420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Could this be proof that Leviathan existed? by Martin Sockleham - Sun, 01 Mar 2015 12:29:56 EST ID:2qY1Cluk No.54830 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1425230996150.png -(1748125B / 1.67MB, 1578x831) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1748125
Well, according to a new video that was released on YouTube a while back, a full skeletal remain of Leviathan was found via Google maps in a land-locked area in Saudi Arabia that is currently unexplored near Jabal Al Lawz (Mt. Sinai) in the wilderness. The coordinates for it goes as follows (and go to google maps and paste this in) 28.5634N, 35.2808E.

The things that bible got right is so accurate that it's kinda creepy and even as an atheist I cannot deny what it actually said about this monster dragon-like thing. The bible said that it was massive (the google map serpent was estimated to be 1,900 feet long and a football field at head-length) and it also said that it was to be found near Mt. Sinai in the wilderness in where the children of Israel roamed. What do you guys think?

And the craziest thing about it is, is that at the head of it, you'll see that it has a T-Rex like mouth and head/face structure if you look close enough. It's pretty freaky. (and btw, I added a photo just in case if you're too lazy to look it up yourself).
12 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Polly Commerwodge - Fri, 06 Mar 2015 02:23:00 EST ID:Jo+wq3h+ No.54876 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1425626580111.jpg -(44078B / 43.04KB, 517x578) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>You never actually looked at the source of the 616 idea did you? Little hint: It`s pretty obvious that 666 is what it said.

Both numbers are attested too in multiple variants of the text, but 616 is indisputably the "original"; 666 was a modification probably meant to make it thematically closer to Jesus' 888.

See this? Get fucked.
William Fengerstotch - Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:51:36 EST ID:ghL0on2d No.54881 Ignore Report Quick Reply

It`s not indisputably but I admit I was basing my knowledge without that discovery in mind. However, a 2nd century scholar, that lived before that manuscript, affirmed that it was 666.

Basically, I`ll admit it may be 616 but I definitely won`t go as far to say it IS 616.

My apologies for the extreme doubt.
Alice Bardforth - Sat, 07 Mar 2015 04:16:06 EST ID:FqRGTRMQ No.54884 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Of course some 2nd century church father would affirm it was 666. Nero was already dead. They were composing the Bible out of a dozen of Biblebooks all with different messages. And they wanted to create a Biblebook with one clear doctrine to keep the people together.

Just change 616 to 666, and pretend that the Number of the Beast refers to a future event instead of something that already happened.
Eugene Hollyhood - Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:24:17 EST ID:QTlnuNRf No.54886 Ignore Report Quick Reply

But most scholars agree that Revelations itself was written 30 years AFTER Nero`s death.
Lillian Dadgehood - Sun, 08 Mar 2015 17:34:53 EST ID:xxrdlezD No.54892 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1425850493445.jpg -(54490B / 53.21KB, 640x427) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Believing anything ancient humans wanted other ancient humans to believe

docos by Faggy Pickdale - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 01:45:08 EST ID:hz/7Y50i No.54491 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1418712308399.jpg -(11864B / 11.59KB, 219x230) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11864
Can you guys recommend me any history documentaries? Any topic, just as long as its good.
Obviously books are way better, but I want something to watch while stoned and I struggle to read when I'm baked.
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Trotfoot - Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:48:56 EST ID:WO0qELX5 No.54819 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Watch anything by Adam Curtis, his latest, Bitter Lake, is about the postwar history of Afghanistan. But they're all brilliant (mostly focusing on rise of Thacherism and its consequences)

Here is one about the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero, filmed right after they were booted out
(Find The Missing Picture if you are interested in this, brilliant film)

Here is a great one about the history of modern warfare (circa the 80s):
Phoebe Fenderwell - Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:53:07 EST ID:28lwhIxG No.54822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You reminded me that I haven't watched The Killing Fields in a hot minute
Walter Blaffingtudging - Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:41:47 EST ID:fcz8yKyC No.54825 Ignore Report Quick Reply

'bout old testament history and how the evidence stacks up
Phyllis Sablingbitch - Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:19:41 EST ID:WO0qELX5 No.54832 Ignore Report Quick Reply

It has been years since I've seen that as well, I wonder how it stands up. I should download it instead of allegedly studying.
Cornelius Boblingbire - Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:11:09 EST ID:MmADfetu No.55938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not sure if you're into art history at all but Robert Hughes's Shock of the New is an interesting introduction to some of the major themes of the 20th century and it's free on Ubuweb.


nb for slightly off-topic

Historical Perspective by Rebecca Bruddlefield - Sun, 11 Jan 2015 09:46:27 EST ID:i3v/xUzP No.54594 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1420987587898.gif -(1683805B / 1.61MB, 640x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1683805
Do you think that the world has been increasing in complexity historically, or just that we tend to see more complexity in recent history than in older times?
Is culture changing faster today than it did historically? I mean, today we can often discern between something being culturally of the 1980s and culturally of the 1990s. Do you think people in the 1450s could do the same of their own culture in 1430 and 1440? Or was history more monotone, culturally, and has been increasing in rate of change and complexity?
Whitey Drecklebanks - Mon, 12 Jan 2015 01:36:00 EST ID:YIeqrGhq No.54602 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1421044560669.jpg -(17349B / 16.94KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
A) We're closer to the recent past, so we understand it better and it seems to change more.
B) Culture and the times simply moved slower in the 15th century (for example) because ideas traveled slower.

You can see how something like the proliferation of the printing press led to the Protestant Reformation, as people were able to print their own bibles which undermined the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. Or something like the telegraph allowed for more colonial penetration into Africa in the 19th century. Or the radio allowing Presidents and Dictators to speak directly to their public in the 1930s. Or television in the 1960s to bring the horrors of Vietnam directly into our living rooms and cause a mass protest movement. And so on with the Internet, then with cell phones, now with smartphones.

Ideas exist like genes (actually this is where the term 'meme' comes from). They evolve and change over time as they are passed from one mind to another. The faster this happens, the faster the ideas evolve. That's why something like 4skin's /b/ was such a great incubator for incubator for internet memes in the mid 2000s. It moved so fast and so swiftly that if an idea wasn't strong enough it was dead before it even got started. But if it was a good idea, it morphed 100s of times and almost took on a life of its own, even escaping the primordial soup out into the real world.
Lillian Gopperbuck - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:40:52 EST ID:xC0G0X3F No.54711 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd say yes, because of communication.
Just look at the past, we had some really incredible technological advancements but they pretty much disappeared for hundreds of years because they didn't have the means of printing and distributing nor the same cultural ideas regarding the spreading of knowledge.
Fanny Dremmerkark - Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:40:07 EST ID:DCtNjPsq No.54717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Shut the fuck up
Phoebe Dracklehodge - Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:36:09 EST ID:cOGCFmRG No.54784 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1424460969898.jpg -(10931B / 10.67KB, 210x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>only the strongest memes survive

Historical coincidences by Betsy Fanhall - Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:19:31 EST ID:19oTHlaT No.54628 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1421338771939.jpg -(56139B / 54.82KB, 587x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56139
The great fire of london happened in 1666.
666 is the mark of the devil, hell is thought to have been fiery.

ITT coincidences.
11 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shit Bindlekork - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:20:49 EST ID:/CSHkTZB No.54732 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>9 divided by 11 is roughly .8
>8 rhymes with marinate
>you marinate chicken
>chickens lay eggs
>eggs rhyme with legs
>Bush had two legs
>ergo, Bush did 9/11
Caroline Grandbanks - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 01:14:24 EST ID:YIeqrGhq No.54733 Ignore Report Quick Reply
JFK was the first person in human history to commit adultery.
Simon Duckdale - Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:04:43 EST ID:xC0G0X3F No.54761 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls were shot by the FBI

>Shak sounds like shack
>A shack is a small building
>Ur was the cradle of Mesopotamian civilization
>Tupac was a reptilian halfbreed trying to rebuild an ancient empire

>Biggie Smalls' -a.k.a Notorious B.I.G- real name was Christopher
>The syllable "Ph" is often replaced with one or two "f"'s in other languages.
>Biggie Smalls was the third incarnation of Christ

>I sounds like Eye
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fanny Seshstock - Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:51:13 EST ID:cNY7yDR1 No.54782 Ignore Report Quick Reply
When I see posts like this, which are obviously satirical
It makes me sad that there is someone out there, actually, probably thousands of people out there that would take that completely seriously and it would blow their minds and they would tell all their friends
At least 60% of these thousands of people would be over the age of 15..the saddest part
Nigel Clillerspear - Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:33:11 EST ID:6nKr2p8x No.54783 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>De Gaulle means "The Gaul".
That would be "La Gaulle" de is more like some from or about

Maximum territorial extent of U.S. by Hannah Simbletack - Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:54 EST ID:e3Ikf3ZP No.51826 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1390521834547.gif -(758667B / 740.89KB, 670x750) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 758667
Does anyone have a map showing the maximum extent of all the territory ever controlled by the U.S.? This would include all the island territories, the disputed parts of Maine/New Brunswick before the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, that strip of land in the Milk River basin that was controlled by the US before the Treaty of 1818, and anything else you can think of that we governed at one time or another.

Pic related; I'd like to see a map similar to that except showing the furthest extent of U.S. territory all at once, and including all the outlying islands every controlled by the U.S.

First time posting on /his/ if you can't tell.
Charles Battingsat - Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:28:57 EST ID:Ujr8Ah7q No.51827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You mean, not a historically accurate map? Something that would show the phillipines AND those canadian territories? That would be tough to make. Would you include Japan, western germany and Iraq?

If you just mean places officially declared US territories by congress or treaty or whatever, then isn't it just the current territory plus some pacific islands and bits of canada?

You might need to make it yourself. We could help coming up with a list of the places controlled.
Hannah Simbletack - Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:02:56 EST ID:e3Ikf3ZP No.51830 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, I don't want a historically accurate map. I probably wouldn't include Japan, West Germany, or Iraq because those were more like military occupations if I know my history correctly. Maybe I don't.

>isn't it just the current territory plus some pacific islands and bits of canada?
Pretty much, yeah. It's just that I haven't seen a map with all of these places that were fringe territories at some time or another, so if I made the map myself I'd probably have to draw the borders from scratch for the sections around the Canada.

I'll try and come up with a list, might take a while though because I'm feeling lazy at the moment.
Whitey Caddlekitch - Fri, 24 Jan 2014 02:41:11 EST ID:CpwErnyH No.51834 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You know you could always just make it yourself. Post it on a blog, get ten bucks you didn't have yesterday.

Popculture History v. Actual History: Why? by James Blackway - Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:04:51 EST ID:QZwuqd4E No.54292 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1415919891137.jpg -(4645B / 4.54KB, 261x195) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 4645
It seems that there is a huge rift between myth and fact when it comes to history and certain characters from history. I'm not sure how much this is an American thing heavily influenced by ideology, but it certainly exists.

Columbus is a good example of this.. an example that's ever changing, but what is with the image of Columbus as a humble explorer and nothing more, when we know this to be false?

Why is Robespierre depicted as a tyrannical monster when this narrative is accepted by most authorities on the revolution as a Thermidorian invention?

Why Is Napoleon as well viewed as a tyrannical brute, when he brought the world out of the dark ages of feudalism and into modernity?

There are just the classic examples of this phenomenon. Let's hear about the popular historical revisionism that bothers you the most.
35 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Caroline Bodgeford - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 10:33:32 EST ID:NAR5czOU No.54740 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The origin's of latin words in English takes place later than you would assume. We're talking Renaissance period here. Most leading intellectuals would have used Latin as their favored written form, as it was the accepted medium of international literature. They threw in latin loan words because they knew their audience would understand them. Prior to this, the only latin speakers were church men, with no desire to subvert the language, and the saxon speakers were largely illiterate.

Latin was lost and then found again.
Ebenezer Sucklemodge - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 11:16:47 EST ID:+qUk3wY9 No.54741 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Average American seriously thinks that English is a descendant of Latin

Actually the average American doesn't bother to consider where his language came from. Of the "average Americans" that do, it's commonly thought that English is a blend of old German and French, with a heavier leaning towards the German side. It's also accepted that English is a bit of a "bastard" or "vulture" language that scavenges useful words from virtually every language it comes across and slaps it together into the ever-evolving patchwork, and having few "genuine" words of its own.
Basil Hezzleforth - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:57:49 EST ID:+6al4/wL No.54742 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>he brought the world out of the dark ages of feudalism and into modernity

this i think is one of the problems... the dark ages myth, the myths of noble barbarians, the enlightenment myths...

reality is way more complicated and often times our perspective on history is the product of political agendas
Columbus is a great example... he was an abusive asshole so ruthless Spain had investigations into his character and how he ran his estate. yet he is taught in our public schools to be a brave, dashing adventurer.

Dark Ages myth, another great example... the medieval european world was not a period of dark ignorance dominated by the clergy. In fact it was no more enlightened than the preceding or following ages

The treatment of historical characters... another good example. Ghandi, for instance, was a pedophilic racist... but his character is sanctified nowadays.

Reality is more complex than public perception thinks
Hannah Hesslewill - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:21:56 EST ID:L1PKQH11 No.54747 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>hurrdurr sun neva sets
I believe that was said about Carl V's empire, not the english one.
Chemicaltoilet !xi8/JKFwzo - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 22:51:55 EST ID:cvvJxnzw No.54748 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's called perspective.

Post-Roman Italy and the Papal States. by Barnaby Wenkindock - Sun, 02 Feb 2014 22:45:37 EST ID:JbH14PO/ No.51896 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1391399137695.jpg -(34382B / 33.58KB, 319x304) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 34382
Hello. I have never been to this board before.

I would like to know more about Italy after the "fall" of Rome, from the medieval period and empowerment of the Church up until unification in the 1900s, but especially during medieval/renaissance eras. I have been reading books and watching documentaries about Byzantium and the HRE lately and I would like to know more about Italy itself. A youtube search for "papal states documentary" gives no results other than let's play videos and some islamophobe-trolls. Anything would be good, from book recommendations, audio/video lectures, online articles. I'm just interested.
SakeCult - Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:07:05 EST ID:fX7YeqMh No.51898 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I suggest watching the Borgia tv show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgia_%28TV_series%29

Not the most historically accurate but pretty interesting and provides some insightful characterizations. With a few grains of salt it's worth it.

>Risorgimento, A Short History of Italian Unification
The most necessary book on the unification of Italy.

>History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium
Might have some information you're looking for. Good reviews.
John Bipperkock - Tue, 18 Feb 2014 01:12:03 EST ID:Lqrrk4aI No.51958 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd suggest taking a look at the histories of the major cities/city-states. Italy was a largely fragmented area until the late 19th century, and arguably still is, its best to study it as a fragment. I'd suggest starting with Venice since it has a fairly large pool with a couple definitive histories, spans the time period you're interested in completely (starts at the fall of Rome, essentially ends at Napoleon), and would be a good transition from Byzantium to Italy.
John Julius Norwich's "Venice" is one of the definitive general histories, and I 'd also suggest Thomas Madden's "Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice," for a good view into the complexity of Italian civil politics and the development of Italian statecraft.

After that I'd suggest looking into the other two Maritime Republics of the Middle Ages, Genoa and Pisa, then the Republics of Siena and Florence, and finally, the Duchy of Milan. These form the primary core of Northern/Central Medieval Italy. From that core you'll be able to trace out the path of Italian history you'd prefer best, following the interactions between states and hopefully following the sources left by whatever general histories you find.
Hannah Hesslewill - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:18:24 EST ID:L1PKQH11 No.54746 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As an italian, I agree.
Studying the history of all the single city/states is fundamental, as they're all separate.
>essentially ends at Napoleon
Is wrong, "napoleon" ended in 1815, Italy was unified in the 1860s.
About 1815-1860 I suggest you read about the Restauration/congress of vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe) and Metternich in particular, calling Italy "a useless geographic expression" (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/quotations/metternich_quotations.html), and (subsequently)
the "carbonari"'s secret society called "carboneria", the 1820-21 revolutions "moti del '20-'21" and finally the revolution of 1848, which has become proverbial (and still is): "doing a '48", "fare un '48" means bringing chaos, making a situation chaotic.
You should also read a book called "I Promessi Sposi" by Alessandro Manzoni, written in the 19th (mid to late 1800) century but set in the 17th (early 1600). It's kind of our national Novel ("the great Italian Novel") and everyone has to read this in High School.
It's historical, and although not a history book, it'll tell you a lot about the 17th century, issues of the time and how people behaved. It also talks about many historical events as experienced by the characters. It even helped define the italian language.

Why the USSR and not PRC? by William Fellydock - Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:19:13 EST ID:lM6Y0Zzj No.54596 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1421007553320.jpg -(143987B / 140.61KB, 580x418) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 143987
I always wondered why "authoritarianism" failed in Russia aka Soviet Union while it still lasts in China. What does /his/ think about this matter?
22 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nicholas Cavingpuck - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:04:15 EST ID:M5aTnjaI No.54707 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Simple, it's a matter of culture. The Chinese have a long history of being oppressed by tyrants and bureaucracy, and not much experience in the way of free will. Even the majority of their religions historically had a lot of this built into them by the government.

Russia, they're crazy.
Archie Drushspear - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:43:08 EST ID:NAR5czOU No.54709 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>It also cut small-businesses out of the loop, a place where you could sell a $20 item and pay your workers enough to buy a $20 item. It's not profitable for the small business to sell the $5 China version, but it IS profitable for a big chain store that buys in bulk and pays its workers minimum wages to do so.

But that process was happening already. The situation is a race to the bottom. When no further innovation can occur in a business model, it starts to shed costs and drop prices to the margin. China simply saw the game being played, and found enormous success. Chinese businessmen overcame huge knowledge gaps; in the 90s they were getting scammed left and right by shady American corps. But they learned and got their shit together.

Believe your far right/left mouthpieces who want to conjure up a foreign specter to menace your wallets and distract from the real crooks in the game. Quit bitching over China making shit instead of Mexico, who are being out competed even with NAFTA. But the US couldn't even compete with Mexico! Domestic US production was already out the door.
Lillian Pittham - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:12:43 EST ID:YIeqrGhq No.54719 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1423080763978.jpg -(89322B / 87.23KB, 640x390) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The only reason it works that way is because the primary goal of a business is to turn a profit. It's NOT to manufacture whatever they manufacture, that is simply the means by which they earn their profit.

My beef is not with China at all. I don't place one modicum of blame for this problem on them. They are simply taking advantage of the oh-so-generous business arrangements with American and other foreign corporations who do business on their shores. I'm happy that China has found wealth, I'm happy that millions of Chinese are entering the middle class. I'm happy that it's beneficial for Chinamen to leave their countryside farms and find work in the city.

My beef is with the American businessman who is seeking profit overseas at the expense of the domestic worker. Who have rigged the system in their favor and denied the same opportunities for American workers to leave their rural homes and come to the city to find work.

>Russia, they're crazy.
No truer words have been posted on /his/ than this.
Nicholas Feshworth - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 07:01:33 EST ID:aAev/zmp No.54730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Simple, it's a matter of culture. The Chinese have a long history of being oppressed by tyrants and bureaucracy, and not much experience in the way of free will. Even the majority of their religions historically had a lot of this built into them by the government.
That's such a fucktarded bullshit piece of racist drivel.

>Russia, they're crazy.
True though
Cyril Clombleforth - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:07:58 EST ID:1UGdi4ZY No.54752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I always thought it was because of Tianxia

Marijuana in history by Alice Bivingwill - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 23:42:55 EST ID:c+twmGuR No.54397 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1417322575011.jpg -(153870B / 150.26KB, 750x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 153870
so, what do we know about marijuana use through out history? what is worth knowing?
17 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
George Duckforth - Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:03:25 EST ID:DHCiatMN No.54505 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Apparently it was primarily eaten in the concentrated form of hashish up until perhaps the 14th century or later,
>For some reason it never really took off as a drug in Europe
It came close in the mid 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_des_Hashischins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hasheesh_Eater
Shitting Pickstone - Sat, 03 Jan 2015 13:27:07 EST ID:rUIqdULH No.54587 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>how do you know i'm making this up?
because everything you said is fucking wrong.
Doris Sadgelock - Mon, 05 Jan 2015 08:31:21 EST ID:DdQxaJv2 No.54588 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>For some reason it never really took off as a drug in Europe

Napoleon did ban smoking weed though so there must have been people doing it.
Betsy Brullerstadging - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:22:05 EST ID:xHgWaaVK No.54713 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>That etymology is true so I bet the population dynamics are

Dude Jamaica is like 30% indian and trinidad is damn near 60% indian.
Source - Someone who grew up 90 miles from the caribbean.

ALSO, both the words "marijuana" and "sinsemilla" are spanish words. Prob from mexican laborers. Sinsemilla means seedless, aka dat piff son.
Fuck Somblehone - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:35:23 EST ID:9FZ539Hb No.54714 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1422930923433.jpg -(246988B / 241.20KB, 873x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Lol, that is so Napoleon.

Why did America not advance? by David Penkinham - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:50:27 EST ID:CH/qiIEF No.53917 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1412707827142.jpg -(283098B / 276.46KB, 1440x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 283098
Why didn't north and south America advance as quickly as Europe or Asia? The Americas have a vast amount of resources and they could have created a huge amount of trade (I think they did though) but is it because there were no horses to get around quickly? Why did the Americas stay so tribal for so long while the rest of the world were hundreds of years ahead of them?
88 posts and 14 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Doris Bruddlesidge - Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:15:18 EST ID:URNu6lSZ No.54697 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Then what was your point?

That we can't say one civilisation was more advanced than another one?

>"Advancement" is a value judgment that consists of nothing more than bias towards self-similarity. Technologies have to be judged in the cultural context of the need they fulfill and the circumstances they are employed in.

Maybe I'm a bit out of context since I wasn't really referring to the book in question (G,G&S - I haven't even read it - I did read your links though and the replies on readinganthropologically.com makes it seem like the critic might be the one distorting the facts) but taking this statement broadly it seems more like you're just trying to define words in a way which would make it impossible to make any sorts of comparisons between civilisations or their technologies.

Judging a technology or a civilisation within its context is part of history. As is examining clashes between civilisations, or why one succeeds where another failed. 'Advancement' can have subjective and objective meanings but that doesn't mean you can't use the term at all in an historical sense either. That's just anti-intellectual.

And in my original example with Rome and Gaul I don't see how such a statement can't be made. Militarily Rome was far more advanced whether that's gauged by military success/achievement, the technologies or the complexity of their militarisation as a state. And Rome did conquer Gaul.

I'm not trying to be rude but in all honesty all you've really said is:
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Priscilla Greenstock - Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:49:18 EST ID:NAR5czOU No.54703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>And Rome did conquer Gaul.

Gauls sacked Rome. We know next to nothing of the Gallic kingdoms, their people, or their history. This is mostly their own fault. But, don't count them out. If the Gauls were pushovers, then is Caesar a schoolyard bully? You cannot disparage one without casting doubt upon the other.
Reuben Dartbanks - Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:01:58 EST ID:URNu6lSZ No.54705 Ignore Report Quick Reply

That's why I provided a context (Caesar's conquest). I don't really get the relevance of your example either. Rome was a completely different entity at that time and just because they may have been more civilised or even more 'advanced' than the Gauls of that era too doesn't mean a small state isn't vulnerable to a much larger one.
Nicholas Cavingpuck - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:07:34 EST ID:M5aTnjaI No.54708 Ignore Report Quick Reply

They did advance. They simply took a very different techtree than the Europeans, focused on conditioning the land to produce as much as possible. Though, I'm mostly thinking of the natives in the northeast.
Hedda Cebbershaw - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:52:52 EST ID:rUIqdULH No.54731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1423255972828.jpg -(78631B / 76.79KB, 1160x890) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
> Chicxulub crater is presented as not being nearly as old as officially maintained
aaaaaaand you lost me.
a blast of that magnitude anywhere on the planet would throw hundreds millions of tons of rock and dirt into motherfuckin' space in seconds. shit would rain down momentarily, get fuckin' hot, hot enough to spark forest fires anywhere there's trees. then you've got the cloud of ash and dust that got kicked up, that's gonna hang around for a few thousand years and blot out the sun and give us a nice global impact winter.

A Chicxulub-tier impact anytime in the past ten thousand years would probably have wiped out all of humanity.

Also, why would the tsunami steamroll Africa and the Philippines but not Europe or China? The Philippines are right next to China. You can literally see Africa from parts of Europe.

Also, how would you explain how heavily weathered Chicxulub is? It literally took them until the 1970s (while they were surveying for oil) to notice that there was an impact crater on this site that's been mapped and inhabited for centuries. It's an impact crater, but it's not like the Barringer crater, which is older than your posited impact, and lots smaller, and much, much more visible.

I think tectonics would be the least of our worries if a 6km hunk of iron hit the planet.

nb for replying to a foilpost

Nation by Basil Febblelark - Tue, 13 Jan 2015 04:45:32 EST ID:tA/+30gD No.54606 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1421142332518.jpg -(101244B / 98.87KB, 476x842) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 101244
What was the gayest nation ever?
Like nations that promoted homosexuality and promoted cuckoldness.
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Alice Dabblefield - Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:18:49 EST ID:hv/bpcC1 No.54620 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Spartans at least legally did not have property
This sounds interesting, could you expand this at all?
Shit Grimshaw - Wed, 14 Jan 2015 06:48:37 EST ID:+qUk3wY9 No.54621 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Spartan boys were only raised in the family unit until the age of 8, when they joined a sort of Boy Scout troop. There, they are raised, trained, and educated communally as a pack/herd/whatever-the-term-for-a-group-of-boys-is.
Cyril Nembleman - Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:59:00 EST ID:WO0qELX5 No.54622 Ignore Report Quick Reply

From what I remember of college, they did have property, actually it was a big problem that property could not be divided, so younger sons needed to be adopted by someone or end up destitute. They had meals in common, in these sort of social halls and had originally divided the land of Lacedemonia into equal plots, which was about the extent of their communism.
James Wicklebirk - Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:32:46 EST ID:+6al4/wL No.54690 Ignore Report Quick Reply
China. Lesbianism was promoted and common, like in the city of Quinsai at the time of Marco Polo's arrival- because female essence was considered infinite, and male essence- semen- was considered finite. Women were sexually liberal, apparently even having sex toys. The inverse being that male homosexuality was condoned, as a waste of finite semen- and men were apparently only supposed to come to orgasm during special occasions, as a means of preservation.

Ultimately medieval China was sexually centered around the women's pleasure.

Source: Marco Polo by Laurence Bergreen. Great book.
Rebecca Gennershaw - Tue, 27 Jan 2015 02:50:20 EST ID:zazdkOZl No.54693 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1422345020257.png -(565967B / 552.70KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Male same-sex relationships were also relatively common since antiquity, with no stigma against them, at least for the upper class. They were even sometimes romanticized as ideal love in courtly literature and poetic allusions. See: "Love of the half eaten peach" and "passion of the cut sleeve".

But for the purposes of OP's question, definitely classic greeks, especially Sparta and Thebes. Homosexuality wasn't just tolerated or respected, it was actually a *normative* aspect of socio-sexual relations.

There's that one tribe in New Guinea, I think, that incorporates lengthy rituals of pederast blowjobs in their boy's "coming of age" ceremonies, and the casual sex sometimes continues until the young adult gets a wife, but it's pretty hard to pin that down into the western sexual binary.

Young male prostitutes are, and probably always have been, pretty popular in the middle east too.

I bet modern SoCal is gayer than greece ever was, though. I mean it's not a nation but it's definitely a discrete cultural society.

<<Last Pages
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.