Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, probably becaus etrhere are more attacks in asia than anywhere else, (maybe not). There have been many attacks in Thailand , Indonisia and the Philippines. The Chinese don’t go around telling everyone whats going on, but there is a Muslim minority there so attacks are a possibility.
It seems likely that America was poulated a few times by different populations before the arival of modern Europeans.
The common misperception is that the Great Depression was one economic event, when a series of misshaps or maybe an “economic train wreck” is a better way to describe it. There were situations that lead to the stock market cresh, and afterword the banking system did not help matters. Then the monitary policy of the Roosevelt administration was disasterous. We have not experience such an unfortunat chain of events.
I am not optimistic about our economy. There are areas that show great unprecedented resiliency, but so much our economy is now built on debt, it worries me greatly.
Thats a very interesting and unexpected take on Napoleon Donnie. I think I have to disagree about the bit about the Twentieth Century having a monopoly of murderous meglomaniacs., and I also think religion is a “system” not much different than nationalism or ideology. Look at Islam today, I would be suprised if you wouldn’t agree there are meglomaniacal sects with in this religion. Look a Ferdinand and Isabella, and all the murder they created in the name of Catholicism. It is not my area of knowledge, but were there not numerous atrocities during the Crusades?
All in all-I will have to go with Pol Pot as the worst. Not only did he murder a larger percetage than anyone, he attempted to destroy everything about Cambodian culture, the family, religion, education, any tradition you can think of, and replace it with an ideology that wore his face.
Well, Locke’s religious views had a great infuence. I don’t know what those scholar’s problem is because its obvious Locke’s views were and easy complementry influence with the founder’s non-theistic Deism.
nemisis, I don’t know much about Row I’m afraid. How does the riight to privacy enumerated in Roe get into the whole abortion thing? I mean itr seems like its murder or its not, (although I understand why thats difficult to defiine in this case). If I shoot some one I can’t say, “Hey, its none of the govts business who I shoot.” What makes the privacy issue stick to abortion?
It would have been imposible for Germany to best the British navy at the time, so they would have had to have a pretty convincing air superiority over Britain. Now we know Georing messed up the Battle of Briitain because he had an oppertunity to beat the RAF, and failed to capitalize on it. Now, in my oppinion, even if the Germans had played their cards right, they still may have lost the Battle of Britian. If they won they could have finished off England first. If not, they could have stopped at Kiev, and fostered an allience with the Ukrainians. If they didn’t go arounf killing everyone and being a bunch of hard-core Nazis, the Ukrainians might have joined them. Then they could have finished the Russians a year or two later. Of course this is pretty out-there because of the psycho nature of the Nazi regime.
I am only slightly familiar with those three neo-Whig historians, but I cannot but guess why such a historian would want to write off John Locke. I agree with anyone who thinks Locke held the prominent position of any other European influence. If they are neo-whigs, they certanly would think that an idea can lead to another, and this leads to matirial action. Hmmmm….Do you recall what uropean thinkers they DID metion as great influences?
The Cunning of History is a good one, which is the best is a tough one. Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570, by Inga Clendinnen is one, Anti-Intelecdtualism in America by Richard Hofstadler, Haiti, History, and the Gods, by Joan Dyan, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War , by James McPherson, is a great one for its primary sources, letters from soldies. There are probably more.
There were several factors that gave the Spanish advantages in their conquest of America. Among these were: 1. Steel 2. naval technology 3. at least 2 factors relating to the domestication of hoofed animals-resistance to disease and military advantages of war-horses. 4. Military tactics. 5. Blind luck.The Europeans did not enjoy an overall advantage in what could be called science. The Americans were ahead of the Europeans in mathematics, medicine, architecture and design, and astronomy. Christianity was a factor, but more as a mobilizing factor and an excuse for the Spanish. As far as the Americans were concerned, it was just one more thing to add to their pantheon of gods. It had appeared to the Spanish that the Indians had easily accepted their new religion–which they did, but in ways the Spanish did not understand. I seems Christianity was more of a force that led to misunderstanding and exclusivity rather than open communication.Steel weapons were a match for the Aztec's well made obsidian blades. It was the Spanish knowledge about navy technology that made their assault on Tenochtitlan possible. (And 10,000 Tlaxcalans). They put their cannon on small ships and blew down the walls. (Tenochtitlan was an island).The main fight with the Spanish and Aztecs was not supposed to happen at Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) , but another place outside the city. However, when the Spanish arrived with their Tlaxcaln allies, the Aztec warriors were all either dead or gravely ill from small pox. Not a single skirmish arose from what promised to be a great battle. After the Aztecs were finished, the Tlaxcalans never got the ascendancy they hoped for, because then they fell to small pox as well. This left the Spanish to run the show.
