|
Why did communism never find much success in America in general, and among Afro-Americans in particular? A bastardized version of Islam being more popular just strikes me as... odd.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Why did communism never find much success in America in general, and among Afro-Americans in particular? A bastardized version of Islam being more popular just strikes me as... odd. Um, dude, have you ever heard of an organization called the Black Panthers? Fish of hemp posted:Why there wasn't prosthetics in the Soviet Union? Prosthetics have been around since forever, so of course there were prosthetics in the Soviet Union. They probably weren't as good as what you could get in the west, but it's not like people would suddenly forget the concept of artificial limbs en masse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Um, dude, have you ever heard of an organization called the Black Panthers? I mean, looking at that picture with a legless veteran on a rolling board, it's just possible that there just wasn't that much of a support system to provide veterans with prosthetics and things like that. Don't really know if you can get a proper replacement for having lost like the entirety of both your legs which seems to be the case on this picture anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Um, dude, have you ever heard of an organization called the Black Panthers? The violence of the black panthers ended up alienating even the African-American community in the US Huey Newton ended up becoming a crack addict who literally shot people for little/no reason, and carried out vicious stalinesque purges within the party against Edrige Cleaver's faction. It was very typical of 1960-70s far left revolutionary movements actually. Typo fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:https://twitter.com/HistoryInPix/status/830820518160896002 I'm not sure you can do a very good prosthetic half-your-body especially not in the 1980's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:The violence of the black panthers ended up alienating even the African-American community in the US Of course, the FBI had nothing to do with said alienation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Why did communism never find much success in America in general, and among Afro-Americans in particular? A bastardized version of Islam being more popular just strikes me as... odd. It was pretty big for a while after the Russian Revolution but the Comintern basically dropped the ball. Given the choice between being whitesplained or full throated Black Pride, it's not hard to see why people opted for Black Pride. Maoism provided a more appropriate framework for black liberation and had a major resurgence in the '70s but the ground game of NoI was already really well established. Plus, American propaganda didn't publicize Communist movements in the African American community.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Of course, the FBI had nothing to do with said alienation. The FBI played a major part in their demise yes, but then you had poo poo like when they raped and murdered an accountant for noticing massive discrepancies in their bookkeeping, or when Huey Newton shot a prostitute for nothing related to politics. The FBI didn't mind control them to do poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Scandanavia is absolutely awash in ancient Roman goods and coins, which is evidence of some sort of constant commercial, and possibly cultural, and possibly political interaction. The Amber Road is a link between the Baltic and Mediterranean worlds that goes back to prehistory. Don't forget the strong bonds between Scandanavia and the later Romans either, forged in service to the Emperor in Miklagard. A lot of this presumably came courtesy of the Varangians. Basically, they were Eastern Vikings. They interacted heavily with the Byzantine Empire, facilitated a lot of trade, stabbed them, stabbed for them, and got stabbed by them. Raiding was less of a component for Vikings in that part of the world because raiding wasn't as lucrative along the Eastern European rivers. They did do it sometimes though: I am particularly amused by the description of a drawing on that page: quote:Another illumination of a scene from the Skylitzes Chronicle, depicting a Thracesian woman killing a Varangian who tried to rape her, whereupon his comrades praised her and gave her his possessions.  In Varangian Russia, you pillage Viking!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Why did communism never find much success in America in general, and among Afro-Americans in particular? A bastardized version of Islam being more popular just strikes me as... odd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:*Sherman was as good at metaphorical burns as he was at literal ones. He also basically provided the perfect tl;dr version of the Civil War right there. Then went on to implement much of it himself. On a more ominous note, there is this gem: "My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:He also basically provided the perfect tl;dr version of the Civil War right there. Oh yeah, that's the good poo poo. The letter to the city fathers of Atlanta is pretty hot stuff too. "You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Something I think that's mistakenly attributed to Sherman is the idea that he was a forefather of World War II's "total war" and even strategic bombing. He said a lot of poo poo that sounded hardcore, and destroying property is Not Nice and everything, but it's not in the same universe as firebombing cities or ethnic cleansing or whatever. He made a point to destroy shitloads of property and war material and infrastructure, yeah - but it was after the other side ran away. To draw a moral equivalence to strategic terror bombing he would have had to, for instance, burn Atlanta on purpose while keeping everyone in it so they could die. Sherman was not a nice guy by modern standards (he was real racist, for one thing), and also possibly just kind of nuts in general, but the idea that his March to the Sea was some kind of crime against humanity was a fabrication of the Lost Cause fuckbags. Oh no, your plantation was burned down and your slaves ran off and your railroad track was torn up because Sherman came to town, boo loving hoo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:
I remember a vietnam vet like that when I was in elementary school, except with only one arm and a hook. He scared the poo poo out of me and my entire class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Sherman was not a nice guy by modern standards (he was real racist, for one thing), and also possibly just kind of nuts in general, but the idea that his March to the Sea was some kind of crime against humanity was a fabrication of the Lost Cause fuckbags. Oh no, your plantation was burned down and your slaves ran off and your railroad track was torn up because Sherman came to town, boo loving hoo. There also continues to be a significant amount of falsification and mythmaking in the South about just how horrible Sherman was and how much damage he caused. You get people today claiming their family lost everything they owned to his march while living hundreds of miles from anywhere his army ever went.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
are there any good books out there about the Mediterranean theater of World War II? it's one of those things they never talk about in history textbooks and I like to read about war from time to time
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Is there a direct correlation between how difficult bright colors are to obtain, and the garishness of upper-class clothing, or are things a bit more complex than that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Depends on what time period you are talking about. Here is an article that mostly focuses on post-natural dyes, but it touches on natural dyes somewhat as well. https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2008/marchapril/feature/the-color-fashion There is a more complex interplay though. For example, it was trivial (albeit somewhat labor intensive) for the Chinese to make yellow dye but Imperial Yellow was very much a thing. Hell, the whole color system in China seems fairly distinct from the difficulty in obtaining/producing it. https://cpianalysis.org/2015/07/22/imperial-yellow-a-costume-colour-at-the-top-of-the-social-hierarchy/
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
With the possible exception of Alexander, was there any single person before Genghis Khan who looked at the world at large and decided to conquer, like, all of it? Do we have any feasible theories that would explain how / why he decided to just keep conquering for as long as there was conquering to be had?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:With the possible exception of Alexander, was there any single person before Genghis Khan who looked at the world at large and decided to conquer, like, all of it? Do we have any feasible theories that would explain how / why he decided to just keep conquering for as long as there was conquering to be had? Hideyoshi wanted this cuz he wanted to conquer Korea then China and India or something but he never made it past Korea
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:With the possible exception of Alexander, was there any single person before Genghis Khan who looked at the world at large and decided to conquer, like, all of it? Do we have any feasible theories that would explain how / why he decided to just keep conquering for as long as there was conquering to be had? Cyrus II. Phillip II who's army and plans Alexander inherited in the first place. e: Honestly Phillip is a way cooler historical figure than Alexander in most respects. "Phillip the Barbarian dances on your graves ATHENIANS!" Schizotek fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Cyrus II. Phillip II who's army and plans Alexander inherited in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? I was under the impression that Cyrus 2 just expanded the Persian empire (a fair bit, but not to world-conquering degree) and Phillip's plans were basically limited to taking over that same empire. There was no Persian empire until Cyrus II.  They were tributaries of the Medes, who honestly are given a pretty generous interpretation of their holdings in the east in this map. And for all intents and purposes the Achaemanids ruled the known world. (They would eventually learn about China and the Indian kingdoms, but one of the Achaemanid royal titles translated to "Ruler of the Universe".) Schizotek fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Can someone explain dialectical materialism in laymens terms, for an idiot audience (me) that has never taken a political science or philosophy class before? Specifically interested in what it has to do with the study of natural sciences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:There was no Persian empire until Cyrus II. It was like this vast civilized universe that had arisen from prehistory, seen empires rise and fall, great cities be built and destroyed, a thousand narratives were unified in this one huge state for the first time ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? I was under the impression that Cyrus 2 just expanded the Persian empire (a fair bit, but not to world-conquering degree) and Phillip's plans were basically limited to taking over that same empire. You're probably thinking of the first Darius. Cyrus was as others have said. Phillip definitely did not plan to conquer the entire Persian Empire, his ambitions were likely limited to breaking Persian control over the Western Mediterranean and establishing Macedonian control in various measures over those areas. Phillip, and the older Macedonians, likely would have accepted Darius's surrender following the battle of Issus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:You're probably thinking of the first Darius. Cyrus was as others have said. But then what would Steve Harris have used to bookend 1986's Somewhere in Time?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:You're probably thinking of the first Darius. Cyrus was as others have said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
SHOAH NUFF posted:Can someone explain dialectical materialism in laymens terms, for an idiot audience (me) that has never taken a political science or philosophy class before? Hegel believed that the history of the world was the history of ideas. There is a thesis, which necessarily creates its antithesis (anti thesis -- we see the world "antithesis" a lot but we rarely break it down so sometimes it ends up losing its meaning. Like "antioxidant") which resulted in a synthesis (syn thesis, again). This synthesis then became the new ideological thesis which . . . You've seen this concept before represented graphically.  The notion of the "dialectic" is old, that is just the thesis-antithesis-synthesis part of the framework. When Marx put Hegel on his head, he was putting material conditions first. So rather than ideas, it was material condition which drove history. A common example is Spartacus -- this is also why basically every elementary school in the Eastern Block was named "Spartacus <whatever>". Slavery (thesis) creates its opposition/antithesis, a slave revolt. The synthesis came in the form of Marcus Licinius Crassus. Crassus came from a disgraced aristocratic lineage. But people from proper backgrounds had failed to bring Spartacus down so Crassus was able to gain prestige based on skill and not blood. That represented a major shift in the thinking of the Roman Republic, which directly led to it becoming the Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 03:02
|
|