century colonization of the continent; long after the Atlantic slave trade ended.
>>528455
For the same reason Slavs, Turks, South Asians, and South Americans do. Integration into the gravy train that was Christian/Muslim economic and diplomatic world.
Is he right, /his/?
>Philosophy
We tried that, didn't work.
That is an unbelievably ignorant statement lol
But science is just natural philosophy.