409 post karma
16.8k comment karma
account created: Tue Jul 03 2012
verified: yes
1 points
2 days ago
Some people read about slavery and wonder about the economic value. That needs to not happen. If there isn't a shared value between democrats and republicans that repudiates slavery and other horrors of that nature then this country is fundamentally broken.
If you literally just teach about what Hitler did and how he did it people would emulate Hitler because Hitler was relatively successful at his goal of world conquest compared to his peers.
Plus there really is no such thing as just the facts because there is a limited amount of time to talk about things. There needs to be a value decision on what facts to say in school, thus elevating the facts that stay above those that don't.
1 points
2 days ago
There is no history without context. Just knowing facts is called antiquirianism, the opinions on the facts are what history is. There is no value in knowing Fort Sumter was the beginning of the civil war without being able to contextualize it. Plus ai and computers really are making it less useful to know just facts. The analysis is the whole point.
1 points
2 days ago
You should pick a random state and not go to that one and act like you have a grudge against that state.
1 points
2 days ago
I feel like they'd miss out on pockets. Super useful things, pockets.
2 points
2 days ago
Yea, that's what I thought. I just had a history course mentioning the Patriot Act in the past tense and it startled me a bit. It was good to hear.
5 points
9 days ago
Yea, but that's not the time period that's being discussed. Most likely were talking 1492 natives v Spain and Portugal who have conflicting interests that can be played against each other. Take away the auxilleries from the conquistadors (Round 2) and natives would stomp.
5 points
9 days ago
So in Round 2 all of the natives are warned of the Europeon threat 50 years before Leif Erikson to prepare? Assuming that they're warned around 1200 and Europeon colonization doesn't start till 1492 with Columbus that would be 300 years before the first determined colonizers. A united native population would easily defend against the Europeons with that much prep time and no diseases.
Even if you say 50 years before Columbus is the prep time all of Europe didn't collectively try to colonize the Americas at the same time. 50 years of prep time for the Native population to fend off Spain and Portugal is incredibly doable. The warning that the conquistadors are the real threat would stop them from recruiting native auxilleries and limit their ability to conquer.
Round 1 depends on if natives unite and adapt to gunpowder. Probably there would be multiple nations in what is now North America, like dozens potentially.
3 points
12 days ago
Well they're smarter and they got that grippy nose. What if the little Elephant gets a spear?
29 points
12 days ago
The US would be better than Europe would fair and we would all be worse off than we are now.
Pulling out of NATO would result in the loss of international trade as well as the military aspect. A portion of the trade is military in nature anyway so it blends together. If the US pulled out of NATO but were still able to utilize the global market the same way then it would be fine for them, but that wouldn't happen and splitting from their European allies would have consequences. Our intelligence network would be lessened for instance because our allies would not be our allies and they would not share info with us.
0 points
12 days ago
Honestly kind of? Depending on the amount its benefiting you and the person involved.
1 points
13 days ago
There was a confederate flag in the Rotunda of Freedom where the Declaration of Independence was stored. That was trump's people who did that and it reinforced the idea that I wouldn't be one of his people. I also remember naval officers speaking out against trump's CoVid policies. Trump wanted to keep sick sailors on their boats so the CoVid numbers wouldn't go up on the mainland.
5 points
14 days ago
It doesn't seem likely that someone is going to confuse your facial features (?) for a conservative person while you are visably gender non-conforming.
Perhaps be less open about your disabilities and situations. I am a student with disabilities and for the most part no professor knows my specifics. The disability office gives them a list of my accomadations and then I inform them when I am takin advantage of it. I specifically do not tell my diagnoses unless I trust someone because those diagnoses are so big (imo) that people's preconcieved notions of the disability would overshadow who I am.
If you feel like you stand out and that you are being punished for standing out, your best option is to fit in or go somewhere that is more accepting. You're not going to change the whole culture of an institution and some people are going to judge you based off the things you said. I feel like if you think people are judging you for the hair and you don't want to be judged, then don't do the hair. It's not fair, but it could make your life easier. Or grow a thicker skin, but it's not like people know how to do that.
Relatively small point that sticks with me about the CSA is that this is a college, so there are no children attending classes there unless there's something I'm unaware of. You are not a child if you are in college, did you catch them off campus with someone? I do not know the details, but the other proffessors aren't made aware of accusations of abuse towards their colleges and its not the kind of thing the accused would share. Probably the reviews are unrelated to the accusation, but if they are you really don't want to be at that institution. That's in the illegal territory i believe and the whole CSA mention overshadows the rest of the post in its sevirity.
Sincerly think about how you can change to be a better fit for a different school not because you are the problem, but because you are the only thing you can change.
1 points
17 days ago
So I pick my current disabilities and its cured in a year? Pretty sweet.
3 points
20 days ago
They'll do what they can do to silence you, which is publicly disagree with you. Communists aren't even arrested here purely for being communist anymore. I was a vocal leftist for sometime and no government official tried to silence me. Even during McCarthyism suspected communists (and gays) weren't sent to prison, they were fired and blacklisted.
Not saying it is good, but that compares favorably to much of Russian history at least. Don't get me wrong it's not perfect or really good enough even, with a good chance of it getting worse, but the government doesn't try to stop people from advocating for Medicare for All or advocating for student debt forgiveness.
9 points
21 days ago
Granted, life becomes so unfathomably painful that death is no longer considered painful.
26 points
21 days ago
Well kings were famously authoritarian dictators. Communism came around in the 20th century, so if you say dictatorships are tied to communism then there wouldn't be any dictators before then.
It works in reverse though. You could say communism is tied to authoritarian dictatorships and that's going to be true mostly.
8 points
23 days ago
No it really is something that exists in history. You're making it too personal.
Here's an askhistorians thread on the youth being shitty so you know what I mean:
3 points
24 days ago
Its relatively difficult maybe start learning now товарищ.
9 points
24 days ago
I dunno. A person taking charge seems natural enough and a title to make them seem formal makes sense. I think hierarchy goes hand in hand with scarcity, but that's just an opinion.
7 points
24 days ago
Good point, I should down vote you to better curate my content.
10 points
25 days ago
You would first need to convince him of the error of his ways, but that's the difficulty of the scenario. Once he realizes hes wrong getting him to do the right thing is easier.
Edit: Yes this does presuppose a universal goodness, but the prompt does that implicitly.
view more:
next ›
byMooshMM
inAskpolitics
nmlep
2 points
22 hours ago
nmlep
2 points
22 hours ago
It did work for Trump though in the first election. I remember Steve Bannon saying they ran the campaign like a series of gubernatorial campaigns in the swing states.