Best history books according to redditors

We found 50,061 Reddit comments discussing the best history books. We ranked the 18,074 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page


African history books
American history books
United States history books
Ancient civilizations history books
Asian history books
Australia & Oceania history books
European history books
Historical study books
Middle East history books
Military history books
Russian history books
World history books
Arctic & Antarctica history books

Top Reddit comments about History:

u/arjun101 · 1307 pointsr/worldnews

Incidentally, during the '50s and '60s Western governments were against the secular, nationalist, and socialist movements that were laughing off religious ideas and trying to modernize their countries, and sided with the Islamic monarchies.

Arguably the primary reason why monarchies like Saudi Arabia didn't get overthrown by the various labor movements, progressive technocrats, and nationalist military officers that emerged against them during the '50s and '60s was because of the massive amounts of military and economic support given to these backwards, totalitarian monarchies by Western governments (mainly the US and the UK).


Here are some good books on the very interesting and complex subject of the Middle East, Islamic fundamenetalism, and US foreign policy

u/elpresidente1776 · 923 pointsr/The_Donald

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

u/Fandorin · 810 pointsr/worldnews

I don't need to see it. I was born Kharkov, Ukraine.

In 1940, the NKVD killed about 22,000 Polish officers in cold blood in the Katyn Forest. These were unarmed prisoners.

In 1941, about 15000 Jews were rounded up by the Nazis and brought to Dobrytsky Yar, where they were killed. The parents were shot, the kids were thrown in to the pits to freeze to death among the corpses of their parents to save bullets.

I played in both forests when I was a kid, completely ignorant of the history. What people need to internalize is that neither the Nazis or the Soviet or ISIS now are monsters. They are ordinary men, and ordinary men are capable of doing these things under the right conditions. To dehumanize them is to forget this and forget that any of us could be on either the receiving end or the giving end.

Edit -

u/methshin · 626 pointsr/worldnews

For all the people condemning this bookkeeper, I recommend reading a book call Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland

It'll put into perspective that if you were in 1930's Germany, there's a good chance you'd be a Nazi, and if the opportunity to become a bookkeeper came up, you'd jump at the opportunity.

u/sterexx · 473 pointsr/worldnews

Gathering and analyzing intelligence on other countries is its primary, original role. Most directly for keeping specifically the President informed of just what the heck is developing around the world. It was started after WW2 in order to prevent another Pearl Harbor surprise. And they were not allowed to gather intelligence on US soil, but that has not been strictly observed.

This work involves gathering tasks as mundane as always reading the news in a target country, as political context matters as much as tapped phone conversations when putting together an analysis. But the movie-caliber stuff is important too. They tap phones, recruit sources in governments and industry, build a whole network of resources.

To collect this information, the CIA uses two kinds of employees. “Official cover” officers pose as diplomats in US embassies worldwide. All embassy staff will be under surveillance from the target country’s counter-intelligence organizations — their FBI equivalents — so meeting sources is risky and they might stick to less blatant parts of the job. But on the upside, they have diplomatic immunity and just get sent home if caught spying. Non-official cover officers get jobs in multinational companies or assume some invented identity that gives them a reason to be in country. They can more freely recruit local sources but must rot in prison or die if caught, unacknowledged.

Info goes back to legions of analysis teams working in offices in the US who prepare it into reports.

The CIA also engages in covert and clandestine activities meant to influence other countries. This latter role has grown, diminished, and changed in nature throughout its history depending on political climate. Some bad press from some really ugly leaks in the 70’s (I think) about the extent of these activities put a big damper on them for a while, requiring Presidential sign-offs on killings, iirc. Post 9/11, the CIA is back on the hard stuff but keeps a legion of lawyers to make sure it’s teccchhnically legal.

These cold war activities include funding and organizing Afghan resistance against communist rule, for example. A whole covert war. Also tons of election rigging, assassination, etc. Post cold war they have been involved in anti-terror activities like running the war against the Taliban and assassinating militants and their neighbors with drone missiles.

Fun fact: “covert” operations are meant to hide who is behind an operation, “clandestine” are meant to conceal the entire operation from anyone but us. Compare an assassination to a phone tap.

Edit: in one episode (2 or 3 i think) of Netflix docu series Inside the Mossad explains how Israel’s foreign intelligence uses elaborate sting operations to recruit sources. By the time they realize they’re working for Mossad, they’re in too deep to not go along with it. Intelligence orgs do this a lot when they know the people they need probably hate the org’s country. This is basically all the time for Israel spying on other middle east states. Case officers often use really impressively manipulative strategies for recruiting and controlling their local agents. “The Americans” illustrates some great examples of this, if a little more dramatic.

Edit 2A: There are a bunch of other specialized US foreign intelligence agencies, like the NSA that traditionally intercepts signals and cracks their codes.

Edit 2B: In the UK, MI6 of James Bond fame does foreign intelligence and MI5 does counter-intelligence. These existed during WW2 but back then the lines got blurred, with both organizations running their own double agents against Nazi Germany’s own two competing foreign intelligence orgs. In fact, 0% of any spies Germany sent to Britain were able to work for enough time before being caught to send anything useful over. By 1944, when the UK was more confident that they were controlling all the sources sending info to Germany (the ones that wouldn’t work for the UK as double agents radioing harmless intel back home were either dead or imprisoned), they fed Germany massive misinformation about the location (and timing?) of the D-Day Normandy invasion. Read the excellent book Operation Double Cross to learn about this incredible operation.


Books on the CIA I found rewarding.

“The Master of Disguise” by Tony Mendez. Ben Affleck played him in Argo. Memoir of this artist’s time in the CIA inventing disguises and forging travel documents, often to exfiltrate an exposed source. Watch or read Argo too if you haven’t, the film at least is incredibly cool because its evacuation of American diplomats from Iran as Canadian filmmakers is largely real.

“Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA.” Recent declassifications are exposing just how terribly the CIA bungled things in the early cold war, which is what this is about. From massive nuclear arms race miscalculations that threatened the world, to unfounded communism paranoia that led to totally unnecessary coups, they used classification to hide their greatest errors.

“Spycraft: The Secret History of the CIA's Spytechs, from Communism to Al-Qaeda.” Beyond just the tech, you get insight into the lives of tech team members who would bug homes for their career. Interesting stuff. I think I read a different edition but this is probably fine.

“Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001”
Tom Clancy name, but actually an extremely detailed history of the CIA’s 1980’s support for Afghan mujahideen against the USSR and continued involvement in the 90’s. Down to highlighting cultural generational differences within the multiple cohorts of CIA officers in charge of the long-running operation. Also highlights Pakistan’s demand to hand out all the money, both to act as kingmaker for the dominant factions and to skim hella bux off the top. Descriptions of the conflict and how the Afghans relentlessly persevered and how factions had independent deals and truces with USSR. Then much of the civil war aftermath of USSR pullout when the US stopped caring. Taliban become popular for not tolerating warlords raping local boys, an issue that remains to this day among US supported administration (a coalition of “former” warlords who you will recognize if you read the book). Great read, incredible breadth.

u/spike · 453 pointsr/AskHistorians

When I was in school in Belgium in the 1960s, we were taught that the Belgians did nothing but good things in The Congo. My mother confirmed that at the time, all that most Belgians knew about what went on there was on the same level: it was all good, Belgium brought light and civilization to the natives. More recently, of course, people learned the real story: slavery, torture, mutilation, rape and downright genocide, lasting for decades.

It's true that some people in Belgium knew about this, or parts of this, but for the general public the lie was all they ever heard. I remember how shocked my mother was when she read Adam Hochshild's book, King Leoplod's Ghost a few years ago.

u/TheBurningBeard · 426 pointsr/news

Bones breaking isn't necessarily what kills you in rapid deceleration situations. Often times it's your heart detaching from your aorta. Every once in a while someone survives a jump off the golden gate bridge or something, and it's usually because when they hit the water their heart happened to be not full of blood for that split second, and wasn't as heavy, thus staying attached.

edit: this comment got a little more attention than I thought it would. If you're interested in this kind of thing, I would highly recommend Mary Roach's book Stiff.

u/EstacionEsperanza · 381 pointsr/forwardsfromgrandma

I have this book, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. It has a decent reputation among historians AFAIK, and one of the main points of the book is that Native Americans had fairly sprawling and diverse civilizations across North America before European contact. Lots of European accounts of Native Americans describe them as clean, healthy, tall, beautiful actually.

So yeah, Branco can eff right off with his summation of indigenous civilization as human sacrifices, slavery, and early death. I'm not an expert of pre-Columbus American civilizations and cultures. I know these things did happen in the Americas before European contact, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that it's pretty stupid to suggest Europeans were automatically the harbingers of civilizations and decency.

Christopher Columbus and his men helped decimate the population of Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands. They forced native Tainos to collect gold. They severed the hands of men and boys if they didn't meet their gold quotas. They sexually enslaved women and young girls. They met any resistance with indiscriminate cruelty. An opening salvo in centuries of European barbarism towards indigenous people in North and South America.

Christopher Columbus was a monster and deserves to be remembered as such.

u/AtheistSteve · 340 pointsr/AskReddit

There is a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me that has a chapter that talks about how these high school text books are written. It is very leftwardly slanted, but overall a pretty good read.

EDIT would you consider doing an AMA?

u/Khan_Bomb · 271 pointsr/history

That'd be 1491 by Charles Mann.

EDIT: Just to note. This is a controversial book among historians. Much of the info presented can largely be seen as conjecture without a lot of veritable proof behind it. So take it with a grain of salt.

u/TheHuscarl · 225 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

The Clean Wehrmacht myth is a blatant lie. The Wehrmacht were repeatedly involved in war crimes, including the extermination of undesirables, and at the very least most, if not all, members were aware that their government was pursuing a campaign of violence against civilians and had purged undesirables (such as cripples and mentally ill) from society back home. The Wehrmacht may have been normal men, but that does not mean they are free of the blame for what occurred during World War 2.

Here are some resources regarding the Clean Wehrmacht Myth:

I'd also add Ordinary Men to that list, as it's a very interesting study/discussion of how plain people like you and me can become bloodthirsty exterminators of other people in the right circumstances.

Edit: Done replying to comments in this thread, it's exhausting. None of the argumentation is new. To quote the Duke of Wellington, "they came on in the same old way...". The materials are there for you to explore and read. You can form your own judgments based on facts and rigorous research, that's the beauty of a free and open society, the kind of society Nazi Germany was actively trying to prevent. The reason the Clean Wehrmacht myth needs to be refuted is because, as I've said in another comment, it presents an ignorant view of history that allows us to avoid the hard truth, learned largely from World War Two, that ordinary men who would otherwise be considered honorable, decent people can take part in atrocious crimes or, at the very least, hear about them and be permissive or even supportive of them. If we deny that, we can't learn to prevent such things happening again.

Edit 2: Honestly last thing, I just want to add a comment by one of the mods of r/askhistorians specifically relating to this subject. It's honestly the best comment on Reddit I've ever seen regarding this subject and it has a list of plenty of resources for those who want to investigate this issue further:

u/meekrobe · 209 pointsr/Showerthoughts

This book is similar. Basically, we're happier as hunter-gathers, but you could never go back unless you're OK with 90% of people dying off due to starvation.

u/bkkgirl · 199 pointsr/ImGoingToHellForThis

The reason tribes were small when Europeans arrived was because European disease arrived first, often with 95% death tolls. Except for the very first explorers (Pizarro, etc.), what European settlers saw was a post-apocalyptic society. Prior to that, Native Americans had as large and complex (and as violent) societies as any that existed on the other side of the Atlantic.

A good book about the modern scholarship on the subject is Mann's 1491, which I highly recommend.

u/RenixDC · 187 pointsr/history

I remember reading a book called Guns Germs and Steel back in the day that seemed to cover all of these developments!

u/ColonelRuffhouse · 180 pointsr/todayilearned

This is stated over and over recently, and it's largely false. Yes, there was some drug use in the Nazi military, but mostly among fighter pilots and tank crews. The book Blitzed by Norman Ohler is a classic example of the overstatement of drug use in Nazi Germany, and this review just tears it to shreds. I'd really recommend reading the whole thing, but a few choice excerpts are:

> The use of methamphetamine was common, he argues, particularly in the form of “Pervitin”. The drug, [Ohler] says, was manufactured in huge quantities: 35m tablets were, for example, ordered for the western campaign in 1940. This seems an impressive figure, until you recall that more than two and a quarter million troops were involved, making an average of around 15 tablets per soldier for the entire operation. Given the concentration on supplying tank crews with the drug, this means that the vast majority of troops didn’t take any at all.

And continued:

> Ohler goes much further than claiming that methamphetamine was central to the German military effort, however. He claims that its use was universal among the civilian population of Germany, too... This sweeping generalisation about a nation of 66 to 70 million people has no basis in fact. No doubt a number of Germans took, or were even prescribed, opium derivatives for medical conditions, or took them to alleviate the growing stress of living in a country that by mid-1944 was being invaded from all sides and buckling under the strain of intense aerial bombardment. But to claim that all Germans, or even a majority of them, could only function on drugs in the Third Reich is wildly implausible.

The author makes his central point, and perfectly illustrates why I hate the overstatement of drug use in Nazi Germany:

> What’s more, it is morally and politically dangerous. Germans, the author hints, were not really responsible for the support they gave to the Nazi regime, still less for their failure to rise up against it. This can only be explained by the fact that they were drugged up to the eyeballs. No wonder this book has been a bestseller in Germany.

To imply that using meth 'stripped the Nazis of empathy' is to imply that not only everyone who was involved in Nazi atrocities was somehow not responsible for their actions and on meth constantly, but to also imply that similar atrocities are impossible unless the perpetrators are on drugs or in an altered mental state. The lesson of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is that normal people committed those acts, just like you and me. A good book which delves deeper into this topic is Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning. I wish people would stop propagating this nonsense and do proper research.

u/lensera · 173 pointsr/books

I've recently read Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse by Jared Diamond and found them to be quite intriguing.



u/[deleted] · 170 pointsr/worldnews

Fun fact, the US government (lead by Nixon and Kissinger) actively resupplied the Pakistani military during their genocidal campaign in Bangladesh in 1971, even though they knew what was happening. They also did the same thing during the Indonesian genocides of the mid-50s, coordinated with Islamist paramilitaries. And during the 1980s, both the US and Saudi Arabia poured billions of dollars into General Zia's dictatorship (whose social base was the same political party that perpetrated the mass killings in Bangladesh), helping him purge leftists and secularists and build thousands of Wahhabi madrassas--which got plenty of recruits from the refugees fleeing the US coalition's insurgency in Afghanistan.

I'd say that much of the rise of paramilitary Islamist politics in the last few decades in South Asia comes down to the legacy of US-Saudi imperialism in the area, and their use of the Pakistani military as an pillar of their regional power. The effects of the 1980s war in Afghanistan can't be underestimated, it totally mutated the socio-political fabric of Pakistan and the wider region. I really like this quote from Steve Coll's Ghost Wars:

>In 1971 there had been only nine hundred madrassas in all of Pakistan. By the summer of 1988 there were about eight thousand official religious schools and an estimated twenty-five thousand unregistered ones, many of them clustered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier and funded by wealthy patrons from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States...Almost a decade earlier, [ISI] was a small and demoralized unit within the Pakistani military…Now ISI was an army within the army, boasting multiple deep-pocketed patrons, including the supremely deep-pocketed Prince Turki and his Saudi GID. ISI enjoyed an ongoing operational partnership with the CIA as well, with periodic access to the world’s most sophisticated technology and intelligence collection systems….Outside the Pakistan army itself, less than ten years after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, ISI had been transformed by CIA and Saudi subsidies into Pakistan’s most powerful institution (Coll 2004: 180).

And of course, the ISI--and their Saudi backers--went on to fund Islamist paramilitary networks across the region, both in Kashmir and Bangladesh.

u/bananabee · 145 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

For one thing, it's cold enough in East Asia and Europe (note they're at similar latitudes) for germs to die every winter, so people live longer and technology can advance accordingly. In the case of Australia, humans inhabited the continent and killed off all the big game before they domesticated anything, so they didn't have the advantage of cows and horses. In Africa, in order to avoid diseases carried by mosquitoes, people traditionally lived in small communities far from water sources, meaning they have to put in a lot of effort to carting water. This means that they lacked the benefits of a city like job specializations, etc.

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is a really interesting read to answer this question more fully.

There was a Cracked article that made me think we don't get the whole story about Native Americans. Supposedly they were very advanced, but a plague wiped them out and allowed Europeans to conquer them.

u/dog_in_the_vent · 126 pointsr/videos

There was infighting between proponents of nuclear safety and proponents of nuclear readiness in SAC and Los Alamos. Some people wanted to have multiple independent safety devices to prevent accidental nuclear detonations or launches, others wanted nothing but a big red button to launch the missiles.

Command and Control by Eric Schlosser does a very good job of telling this story, as well as the story of a nuclear accident in Damascus Arkansas.

u/AaFen · 112 pointsr/MapPorn

If you're still struggling to understand the link between the Taliban and 9/11 then you really need to get some research done.


I highly recommend Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. It's an excellent readable-but-academic look at the recent history of Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion through to 9/11.

u/degeneration · 110 pointsr/politics

I think you are pointing out the stupidity of the American voter. Various people have commented on this. I think the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" talks a lot about how the right twisted people into voting against their own best interests by exploiting wedge social issues and creating a false image as the heroes of the "little guy". For a long time I was on the bandwagon of blaming institutions like Fox News for deliberately misleading people and manipulating public opinion, but at this point there has been 10+ years of direct, incontrovertible evidence of the sheer corruption and incompetence of the right. If people can't see that at this point they are either being willfully ignorant, or they are just ignorant.

u/wiking85 · 103 pointsr/worldnews

Or get transferred to the front, which was a death sentence. Also it isn't like the SS or Army advertised that there would be no punishment, plus they would force the person declining to publicly step out with the rest of his unit and shame him for it, which in the military culture of honor/masculinity was a huge deterrent. It's not as if they made it psychologically easy, but then capitalized on that acquisence to make people commit crimes and not complain about it or protest because they had bought in by not stepping out. Rather diabolical how they used psychology against their own people to get them to do horrible crimes.

u/sympathico · 96 pointsr/politics

I heard in "Goodwill Hunting" about the book from Howard Zinn that would knock you on your ass, A People's History of the United States. I did, and it did.

And you are correct, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

u/HenryJonesJunior · 87 pointsr/todayilearned

Most of what you're talking about is Hollywood, not reality. Eric Schlosser wrote an excellent book about the history of nuclear weapon controls, and most of the time most of what you mentioned wasn't in place.

u/k3q3 · 85 pointsr/SubredditDrama

I too enjoyed reading Sapiens.

The book goes in-depth how much of the world is a "fiction" around us - LLCs aren't real, baseball's rules aren't real, capitalism isn't real. But if the reader's takeaway means that "fiction" == "not real and therefore meaningless", they've hugely missed the point.

u/HallenbeckJoe · 77 pointsr/AskHistorians

This is such a broad question. I want to recommend our AskHistorians Master Book List to you as it isn't focused on American history. Maybe you will find an interesting book and subject in there.

My personal recommendation would be reading up on the colonial history of Belgium, starting with King Leopold's Ghost. I couldn't put it better than the book description: In the 1880s, as the European powers were carving up Africa, King Leopold II of Belgium seized for himself the vast and mostly unexplored territory surrounding the Congo River. Carrying out a genocidal plundering of the Congo, he looted its rubber, brutalized its people, and ultimately slashed its population by ten million--all the while shrewdly cultivating his reputation as a great humanitarian. Heroic efforts to expose these crimes eventually led to the first great human rights movement of the twentieth century, in which everyone from Mark Twain to the Archbishop of Canterbury participated. King Leopold's Ghost is the haunting account of a megalomaniac of monstrous proportions, a man as cunning, charming, and cruel as any of the great Shakespearean villains. It is also the deeply moving portrait of those who fought Leopold: a brave handful of missionaries, travelers, and young idealists who went to Africa for work or adventure and unexpectedly found themselves witnesses to a holocaust.

If that's not what you're looking for, maybe the history of East Germany with a focus on daily life and the Stasi could be interesting as well. But I don't have a good book recommendation for you here. The book Stasiland is very interesting, but maybe too narrow. The movie The Lives of Others could be a good starting point to get you interested.

u/spookyjhostwitch · 72 pointsr/ShitRedditSays

for those who may not know why this is here:

  1. the american irish slave trade is largely a white supremacist myth. it's a weird one because the irish faced a significant amount of persecution in europe.

  2. the post, as well as the entire thread, was made to divert from the system of white supremacy, and instead, blame people of color. "africans enslaved their own people" is so whitewashed and racially coded that it's complete drivel and makes no sense.

    it would be akin to saying: "christians persecuted themselves and that's why we have rhode island." it's kidz bop history.

  3. the irish have a documented history of gaining white status by using anti-black racism as documented in how the irish became white. therefore, they weren't consider white nor were they considered negro (the choice word for american enslaved persons, which was racialized), making the op irrelevant.

u/2016-01-16 · 72 pointsr/sweden

Fakta om IQ, eller g (generell intelligensfaktor)

  • Hög ärftlighet (r = 0.5-0.8)
  • Korrelerar med hjärn- och skallstorlek (r = 0.2-0.4 beroende på mätmetod)
  • Har prediktiv validitet (skolbetyg, lön, utbildning, arbetseffektivitet, succesivt bättre förmåga att lösa kognitiva problem för varje percentil etc.)
  • Hög reliabilitet (r > 0.9) för återtest av samma individ senare i livet
  • Validitet och reliabilitet är densamma för samtliga folkslag.
  • Svarta i USA erhåller i genomsnitt en standardavvikelse (1 σ) lägre resultat än vita européer som i sin tur erhåller ungefär en halv standardavikelse lägre resultat än östasiater.

    Detta är konsensus i forskningen. Även forskare som exempelvis Richard Nisbett eller James Flynn, som tror att gruppskillnaderna är helt och hållet miljömässiga instämmer i det som skrivs ovan. Ingen insatt i forskningen tror på det typiska "IQ mäter ingenting", "IQ gynnar västerlänningar", "IQ mäter en minimal del av intelligens". Sådana påståenden visar att man ej läst litteraturen, exempelvis Nisbett, Murray och Herrnstein eller Mackintosh.

    Huruvida intelligensskillnaderna mellan grupperna (svarta-vita-asiater) beror på arv, miljö eller en kombination är mer spekulativt och här får man bilda sig en egen uppfattning genom att tillgodogöra sig argumenten från båda sidor. Här (kort och lättläst) är en bra sammanfattning av argument för och emot en ärftlig komponent till gruppskillnaderna skriven av Rushton & Jensen som tror på en 50-50-modell (observera att ingen tror på en 100% ärftlig modell, striden står mellan de som tror på 100% miljö mot de som tror på ungefär 50% miljö/50% arv).

    Data att fundera över (diagram):

  • Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study

  • Koreanska och icke-koreanska adoptivbarn mot infödd befolkning i Sverige

  • Amerikanska högskoleprovet SAT, efter inkomst och ras

  • Piffer (2015):

    > Published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), reporting the presence of alleles exhibiting significant and replicable associations with IQ, are reviewed. The average between-population frequency (polygenic score) of nine alleles positively and significantly associated with intelligence is strongly correlated to country-level IQ (r = .91). Factor analysis of allele frequencies furthermore identified a metagene with a similar correlation to country IQ (r = .86). The majority of the alleles (seven out of nine) loaded positively on this metagene. Allele frequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phenotypic intelligence. Average allele frequencies for intelligence GWAS hits exhibited higher inter-population variability than random SNPs matched to the GWAS hits or GWAS hits for height. This indicates stronger directional polygenic selection for intelligence relative to height. Random sets of SNPs and Fst distances were employed to deal with the issue of autocorrelation due to population structure. GWAS hits were much stronger predictors of IQ than random SNPs. Regressing IQ on Fst distances did not significantly alter the results nonetheless it demonstrated that, whilst population structure due to genetic drift and migrations is indeed related to IQ differences between populations, the GWAS hit frequencies are independent predictors of aggregate IQ differences.
u/PlusDistance · 71 pointsr/askscience


OP, if you're interested in these kinds of questions, you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. The book looks a bit intimidating, but it's really easy to read and he goes right to the root of the inequalities in wealth, technological development, social organization, etc. between the old and new worlds. (Spoiler Alert: It ain't about genetic superiority.)

u/DiscordianAgent · 69 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

A great read on this subject is Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety by Eric Schlosser. At some points during the cold war Strategic Air Command had nuclear equipped bombers circling around the perimeter of US and NATO airspace non-stop. As with anything we decide to do 24/7, there were some accidents. If you think a B-52 bursting into flames on a runway sounds kinda stressful, imagine how much worse it gets when you know it has shaped explosives ready to jam together some fissile materials inside it. A situation like that occurred once, and lucky, the shaped explosives melted in the heat before they could go off. In another incident a B-52 had something fail and ripped apart in mid-air. This occurred over US airspace, and in some kinda crazy failure of oversight, the bomb on that plane had its physical safety enabled, meaning if the pilot had happened to also have his bomb key turned to the right we would have ejected a live nuke onto Virginia.

To answer your question though: minor taps are unlikely to set off the shaped explosives which start the reaction. Think of the nuke as a football shaped thing with two bits of material in them that, when slammed together with a lot of force, set off a nuclear reaction. If only half the "lens" explodes, that might not be enough force even, so even if you shot the exposed bomb it might only set off some of the shaped explosives, possibly resulting in a 'dirty bomb' or possibly just a loud bang. The detonation charge has to be perfectly timed to all parts of the football in order to make sure the two halves slam together with maximum surface area.

By the way, I can't recommend that book enough, it made me much more aware of how many crazy accidents and near accidents our nuclear weapons program has had, and it really makes you think twice about why the fuck we need thousands of these weapons sitting around, and the huge amount of effort which went into them, both on the design level and on the practical every-day level.

u/toinfinitiandbeyond · 69 pointsr/WTF
u/laterkater · 68 pointsr/WTF

This was detailed on an episode of Human Planet on Discovery. You can watch it here!

I was secretly bummed they never showed the actual process. I feel most bad for the man who has to do the burial itself. If I remember correctly, he had to drink a considerable amount of whiskey in order to stomach what he was about to do.

(Also, if you're still curious about the ways corpses can and have been used throughout the centuries, have I got the book for you.)

u/maglen69 · 67 pointsr/news

A book written on just that subject

That and even though our govenor is a complete shitbag, he managed to get reelected just by having an R by his name.

u/US_Hiker · 61 pointsr/atheism

1 - Mostly correct. There aren't many details of the crucifixion, and I wouldn't expect there to be (relatively common practice then, most would know what was entailed). Not a big deal either way though.

2 - Wrong.

3 - Almost entirely wrong. Much misrepresentation of the Bible and Xtian theology.

4 - Lots of wrong.

5 - big whoop.

6 - The broad overview is correct in that the Rapture as we think of it today and the emphasis on it is a fairly modern concept. Decent bit wrong otherwise.

7 - Last paragraph is reasonable...our modern conception of Satan is definitely different than the Church Fathers/etc. Lots of wrong in here though.

8 - Largely correct. Popular ideas about these things go far beyond the sparse details in the Bible and even in earlier Christian theology.

9 - The title is debatable (you can interpret Revelation to mean almost anything you want). Most of the rest is entirely bullshit.

10 - The title is correct. The rest of the section rapidly starts to fall down. While I haven't read Ehrman (don't have any of his books, and none @ local libraries), I think his quotes are being made too much of. Yes, there is a huge amount of variance between manuscripts. There is still in the eyes of interpreters and theologians a relatively good consensus as to what the NT is. Sure, we don't have the earliest manuscripts, and there are many problems, but the situation is nowhere near as dire as the blogger states.

Edit to add to 10: Here is a link to Ehrman's book. From the synopsis and reviews, it would appear his quotes are being used in support of a conclusion he would disagree with.

u/The_Doja · 59 pointsr/worldnews

I'm in the middle of an amazing book that goes into great details about the current narrative and academic belief of Pre-Columbus Americas. It counters most common notions and really has some interesting points to back it up. The main one being that North and South America were not pristine wilderness lived in harmoniously with its people; it was actually very much so engineered by the hand of man to accommodate extremely large civilization centers. Some far greater than any European city at it's time.

It's really cool to hear how they piece together some of the political dramas of the Mayan culture based on their findings. From what I remember in the earlier chapters, part of the reason the Maya didn't need iron/bronze weapons was because their method of conquering was through assimilation and trade. They would provide surrounding city-states vast trade networks to gain wealth and knowledge, then redistribute populations around their giant network. Once a city became dependent on the income, the Maya would instate their own leadership into said town and slowly it would become Mayan.

If you're interested. Check it out 1491 by Charles Mann

u/Aoxous · 58 pointsr/EnoughLibertarianSpam

Jonah Golberg strkes again! This idea that fascism is left-wing is perpetuated by Goldberg's book, Liberal Facism.

>Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

What do RWers consider fascist? Universal healthcare, public education, Social Security, organic food, separation of church and state, gun control, a woman's right to choose, public awareness on the dangers of smoking, etc.

When you argument rests upon equating Nazism with universal healthcare, public education, and Social Security, you really don't have an argument. You simply have BS talking points that make you look like an idiot.

u/BigBennP · 58 pointsr/politics

You're not going to get a serious answer from the reddit echo chamber. So far you seem to have gotten:

"Her vagina"
"the mainstream media is in the tank for Clinton"
"There are no Clinton supporters on the internet."

So here's what I consider the best arguments in her favor, mostly they're culled from my democratic pol/strategist friends, most of whom are serious Clinton supporters by virtue of where I live:

  1. Whoever gets elected is going to have to deal with a republican congress at least until 2020, if not further. So incremental change is a given. Exactly how much of Bernie's agenda is going to get adopted by a republican congress? How is he going to get it taken up? So what's going to get passed? How is sanders going to deal with a congress that says "lol no" and sends him a budget increasing military funding and cutting welfare? At the end of the day this boils down to the "experience" argument, but there's a twist. Sanders definitely also has a history of legislative accomplishments, but more than a few presidents, Obama included, have shown us that legislative experience doesn't translate to effective leadership from the White House. I'll be frank, it's pretty damn obvious that the Clintons inspired Frank and Clair Underwood from the house of cards. That is, however you care to look at it, a reality. Personal relationships and a willingness to twist arms is what gets legislation through. Inability to work congress has been Obama's greatest failing as president I think. (I'm not saying congress doesn't share the blame, but politics is the art of the possible, more could possibly been done had the situation been better managed).

  2. Clinton had a point when she said she's been the focus of partisan attacks for 10+ years. There's a SHITLOAD of dirt out there, but for the most part it's already been dug up. Think about the shit that Republicans dug up on John Kerry with the swiftboat nonsense, or on OBama with reviewing every single thing Jeremiah wright said, how exactly did it become a controversy that Obama's pastor said "god damn America?". You already largely know what Republicans are going to bring up with Clinton. Where's Bernie Sanders dirt? His personal life is largely unknown, and he's skated by on a northeastern tolerance for social indiscretions and refusing to discuss it. I guarantee you it's not because dirt doesn't exist, and not because it hasn't been dug up, but because it's being held in reserve for the general. Republicans forever tied to tar Obama with the idea that he was Saul Alinksy's protege, some kind of 60's radical reborn. Sanders actually is that 60's radical, and actually calls himself a socialist to boot. There's quite a bit out there of him associating with genuine revolutionary socialists and communists. There's going to be an army of people looking for every photo of everyone Sanders ever associated with and everything bad they said about America. His personal life wont' be off limits either. Did you know Sanders has an adult son that was born out of wedlock? Sure, millenials won't give a damn, but it will be the basis for tens of millions of negative advertising.

  3. Electability. It's popular here to point to head to head polls suggesting Sanders is better able to beat Trump. But those same polls also showed Clinton beating everyone but Kasich. In a hypothetical match up against Trump, Sanders comes out +13 and Clinton comes out +6. But the presidential campaign map matters a lot as well. Sanders did particularly poor among Latinos and African Americans, and does exceedingly well amongst poor white people in largely white (and largely red) states. Sanders tied Oklahoma, and won Wisconsin, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Vermont. Clinton, Among others has won California, New York, Illinois and Florida. Even taking election shenanigans into account, the former aren't going to matter so much in the general election and the latter will.

    They are what they are, but the real question is what are you going to do about them? because when you step outside of the echo chamber, it's pretty obvious that Clinton's going to end up the Nominee. Sanders is fighting the good fight and will carry a liberal platform to the convention, which I think is a very good thing for the party in geneal and the Sanders/Warren wing of the party in particular, but his chance of ending up the nominee at this point is virtually nil unless something radical changes like Clinton actually succumbing to a major scandal or getting criminal charges filed. Then question is then, are you going to succumb to the drawback of a two party system and vote for the lesser of two evils or do something that might result in Trump becoming president? It's easy to say now, how do you think Nader supporters felt in 2001 when Bush took office?

    I would add to this, your question makes the exact same mistake democrats have made for years as it relates to Republican voters. going back to Thomas Frank's Book what's the matter with Kansas and why Obama's comments about clinging to guns and religion caused such a fury on the right even though they're pretty true.

    At its heart, the way people choose political candidate is not 100% logical. People are not robots. The reason political disagreements exists is because people have different priorities. Priorities are not driven solely by logical connections. People choose a candidate based on how they feel about them. Obama won an election (both primary and general) by creating a feeling that he would be different. Trump's winning the republican primary by creating a feeling among disenchanted voters that he's going to come in and make it right, no matter what his background or prior policy preferences were.

    Clinton has done a decent job creating an emotional connection with certain demographics.Women over 40, African Americans, Hispanics. She fails at it markedly among millennials and to some extent among men.

    Not speaking truth to power, but rather telling the truth to the mob, or at least answering a question deliberately asked about what the defenses of clinton are.
u/derpallardie · 55 pointsr/NatureIsFuckingLit

If you wanna read about soil, I'd recommend Dirt: The Ecstatic Skin of the Earth by William Bryant Logan. If you're looking for a soil science textbook, I'd go with Brady & Weil. If you're looking for just general reading recommendations, I've really been loving King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild.

u/jondavidbrooks · 54 pointsr/AgainstHateSubreddits

It should be mandatory that everyone either read or watch the documentary Guns Germs and Steel. Because on the face of it it wouldnt be a unfair question to ask why did Europeans become the most advanced and dominated other cultures. Guns Germs and Steel lays out a rock solid case on and to sum up the answer comes down to Geography and timing not because of superiority of any race. But the answer is even more complicated then that... andv to sit there and argue with these knuckleheads with this long complicated arguments is pointless. It would be better if kids learn young about why these discrepancies exist so we can shut down those questions early on.

u/mikeaveli2682 · 52 pointsr/hiphopheads

Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

Edit = I've listed some of the best books I've read on the subject below. Just ask if you want to know anything about them:

[The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans] (

[The Third Reich in Power by Richard J. Evans] (

[The Third Reich at War by Richard J. Evans] (

[Maus by Art Speigelman] (

[Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics by Frederich Spotts] (

[Art of the Third Reich by Peter Adam] (

[Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe by Mark Mazower] (

[State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert] (

[Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris by Ian Kershaw] (

[Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis by Ian Kershaw] (

[The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton] (

[The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg] (

[Heinrich Himmler by Peter Longerich] (

[Hitler's Hangman - The Life of Heydrich by Robert Gerwartch] (

[Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939 by Saul Friedlander] (

[Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination by Saul Friedlander] (

[Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning] (

[KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps by Nikolaus Wachsmann] (

u/thatguygreg · 51 pointsr/news

> single mother

> caring for disabled parents

> Trump voter

Can we update What's the Matter with Kansas for the new level of cognitive BS these people put themselves through?

u/eternalkerri · 50 pointsr/AskHistorians

It's hard to pin down exactly and by what standard you want to judge "Nazi Ideology".

Were most German soldiers patriotic and nationalistic. Most certainly yes. In Hitler's Army, the author makes strong arguments, using everything from rank and file soldiers diaries to communications between high levels of the Wehrmacht, that the average German believed in the rightness of their cause. That being the restoration of German pride, revenge for Versailles, defense against perceived threats to their way of life (Bolshevism), and defense of their homeland. As the war dragged on, defeatism, anti-Nazi sentiment, and war exhaustion did increase exponentially to where it was openly spoken of, at least by German civilians, their disdain for the Nazi's and Adolph Hitler.

In Ordinary Men, the author zeroes in on a particular police unit in Poland that actively participated in the Ethnic Cleansing of Poland of not only Jews, but Slavs, Poles, and other undesirables. While the book paints a largely dismal picture, showing that many went with the "following orders" principle, it was mixed, but definitely was a majority who participated in the Holocaust and Racist actions.

However, there are constant stories being cited, of German regular army, the Wehrmacht not dealing well with being tasked with taking on Holocaust related actions. There were reports of absenteeism, alcoholism, suicides, and even an occasional refusal of a direct order when these actions had to take place. While clearly these units did participate, it was not a mass action, but the large majority did participate. With what thoughts on their mind we can't say for sure across the board, but we do know that Nazi German soldiers overwhelmingly participated in these acts.

So on the whole, if you want to tie Nazism to the larger ideology of German Nationalism, then yes, the average soldier gladly followed the Nazi lead in this. While ascribing to their racist ideology and activities that related to the Holocaust, the numbers were smaller, but still a significant majority.

u/verbatim2242 · 50 pointsr/politics

For anyone looking at a deep dive into the subject of command and control, "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety" by Eric Schlosser is well worth the read.

>“As part of that administrative process, Butler decided to look at every single target in the SIOP, and for weeks he carefully scrutinized the thousands of desired ground zeros. He found bridges and railways and roads in the middle of nowhere targeted with multiple warheads, to assure their destruction. Hundreds of nuclear warheads would hit Moscow—dozens of them aimed at a single radar installation outside the city. During his previous job working for the Joint Chiefs, Butler had dealt with targeting issues and the damage criteria for nuclear weapons."

>"He was hardly naive. But the days and weeks spent going through the SIOP, page by page, deeply affected him. For more than forty years, efforts to tame the SIOP, to limit it, reduce it, make it appear logical and reasonable, had failed. “With the possible exception of the Soviet nuclear war plan, this was the single most absurd and irresponsible document I had ever reviewed in my life,” General Butler later recalled.

>“I came to fully appreciate the truth . . . we escaped the Cold War without a nuclear holocaust by some combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion.”

To say that our current PEOTUS does not know what he is doing is an understatement. Given the history of nuclear power, storage, fallout, errors and use and given the chilling interview KAC gave last night on the Rachel Maddow Show clearly showing no formal knowledge on nuclear controlling powers across the globe, we should all recognize we are in for a long and hazardous ride which might not end well.

The history of nuclear power is ripe with peril and human error. Having someone at the trigger without an understanding of the issues and the technology behind that power should rightfully scare the hell out of everyone on the planet.

u/WeakStreamZ · 49 pointsr/history

I remember this from reading Ordinary Men in college. It’s worth checking out.

u/cyancynic · 48 pointsr/Denver

Checked out her facebook page. Who decided this idiot Julie Williams should be on a school board? Her highest level of academic achievement was attending a 4th tier local community college. Her facebook page still cites junk “studies” linking vaccines to autism. She’s a proud fan of Hannity and a bunch of other extremist right wing talking heads, and she cites mostly Koch sock puppet think tank “articles”.

It would be nice to have school board members who actually have a quality education. As to the history texts - I suggest Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Its been a long time since I’ve been in school and I learned a lot.

u/SuB2007 · 48 pointsr/MakeupAddiction

I highly recommend "Stiff" by Mary Roach. It'

u/PersianPenisBox · 47 pointsr/conspiracy

You want some REAL information? Then you need to take the time and read.

Start there. Its written by the 2 most prominent political theorists of our generation. Waltz and Mearsh have added more to political theory together than all of the other political theorists combined IMO.

These two are not 'conspiracy theorists' - they are acclaimed professors of political theory. Renowned in every respect. They wrote about the "Israeli Lobby" and its impact on US foreign relations. Its an unprecedented amount of support. I know it sounds weird to say "Zionism owns America" but to someone who is IGNORant (not a jab at you, its just the reality) it sounds strange. When you start reading about Zionism/Israel/Jews and their political impact on American foreign relations, every action you see witnessed on your TV or articles you read make contextual sense.

If you actually want knowledge, and not just facts you can peddle but not backup, then by all means go Google away. If you want a grounded understanding of how Israel buttfucks Americans so openly, start with the book.

u/pizzashill · 46 pointsr/TopMindsOfReddit

Holy Christ, the top comment there triggered me so hard I'm gonna have to reply to it.



This book is god awful, it is absolutely riddled with bullshit - if you want to see just how bad it is, here's an actual expert dismantling this guy:

>> Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”).

No, they were not. This is blatant bullshit, as Richard J. Evans in the third Reich trilogy writes:

>> Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi’, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, antisemitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.

>> The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of a ‘party’ suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propaganda, however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of the ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of the ‘workers’ movement’ or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of the ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labour movement, advertised its opposition to conventional politics and its intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

>> By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in mid-1920: the field was bright red, the colour of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white and red, the colours of the official flag of the Bismarckian Empire. In the wake of the 1918 Revolution these came to symbolize rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German, racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

>> By the end of 1920, Hitler’s early emphasis on attacking Jewish capitalism had been modified to bring in ‘Marxism’, or in other words Social Democracy, and Bolshevism as well. The cruelties of the civil war and ‘red terror’ in Lenin’s Russia were making an impact, and Hitler could use them to lend emphasis to common far-right views of the supposedly Jewish inspiration behind the revolutionary upheavals of 1918-19 in Munich. Nazism would also have been possible, however, without the Communist threat; Hitler’s anti-Bolshevism was the product of his antisemitism and not the other way round.

Or even more:

>> A more alarmist note was sounded by the French ambassador, André François-Poncet. The perceptive diplomat noted that the conservatives were right to expect Hitler to agree to their programme of ‘the crushing of the left, the purging of the bureaucracy, the assimilation of Prussia and the Reich, the reorganization of the army, the re-establishment of military service’. They had put Hitler into the Chancellery in order to discredit him, he observed; ‘they have believed themselves to be very ingenious, ridding themselves of the wolf by introducing him into the sheepfold.’

Or we can can cite:

>> “As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)

And again, from the trilogy:

>> The substantial overlap between the Nazis’ ideology and that of the conservatives, even, to a considerable extent, that of German liberals, was a third major factor in bringing Hitler into the Reich Chancellery on 30 January 1933. The ideas that were current among almost all German political parties right of the Social Democrats in the early 1930s had a great deal in common with those of the Nazis. These ideas certainly bore enough resemblance to the Nazis’ for the bulk of the liberal and conservative parties’ supporters in the Protestant electorate to desert them, at least temporarily, for what looked like a more effective alternative.

>> The Nazis declared that they would scrape away foreign and alien encrustations on the German body politic, ridding the country of Communism, Marxism, ‘Jewish’ liberalism, cultural Bolshevism, feminism, sexual libertinism, cosmopolitanism, the economic and power-political burdens imposed by Britain and France in 1919, ‘Western’ democracy and much else. They would lay bare the true Germany.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about, nazism, indeed, was an extremist form of anti-liberalism/socialism, and their allies in government were not the socialists, or the liberals - but the right wing nationalists and the conservatives.

Their primary enemy was in fact the socialists, and socialists were some of the first people to be thrown in camps.

You are easily one of the least informed people I have ever encountered on the Donald - in the future, avoid discussing topics you have not even a basic understanding of.

Or at the very least avoid reading garbage books written by historically illiterate hacks.

All of that shit you tried to cite, the smoking, the healthcare, the jobs? This was all because Hitler and the nazis were obsessed with a perfect Aryan race.

The nazis also rounded up and tossed the unemployed in camps and called them "workshy."

They believed modernism/liberalism had corrupted german culture - and this is most evident in the "degenerate art/music" events they held all over the place.

u/the_names_Dalton · 45 pointsr/worldnews

Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men sheds light on the Milgram experiments and the psychological factors that contributed to the murderous acts carried out by ordinary men in the Ordnungspolizei.

I was required to read this for a Germany 1919-1945 course I took in college. It left me with conflicting feelings towards the men who carried out these appalling murders. Barbers, shopkeepers, everyday guys. Uncomfortably questioning myself if I would have succumbed to authority and peer pressure and carried out the orders if in that situation (absent of hindsight).

u/AncientMarinade · 44 pointsr/Economics

I would highly recommend [what's the matter with Kansas] ( by Thomas Frank. It is an engaging, informative look at the context around why an entire state of low-income voters voted for policies that were drafted to harm them.

u/EJERommel · 43 pointsr/AskHistorians

I would suggest Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demmick. It deals specifically about the subject you raised.

It is a fascinating read.

u/hawthornepridewipes · 42 pointsr/todayilearned

jumping on your comment to say how much that book engrossed me and that anyone who has read Escape From Camp 14 might also be interested in reading Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demick. Out of all of the books I have read about life in North Korea this is the one that made me realise how dire the situation is out there right now due to the many stories from the different walks of life in NK.

u/GloriousWires · 42 pointsr/fakehistoryporn

The trouble with Germany circa that time is that the Nazis weren't tremendously Out There.

There's a book about this with a very relevant title that I think you should read, or borrow from a library, or something - "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland". The youth of Germany are slightly less responsible for their actions due to years of intense Nazi brainwashing; the elders, not so much. The elders were the 'ordinary men', and even they were happy to line up a few thousand jews and throw the corpses in a ditch.

Wehrmacht soldiers were indisputably Nazis. "Nazi", you see, does not merely cover direct, sworn, card-holding members of The Party: it also describes those fellow-travelers who share the Party's views or further its interests.

Being a member of the German military circa that time involved swearing an oath of personal fealty to Adolph "I don't know which of these untermenschen I hate the most, so just go kill people and I'll tell you when to stop" Hitler, participating in blatant wars of aggression, and witnessing, if not cheerfully indulging in, all sorts of atrocities, with official opinions ranging from tacit approval to outright carte-blanche "slavs aren't people so it's legal to do whatever you want to them".


The Good Book says, in a different context, "ye shall know them by their fruits" - the Nazis had no fruits. Apart from a certain kind, as some of their officials were... peculiar.

Just about everything the Nazis made was garbage. Their vaunted ethics-less science was shit; they falsified reports to fit their politics, did idiot archaeological digs looking for evidence for their falsified aryan history, their concentration camp experiments were nothing but creative torture, and they ignored the whole concept of nuclear physics as "Jewish Physics" and for obvious reasons didn't contribute jack or shit to that field of endeavour.

And as for "but Hitler fixed the economy", wew fucking lad; their economy was a paper tiger based on lies, debt, scams, war booty, and slave labour, 'fixed' by printing money and propping it up with stolen goods, and if he hadn't gone on a war spree and looted Germany's neighbors of gold and goods, he would have been remembered as the architect of the worst catastrophe to hit the German economy since the 30 Years' War.

After The War, no-one who had any real choice in the matter used Nazi equipment; no-one could use all those horses Nazi logistics (which sneers at notions of efficiency) relied upon, because the starving soldiers had eaten them all; the Czechs threw away the Me262 once the Soviets got around to giving them MiGs; the Israelis only used the Bf109 until they could get something better and dumped it at the first opportunity; the Syrians only used the Panzer IV because no-one would give them real tanks; and the French only used the Panther because their own arms industry was munted, on paper it has good stats, and the Nazis left lots of them broken down by the roadside. For a reason, as it turned out. A heavy tank with a medium tank's drivetrain isn't exactly a recipe for success. But hey, it had a badass name and it was pretty good as long as you parked it on a flat surface and didn't try to drive anywhere, so it's been talked up as the best thing since the FT17.

The only thing the Nazis accomplished was to make a huge mess and get a lot of people killed for nothing. Killing people was their plan all along, and the "ordinary men" of Germany were more than happy to go out and shoot some untermenschen. While units like the einsatzgruppen and Dirlewanger Brigade catch a lot of flak for obvious reasons, the Nazi military in general had an atrocious reputation for all sorts of shittery ranging from looting and rape to indiscriminate massacres in 'reprisal' against imagined or real partisan activity- justified partisan activity, given that they were resisting unlawful occupation, when they existed at all, because "oops we just "accidentally" burned down another village, let's say these dead people were partisans" -bombing civilians just about everywhere they went, murdering prisoners, and all manner of things that would be classed in court as "aiding and abetting", including loaning troops and providing logistical support to the SS and einsatzgruppen.

The Wehrmacht only got out of being declared a criminal organisation, after the war, because they were too disorganised to qualify. And when you're talking about Nazi Germany, 'disorganised' is the normal state of affairs: too disorganised to be an organisation was one Hell of an accomplishment.


People like to talk about Mein Opa who bravely defended the Fatherland ^in ^^the ^^^motherland, and who Never Did Anything Wrong; really, it's amazing how many people had nothing to do with the Nazis and were just quietly doing their jobs and never 'employed' a slave labourer or noticed a camp that received a constant stream of jews, gypsies and Soviet POWs, yet somehow never had to build more barracks to hold them.

There is a marked tendency among Nazis, Neo- and otherwise, and sympathisers for such, to try and argue that occasional war-criming on the part of the Allies was as equally immoral as chronic war-criming on the part of the Axis, and that wars are inherently bloody things in which, occasionally, Mistakes Are Made; that it isn't right to pay too much attention to a few thousand dead Frenchmen here or a few thousand dead Poles over there, much less millions of 'missing' Jews and Russians, or to imply that a man in a Stahlhelm might not have been doing the Right Thing by Fighting For His Country.

Both sides did war-crimes. The Nazis treated them as a good day's work.

The usual excuse, once "the Wehrmacht didn't do war crimes" has been blown out of the water like the Bismarck, is that they did war-crime, but only because they'd be shot or sent to the Eastern Front or a concentration camp if they refused.

That wasn't usually a problem; if you didn't have the stomach for it, they'd just move you somewhere else. There was no shortage of young Hitlerites eager to murder some untermenschen, so if you were the one guy in a hundred who thought "Hang on, maybe this is a bit much," they'd get you to help dig the graves, or post you up the road to keep witnesses from getting underfoot, blacklist you from being promoted, or move you to an actual combat unit. After laughing at you and calling you a pussy, of course, because what kind of lily-livered moron gets weepy over a bunch of dead Jews/Gypsies/Russians?

Comparing any army to the Wehrmacht basically means implying that the soldiers in it are a pack of bloodthirsty bandits only held back from a rape-murder-and-pillage spree by fear of being caught.


This shit goes right back to the very end of WW2; The Cold War kicked off right after WW2 finished, and the Allies were willing to overlook quite a bit to try and get the remnants of the Wehrmacht to help out against the Soviets, so a lot of things, especially regarding the Eastern Front, got quietly brushed under the carpet if it'd get some shitbag with an Iron Cross to play ball.


And for a final bonus, "the propaganda" to "demonise the opposing soldiers"? Otto Carius complained about that in his memoir. He wrote of the angry glares of Allied prison camp guards who he felt were disapproving of him purely because of 'atrocity propaganda' and had no justification at all for looking down upon a heroic tank ace who just happened to habitually enjoy the cordial company of SS officers.

He was, after all, just fighting against Judeo-Bolshevism, and never did anything wrong.

The 'atrocity propaganda'. Riight. There's three kinds of propaganda - absolute bullshit, stuff that's mostly true, and truths that the enemy don't want people to hear about. When it came to the behaviour of the Nazi military, there was no need to make things up because everywhere they went, they behaved like the literal nazis they were. Rotterdam, Warsaw, Guernica, Warsaw (again), half-a-hundred other places...

u/Onfortuneswheel · 42 pointsr/UnresolvedMysteries

I am planning to pick up a number of books I saw on this list.

Erik Larson’s Devil in the White City is probably the best true crime I’ve read. Some older true crime novels can be really campy and sensationalized.

Also, it’s not true crime, but Mary Roach’s Stiff is a fun read about cadavers and the human body after death.

u/53045248437532743874 · 42 pointsr/gatekeeping

> Dang, I'm a white guy dating a biracial woman (black/white). People definitely read her as just "black"

It goes back a few hundred years and we've never shaken it. Laws dating from 17th-century colonial America excluded children of at least one black parent from the legal status of being white. Laws defined all people of some African ancestry as black, under the principle of hypodescent. Some 19th-century categorization schemes defined people with one black parent (the other white) as "mulatto," with one black grandparent as "quadroon" and with one black great grandparent as "octoroon." The latter categories remained within an overall black or African-American category.

> I've heard all these comments before (not often but it happens) and things get more complicated when she mentions she's mixed race.

It's so sad too, because race isn't anything scientific, we invented it. And being "white" is an invention of America. In France, "black" people think of themselves as French. When immigrants came to America they weren't white, they were Polish and German and Dutch and so on. Irish immigrants, who were so oppressed in the North that their treatment would be considered the original sin of America if not for slavery in the South, were not considered "white" until the Civil War. And for Italians it came much later:

> When Italians poured into America in the late 1800s and early 1900s, they were not considered white upon arrival. Italians, Greeks, Poles, Hungarians, Slavs and other European groups, at the time called “new immigrants,” sought to overcome their subordination by showing, through their behavior, to be deserving of being considered white. In 1911, Henry Pratt Fairchild, an influential American sociologist, said about new immigrants, “If he proves himself a man, and … acquires wealth and cleans himself up — very well, we might receive him [consider him white] in a generation or two. But at present he is far beneath us, and the burden of proof rests with him.” Economist Robert F. Forester wrote in 1924, “in a country where the distinction between white man and black is intended as a distinction of value … it is no compliment to the Italian to deny him his whiteness, but that actually happens with considerable frequency.”

And a little more...

> The construction of the "white race" in the United States was an effort to mentally distance slaveowners from slaves. The process of officially being defined as white by law often came about in court disputes over pursuit of citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1790 offered naturalization only to "any alien, being a free white person". In at least 52 cases, people denied the status of white by immigration officials sued in court for status as white people.

u/oppleTANK · 40 pointsr/todayilearned

Horses, steel weapons, steel armor against obsidian clubs, Inca weakened by disease,

ohhh and gun powder.

Guns, Germs and Steel

u/LindsayHansenPark · 40 pointsr/exmormon

Great question. Again, I struggle with being concise but I will try.

Belief is hard. I'm still trying to understand it myself. The short answer is, at the end of the day- I still feel like a believer. Like, I wake up many mornings and feel like nothing has changed for me. I think this suggests that Mormonism is far more than just a belief system. I still feel Mormon. It's still a very natural instinct to pray when I'm stressed.

Logically, I don't believe in God, but I still feel like I do and so I still pray. I think this is the actual definition of Mormon faith- a hope for things. I hope that someone or something hears my prayers, but I know it is very unlikely. But it's a habit and practice I value.

I don't believe in the literal truth claims of most things, only because I have a very different understanding of how to view it thanks to my professional historian friends who have taught me how to think of things from a sort of dispassionate, scientific way.

That shows me, and experience has shown me that things don't have to be literal to have meaning. Have y'all read Sapiens? I love the way Harari talks about constructs and myths. Everything is a myth- everything- equality, human rights, religion, all of it. I sort of take that approach.

So what do I believe? It's hard to pin down. I have a testimony in the messiness of it all. I bear my testimony that humans are super illogical and messy and broken, acting out of hurt and scarcity sometimes, and other times acting out of generosity and kindness. I see this acted out through Mormonism daily. It certainly isn't specific to Mormonism, but I've learned it all through a Mormon lens and I really value that.

So I believe in the Mormon movement. In Mormon people to do good and bad things in a very Mormon way. I love the Mormon communities we have and actually feel spiritually fed in seeing the complexity of it all. To me, divinity is found in collective human experience and I see that in Mormonism.

I know that doesn't make a lot of sense and isn't sufficient. We want temple recommend answers to this sort of thing. Everything else feels like deflection. But the reality is, it's not deflection- I just am not sure how to articulate that my mind and body are very complicated in Mormonism. So the easiest thing to say is that I still feel Mormon and I still feel like a believer. My brain is just more naturally oriented towards belief than skepticism. That's caused me plenty of problems along the way.

I certainly also have a lot of harmful scripts I'm still unpacking but I'm committed in a very Mormon-dilligence sort of way to deconstructing that so i reserve the right to constantly change my mind.

Belief really is complicated and complex. But I certainly no longer believe in a literal, traditional way we usually define belief. But I think that sort of belief requires a very underdeveloped way of looking at the world and most believers I know these days don't subscribe to a sort of blind-faith, immature, take-your-word-for-it belief. There are certainly many that do, but there are also very smart and thoughtful people who let belief be complicated.

u/raohthekenoh · 39 pointsr/technology

I read it in this book.

Very interesting look at people's lives in North Korea from the perspective of people who eventually decided to defect.

u/TrendBomber · 39 pointsr/socialism

Read up on your history before making assumptions

King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa

u/OriginalStomper · 38 pointsr/Foodforthought

This emphasizes different points from those made in Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Texas is the most populous state to approve textbooks at the state level. That means textbook publishers cater to Texas or their books fail, and schools elsewhere are often stuck with whatever Texas approved.

Texas is a Red state still deeply in denial about slavery and racism. Last I checked, kids in Texas public schools are still taught that the Civil War started for a "variety" of reasons, only one of which was slavery.

Publishers who want a successful textbook must therefore cater to Texas by downplaying the viciousness and significance of slavery. This is a primary reason why teachers have a hard time finding the materials they need.

u/cinemabaroque · 38 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

You know what I hate? The fact that black communities have been isolated in economic ghettos by Federal Government policies like redlining and then have to put up with ignorant people like you who ignore all the crime in white communities so you can hate on people different than you.

You want cultural differences, how about Meth? Or a history of owning slaves? Or maybe you mean the fact that we imprison people who use one type of cocaine for much longer than the kind that is popular with white people?

This is the type of stupidity and ignorance that makes reddit look ugly, why don't you go read some actual history before making up hateful shit about black people?

u/GuitarFreak027 · 36 pointsr/videos

The book Command and Control gives a good accounting of that story, along with a really interesting look into the history of nuclear weapons. I'd highly recommend the book if you're interested in nuclear stuff.

u/DanDierdorf · 36 pointsr/ShitWehraboosSay

Buy Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men" and loan it to him . It's not a difficult read, well the topic is, but the language is not.
You see that paperbacks are pretty cheap.

u/vidimevid · 35 pointsr/history

I you're interested in this subject, I highly recommend Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning. Very interesting read that tries to find out why and how did ordinary middle aged German men commit those attrocities.

u/Chip085 · 35 pointsr/politics

There is literally a book (and documentary based on the book) about this. Called What's the Matter With Kansas

u/Carbon_Rod · 35 pointsr/MorbidReality

Stiff - The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, if you want a light read about dead people. More amusing than it sounds.

u/serpicowasright · 35 pointsr/KotakuInAction

There was a really good book I read many years ago called "How the Irish became white" it talked about how over time Irish at least in American western culture came from a group of people considered to be "White Niggers" to being considered parts of the dominant white culture.

In the end the book was all about how "whiteness" is really a social construct, it doesn't truly exist other then to be used as a means to separate us from them. We can be parts of many cultures Anglo-saxon, Germanic, etc. But really the idea of a white race (or really any race) is just a means of separating and controlling others.

u/organichewn · 34 pointsr/Drugs

You should read Sapiens, the author explains how the agricultural revolution was a horrible thing for mankind.

tl;dr : We stopped eating diverse foods, which were then more prone to parasites, began to live together and spread diseases among us, stopped running like our bodies are supposed to and began working with our backs curved, which gave us hernias and stuff, etc.

The book isn't just about the agricultural revolution, it's about the history of our species from the first homo sapiens to right now. Amazing book, very trippy.

u/ksmoke · 34 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

There isn't a universal tech tree in real life. It's kind of hard to say any culture is "more advanced" than another when they're so different. It's especially hard when we just don't know that much about the native societies in the Americas pre-Columbus. There's a really amazing book called '1491' by Charles C. Mann that's a pretty easy read and probably the best summary of our understanding of pre-Columbian America and would answer a lot of your questions.

u/Captain_MakeItHappen · 33 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

ITT: Conflating 'Make America Great Again' with Nazis.

Of course.

u/ciarao55 · 33 pointsr/worldnews

I think part of the problem is really that people are looking at only granular parts of problems today and don't have enough historical context. Its useless to follow every story about everyone and every little thing. There are lots of ups and downs in politics and there's no reason to be so reactionary to every single new and probably manufactured "scandal".... that's what's exhausting. I like to keep updated on a few big issues, I follow the careers of a few people I find inspiring (and follow a few that do things that worry me), and spend the rest of the time reading up on topics in book form... they have the advantage of being written over time, and with more vigorous standards for accuracy. The news, while still important where immediate info is necessary, is essentially click bait now. You don't need to get caught in the rip tides that pull you everywhere constantly, just understand the general trajectory of the important things.

edit: to those curious about some book recommendations: I'm by no means an expert in anything really, and the books you read should really be about the topics you personally are interested in, so don't take my word as gospel (or any author's). I like American history, ancient history, international relations, and though I think they're more boring I force myself to read about the health care system and the American education system because I feel they're important. I'm also looking to read some books on the military industrial complex and cyber security/ big data because I don't really know anything about them other than the stuff I see in passing on the news or here on Reddit. So if anyone knows a good overview of those issues, feel free to let me know.

  • For a good start on human history and the beginnings of modern economics/ intl relations (basically why the West has historically dominated), try Guns, Germs, and Steel I believe there's also a documentary if the book is too dense for your taste (it is pretty dense).

  • Perhaps if you're interested in why people get so damn heated talking politics, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation

  • If you wonder why people vote against their own social and economic interest: What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Full disclosure: I liked this book, but I lean left. I'm not sure if it matters, the point of the book is just to track how the Republican party went from being the party of elites, to the party of blue collar workers.

  • If the Supreme Court interests you at all, I liked Jeffrey Toobin's, The Nine

  • The achievement gap? Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria

  • Health care? There's a lot, but this one is an easy read and it compares the systems of Britain, Japan, Germany, and I believe Cuba (which is very good for their GDP!) and the US's. The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T.R. Reid

    This is just some stuff I've listed off the top of my head. Another thing that I find helpful to better understanding intl relations are books about the major genocides of the past few decades, which are hard to get through (because of the brutal content) but... What is the What (Sudan), First they killed my father (Cambodian genocide), Girl at War (more of a autobiography, but still chilling) there's a couple of others I've read that I can't remember now.

    Anyway, just go to Good Reads and look at Contemporary Politics. Perhaps Great Courses has a political philosophy course too that you can draw from if you wanna go even farther back into the origins of society's structure and political thought.

    Also podcasts! I've just discovered these but there's a lot of audio content (FREE!) that you can listen to on your commute and whatnot. I like Abe Lincoln's Top Hat right now.

    Edit edit: wow thanks for the gold!!
u/killall-q · 33 pointsr/Guildwars2

Queen Jennah and Exemplar Salia are brown. Besides select few NPCs though, it seems Ascalonians have completely pushed out both the Krytan gene pool and architecture. If real world history is any parallel, it's possible that native Krytans were wiped out by diseases they had no immunity to brought by the Ascalonian immigrants, though that doesn't make sense seeing that the two peoples were not isolated from each other before the exodus. More likely that Ascalonian food production technology outcompeted Krytans' such that Ascalonians multiplied so fast that Krytans were left with no resources and a diminishing population. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

u/NightGod · 32 pointsr/personalfinance

There are still options like The Body Farm and safety testing (aka, when crash test dummies aren't enough). You might find the book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers enlightening.

u/Sunfried · 32 pointsr/TumblrInAction

There's actually a decent amount of Academia dedicated to figuring out how the Irish transitioned from identifiable ethnic minority to other white people. The most famous example is about how the Irish came to become oppressors, which is oF cOuRsE synonymous with white.

But the most profound way in which they became what was... they assimilated.

u/23_sided · 31 pointsr/paradoxplaza

Disease and climate. We're finding more and more that disease and climate had a huge effect on how cultures managed to dominate the world by the beginning of the 19th century.

u/Jackmono · 31 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Ordinary Men taking part in the extermination of the Slavic people. And ordinary men who participated in rape to such a scale that it caused a demographic shift.

u/unlimitedzen · 31 pointsr/australia

I agree. Despise the perpetrators all you want, I certainly do, but don't fall into the trap of believing they're somehow different. Christopher Browning wrote an excellent book on the Ordinary Men who helped in the attempted genocide of WWII:

>Browning reconstructs how a German reserve police battalion composed of "ordinary men," middle-aged, working class people, killed tens of thousands of Jews during WW II.

The study of "The banality of evil" warns us that blaming extremist actions on some type of "evil other" blinds us to the role we play in supporting those individuals:

>Normalizing the Unthinkable

>Doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on "normalization." This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as "the way things are done." There is usually a division of labor in doing and rationalizing the unthinkable, with the direct brutalizing and killing done by one set of individuals; others keeping the machinery of death (sanitation, food supply) in order; still others producing the implements of killing, or working on improving technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive napalm, bomb fragments that penetrate flesh in hard-to-trace patterns). It is the function of defense intellectuals and other experts, and the mainstream media, to normalize the unthinkable for the general public.

u/AntiChr1st · 31 pointsr/history

It depends a lot on when exactly we're talking. For a famous and spectacular example you have Albert Battel, who had the "deal with him after the war" added to his file by Heinrich Himmler personally. You have other examples like Erwin Rommel who was insubordinate on a general basis (wouldn't hunt jews, wouldn't tell anyone else to do it, refused to kill captured commandos) and got mightily unpopular for it. At that point they certainly had a hope of winning and losing people wasn't worth and there was still a general idea of "we want to keep this quiet".
At that point they also tried to keep the actual atrocities to volunteers (to prevent people from getting the option of insubordination in the first place).

If I remember correctly it was sometime late '44 that the feltgendarmerie (Military Police) was given the authority to shoot German soldiers on the spot (for desertion, cowardice, or refusing orders). Along with a rise in drummed up military courts wherever they happened to be handily available.
A lot of people were sent to penal battalions much easier then, as it didn't take actually sending someone to a proper judgement and sentencing.

Reading on the subject is difficult (the subject is surprisingly little covered directly, mostly referred to in passing by people covering other subjects. Far as I know there's no book on that one subject).
However, if you have a JSTOR account there is this. (this is the basis of the "nobody ever got punished claim btw). talks about how atrocities were committed and how people who might refuse to participate directly rather helped indirectly.
Sadly I don't know any easy way to gain a lot of insight into military insubordination in the German armed forces, not because it was rare (it happened more than you'd think), but because it's been covered surprisingly little and going over the old execution cases is something of a sore subject that's been met with a lot of resistance.

For civilian insubordination it's a bit easier as you can read up on people like Sophie Scholl who was beheaded for resistance, nonviolent resistance in her case as she was participating in the white rose.
People were regularly imprisoned for saying things critical to the regime (or Hitler, which is why Sophie Scholls father was in prison), so it's not a stretch to say that at the very least people believed insubordination would carry severe consequences.

Youknow, I'm more interested in history, and especially WW2 history, than the average person. I've seen videos of executions, pictures and videos from the most horrid camps and battles, I've read testimonies...
I have a strong constitution, I can "disengage" emotionally from most of these things. You have to in order to see it in the first place. As a result my response to things like Holocaust deniers saying it was impossible to burn that many bodies is to literally just do the math.

That picture of Sophie Scholl is one of only two things that I can honestly say makes me physically unwell.

u/WarwithintheWalls · 31 pointsr/writing

I like thinking about culture. We tell the story of people, real and imaginary, and we should know where they come from.
I believe culture is driven by the head, the heart, and the belly. So if an idea comes into my head for a culture I ask five questions:

  • What do they eat?
  • What do they believe in?
  • Where do they come from?
  • Where are they going?
  • What do they consider family?
  • How do they court, marry, fu...nction in a relationship?

    You'd be amazed how much you can inform yourself there.

    That gives me a nice start. Then I start to ask other questions on themes. Ask the 5W1H (Who What When Where Why How) questions about 6 random subjects based on what you now know

    For instance, Death:

  • Who handles the body?
  • What is done with the body?
  • When is this done?
  • Where do they put a body?
  • Why do they do these things?

    It's a never fails way of going about things. Now come up with the life of five people living in a society based on this information. Use Proust's questionnaire and Gotham's questionnaire to frame them.

    Do all of this with first thoughts. Look it over. Think about it. Look at common travel questions like "What's the best place to eat?" or "what should I not do to piss off the locals"?

    You can get the true feel for a society in hours. Then put your characters who are in that culture through those same questionnaires, same random questions. You'll know them from head to heart to belly, and you're golden.

    EDIT: I just saw some other information. DO NOT READ GENRE FICTION FOR WORLD IDEAS. Read history, philosophy, anthropology. Pick up a history of food ,Guns, Germs, and Steel, other books that give you overviews on specific topics in history and anthropology.

    Tolkien wasn't reading Kingkiller Chronicle, he was learning about hillbillies, ancient languages, and living in WW1 England. Pratchett was a polymoth. Heinlein dug in on so many topics it's unbelievable. Inform with ideas, write from your head and not someone else's.
u/cdts · 30 pointsr/GamerGhazi

>Can I just toss in a 'fuck you' to them right there, the ”white race” never existed at all, it was made up as an excuse to support racial discrimination in America against African peoples because America already had just about every ethnicity from Europe so they couldn't claim it was the French/English/German/Russian people who were the ”superior.”

It's almost as if race is a political concept.

u/homedoggieo · 30 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

This... is a lot of questions. As in, volumes and volumes and volumes written about it.

So I'll just answer the how did it become so crazy? bit.

Korea was targeted for missionary work, and many people were converted to Christianity. Once North Korea was isolated after the Korean War, a guy named Kim Il-Sung came along (Kim Jong-Il's dad, and Jong-Un's grandfather) took advantage of this isolation, and literally had his people paste his face over Jesus's. There's an insane mythology behind him, even stating that his birth was heralded in by a shining star in the north and the appearance of a double rainbow. I read that information from Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demmick, which is a great read if you're interested.

Anyway, if you denied any of this, you disappeared. Eventually, people were too afraid to deny it. Then they were too afraid to tell their children the truth, so you had a new generation being raised with only this information.

A crazy amount of propaganda, isolation from the outside world and several generations later, you have modern North Korea.

Now that South Korea is so advanced and smartphone technology is getting increasingly hard to control (along with a spotty northern border into China where people can sneak out and get new information and products), truth about the outside world is starting to seep in - but people are still too afraid to do anything about it, and the power-hungry regime will do anything to maintain control.

u/Mharbles · 30 pointsr/videos

Cliff Notes video version of Sapiens (good book)

u/Grammar_Kanye · 29 pointsr/Showerthoughts

A large part of the holocaust were liquidations in Poland and Eastern Europe. Towns as large as 30,000 people were "liquidated" in a day. Police units would march the populace into the woods and take a portion, line them up, shoot them at a proscribed place in the spine. Repeat. There is a horrific book called "Ordinary Men" about the 101 Police Reserve Battalion. Those ~500 men alone were responsible for >80,000 deaths.

u/zdaytonaroadster · 29 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Historian here, ACTUAL truth, because of the warm all year climate and abundance of food with small tribal populations divided by geography (for the majority of the time) there was no development to the advanced civilization the rest of the world did, and the ones that did, didnt last long (great Zimbabwe, Nubia, ect). The middle east had vast deserts, Europe and to a lesser extent Asia had winters, so food cultivation and thus tool making never really materialized in vast amounts of sub-Sahara Africa because they didnt have to overcome their environment as far as climate goes. (i am assuming thats what you are talking about as north africa is a different story, they arent poor).

Africa actually has vast amounts of resources, rare earths for example, but their governments corruption keeps any of the wealth out of anyone's hands but the government and military war lords.

The idea that things were just fucking dandy until colonial powers came to the shores is laughable and only a fool with no education would believe such non-sense. The few iron age civilizations that did developed were gone long before the Europeans arrived. And it was the Arabs who arrived first and began slavery and "exploitation" of Africa, not Europe. And for every augment for colonialism raping Africa, there is another Rhodesia to Zimbabwe story to counter it.

tl;dr-Its not always Whitey's fault, despite it always being blamed on him

^gives you a basic idea in layman's terms

u/gec_ · 29 pointsr/TheMotte

In what I think is my first ever top level post here I'd like to discuss and point out some recently published claims by former officials that likely Israeli spy devices were found near the White House sometime in the last few years. Let me quote the article, bolded parts are mine:

> The U.S. government concluded within the past two years that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cellphone surveillance devices that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington, according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.

> But unlike most other occasions when flagrant incidents of foreign spying have been discovered on American soil, the Trump administration did not rebuke the Israeli government, and there were no consequences for Israel’s behavior, one of the former officials said.

> The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as “StingRays,” mimic regular cell towers to fool cellphones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.

> The devices were likely intended to spy on President Donald Trump, one of the former officials said, as well as his top aides and closest associates — though it’s not clear whether the Israeli efforts were successful.

Naturally these claims were denied by the Israeli embassy and no part of the U.S. government was willing to officially comment on it. They got another former counter intelligence official from the Obama administration to comment on these claims on the record and he said:

> “The Israelis are aggressive intelligence collectors, but they have sworn off spying on the U.S. at various points and it’s not surprising that such efforts continue,” said Daniel Benjamin, a former coordinator of counterterrorism at the Obama State Department and now director of the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth.

> Benjamin, who emphasized that he was not aware of the FBI's investigation into the cell-phone spoofing, recalled once meeting with a former head of Mossad, the premier Israeli intelligence agency, when he was out of office. The first thing the former Mossad official told Benjamin was that Israel didn’t spy on the U.S.

> “I just told him our conversation was over if he had such a low estimate of my intelligence,” Benjamin said.

Anyway, I imagine none of this is that surprising to informed commentators (the United States has caught and jailed an Israeli spy in the United States before, Jonathan Pollard) -- and the U.S. government probably tries to do the same thing to Israel. But none the less it sparks a little dissonance that one of our closest allies is engaged in such behavior despite our vigorous (and even more vigorous under Trump) support of them. I'm not sure what the standard protocol is to respond to these things but is troubling that the administration made no attempt to rebuke the Israeli government (as the officials claim).

This, in my opinion, undermines his 'America First' attitude. In general, criticisms that one is failing to live up to ones own standards are a lot more potent than the claims that one is failing to meet the standards of others, so we'll see how this comes up in the 2020 election. Some of the Democratic candidates are practically just as pro-Israel as him, though, so it may not come up.

We should always be wary of 'anonymous officials' attempting to further their own agenda but these claims do fit into my previous understanding of how Israel operates and Trump's sympathy to Israel so at the moment I believe them. Let me know if you think there is a good reason to doubt their veracity.

What should the response be? I don't really know, but surely some sort of response or punishment is warranted by blatant espionage. It makes me ever more wary of exactly who is benefiting from our close relations with them, even aside from the consideration of the influence of the Israeli lobby.

u/thebloodisfoul · 28 pointsr/stupidpol

lol jesus fucking christ, everyone understands that aipac is shorthand for a constellation of pro-israel lobbying groups and donors. go read the israel lobby if you're seriously this dense

u/Im_in_timeout · 28 pointsr/politics

I'm sure /u/Dr_Poz was referencing this insightful book from 2005:
What's the Matter with Kansas?

u/theabolitionist · 28 pointsr/AskReddit

Here is the deal with N. Korea. Pretty much the ones who live in Pyongyang, aka where the media actually have cameras, are brainwashed. Apparently, those who live in the city are chosen by the leadership to live there as it is an honor. Those on the outskirts of the main drag are more in tune to the reality of the situation their country is in. Yes, they still have the mandatory framed pictures of Kim Jong Il & Un on their walls and yes if interviewed, taped or pressured they will act as they are expected to but in reality they know something isn't right. I suggest anyone who is interested read Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick.

u/jamiemccarthy · 28 pointsr/AskReddit

If this question interests you, you will very much enjoy Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel. His thesis is that the potential for cultural advancement is in many cases restricted by geography and climate.

For example, he looks at the habitat range of various domesticable animals, noting that Europe's horse helped the continent's cultures make huge advancements in civilization, while South America's (IIRC) llama, suitable for different uses, didn't offer the same opportunities in agriculture, transport, and warfare.

Pangaea would surely have mountain ranges and deserts, but on the timeframe we're talking about (tens of My) I don't think those limit the spread of land animals the way that oceans do. If domesticable land animals could spread everywhere, human culture likely would too. At the very least, what we call the colonialism of the last millennium would have played out very differently!

u/troglodave · 27 pointsr/politics

You are correct on the title, "What's the Matter With Kansas", but it goes onto much greater depth than the single issue voting. It really delves into and explains why the social conservatives are being played to go against the fiscal conservative values they once held and who is profiting from them.

At the time it was written, 10 years ago, Thomas Frank made the prediction that this was the direction American "Conservatism" would head, and he has been dead on the money! An excellent read for those completely baffled by the ignorance of the average American voter.

u/Whazzits · 27 pointsr/bestoflegaladvice

Animal and pet bodies are generally disposed of via a process that essentially liquifies the flesh in lye. I know that there was some amount of push several years ago to expand the service to human remains.

There's a company in Europe that was trying to push the idea of "planting" a person's body by using minimal preservation chemistry and no coffin, and putting a sapling above the body.

I'm not Tibetan, but even I can appreciate the symbology of their Sky Burials, wherein a body is sliced and left exposed to the elements, and is swiftly reclaimed by vultures.

However, there is one outstanding option for OP: Donating his body to science! Organ donors are lauded, as they well should be, but there's a pressing need for bodies for research purposes, particularly bodies of younger folk or children. The research gained through body donation can save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives, for decades after it's donated. Bodies have been used to research car crash impact effects--dummies are fine, but there really is no substitute for strapping a body into a car and launching it into a wall to see how it breaks (or doesn't!)

I'd strongly encourage anyone interested in alternative body disposal methods to read Stiff, by Mary Roach. It is far and away my favorite non-fiction book--hilarious, respectful, inquisitive, and educational!

u/caffarelli · 26 pointsr/AskHistorians

How to Judge a Book Without Even Reading It

Do you think librarians read all those books they buy?? Heck no. Yes, collection development librarians rely heavily on library review journals, but you can pretty successfully judge a book before you even read the intro. And how!

1. Try a Little Intellectual Snobbery

Basically with this you need to try to smell out the people who are saying “I’m not a historian but…” when they start their books. Who wrote this thing and why? Is this a historian going for tenure, is this maybe a historian trying to write more popular history, is this a historian at the end of their life putting out a magnum opus, is this a journalist? Who published it, academic press or regular press? Does this person have Something to Prove with this history book?

Now, I’m a little leery of recommending this method first, because I’ve seen some pretty shitty books published by big academic houses from heavily degreed people, and I’ve seen some very nice historical work put out by tiny publishers you’ve never heard of or self-published, and written by people who just decided to write a book because they cared deeply about the history of something that few others cared about. Good work absolutely stands on its own merits, and independent scholars are important animals in the academic ecosystem. But there is a correlation here, and not necessarily a causation, between academics working with academic publishing houses and the production of rigorous history, and you can lean on it a little.

2. Give it the Vulcan Citations Pinch

Flip to the back of the book. Where does the actual book stop and the endmatter start? Basically the more endmatter the better. You want maybe a good solid half centimeter of paper between your fingers, preferably more. If you start seeing appendices in addition to citations and index that’s very good.

3. Scope-to-Cred Ratio

This one’s hard to quantify but basically, the more modest the book’s scope the more modest of arguments and credentials the author needs to pull it off. So a book about say the importance of paperback books for soldiers in WWII, this is a pretty modest scope, and it’s not making any very bold claims, there’s no real reason to be suspicious about the arguments made in this book, although it’s absolutely a popular history work. A book trying to explain the history of everything, get suspicious.

4. Read the Intro

Okay after the first three bits you’ve decided this book has merited your attention enough to open the thing. The intro to a book should give you the outline of the major argument and you can decide whether the argument passes a basic smell test of not being total bullshit. If you find the argument compelling and you want to see how they are going to argue it in the knitty gritty, it’s time to commit to checking out/buying the book and seeing what’s up. (Intros are usually available for new books on Google Books or Amazon previews.)

4b. Read the Acknowledgments

You can tell a lot about a person from their acknowledgments section. I’ve seen books where the author specifically thanked the ILL staff of their local library. They should ideally be thanking an archives or two if it’s a modern history book, because that means they’ve done Real Research.

5. Have a Good Idea of How One Does History

This one takes a little time investment, but having a basic idea of what makes a good historical argument and what makes a bad one will serve you well for judging any history book, from any topic. Maybe just spend some time on the logical fallacies section of Wikipedia. Just knowing to run away when you hear someone start yammering about glorious progress or indulging in extended hero-worship will serve you remarkably well in the history section at Barnes and Noble.

6. Nothing Wrong with Reading a Bad Book

Okay, so you did all this pre-judgement and you still managed to read a real turd. Ah well. You always can learn a lot from something done poorly. They’re a certain grim joy in hating a bad book, especially if you get to feel smarter than an author, so just treat yourself to a really firm critical dismissal of the work. Maybe leave a real stinker of a review here on a Saturday or /r/badhistory.

u/Gizank · 26 pointsr/WTF

Interesting timing of this post for me. I was having trouble getting to sleep last night, so I was reading Stiff, The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach. (This was a mistake, but only because the book is very interesting and well written. I got through 86 pages before I gave up and turned the light off. I never got sleepy.)

There are a number of stories in the book that might relate, but this reminded me most of Thomas Holmes (The Father of Modern Embalming.) The Wikipedia entry doesn't really have much trivia about him. More can be found on this page. His info is about half-way down the page. Roach goes into more detail about his story, but the part I thought of here is in that link:

>Holmes retired to Brooklyn, New York where he sold root beer and embalming
supplies. According to Christine Quigley, author of A Corpse: a History and Mary
Roach, author of Stiff, The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, Holmes shared his
Brooklyn home with samples of his Civil War era handiwork. Embalmed bodies were
stored in the closets, and preserved heads sat on tables in the parlor. Not all that
surprisingly, Holmes eventually went insane (Robert Mayer wrote that Holmes became
mentally unhinged after an accident) spending his final years in and out of institutions.
Shortly before he died he is said to have requested not to be embalmed.

By way of a little explanation: I work closely with a medical examiner's office. I was affected a good deal more, at first, than I expected since I don't go there every day and usually work at one remove from the actual place and the work done there. When I asked how people cope with that kind of work, both death investigation and pathology, along with a long and sensitive discussion about the job Mary Roach's book was recommended reading. I borrowed and returned it and eventually bought my own copy, but only last night started reading it. I'm only through 87 pages, but so far, it's a good read. If you want some perspective and maybe a different way to think about your own "final arrangements", or if you're just curious about stuff like what happens to bodies left to science or medicine, you may find it enlightening. She handles the subject with respect, humanity, and humor. It isn't nearly as gruesome as I thought it would be, but I have been exposed to a lot more death and bodies and such in the last three+ years than the average person, so YMMV.

u/Ashoka345 · 26 pointsr/Documentaries

It's just a comparison of how stories play out in American and British media.

There is academic work on this by some of the most reputable IR scholars on the planet...

If you want peer reviewed work I wouldn't look to some guy on youtube attempting to compare and contrast news clips.

u/Montuckian · 26 pointsr/askscience

They didn't have chickens either, as those evolved from red junglefowl found in Asia. I'm also unaware of there being any large scale domestication of the alpaca and their range is centered in Northern Peru and doesn't extend beyond that. Llamas are bound by the same circumstances, although I believe they had a larger historical range than alpacas. Incas also had access to the guinea pig.

In reality, the only domesticated animals available to central Americans would have been turkeys, which were domesticated roughly 2000 years ago. Dogs were likely kept as a starvation food, and were probably 'unintentionally' domesticated. It's arguable that because of the likelihood that there was a low density of domestic turkey populations, there was a low amount of contact between humans and their domesticated fowl (given that they weren't used for egg production), and that they were domesticated relatively recently, that any diseases carried by turkeys didn't have time or opportunity to find a foothold in New World Human populations.

It should also be noted that the orientation of the New World continents is not beneficial for the transmission of diseases. You must traverse through a variety of different biomes, and thus different species, if you traverse the continents of North and South American from tip to tip. On the other hand, Asia, Europe and the Middle East are oriented in the opposite direction, which causes lateral planes of similar climates (e.g. the climate of France is roughly similar to the Ukraine, which is similar to Kazakhstan). Because of that, similar species can exist along a long lateral corridor and pass diseases between neighboring populations. This effect becomes more pronounced as people use similar domesticated stock in a more widespread fashion.

Most of this can be found in Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel in addition to a primer on other reasons why Europeans (and other historical populations) were able to colonize far off places without being fought back into the sea.

If you're interested in a complete list of domesticated animals worldwide, check here.


Edits: Details. Forgot about the tasty, tasty guinea pig.

u/Prince_Kropotkin · 26 pointsr/SubredditDrama

This book came out by an idiot:

Now millions of conservatives actually believe that national socialism = socialism.

u/ElectronGuru · 26 pointsr/oregon

Don’t need future scientists, current scientist already figured out

What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

u/dyzo-blue · 25 pointsr/EnoughTrumpSpam

When I tried to explain Fascists were historically considered the extreme right-wing, he actually sent me a link to Jonah Goldberg's book as proof that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Thanks Jonah, for making Americans even dumber than they were before you started writing.

u/WalkingDad · 25 pointsr/de

>Das Fragwürdige an Israelkritik ist mE die Singularität - die lautesten Kritiker hört man immer nur über Israel schimpfen.

Genau das gleiche Argument kommt bei USA und Trump-Kritik auch andauernd.

Erstens, ist es völlig irrelevant, da Kritik in einer bestimmten Diskussion erst mal für sich steht. Sie ist entweder berechtigt oder nicht aber sich dann, wenn man es nicht schafft die inhaltliche Kritik zu entschärfen, einfach darauf zu berufen, dass es ja auch "nordkoreanische Todeslager" gibt, ist einfach nur unehrlich. Ich muss mich mich nicht in eine Diskussion "einkaufen" in dem ich erst mal eine Liste der Top 10 autoritären Regime abarbeite um mich anschließend für eine Israel-Kritik "reingewaschen" zu haben. Würdest du dich mit dem gleichen Maßstab beurteilen, würdest du wahrscheinlich in kürzester Zeit selbst daran scheitern.

Zweitens, (und hier kommen wir wieder zur USA-Kritik zurück) ist der Grund warum man die USA und nicht den Sudan, warum man Israel und nicht Nordkorea kritisiert der, dass sich sowohl die USA als auch Israel als Teil der westlichen Wertegemeinschaft sehen. Von diesen Ländern darf man nicht nur einen höheren Standard an Menschenrechten erwarten, man kann auch hoffen, dass Kritik an diesen Ländern eine größere Wirkung hat, als der tausendste Artikel über nordkoreanische Straflager, die Kim Jong Un o.ä wohl kaum interessieren werden. Genauso wie es von Ungarn erwartet wird, sich an europäische Werte zu halten und Orban überproportional kritisiert wird, obwohl er keine buchstäblichen Todeslager in seinem Land hat.

>Meine Bitte: Schaut es euch selbst an, geht auch in die Palästinensergebiete, redet mit Leuten. Wer dann noch ernsthaft von einem rassistischen Apartheidsregime sprechen will, bitte.

Und hier redest du einfach Quatsch:

>Eine israelische Regierungskommission stellte beispielsweise 2003 fest, dass Israel sich ihnen gegenüber "gleichgültig und diskriminierend" verhält. In der Tat findet die Ungleichbehandlung israelischer Araber unter israelischen Juden viele Anhänger. Eine Umfrage vom März 2007 kam zu dem Schluss, dass 55 Prozent der israelischen Juden getrennte Freizeitangebote wünschten, während mehr als 75 Prozent sagten, sie wollten nicht im selben Haus leben wie ein israelischer Araber. Mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten meinte, wenn eine jüdische Frau einen Araber heirate, sei das Hochverrat, und 50 Prozent sagten, sie würden an ihrem Arbeitsplatz nicht arbeiten, wenn ein Vorgesetzter ein Araber wäre. Das Israel Democracy Institute berichtete im Mai 2003, dass 53 Prozent der israelischen Juden "gegen die volle Gleichberechtigung der Araber sind" während 77 Prozent der israelischen Juden glaubten, dass "es bei wichtigen politischen Entscheidungen eine jüdische Mehrheit geben sollte". Nur 31 Prozent "sind dafür, dass es arabische politische Parteien in der Regierung gibt". (...)
>Quelle (hier gibt's den 60-seitigen Aufsatz als PDF /edit: allerdings ohne den oben genannten Auszug, wie ich gerade gesehen habe)

u/DaaraJ · 24 pointsr/history

Not an article, but King Leopold's Ghost is a great book, as is The Congo: From Leopold to Kabila

Or if you have an hour to kill White King, Red Rubber, Black Death is a very well made documentary.

u/horneraa · 24 pointsr/AskReddit

>It is difficult to discredit or ignore the accounts of many Native Americans and indigenous people that ALL have stories of this same creature whilst being so far spread and some not even interacting with one another.

Trade networks in North America reached across the entire continent. Recent evidence suggests trade all the way into South America. Pre-Colombian civilization in the America's was much more complex than you're giving it credit for. The book "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" is a good start on this topic.

u/raitalin · 24 pointsr/AskHistorians

There's a couple:

In elementary school, I Love Paul Revere Whether He Rode or Not was my first introduction to the idea of history with an agenda. It's mostly a collection of interesting facts, but it does spend some time talking about why people (Americans specifically in this case) mythologize our history.

In Middle School I went totally crazy over the US Civil War, largely because of Gettysburg.

In high school came Marx & the concepts of class and progressive history. I'm not a Marxist politically (not anymore at least, but how else does a history nerd rebel in high school?), but I do think these ideas inform my personal historical narrative.

Then came the reason I finally returned to school for history: Lies My Teacher Told Me. I'd already been bothered by American politicians and citizens presentizing the opinions and actions of our founding fathers, as well as the myth of our unified national ideology, but this book illustrated how we pass that flawed narrative along, dooming people to make the same mistakes.

u/jimbo831 · 24 pointsr/Trumpgret

>My continuing complaint with the trump-a-nistas is quite simple... "Why do you continually vote against your own interests?"

Wedge social and cultural issues. People should definitely read What's the Matter With Kansas.

u/lemon_meringue · 24 pointsr/politics

I had family actually move out of Kansas two years ago because of what Brownback did to that state via an infusion of faulty, disproven, horseshit Koch ideology. They have destroyed that state and it will take generations to bring it back from what they did to it with their bullshit economic experiment.

And people WARNED them about this bullshit for YEARS, but it never mattered because they are arrogant cocks who think they are smarter than everyone else.

u/Mswizzle23 · 24 pointsr/changemyview

Thomas Sowell and a number of others have argued African American hip hop culture is basically white redneck behavior, Sowell in "Black Rednecks And White Liberals" which I'm about to begin. Colin Woodward's "American Nation's" touches on this as well, as do other authors who've penned books on the topic, although his book is more about all of the regional cultures that make up our country dating back to the groups that founded those regions and how their beliefs are still resoundingly alive and well and how politicians actively exploit these differences we have between one another. There are other academics I've heard doing research like this but I'm having trouble recall their names, I heard about them in some podcasts. But, there's definitely more reading you can do to explore this idea more.

Amazon links to check out both titles I mentioned:

u/Always_Excited · 23 pointsr/politics

people's history of the united states by howard zinn

Not about nazism, but very relevant if you're an american trying to make sense of this country.

u/mikerhoa · 23 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

This is wrong on multiple levels, built the most galling one is that somehow you're suggesting that radical Islam is a direct result of Western involvement in Muslim countries.

That's incomplete at best and dangerously ignorant at worst.

First off, some of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism are allies with the US (re Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the UAE) and have experienced fuck all in terms of bombing and aggression. There's a lot of money to be made in warfare and chaos.

Also, the main cause of radical Islam is the religion itself above all else. You're insane if you think otherwise. This isn't a bunch of ragtag fighters battling imperialism and defending their innocent families from Western bullies. These are bloodthirsty scumbags who cross borders and slaughter civilians in an effort to spread their monstrous ideology and attain power.

And finally, if the West is so oppressive, corruptive, and murderous why do so many Islamic governments cry out when we threaten to cut off revenue streams and support?

EDIT: Here are some suggestions:

u/Ballinger · 23 pointsr/MorbidReality

If you want to know more about daily life in North Korea, check out this oral history book entitled Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea

It is an amazing read, goes from after the Korean War, through the famine in the 1990s, to current day.

u/meinator · 23 pointsr/Libertarian

The the book Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning. It will give you an incredibly detailed account about how normal men became systematic killers.

u/lurking_quietly · 22 pointsr/TrueReddit

This is a useful companion piece to Eric Schlosser's recent "World War Three, by Mistake" in The New Yorker. (Hat-tip to /u/puck2 for posting that article to this subreddit.)

For those still not sufficiently alarmed, PBS will premiere the documentary Command and Control, based on Schlosser's book of the same name, in its American Experience series next week (Tuesday, January 10, 2017).

u/iCanon · 22 pointsr/atheism

Don't suggest a book you haven't read. If you pick your books you should read them first then give them to your mom. I recommend two books in this order. First, Second.

u/SantosMcGarry2016 · 22 pointsr/news

Well, they're taught that trickery will be involved as well, they they may seem nice but will actually kill you, etc.
It is hard to fathom the level of brainwashing that goes on in NK. Most people are taught, and fully believe, that Dear Leader can actually read their minds. This stops them from even THINKING dissenting thoughts. So as you can imagine, it will take a LOT of deprogramming to deal with this stuff.

Even people who leave North Korea and defect to the South, go through a three-month resettlement school called Hanawon, where they are deprogrammed and taught how to live in modern society. So even the people who have got to the point of dissolution and figured out how to leave, still need a LOT of retraining to actually learn what the real world is like.

Now consider that there have been roughly 26,000 North Koreans defect to South Korea since the Korean War. Each needing to be screened to make sure they are not a North Korean spy, sent to Hanawon for 3 months, given their resettlement payment and supported to settle in a whole new world.

Compare that to 25 million people who would need to be dealt with. It's estimated the cost would be in the trillions to handle the crisis. There are summits every year on planning for response to the eventual collapse of the NK regime.

But more to your point, these people are prepared for invasion, they have no trust for the "enemy" coming in, and even if they don't really believe in the regime anymore, they have to continue to pretend to be fighting against these invaders like everyone else. Everyone is an informant to the Workers Party there, which is the ruling party and the whole regime. So if you don't pretend to play along, you will be accused of treason and likely executed publicly or sent to a prison camp. Hard to say what that looks like under actual invasion, so my money is on execution.

This comes around to all of those defectors living in South Korea. Many of them report that, even years later and now that they are part of modern society, they will still find themselves defending Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il and now Kim Jong-Un, when people speak poorly of them. All of that work, deprogramming and life in far better circumstances, and they still automatically find themselves defending the regime that put them through hell. It's unbelievable!

(Hard to find a clear source on some of this stuff as it's a bit of a collage of the books on NK I've read. Probably a lot of it is from Nothing To Envy, as I've read that book about seven times and I can't get enough of it. I truly can't recommend anything more highly!

u/BushidoBrowne · 22 pointsr/BlackPeopleTwitter

If any of you are interested in American history (including South and Central American) , I recommend checking out

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

Get that knowledge famo

u/frodosdream · 21 pointsr/worldnews

Highly recommend reading "King Leopold's Ghost" to anyone interested in the history of Belgian colonialist atrocities in Africa. Warning: it makes for grim reading.

u/emr1028 · 21 pointsr/worldnews

You think that you've just made a super intelligent point because you've pointed out the obvious fact that the US has issues with human rights and with over-criminalization. It isn't an intelligent point because you don't know jack shit about North Korea. You don't know dick about how people live there, and I know that because if you did, you would pull your head out of your ass and realize that the issues that the United States has are not even in the same order of magnitude as the issues that North Korea has.

I recommend that you read the following books to give you a better sense of life in North Korea, so that in the future you can be more educated on the subject:

Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea

Escape from Camp 14: One Man's Remarkable Odyssey from North Korea to Freedom in the West

The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag

u/virtuous_d · 20 pointsr/Paleo

Nutrition is just the tip of the iceberg. Try mathematics, history and civics, literature...

u/WastedP0tential · 20 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?

It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil

[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (

Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted

Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus

Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?

Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels

John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary

John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Karen Armstrong – A History of God

Mark Smith – The Early History of God

Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?

Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?

Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus

u/succhialce · 20 pointsr/TrueAtheism

I don't find that funny, I find it hugely disturbing. Learn about how your Bible was created and then see what that does for you.

Also please don't just downvote this guy because he's a religious person, that is counter-intuitive to the discourse here.

u/Moominballs · 20 pointsr/news

If you are interested in stuff like this you should check out the book Command And Control.

It really highlights how close to utter devastation we have been during the past 60 years...

One of the top reviews from Amazon:
As a former Titan II Missile Facilities Technician, this was a page-turner for me. The author got it right in his descriptions of the attitudes and culture in the missile career field, the systems in use, even the music we listened to back then. It is rare for a military themed book written by a non-military writer to be so spot-on (IMO). The descriptions of some of the close calls we (we citizens) had with H-bombs are chilling, and the story about the Damascus Arkansas Titan II explosion was weaved in perfectly throughout the book. Time well spent.

u/JohnnyYenOnFireAgain · 20 pointsr/worldnews

Try Legacy of Ashes. Superbly researched and covers everything from OSS beginnings to Iraq.

u/dank-nuggetz · 20 pointsr/conspiracy

>AIPAC doesnt spend that much money compared to other lobby groups

They are one of the most powerful lobbying groups in this country and by FAR the most powerful with regards to foreign policy.

Read this book.

A little about the author:

"John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He graduated from West Point in 1970 and then served five years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. He then started graduate school in political science at Cornell University in 1975. He received his Ph.D. in 1980. He spent the 1979-1980 academic year as a research fellow at the Brookings Institution, and was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University's Center for International Affairs from 1980 to 1982. During the 1998-1999 academic year, he was the Whitney H. Shepardson Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York."

He's a brilliant writer and this book in particular lays a very solid groundwork for understanding just how much Israel has us on puppet strings. Oman may been an actual anti-semite, but the points she's making are not anti-semitic.

u/aldotheapache2 · 20 pointsr/HistoryPorn

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

They knew. It is one of the biggest misconceptions about the Holocaust, that the German people had little to no idea what was going on, and that it was just the government. It depresses me to see it plastered all over this thread. I think it just makes people feel better to think that it was only a few evil people who perpetrated this horrendous crime, instead of many "normal" people. I highly recommend that everyone read the books and articles I linked to. They explain it much better than I can. I do doubt, however, that I will be able to change many peoples minds. Most of the time I don't even bother.

I'm not saying the Germans of today are bad, they have done many things trying to set right the crimes of their past generations. But the Germans of the time knew what was going on and many participated in it.

They knew.

u/pondiki · 20 pointsr/motogp

I am pretty sure MotoGP will race at Qatar in 2018. Unless there are some major geopolitical changes, Dorna will race there until the Qataris stop paying. The Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, Bahrainis have had squabbles for a long time. The Saudis saying the Qataris sponsor terrorism is the pot calling the kettle black and they know it.

I recommend this article for some context on the Gulf "crisis":

Steve Coll is a great journalist, recommend his book Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

u/hnat · 20 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

If you would like a very detailed explanation of this, might I recommend the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, but what it boils down to is similar to what person132 said in another comment.

High population density, and larger populations as a whole, combined with city living and poorer diets, means that more Europeans got sick in general. To infect the surviving Europeans, diseases needed to adapt to be stronger, and more resistant to their immune systems. When these diseases came with them to the colonies, they were no match for the Native American's less/differently developed immune systems.

u/Xerox748 · 20 pointsr/bestof

Republicans have been pushing the idea that Nazi’s we’re liberals for over a decade now.

The craziest part isn’t even that this book got written. It’s that the right wing in America today shuns the author for not supporting Trump enough. Its crazy how far removed they’ve become from reality, even in just the last decade.

u/WNYC1139 · 19 pointsr/AskHistorians

Right (about world leaders' respect for Mussolini - don't know about Churchill arranging for his capture).

My amateur understanding is that prior to Hitler, fascism (like communism) was more acceptable in "respectable circles." Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism expands on the point, but one possibly-illuminating trivia point is that one version of the song "You're the Top" had the line "You're Mussolini" delivered as a compliment.

u/mikelj · 17 pointsr/books

Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. Great thesis on why different human societies have developed so differently.

u/Daitenchi · 17 pointsr/history

This is a great book on a related subject. It's about the polish police force during that era. When they were ordered to round up jews and execute them some did it willingly, some did it reluctantly because it was an order, and some just outright refused.

u/TVpresspass · 17 pointsr/canada

Actually archaeologists are now moving past the Bering land bridge theory, and tracking 5 distinct immigration events into the pre-Columbian Americas.

I wish I had more to back it up, but I just started reading this book this week. I'm hoping I'll have more to say about that when I'm finished.

u/jasonmb17 · 17 pointsr/askscience

Read 1491 by Charles Mann - great read, and covers the Amazon (and the rest of the Pre-Columbian Americas) quite a bit.

u/bokmal · 17 pointsr/worldnews

Well, no that's the Congo. They had great teachers. You remember of course, King Leopold II who cut off people's hands if they failed to meet rubber production quotas.

  • Male rubber tappers and porters were mercilessly exploited and driven to death. Leopold's agents held the wives and children of these men hostage until they returned with their rubber quota. Those who refused or failed to supply enough rubber had their villages burned down, children murdered, and hands cut off.
  • Excellent book on the matter
u/0b_101010 · 16 pointsr/mealtimevideos

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It's excellent.

u/purpleolive · 16 pointsr/CombatFootage

I haven't read too many books about the subject, but one that I really like is 'Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001', by Steve Coll. It's incredibly illuminating and a fascinating read.

Robert Pape's 'Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It' is also one of my favorites.

u/arjun10 · 16 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

>have you not seen the persecution that our ancestors suffered under Islam?

I'm not an expert on the history of Islam in India. Some say the Mughal Empire killed 80,000,000 Hindus through the centuries, others say that this is garbage and that the Mughals had a pretty hands-off approach toward governance, others point out that there were Muslim dynasties in India who fought against the Mughals, others talk about how Islamic rulers and their methods ranged from everything from Akhbar to Aurungazeb. So I'm not sold either way.

>This is a clash of civilizations and the Neville Chamberlain routine against Islam has failed.

See, this is the simplistic and superficial "Them and Us" narrative that I cannot stand. Radical Islam is very much a product of so-called "Western civilization".

The CIA and the State Department funded radical mujahadeen in Afghanistan through the '80s, and former directors of the CIA like William Casey were Christian fundamentalists who wanted to see an alliance between Christians and Muslims against the "godless communists" of the USSR, and Saudi Arabia--the premier source of radical Islamic fundamentalism--has been a key regional ally of the West since World War 1 when the British helped the al-Saud family and the fundamentalist Wahabi clerics gain power over the peninsula. Check out Ghost Wars and Carbon Democracy for good pieces of scholarship on all of this.

Then when this came back and bit the US in the ass on 9/11 the government promptly invaded and occupied Afghanistan and then Iraq, eventually extending the war--undeclared and covert--into Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia. Hardly a "Neville Chamberlain" routine.

And even after all this, the US government thought it was a good idea to turn around and once again start arming radical Sunni militants, in order to destabilize and counterbalance Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon, and increase the influence of the Gulf States (which themselves are the primary source of funding for terrorist activity).

But hey I guess this is all too complicated for some people so I guess we should just stick with a black-and-white fairy tale about Good and Evil so our heads don't hurt too much, right?

u/metarinka · 16 pointsr/bestof

I'll give some historical context.

After WWII all our factories were still at full capacity and switched back to making personal cars, and all these returning vets on the GI bill want to college or back to good factory jobs and started buying homes and settling down.

Now the popular notion at the time was that city life was dying. Why get at best a row house or apartment in New york or philadelphia when you can build or buy a crafstmen house for the same price out in the suburbs. Also as civil rights was coming about it was convenient to cede the inner city to African Americans and poor and use things like loan restrictions to zone and price them out of the nice crime free suburbs.

So given the popular notion that the city and urban life was dying. Most city planning resources when into road construction so everyone could live out in the surburbs and take the new highways to their jobs. Entire cities were built up around this concept. In order to pay for this essentially halted Urban public works like subways and light rail. Why would you want to go on a stuffy subway with negroes when you can commute in your cadillac with radio and select-a-matic transmission?

So the results are profound and easy to verify. Any city that become major and modern after world war II has terrible public transportation: Examples include LA, Houston, Denver, Portland. Any city that was major before WWII tends to have still strong public transportation like Chicago, New york, Boston, D.C.

We basically decided as a nation that surburban life was awesome and gave up on public transportation. We even went steps further in places like LA where they actively bought out trolley lines just to close them down and pave over the tracks. Also the very way we designed our suburbs actively discourage pedestrainism and many live in places that "have no where to walk to". I'm ashamed to say that even my hometown Ann Arbor fell into that spiral and built many planned developments that have no feasible options of walking or biking to get to any retail area.

TLDR: city planners after WWII decided everyone (who was white) should live in suburbs and stopped funding public transportation.

Edit: for those who don't believe me this was covered by sociologists in the way things never were

and lies my teacher told me both fascinating reads

u/T1mac · 16 pointsr/politics

I think if Coleman and Krieger ever read "A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present" by Howard Zinn I think they would have a stroke. Or their heads would explode. One of the two.

u/Flat_prior · 16 pointsr/ShitAmericansSay

Here too. I was raised in Michigan and our history courses were a joke. I also learned we dominated the world in WWII, saved the allies, we're the reason you aren't speaking German, Reaganomics propelled capitalism to Super Saiyan level two, which killed communism, etc. Also, we gave black people rights but they haven't quite managed to get it together.

If you want to learn the things the Republicans don't want you to know, you can either read A People's History of the United States or watch it on Netflix.

u/LtCmdrData · 16 pointsr/geopolitics

> didn't take you to be one who believed in this conspiracy theory

There is conspiracy theory about Jewish lobby and then there is influential Jewish Lobby. Trying to insinuate that there is only the conspiracy theory version is just clever argumentative trick, just like anti-Zionist = anti-Semite assumption.

u/FacelessBureaucrat · 16 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (PDF). This is the key essay that later became a book that explains how strong of an impact the Israel lobby has had on U.S. foreign policy (by both parties) and why. The essay, at least, is worth a read.

u/ende76 · 16 pointsr/

Recommended reading to understand what has been going on in North Korea since the 70s, from the people's perspective: Nothing to Envy, by Barbara Demick

It illustrates superbly how the people are affected by the insanity of their leaders, all the while trying to keep their belief and faith in their country. From the book you will learn, that it is quite possible that this woman in the video barely escaped death by starvation, that she has probably had to step over dozens of bodies of children that died from hunger in her town, that probably most of her family members have died from lack of food, and that the regime's indoctrination is so infused in her life, that at the point where she is being beaten for trying to survive in China, she probably believes in her heart that she has done something wrong.

u/soapdealer · 15 pointsr/AskHistorians

Some very inaccessible landmarks were first discovered by airplane. The world's highest waterfall, Angel Falls was first described to the world after being spotted by aviator Jimmie Angel (though it was probably discovered by earlier Europeans explorers and certainly was well known by indigenous inhabitants of the region).

Aerial exploration was extremely important in charting and exploring the Arctic and Antarctic regions as well. The flights of Richard Byrd and others were very important in charting and describing much of Antarctica. A very large section of the continent is today named after Richard Byrd's wife Marie.

Much of the interior of New Guinea was considered to be essentially uninhabited until the first aerial surveys revealed it to be densely populated by indigenous inhabitants. (I believe this was discussed in Guns, Germs and Steel but I can't find my copy of it right now, so I'm more than willing to be corrected on this one).

More recently, satellite images have been used to discover new achaeological sites in the Saudi desert and in Italy.

And I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but scientists first discovered that grazing cows use the earth's magnetic field to orient themselves using Google Earth satellite images.

EDIT: see my comment in reply to asdjk48 below for a more detailed citation of the New Guinea thing.

u/plokijuhujiko · 15 pointsr/history

Well, it was the deciding factor in the birth of human civilization. Without the shift to agriculture from hunter/gatherer societies, we could never have achieved the necessary population to create virtually every human innovation that has ever happened. It is true that agriculture led to most of humanity's woes as well: war, plagues...Glenn Beck, etc... But without that shift we would still have an average lifespan of 30-40 years, and our population would be in the thousands instead of the billions. There are pretty valid arguments for why that's not such a great thing, but it's really a moot point. We're here, we did what we did, so that's that.

On a side note, anyone who hasn't read this book is missing out.

u/CygnusX1 · 15 pointsr/movies

I've never heard of this. Do you have a source? I'm not doubting you, just interesting after having read Ghost Wars.

u/ssd0004 · 15 pointsr/AskSocialScience

As described in the excellent journalistic novel Ghost Wars, Saudi Arabian elites and Pakistani's ISI backed the Taliban, who followed a fundamentalist Sunni ideology known as Deobandi. Deobandi is rather similar in nature to Wahhabism, which is dominant in Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Iran (and other regional powers like India) supported the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance wasn't Shia, and was mostly defined by being anti-Taliban.

The source of funding for Hamas presents an interesting case; while most of its funding came from Saudi Arabia in the early 2000s, this is no longer the case today. Shia regimes like Iran and Syria also have a significant role in funding Hamas.

In general, it is very useful to see the various conflicts between Islamic groups in the Middle East as a result of Saudi Arabia and Iran's geopolitical rivalries, and their proxy militant groups.

It's also interesting to note that the ability of Saudi elites to finance Sunni extremism around the globe is largely facilitated through their access to the world's oil markets, and their historic ability to surge or cutback oil production in order to control oil prices. In my mind, this marks Islamic fundamentalism very much as a facet of the world-capitalist system, rather than part of a "war of civilizations" that Western media so often likes to talk about.

u/brinstar117 · 15 pointsr/todayilearned

I'd imagine it's more of a generality than anything else. I'd wager that it is partly based on the fact that certain latitudes were more conducive for successful colonization by European powers. Those latitudes closely approximated the seasonal conditions in which their draft animals and crops thrived. This lead to a larger and more stable base in which to built wealth upon.

I recommend reading Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond as he details reasons why environmental factors are major contributors to why certain societies (ultimately countries) are wealthier than others.

u/LooksAtClouds · 15 pointsr/todayilearned

They have to. They need to calibrate the sensors on the crash test dummies.

Read more about it - and many other creative uses for dead bodies - in Mary Roach's book, Stiff.

u/ReadySetJihad · 15 pointsr/WatchRedditDie

"no one gave a fuck"

Why did they have to use deception specifically saying that it was temporary and very limited to even pass it in the first place then?

No one wants to become a minority in their own country + important people with lower IQs, higher crime rates, and a higher dependency on the government (not even paying what they take) // baggage.

u/mugrimm · 15 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

These should be the top recommendations hands down, both of these books were designed with your specific goal in mind:

A People's History of America - This focuses on history of the US from the perspective of the everyman rather than the 'big man' side of history where every politician is a gentle statesman. It shows just how barbaric and ghoulish those in charge often are.

Lies My Teacher Told Me. - Similar to the last one, this one shows how modern history loves to pretend all sorts of shit did not happen or ignore anything that's even slightly discomforting, like the idea that Henry Ford literally inspired Hitler, both in a model industry and anti-semitism.

These are both relatively easy reads with lots of praise.

Adam Curtis docs are always good, I recommend starting with one called "Black Power" which answers the question "What happens to African countries when they try to play ball with the west?"

u/verblox · 15 pointsr/SubredditDrama

People also make the argument that socialists are Nazi's. I think the book was Liberal Fascism.

Edit: Here it is. Don't read the reviews without a gas mask.

u/Grounded-coffee · 15 pointsr/SubredditDrama

If this sort of thing interests you, you may also enjoy this book. It's a bit older (IIRC it came out during the Bush administration) but it looks at the same issue through a bit of a different lens.

u/PrimusPilus · 15 pointsr/AskHistorians

I don't disagree with the bulk of this, but two points:

  • Are you not perhaps underestimating the efficacy of Soviet intelligence operations against the Axis? Decisive examples might include the use of moles inside of Allied intelligence to verify German plans before Operation Citadel in 1943, as well as the activities of GRU agent Richard Sorge in Tokyo in 1941.

  • Are you not perhaps overestimating the wartime efficacy of the OSS? Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA in particular, seems to paint a fairly damning picture of Donovan & Dulles' covert ops during World War II.
u/exackerly · 15 pointsr/news

Check out a book called 1491 by Charles C. Mann. It's mind-blowing, will completely change the way you think about early Americans.

u/unknownmosquito · 15 pointsr/HistoryPorn

You don't have to be young. This book is a historical account of a police unit made of middle-aged men from pre-War Germany through their radicalization from normal men to the kind of people that bayonet pregnant women.

The power of groupthink and ideology is terrifying. The fact of the matter is that it can be confidently said that for any given person, if they were present in Germany during its Nazi transformation, they would almost certainly have become Nazis.

u/AJs_Sandshrew · 14 pointsr/biology

For those who don't want to watch the video:

Big Ideas in Brief by Ian Crofton

Sapiens: a Brief History of Human Kind by Yuval Noah Harari

Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by Sandra Blakeslee and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran

Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery by Henry Marsh

How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky

The Brain: A Beginner's Guide by Ammar Al-Chalabi, R. Shane Delamont, and Martin R. Turner

Ill go ahead and put in a plug for the book I'm reading right now: The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee

u/DeathLeopard · 14 pointsr/bestof

I'd recommend reading Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong if you're curious about the accuracy of American high school history textbooks.

u/LeonJones · 14 pointsr/politics

Not true...this is a common misconception. The Mujahideen (which is actually just a term describing one who engages in jihad, not a name for a single group) were composed of many different groups. Bin Laden was one of the major Arab influences in Afghanistan during the soviet war and after but we never funded or trained him. He had no problem convincing wealthy Saudis to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to his causes in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The United States was heavily invested with the Northern Alliance and it's leader Ahmad Shah Massoud who arguably was Afghanistan's best chance at actual peace. Al-Qaeda assassinated him 2 days before 9/11 because they knew if the US had any chance of winning in Afghanistan, they would need Massouds leadership.

>Source :

u/StudyingTerrorism · 14 pointsr/geopolitics

Unfortunately, the most efficient way to become knowledgable about the Middle East is to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.

Books - General History of the Middle East

u/Zanaver · 14 pointsr/news

"his way of life" was built around the social hierarchy that was slavery. "The average Confederate soldier" didn't want slaves to be on the same class level as him. The vast majority volunteered to fight, only 12% of Confederate forces were drafted.

Ignoring that there were (and still are) racial tensions in the south and that a civil war broke out over something ambitious as "states' rights" is pretty ridiculous. Especially when the states still had their rights to establish and enforce the Jim Crow laws.

edit: anyone who disagrees with this post I made needs to read A People's History of the United States

u/Sixteenbit · 14 pointsr/history

This is something that takes a lot of practice, and many schools don't or can't teach it. Fear not, it's easier than it sounds.

First, some background:

This will introduce you to most of the historical method used today. It's quite boring, but if you're going to study history, you'll need to get used to reading some pretty dry material.

For a styleguide, use Diana Hacker's:

It will teach you everything you need to know about citations.

As far as getting better at source analysis, that's something that comes with time in class and practice with primary and secondary source documents. If you're just going into college, it's something you're going to learn naturally.

However, I do have some tips.
-The main goal of a piece of historiography is to bring you to a thesis and then clearly support that argument. All REAL historiography asks a historical question of some sort. I.E. not when and where, but a more contextual why and how.

-Real historiography is produced 99.9% of the time by a university press, NOT A PRIVATE FIRM. If a celebrity wrote it, it's probably not history.

-Most, if not all real historiography is going to spell out the thesis for you almost immediately.

-A lot of historiography is quite formulaic in terms of its layout and how it's put together on paper:

A. Introduction -- thesis statement and main argument followed by a brief review of past historiography on the subject.

B Section 1 of the argument with an a,b, and c point to make in support.

C just like B

D just like B again, but reinforces A a little more

E Conclusion, ties all sections together and fully reinforces A.

Not all works are like this, but almost every piece you will write in college is or should be.

Some history books that do real history (by proper historians) and are easy to find arguments in, just off the top of my head:

For the primer on social histories, read Howard Zinn:

What you're going to come across MORE often than books is a series of articles that make different (sometimes conflicting) points about a historical issue: (I can't really link the ones I have because of copyright [they won't load without a password], but check out google scholar until you have access to a university library)

Virtually any subject can be researched, you just have to look in the right place and keep an open mind about your thesis. Just because you've found a source that blows away your thesis doesn't mean it's invalid. If you find a wealth of that kind of stuff, you might want to rethink your position, though.

This isn't comprehensive, but I hope it helps. Get into a methods class AS FAST AS POSSIBLE and your degree program will go much, much smoother for you.

u/rogersiii · 14 pointsr/OutOfTheLoop

It is just for show. Israel isn't going to do anything against Iran militarily, though they have been recruiting terrorists against Iran while pretending to be CIA agents because they want to start a fight between Iran and the US.

On the other hand, it also shows how the US foreign policy system is so open to manipulation and control by wealthy donors who have their own agendas. How long have we imposed sanctions on Cuba, for no goo reason other than the fact that anti-Castro cubans fund campaigns in states like Fla and NJ?

But in reality, Israel's efforts to make Iran into an issue with the US, has started to make Israel into a BIGGER issue as people are pushing back. People are starting to wonder why we should back Israel at all
Not so long ago you weren't allowed to mention the "Israel lobby" in polite company -- now there are mainstream books written about it, and NY Times editorialists refer to the US COngress as "bought and paid for" by pro-Israeli lobbyists
Even if Israel attacks Iran, nothing will come of it. Iran will simply rebuild its nuclear program and very quickly too. It is already MASSIVELY popular amongst Iranians, and if attacked it is going to be even MORE popular as Iranians are nationalistic.

u/mementomary · 14 pointsr/booksuggestions
  • Naked Statistics by Charles Wheelan is a great overview of the science of statistics, without being too much like a lecture. After reading it, you'll have a better understanding of what statistics are just silly (like in ads or clickbait news) and what are actually important (like in scientific studies).

  • You on a Diet by Roizen and Oz is touted as a diet book, and it kind of is. I recommend it because it's a great resource for basic understanding the science behind the gastrointestinal system, and how it links to the brain.

  • All of Mary Roach's books are excellent overviews of science currently being done, I've read Stiff (the science of human bodies, post-mortem), Spook ("science tackles the afterlife"), Packing for Mars (the science of humans in space), and Bonk (sex), and they are all very easy to understand, but scientifically appropriate. I'm sure "Gulp" is good too, although I haven't read that one yet.

  • "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming" by Mike Brown is a great, accessible overview of exactly why Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet, told by the man who started the controversy.

  • "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking is a little denser, material-wise, but still easy to understand (as far as theoretical physics goes, at least!). Hawking explains the history of physics and the universe, as well as the future of the discipline. While there is a bit more jargon than some pop-science books, I think an entry-level scientist can still read and understand this book.
u/KaleAndChickenSalad · 14 pointsr/AskWomen

I recommend both! For Stiff, I advise getting the audiobook version. It's very well done. The book itself is not any more graphic than it needs to be and is respectful (although I did take issue with the author's apparent negative view of cosmetic surgery in an early chapter.) I found the whole thing fascinating. I was actually most fascinated though when she got to the chapter about the possibility of human head transplants. Here's the page on Amazon.

As for A Dog's Purpose, I messed up and accidentally failed to notice there was an Audible version until literally just now, so I can't attest to the quality of the reading. But the book itself (as stated, I'm only half way through) is really good. Here it is.

u/luciasanchezsaornil · 14 pointsr/neoconNWO
u/mtrash · 14 pointsr/Maine

You should read 1491 and America Before. Also there a numerous journal entries that have been published about the true history of Columbus and westward expansion.

Edit: words and formatting

u/IsayLittleBuddy · 14 pointsr/PoliticalVideo

Quebec was an unstable person who needed psychiatric help. People are free to hear new ideas without being labeled fascists. Fascism requires actual force behind the ideas being consumed.

Your false equivalency no more justifies me reading Mein Kampf then blaming it for my heinous acts, after reading it. As purely an academic excercise, I am still well within my right to read or listen from a subjective standpoint so I may dissiminate truth from that medium. I'm required as an adult to operate within the framework of freedom of thought without inciting violence, something that goes over Felarca's head.

My guess is that most people will assume fascism has something to do with 'repressive conservatism,' or resembles more closely 'the right' by American standards.

Historically speaking and by definition, fascists were originally statist authoritarian leftists. The left has always been violent and historically fascist. Again, I know a lot of dictionaries may (improperly) have 'fascist' as being a 'right-wing' principle.

I think the definition of it should probably be researched by an academic, historian, or political scientist and not determined by what Meriem perceives it to be. I previously thought that also and would assume it is right-wing because we assume any system that wants to confine us is done by the right. Again, one would assume the definition is what the one you referenced is until you look at one of the primary fathers of fascism, Mussolini. He was a leftist, by the book.

This seems to be an interesting read. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change

Here's a link that includes a big chunk of the first chapter that includes the thesis of the author, Jonah Goldberg.

u/envyxd · 14 pointsr/technology

What's the matter with Kansas is a great book about that whole issue. Conservatives (Republicans) appeal to dumb people in these types of states on a lot of issues including jobs, giving them false promises and then turning an about-face when the time comes that they're in office.

Republican policies have long benefited the rich, and not the average worker.

u/Gardengran · 14 pointsr/canada

> "nation to nation" relationship

Warning - probably sounds pedantic. sorry.

'Nation' is often confused with 'state' - with states being legal, political entities with borders. ['Nations' being cultural, political entities, but no borders.] (

Add to that and the our constitution recognizes that bands have legal standing equal to the federal government, and nation to nation makes sense.

(Provinces, unlike bands, have essentially delegated authority. Even though areas of authority - health, education, etc are delegated. Municipalities have an even lower level of authority. Only the Federal government has the 'authority' to negotiate with the bands, regardless of issue.)

Being a completely separate 'nation' within a state is pretty much normal for most of North America.

u/BravoReview · 14 pointsr/worldnews

You sound like a guy who has never done any theory-grounded reading before. Let me make a recommendation for you:

This book is written by Waltz and Mearshimer, the latter being a Jew. They are considered, by far, to be the prominent political theorists of our time - diving into state lead conflict to a degree which will expand your mind beyond the typical "Jewish Lobby is BAD to say because I don't know why" thinking.

Their thesis falls under the notion that the Jewish lobby, aka AIPAC, is the most influential lobby in the history of the world. They have unprecedented amounts of leeway amongst our congressmen and executive branch because they rely so heavily on their campaign funding and swing-state Jewish voters. Essentially, entire careers of congressmen are held at the whim of the Jewish lobby, AIPAC. Their decisions are almost always hawkish in the sense that Jewish nationalism is the main driving focus of their policy efforts, hence why the Israeli-Palestinian situation is so fucked.

I am tired of hearing Israeli sympathizers constantly crying about extermination or hatred from others. Israels stance has always been to tolerate certain levels of terrorism to legitimize their policy efforts under the notion of 'not another genocide' and extremist protectionist attitudes. It is backwards and illegitimate at best. The worst part is that Israel is a democracy, so their entire foundation of support can be swayed by the voters. THIS is why there is so much frustration with Israeli and Jewish policy. They can change their government, but choose not to. They have education, but they rather buy into nationalism and the propaganda that their government feeds to them.

Waltz and Meirsheimer go into all of this. Alas, you will probably NOT do the reading and sit here attempting to speak volumes about how using terms such as "Jewish lobby" and "Jewish apologists" precludes to quazi-racism banter. Try again. You're out of your element.

u/KaJashey · 13 pointsr/videos

There are a lot of regional cultures in the US. and they are somewhat distinct.

The Virginia Tidewater region that she talked about was very very English. Lots of second sons, lots of Episcopalians and high church english (crypto catholics), cavilers and people who sought to escape England's civil war. My family is this kind of Virginian. They are proud of a history that goes back to 1650 in the area and being related founding fathers like Washington and Jefferson. Total anglophiles as well. So they hold on to any connection to England and Wales.

There are isolated communities in the tidewater with accents that are supposed to go back to England. There are older people isolated in the backwoods I can not understand. Their accents so crazy we are not mutually intelligible.

Here is Tangier Island. An oddball even in the tidewater area. It's in no way received english like she did but it is some kind of english accent.

u/streetbum · 13 pointsr/worldnews

A couple of books I've read recently about the intelligence side of things. Not sure about how their conventional forces compare to ours.

u/worlds_of_smoke · 13 pointsr/occult

I don't think so.

I took an online class based on this book and it has a good theory in it. It's been a few years but, IIRC, Harari says that the followers of monotheistic religions are almost required to suppress or eliminate other religions and their deities. If your god is the only true god, all other gods must be false gods or your entire religion is false. Nobody likes their religion being called a false religion, especially when they're deeply emotionally invested in the religion.

Basically, IMO, calling pagan gods "demons" is the result of a smear campaign against those gods and religions tied to them by monotheistic religions. Polytheistic/pagan religions are much older than monotheistic religions, but one of the results of this drive to prove that YHWH is the one "true god" is that some of the other deities became "demons". And the Bible, of course, has to reflect this bias.

Yes, you have some people who believe in monotheistic religions and are more secular. But this smear campaign was run by the church and people who were/are deeply religious and fundamentalist.

u/bikerwalla · 13 pointsr/politics

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book just like that, Liberal Fascism. It said that Hitler was vegetarian and an animal rights supporter, and also the NSDAP has 'Sozialistich' in the name of the party, ergo, the Nazis were pinko commie leftists.

u/GodfreyForCongress · 13 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

Absolutely. And furthermore, let me say this: if they push me to the point where I feel the need to filibuster, I will take the opportunity to educate them. How? By reading books on the floor of the House like Guns, Germs, and Steel (so they understand better where we came from), The Black Hole War, Bully for Brontosaurus (so they understand a little bit about science), and Subliminal, so they know how the NRA and Fox News is killing their minds.

u/lina303 · 13 pointsr/23andme

The Irish weren't always considered white. I haven't read the whole thing, but this book, How the Irish Became White, is pretty interesting.

u/ZeusHatesTrees · 13 pointsr/history

> New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

I need to get me a hard copy of this puppy.

u/aspbergerinparadise · 12 pointsr/todayilearned

not exactly. When Cortes landed in Mexico in 1519 Tenochtitlan had a population larger than any city in Europe. His first attempt to sack the city he was routed and barely escaped with his life. He spent the next few years bringing smaller tribes to his side that had been at war with the Aztec empire. During those years the population of Tenochtitlan, and much of the region was ravaged by waves of small pox, hepatitis and other diseases. And then after more than 30% of the population died, widespread famine set in which further weakened the population. It's really the only reason that Cortes was able to conquer the capital city at all.

Some estimates put the population of pre-Columbus Central America at 25 million. It wasn't until the 1960s that the population reached the same levels again. Over 80% of these people were killed through disease and approximately another 15% died in the slave trade.

By 1630, the population that had once numbered 25 Million was down to 700,000.

edit: if you want to read more about the massive and sophisticated indigenous civilizations that were completely wiped out, I highly recommend the book 1491

u/ChuckieOrLaw · 12 pointsr/instantbarbarians

No worries! Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a really good book if you're into this kind of thing.

u/wolfram184 · 12 pointsr/changemyview

Do you even read your "sources"?



No, organizations "defending their turf" is one of the biggest management roadblocks inside and outside the government. Even units inside the CIA and FBI often don't work together. It's human nature.

And of course the government is going to use foreign policy think tanks staffed by former goverment and private foreign policy experts. (And non experts, they can certainly be incompetent). I mean duh.

I know I don't have the time to waste on reading this inane BS. All it is is a bunch of (often dubious) correlations that are supposed to advance an agenda. I'll stick with reading actual sources like The Looming Tower or Ghost Wars

u/OtherWisdom · 12 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

> There are other reasons for suspecting that Jesus’s prayer of forgiveness is original to Luke 23. Throughout both Luke and Acts, for example, it is emphasized that even though Jesus was innocent (as were his followers), those who acted against him did so in ignorance. As Peter says in Acts 3: “I know that you acted in ignorance” (v. 17); or as Paul says in Acts 17: “God has overlooked the times of ignorance” (v. 27). And that is precisely the note struck in Jesus’s prayer: “for they don’t know what they are doing.”

> It appears, then, that Luke 23:34 was part of Luke’s original text. Why, though, would a scribe (or a number of scribes) have wanted to delete it? Here is where understanding something about the historical context within which scribes were working becomes crucial. Readers today may wonder for whom Jesus is praying. Is it for the Romans who are executing him in ignorance? Or is it for the Jews who are responsible for turning him over to the Romans in the first place? However we might answer that question in trying to interpret the passage today, it is clear how it was interpreted in the early church. In almost every instance in which the prayer is discussed in the writings of the church fathers, it is clear that they interpreted the prayer as being uttered not on behalf of the Romans but on behalf of the Jews. Jesus was asking God to forgive the Jewish people (or the Jewish leaders) who were responsible for his death.

> Now it becomes clear why some scribes would have wanted to omit the verse. Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews? How could that be? For early Christians there were, in fact, two problems with the verse, taken in this way. First, they reasoned, why would Jesus pray for forgiveness for this recalcitrant people who had willfully rejected God himself? That was scarcely conceivable to many Christians. Even more telling, by the second century many Christians were convinced that God had not forgiven the Jews because, as mentioned earlier, they believed that he had allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed as a punishment for the Jews in killing Jesus. As the church father Origen said: “It was right that the city in which Jesus underwent such sufferings should be completely destroyed, and that the Jewish nation be overthrown” (Against Celsus 4, 22).

> The Jews knew full well what they were doing, and God obviously had not forgiven them. From this point of view, it made little sense for Jesus to ask for forgiveness for them, when no forgiveness was forthcoming. What were scribes to do with this text, then, in which Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing”? They dealt with the problem simply by excising the text, so that Jesus no longer asked that they be forgiven.

u/Hoyarugby · 12 pointsr/bestof

The user turned this narrative into a five part series of the first killings, how the ordinary men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 dealt with the aftermath of that killing, how the killings became a routine, and eventually details their largest mass killing - the killing of the 42,000 Jews in the Lublin Ghetto

HighCrimesandHistory's post is based on the fantastic work Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. The book details the 500 middle aged family men of Reserve Police Battalion 101, mostly shopkeepers and tradesmen from Hamburg, as they directly killed at least 38,000 Jews in under a year, and sent tens of thousands more to the death camps.

The book itself is incredible and a must read for anybody interested, but /u/highcrimesandhistory turned parts of the book into an incredibly visceral and readable narrative

u/LawLx2 · 12 pointsr/todayilearned

You are going to get a new asshole torn open for openly disregarding the abundant accounts from outside and within the German armed forces themselves that state German Wehrmacht personnel willingly aided the SS. More importantly they also aided the Ordnungspolizei, the more important of the two, imo, as most people are not even aware of their existence. Most will probably read that name and go "Or dung poli- who?" especially people who think the Wehrmacht were shining beacons of virtue. By the end of the war the OrPo were assimilated into the SS. Who were the Ordnungspolizei and why were they incorporated into the SS? They were, prior to 1936, Germany's police forces. With their collectivization under Nazi control they became Germany's federal police. Many of the people simply retained their jobs during all of this, as it's easier for everyone if the police who worked under an organization of this or that name continue their jobs under a different organization with the same scope, broadly speaking. Give it a few years and the OrPo would be accompanying the German advance into the Eastern Front, where they participated in war crimes as a paramilitary force that herded Jews into ghettos and took part in mass murder. Let that sink in for a second, the once FEDERAL POLICE of Germany was gradually warped to the point where it was carrying out mass murder and finally amalgamated into the SS as there ceased to be a need to distinguish the two.

People all too often cite the SS as being packed to the brim with young and ideologically volatile German men who grew up affected by the rhetoric they were exposed to and bought into it. This is simply not reflective of reality when police officers who were predominantly middle-age and lived their early lives before post-WW1 sentiments began to brew were, in their 30s and 40s, complicit in war crimes and mass murder. As police officers. You really believe the Wehrmacht was guilt-free when what used to be civilian law enforcement took up arms and rampaged across Europe, safely behind the frontlines for the most part, murdering ethnic minorities and other "undesirables"? This is without even mentioning those same policemen become taskmasters in all corners of Europe, overseeing ten times or more their number in local collaborators, often regional police forces the Germans simply left intact and incorporated for their own uses. There's a good book on this called Ordinary Men. If ordinary cops can do that, you can bet your ass a soldier who has no reservations about killing people can do the same if not worse.

I'm sure there were German officers who vehemently opposed the shit they were being fed, but it wasn't significant nor does it stand as evidence disproving the occurrence of other incidents. You don't disprove something which is factually recorded as having happened by putting forward a case where the opposite occurred. Just like how you don't retroactively prove you didn't commit a crime by not committing a crime in a difference situation. That's not how it works.

Manstein was supposedly one of those German officers, rather far up the chain of command, who was not always in agreement with Hitler. Right up until the point he received a large estate in Poland and tax benefits, much like many other officers in the Wehrmacht complaints from him promptly ceased to manifest themselves and he was more than happy to serve. Manstein. The Manstein.

You're arguing with at best isolated anecdotes and excerpts from history which can be cherry picked to present a misleading narrative that is still mostly acceptable- if only to those who don't dig deeper and have little general knowledge of the Second World War and its darker details. At worst you're putting forward overwhelmingly misleading generalizations and just blatantly incorrect information you cannot find anywhere except from those who advocate historical revision. Against the bigger backdrop of documented history- minus cherry-picking, that's just not a fight you're going to win.

u/inoperableheart · 12 pointsr/television

That's actually kind of accurate. You should read How the Irish Became White and Low Life Gangs of New York is really curate, even down to the awful accents of the characters.

u/Apodeictic974 · 12 pointsr/toronto

Maybe take a look at this documentary to get a little perspective on the current situation in the Congo. Canadians are among the top consumers of electronic goods, and it's the materials used to make these good that come from "blood minerals." There are also a few articles on the subject here, here and here. The west plays a large part in the violence in Western African nations. Canadians should at least realize that our lifestyles contribute (whether directly or indirectly) to some degree to political situations in third world countries.

And to say "it's shit because they made it shit" is so ignorant I don't even know where to start. Perhaps take a look through this book to realize how fucked up the Congo was from its earliest days of colonization.

u/sadtimedadtime · 12 pointsr/news

Interesting fact about the term 'Megadeath' that I just learned from a cool book I'm reading, Command and Control by Eric Schlosser: It is a unit that describes 1 million deaths resultant from a nuclear attack, and was coined in some of the initial reports assessing the potential damage from an all out nuclear war (measuring fatalities in megadeaths, e.g. 40 megadeaths = 40 million killed) during the 1950's. I guess fans of the band are probably aware of this etymology, but as someone who doesn't really listen to them, I was not.

u/uid_0 · 12 pointsr/videos

If you want to read more with some amazing technical details of the Titan silos, I highly recommend Eric Schlosser's book "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety". It's a compelling read.

u/Fargonian · 12 pointsr/aviation

Kind of an aside, but if you like "Bridge of Spies," read Command and Control. It's a great book about the cold war and MAD theory.

u/johnix · 12 pointsr/funny

This subject has been Jared Diamond's life's work. Guns, Germs, and Steel explains it all much more thoroughly.

u/Hypnot0ad · 12 pointsr/Foodforthought

As they say, history book are written by the winners.

If you want to see more of the ugly parts of (the US) history that the books left out, I suggest A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

u/makehertalk · 12 pointsr/politics

A People's History of the United States discusses the subject of manufactured racial strife extensively.
I recommend this book for this, as well as many other highly useful facts that are typically omitted from the normal discussions of US history.

u/asiltopbr · 12 pointsr/news

It's not just the media. There's an entire industry of right-wing authors for example that write books that border on mental illness.

Historically illiterate drivel like:

And here's an actual expert responding to this book:

And that book was a best seller, a book absolutely void of facts was a best seller.

u/echinops · 11 pointsr/IndianCountry

I have been reading Lies my Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. He does a very decent and attempted unbiased approach at describing the interactions between European colonists and the indigenous cultures.

Christopher Columbus, for example, was a greedy Spanish imperialist seeking riches for himself and the monarchy. He condoned and promoted genocide (against the Haitians), sex trafficking (of young native females), and slave trading on a vast scale. I won't go into the bucket list of his atrocities, but they were the templet used moving forward into the continental genocides (North & South America, Australia, Africa) that followed.

Yet we are told in our schools that he "sailed the ocean blue," and was a swell guy who founded America.

u/HAMMER_BT · 11 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Jonah Goldburg (of Liberal Fascism note) used to ask people that threw around the word 'Fascist' as an all Purpose insult the following question (paraphrasing from memory);

Other than the war, bigotry and genocide, what don't you like about the Nazi party platform?

Not to say that the above 3 are something to ignore in historical analysis, but as important as they are in the retrospective of the Nazi's, my suspicion is relatively few lower middle class voters were casting ballots for a war in the East. At least, as opposed to universal employment, say, or the Nazi whole grain bread initiative.

u/bowies_dead · 11 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

They've been consistently lied to for a long, long time.

u/19Kilo · 11 pointsr/politics
u/adlerchen · 11 pointsr/politics

It's actually more heart breaking when you know that basically the entire midwest once once considered the home of radical left politics in the US. As Thomas Frank notes in What's The Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America:

>I do not want to minimize the change that this represents. Certain parts of the Midwest were once so reliably leftist that the historian Walter Prescott Webb, in his classic 1931 history of the region, pointed to its persistent radicalism as one of the “Mysteries of the Great Plains.” Today the mystery is only heightened; it seems inconceivable that the Midwest was ever thought of as a “radical” place, as anything but the land of the bland, the easy snoozing flyover. Readers in the thirties, on the other hand, would have known instantly what Webb was talking about, since so many of the great political upheavals of their part of the twentieth century were launched from the territory west of the Ohio River. The region as they knew it was what gave the country Socialists like Eugene Debs, fiery progressives like Robert La Follette, and practical unionists like Walter Reuther; it spawned the anarchist IWW and the coldly calculating UAW; and it was periodically convulsed in gargantuan and often bloody industrial disputes. They might even have known that there were once Socialist newspapers in Kansas and Socialist voters in Oklahoma and Socialist mayors in Milwaukee, and that there were radical farmers across the region forever enlisting in militant agrarian organizations with names like the Farmers’ Alliance, or the Farmer-Labor Party, or the Non-Partisan League, or the Farm Holiday Association. And they would surely have been aware that Social Security, the basic element of the liberal welfare state, was largely a product of the midwestern mind.

>Almost all of these associations have evaporated today. That the region’s character has been altered so thoroughly—that so much of the Midwest now regards the welfare state as an alien imposition; that we have trouble even believing there was a time when progressives were described with adjectives like fiery, rather than snooty or bossy or wimpy—has to stand as one of the great reversals of American history.

u/EditorialComplex · 11 pointsr/GamerGhazi

Oh, Gavin. We used to be friends, why did you throw your lot in with Biscotti? :/

Yes, the Irish were discriminated against, heavily. Because they weren't considered white at the time.

How the Irish Became White

u/misterid · 11 pointsr/todayilearned

Adam Hochschild wrote an excellent book about it

u/ExcellentPastries · 11 pointsr/worldnews

> it coudl be argued much of africa has a better life and opportunity under colonialism

Read King Leopold’s Ghost from cover to cover before you ever make this claim again.

u/adamsw216 · 11 pointsr/Art

For Korea in general I took a lot of East Asian history courses, including courses on relations with the west, in college. I studied abroad in South Korea for a time where I studied Korean history (ancient and modern) as well as Korean culture and sociology (mostly South Korea). I also had the pleasure of speaking with someone from North Korea.
But if you're interested to know more, these are some sources I can personally recommend...


u/IphtashuFitz · 11 pointsr/worldnews

No need. If you go read books like Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea you'll learn that there's already a thriving underground North Korean population in China just outside of Korea. When the food and economic situations in North Korea started getting really bad in the 90's lots of North Koreans risked going to China for jobs. They, and the local Chinese, apparently got pretty good at hiding from the Chinese military & police who would occasionally show up and try to round up North Koreans to ship back home.

u/DoYouWantAnts · 11 pointsr/AskReddit

Check out Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

u/cudo · 11 pointsr/worldnews

According to some, it's about Guns, Germs and Steel.

u/Fanntastic · 11 pointsr/HistoryPorn

I'd recommend Ordinary Men. It follows a reserve police battalion responsible for many round-ups and mass shootings. The author pours through dozens of interviews to get individual perspectives and motivations from the men themselves to see how a bunch of middle-aged reservists, most of whom weren't even members of the Nazi party, could kill like this.

u/EhrmantrautWetWork · 11 pointsr/conspiracy

trust. Humans are unique animals in this way.

Read Sapiens by Yuval-Noah-Harari

Blows up and articulates how strange human culture is, and how weird that we just accept "the way things are"

u/recnvv · 11 pointsr/IAmA

> that is, the fact that the Bible has remained unchanged throughout the years

"Fact" - not at all. This isn't true. See Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

There have been errors introduced into the Bible by scribes copying it incorrectly.

Furthermore the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't much better:

>The scrolls are also important because they have enabled scholars to gather an immense amount of information about how the Bible was written and how it was transmitted from generation to generation. In many cases the scrolls show a remarkable similarity to the text of the Hebrew Bible currently in use. In some cases differences between the scrolls and the traditional Hebrew text help explain difficulties in the present Hebrew Bible, and most modern translations of the Bible (such as the NIV) incorporate some of the new information from the scrolls.

The Nag Hammadi find also casts some doubts on the idea of a unified Christian message and theology in the early years after Jesus was crucified. There is a lot scholoraly historical work on the differences betweeen various forms of Christianity from the 1st and 2nd century.

So there were a lot more Gospels, they just didn't make it into the Bible. The Christian Bible you see today was basically established by the early Roman Church. This particular form of Christianity was state sanctioned and thus other forms were driven out, if not outright persecuted.

u/the_sleep_of_reason · 11 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Why should I believe a random Quora answer instead of a Yale Professor, or an actual textual critic?

u/YoungModern · 11 pointsr/exmormon

Reza Aslan is a fraud posing as a scholar and cannot be trusted. Anyone wanting to read authentic scholarship should read Bart Ehrman.

u/CVORoadGlide · 11 pointsr/todayilearned

read all about it -- and the whole CIA corruption of Planet Earth -- -- still ongoing running our foreign policy for the good of Banksters, Multi-national Corps, and Military Industrial Complex ... under the guise of freedom & democracy until US rules planet earth's people and natural resources

u/refriaire · 11 pointsr/worldnews

If you are from the US, check how much you give Israel in aid annually. Zero percent interest loans, grants, access to the most modern weapons, military contracts, military aid, diplomatic backing, etc. Their weapons industry is based on US contracts and access to US military technology.

  • The US pays for military research

  • Israel gets the technology for free.

  • They use the technology in their own weapons industry.


  • Profit (for them)!

    If you do not believe me, read this book.
u/cerealdaemon · 11 pointsr/AskReddit

As regards to the Body Farm. The university of tennessee gets many, many donations every year for research, they have a giant freezer full of cadavers awaiting their turn in the Tennessee sunshine. If you donate your body to science, there is no way to be assured where it is going to go. For more reference on this, check out a book called Stiff

u/DeviousBluestocking · 10 pointsr/AskFeminists

> What you say would only makes sense if germs guns and steel would have been unrelated to immigration

My point is that immigrants to the US will not be able to colonize us using superior weaponry, resources, or immunity asymmetry. They will not be able to overpower us with their superior numbers. We are in no danger of going the way of Native Americans or Texas. With or without a more secure border.

>native Americans who were so stupid to think the refugees they helped would be grateful in the long run and treat them with respect and behave as guests?

Well, for one thing, Native Americans were so outmatched that they could not have prevented us from immigrating, as many attempted to do throughout the the Continent. Particularly after we unleashed several deadly plagues.

>By contrast the Africans who did resist immigration/conquest still have their culture and way of life

Your example of African is not nearly the gotcha you think it is. People on the African continent traded with Eurasia for thousands of years and built up an immunity to diseases like small pox, what's more many African regions had their own deadly diseases that Europeans were not immune to. A big part of the reason that Africa put up a better resistance to colonization was that they had the same type of immunity asymmetry that Europeans had in North and South America.


More info

>A lot of them quite prefer living under white rule and emigrate to white areas like South Africa and Europe and most people would say their life would be better off if we accept our way of life (doctors transportation jobs economy all around whiteness) as better, but they have a choice to live like their forefathers or not.

This really has nothing to with your point, but it is still a profoundly ignorant understanding of colonization. For one thing, South Africa is a majority black state. Doctors, transportation, and jobs are not exclusively the white way of life. Just ask China who had such advanced "transportation" that they could have make a trans Atlantic or trans Pacific voyage several hundred years before Europeans.

What's more colonization is the systematic pillage and dominance of another country. African countries did not have to be invaded and stripped of their sovereignty and resources in order to import European innovations such as cars.

There are many people all over the continent of Africa that do choose to follow a more traditional way of life. And, like you said, many African countries have economies that are prosperous and culturally more similar to European and Asian countries. There are also a number of countries and regions that are still struggling with the atrocities of the past five centuries, and do not "chose" to lack jobs, doctors, and "transportation"(cars?, highways?).

u/TheUndead96 · 10 pointsr/uncensorednews

Don't worry, I am actually reading Guns, Germs and Steel at the moment and I have read many of these details within the last 7 days.

I am not trying to name names and point fingers here. The point I am trying to make is that all nations have a history with race. Additionally, think about:

  • Australia and the Aboriginals
  • Native Siberians
  • South East Asians before the Austronesian expansion (this happened many hundred years ago, though)

    Apartheid was bad, but it was certainly not the Holocaust, and the world seems to think that we are all a bunch of white-supremists. Just because Americans killed with Germs instead of Guns doesn't not take the deaths away. But that also does not mean you need to feel guilty. White people were indeed slaves at many points in history.

    I didn't have anything to do with Apartheid.
    But I'm still prepared to say sorry for any harm my ancestors caused. And I hope that we can learn to love each other, despite our histories.
u/J_Webb · 10 pointsr/worldbuilding

Since you are looking for some reference books, here are some that I resort to using quite often in my world-building process.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared M. Diamond

Plagues and Peoples by William H. McNeill

Weapon: A Visual History of Arms and Armor by Roger Ford

What People Wore When: A Complete Illustrated History of Costume from Ancient Times to the Nineteenth Century for Every Level of Society by Melissa Leventon

The History of Money by Jack Weatherford

If you need more, I can list more. I have a reference book for just about anything you could imagine in my ever-growing personal library.

u/MichaelJSullivan · 10 pointsr/Fantasy

They missed one of the most important ones!!

Guns, Germs, Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

u/painahimah · 10 pointsr/trashy

This is really common - if you donate a body to science it goes where it's needed. The entire body isn't needed for research in one place so the remains can be parted out as needed.

I highly recommend the book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers - it talks about the options out there for our bodies after we die, and manages to be light-hearted but respectful at the same time. It's really one of my favorite books

u/run85 · 10 pointsr/running

Don't be silly. First, there's no way that that tour company does a lot of good humanitarian work in NK because nothing can be done without the explicit approval of the state. Whatever money they think they're giving, and however many meals they think are going to the orphanage, are probably going to help mid-level cadres bribe their kids' way into Kim Il-Sung University. Of course that money is going straight to the NK government. The only reason they let tourists in is because tourists pay lots of money for the privilege of a sanitized tour of the nicest parts of Pyongyang, with bonus appearances by North Korean citizens who definitely, 100% were not placed there by the regime and do not have to report on you afterwards. I recommend you read the book 'Nothing to Envy' by Barbara Demick for a general idea of things.

u/realdev · 10 pointsr/atheism

Religion is basically a virus, like Smallpox. Europe has had much more time to develop an immunity to it. Thousands upon thousands of years. The US is the New World, this is still practically our first exposure to it.

To read more on this perspective, check out "Guns Germs and Steel" which talks a lot about how viral immunity came about in Europe, as well as "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins.

u/markth_wi · 10 pointsr/booksuggestions

I can think of a few

u/Mythosaurus · 10 pointsr/Blackfellas

Yeah, you picked a bad hill to die on, saying I " generically blame "Europeans" " when I clearly pointed out that there were Europeans calling out chattel slavery as evil as it was happening. You really should have caught that before responding.

Somewhat realated, another podcast you can check out is Behind the Bastards, which did a two part episode on Belgium's crimes in the Congo.

Did you know Leopold raised capital for his African venture by claiming he was doing humanitarian work fighting the Arabs who were enslaving Africans? And that he then used those funds to create his own slave armies and workforce to extract rubber wealth from the region? I didn't, until I took the time to listen and learn. And that's why I called you out on trying to shift blame to India and it's slave trade, bc that's an old racist tactic to muddy the waters and derail a conversation on slavery.

maybe add King Leopold's Ghost to that list:

edit: also, don't start an apology with feigned innocence on this subject, especially on r/blackfellas. Just own that you response was bad, and trust that we can see the effort to change course.

u/ididnotdoitever · 10 pointsr/politics

American History classes are far more focused than World History classes. That and American textbooks are whitewashed in a big way.

Everybody should read this book for a good grasp on what's happening with American History classes indoctrination.

u/mr_illcallya · 10 pointsr/historyteachers
u/Rosc · 10 pointsr/SubredditDrama

The editor of the National Review wrote a book call Liberal Fascism. The comparison doesn't get more explicit than that.

u/schubox63 · 10 pointsr/politics

I grew up in Kansas. It’s stupid. There’s literally been books written about it

u/Kerguidou · 10 pointsr/canada

The book 1491
should give you a basic answer to your questions. And you are welcome to dig more.

u/veringer · 10 pointsr/politics

This assumes America is or was one culture. Different historians classify people differently, but in the broadest sense there are at least:

  1. Yankee
  2. Southern (Dixie + Appalachian)
  3. Midland
  4. Western/Native/Frontier/Spanish

    Embedded in these groups is the idea of a founding culture (going back centuries) that informs attitudes and ideals. To your point regarding skepticism toward education, I think that's a feature primarily of the Appalachian group who were founded by one of the last waves of British immigrants. Glossing over a lot of history: they were poor, desperate, war-torn, and generally uneducated. Late to the party and culturally incompatible with many of the existing colonists, they headed for the hills and subsisted in a romantic but precarious manner. This is where we get the frontiersman and the rugged individualist myth. While tied to "southern" culture (for a number of interesting reasons that we will ignore for simplicity of this comment), they're really pretty distinct. For whatever reasons, this group has asserted itself and suggested their version of "American culture" is the correct one--and we've been living through this friction for a while.

    For a layperson, I suggest the following for further reading:

u/_ferz · 10 pointsr/geopolitics

Nope, that's not what I was getting at. Feel free to argue with your own preconceived notions at this point.

I will point out one thing. There is a good academic book on lobbies, particularly Israeli. In this case, is this okay for the government to take their money that ultimately alters US policy? Are you outraged by this or these particular players get a free pass but when Russia gives out a loan it's a subversion of democracy? Are you hypocrite or perhaps you can acknowledge that there is a fundamental flaw in the system and Russians are doing nothing wrong but to play this by the "rules" that Western democracies have established for themselves?

u/Iamstuckathope · 10 pointsr/exmormon

I'm no scholar, of course, but it seems like the majority of scholars believe that a man named Jesus existed in the first century C.E. and that he caused some trouble. Some of the New Testament (parts of Mark specifically) may be credible, but much of what we know about Jesus is myth. Pretty much everything written about him was written long after he died. The writings of Paul are some of the earliest Christian writings, and those don't go into much detail about Jesus.

I would recommend reading the book "Misquoting Jesus" if you are interested.

u/Drijidible · 10 pointsr/history

I'd strongly recommend people read Ordinary Men.

"Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, a study of German Ordnungspolizei (Order Police) Reserve Unit 101, used to massacre and round up Jews for deportation to the Nazi death camps in German occupied Poland in 1942. The conclusion of the book, which was much influenced by the experiments of Stanley Milgram, was that the men of Unit 101 were not demons or Nazi fanatics but ordinary middle-aged men of working-class background from Hamburg, who had been drafted but found unfit for military duty. In some cases, these men were ordered to round up Jews and if there was not enough room for them on the trains, to shoot them. In other, more chilling cases, they were ordered to merely kill a specified number of Jews in a given town or area. The commander of the unit gave his men the choice of opting out of this duty if they found it too unpleasant; the majority chose not to exercise that option, resulting in fewer than 15 men out of a battalion of 500 opting out of their grisly duties."

u/thelankyasian · 10 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

During my graduate history studies we read this:

Using journals taken from these reservist policemen, the aurthor displays just how much the common man knew about the final solution and just how traumatizing it was to shoot them face to face.

u/Fywq · 10 pointsr/oddlysatisfying

Yeah a pig is a lot worse for instance. I may also be influenced a bit by having recently read a book that goes a great way to question how we humans inflict pain on other sentient beings without thinking twice as long it is for food production. You get fined for kicking a dog, but we subject farm animals to all sorts of treatments that would qualify as torture if used on humans. Why is it not ok to have human slaves, but fine to enslave animals? In a monotheistic worldview god allows both. In a scientific world view we should have neither.

For those interested this is the book:

I can strongly recommend it though it may challenge your beliefs about who we humans are in the grand scheme of things.

Sorry that was a bit offtopic. And yes I still eat meat and consume dairy products.

u/ballzwette · 10 pointsr/politics

In addition to ignoring the Labor Movement.

Zinn for the win!

u/AreUCryptofascist · 10 pointsr/atheism

How do you know it recorded a ministry of any person, period?

Do you have proof of this alleged characters death, burial, and resurrection? If not, I assert Rand Al'Thor as the avatar of the creator.

u/jklap · 9 pointsr/books

A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn

Amazon Link

u/HyprAwakeHyprAsleep · 9 pointsr/TrollXChromosomes

Whew, okay. Pulled out my actual computer to answer this.
So, a lot of what I could recommend isn't short stuff you could read in an afternoon because 1. it's depressing as fuck, and 2. it's likely heavy with the sheer volume of references wherein at least one book attempts to bludgeon you with the facts that "this was depressing as fuck." Frequent breaks or alternating history-related books with fiction/poetry/other topics is rather recommended from my experience. Can't remember if I got onto this topic through Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong or just some random book found in the library.

The very clean cut, textbook Wikipedia definition of "sundown town", aka "Don't let the sun set (down) on you here.", (Ref:, is:
> sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of other races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence.

For my intro into the subject however, read Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America. This is a very emotionally draining, mentally exhausting book though, frequently with lists of atrocities in paragraph form. I think it's an important read, one which frankly should've been covered my senior year of highschool or so, but it's a difficult one. Also on my reading list is The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration which is a surprising and sneakily hopeful title for such a depressing topic, so only guessing the narration may be somewhat more accessible.

Also, 'cause I totally didn't run to my kindle app to list out titles before fully reading your post, here's some below, and relisted one above, by timeline placement, best as can be figured. These might not be the best on each topic, but they're the ones available to my budget at the time and some are still on my reading list.

The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner's Fierce Rebellion

u/QuantumWannabe · 9 pointsr/The_Donald
u/dividezero · 9 pointsr/TrollXChromosomes

What's the Matter with Kansas. Not sure if that's still a popular book but it still holds up. I's like a textbook for why people vote against their own interests.

u/BunsTown · 9 pointsr/news

Welcome to the mind of a Trump voter. Where Putin and Duterte are heroes.

>Trump is simply the logical response to the Democratic Party going too far left on the political spectrum and ignoring the needs of the working class.

Trump makes all of his products in other countries. No way in hell that guy gives a shit about the middle class. He's just courting the undereducated people who will vote against their own interests. It's a GOP trade secret. Sorry dude. You are getting played again. A billionaire from new york city has no interest in helping your shitty cities. Every city that guy goes to, he dumps on.

I would recommend a book called "Whats the matter with Kansas".

u/omicron7e · 9 pointsr/Iowa

What's the Matter with Kansas? is a good read. Despite being more than a decade old, most of the points put forth in it are relevant today.

It's a good title, and lately I've seen "What's the Matter with Iowa?" and "What's the Matter with Trumpland?"

u/Chew_Kok_Long · 9 pointsr/Israel

Ignatiev wrote an outstanding book on "How the Irish became White". It's worth a read for a phenomenon that, I agree, seems hard to believe.

I think this caricature from the end of the 19th century is pretty telling.

The Irish were stereotyped as uncivilized, unskilled and impoverished and were forced to work at the least desired occupations and live in crowded ethnic ghettoes. Many ads for employment were accompanied by the order "NO IRISH NEED APPLY." Does this remind you of anything? They were certainly not black, but also not really white.

That was the big problem American society faced at the end of the 19th century. When immigrants from other parts of the world, not just central Europe came. Are Russians white? But why are they so different from us other whites? Are Italians white? But they are anarchists and they speak a different language. Are the Jews white? But they are not Christians as we all are.

Doesn't make a lot of sense if your society is built on the difference between black and white and grey areas don't fit into the narrative.

u/TheIdesOfLight · 9 pointsr/againstmensrights

> My family and ancestry are all from Ireland.

I stopped reading. I didn't ask for the oppression olympics and, back then, the Irish were not considered "white".

Now, why don't you go look up how you all got welcomed into the "White" race and get back to me?

It's not a pretty fucking story. So no, the Irish were not oppressed for being white. They became White and now fully enjoy White privilege. Sorry but I am good and fucking tired of the Irish card.

I recommend you read this book if you want to understand why your words are earning the Side Eye.

u/aodhmacsuibhne · 9 pointsr/ireland

We weren't always. This is a good read, How the Irish Became White.

u/grilling_granny · 9 pointsr/mexico

Los Irlandeses no eran considerados blancos cuando recién llegaron a Estados Unidos, pero eso cambio con el tiempo.

u/Mr_President012 · 9 pointsr/wikipedia

The book King Leopold's Ghost is all about this genocide. It's a very good read and I highly recommend it.

u/kaleidingscope · 9 pointsr/history

King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild is really good. Its about the Belgian King's rule over the Congo.

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevich is an account of the Rwandan Genocide of '94.

That's more recent history, but the fact is little is written about pre-colonial Africa (not dealing with Egypt). I haven't read much, but I'm sure theres some decent readings about the Mali Empire (maybe start with Mansa Musa?).

u/Freakears · 9 pointsr/politics

What about "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen? I imagine they'd like the title, then get progressively more horrified as they proceeded.

u/3423553453 · 9 pointsr/ImGoingToHellForThis

There is no historical evidence of a written language in the entire sub-saharan region of africa at the time.

And no the slaves didn't come from the other regions of africa where was some written language called Ge'ez, they mostly came from Senegambia:

Also confirmed by my school textbook.

So you should really get out of your cucked history books, or maybe talk to actual historians:

[link removed because automod]AskHistorians/comments/1nz7k6/were_there_no_native_written_languages_in/

Also, there was no wheel and no two-story building and no vessel that could even dream of crossing the ocean, you want more ?

I know it's hard to swallow for liberals but humans are different, blacks have a bigger penis, better musculature, more testosterone = more inclined to violence = less inclined to get educated = lower IQ.

Asians have a smaller penis than whites but are also smarter so I don't see why blacks would have a problem acknowledging other differences.

Also, if you want to learn more about the history of humans on this planet: Great read.

u/Bigbysjackingfist · 9 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

These anecdotes are from Nothing to Envy, I believe.

u/plaitedlight · 9 pointsr/exchristian

It seems likely that the original authors were recording the existing mythos of their people, and the myths were used in their society like myths are used in every society: to explain and give meaning to a world they didn't understand, to provide a cohesive narrative for the group, to pass along and reinforce values. I have found learning just a little about the common mythologies of the world extremely interesting and helpful in putting the bible into correct perspective. Like, how many times a flood myth pops up and the different interactions between the diving and humanity in those stories.

You might enjoy Bart Ehrman's writing on the new testament and Jesus as he explores the story of Jesus, who wrote, changed and codified it and why, and how it became a religion.

Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

u/sleepygeeks · 9 pointsr/exmormon

Most of it came from classes and lectures. I don't have the class book list and sources anymore. I do hope you really, really like reading!

Forged writingss

Misquoting Jesus A well known book.

Introduction to the new testiment

The new testament: a historical intoduction

Revelation and the End of All Things Also a somewhat popular book

You can also do some Wikipedia reading on Gnosticism and other early Christen sects to get an idea of just how many groups their were and how differing their beliefs could be. Also look for things on the Q, M and L source.


You can likely find a number of online pod-casts (or whatever you call them) and lectures on these things.

I am not a historian so my access to books and memorized sources is very limited, I am a student and have been accused of reading serial boxes at least once when I accidentally quoted the wrong book name, It was too much fun to make the correction as no one had ever said that too me before and I felt special, like I had hit an academic milestone.

Also, Don't feel bad about asking for sources.

u/WhoIsSuzyCreamcheese · 9 pointsr/Anarchism

> They are first and foremost people and individuals with lives and families,

So is everyone; I don't think anyone seriously doubts it. ISIS members have families and people that love them. So do Klansmen. This is the most facile, boring anti-violence argument one can possibly imagine.

> they dont conciously go out to enforce unjustified hierarchy,

I mean, yes, they do. It's literally their job. Maybe they know it's unjustified, maybe they don't; I find it hard to care. Cops will do anything from mass executions ( to bathhouse raids if they're ordered and paid to. If they think hierarchy is unjustified, they either need to quit, or become selective when following orders. Put on the uniform, take the wage, pay the price.

> I cant believe the degeneracy and the actual hypocracy of some people, who would defend muslims as individuals against the type right wing facism and racism which paints all muslims as terrorists ,but find it perfectly acceptable to kill nameless Cops who had nothing to with the actions of their colleagues.

I mean, not all Muslims are involved in oppression. Cops are, definitionally; even if they're nice folks, orders are orders, standard policy is standard policy. This is just hilarious equivocation. And I mean, I don't think many people are outright saying yeah, go abduct and kill some cops - the overwhelming response I've seen has been about how inevitable this response was. And "has nothing to do with their colleagues" is pretty rich - even cops who act with outright violence often aren't hood-wearing neon-lights RACISTS, they're expressing subtle biases that other cops tend to respect and respond to. Cops in a department will draw into the blue wall and actively defend each other - when individual "good cops" start actually doing something about these supposedly unrepresentative "bad apples," I'll start to care about their differentiation.

> Do cops have role in maintaoning hierarchy? Yes. Do cops on a regular basis use violence and bullying to maintain this hierarchy? Yes. Should cops be killed irregardless of their actions or livelihoods? FUCKING NO.

I'd love to see some proof of people actually suggesting a kind of cop genocide unironically, because it's pretty obviously not what most people were saying.

> Why the fuck would you say shit like this, knowing it does not represent the ideolodgy of libertarian socialism, workplace democracy and the absance of hierachy?

You know violence and indeed outright assassination are the products of certain anarchist doctrines, right? Propaganda by the deed wasn't universal, but it's an important part of anarchist history. Admiration/ respect for such actions is not utterly incompatible with anarchism.

u/Lonely_and_Deranged · 9 pointsr/sociopath

tl;dr: Psychopaths and Sociopaths are normal people.

Sociopathy is not a good/ bad thing that turn people into monster.It's just a copying mechanism for survivors of abuse in their childhood.

My advice for every sociopath with antisocial tendencies is: Focus your attention on the kind of person you want to be, rather than what kind of events you want to happen. Imagine how you would act now if you suddenly had impeccable character. Then, make your goal be to act that way, just for the moment.

I think the reason why people are concerned or even frightened by people that show no empathy is because it seems they cannot be reasoned with.
You cannot appeal to them with emotions, or other ways of relating that may have had an effect on a neurotypical.

What do people who lack empathy act like?

They behave all the time like you do most of the time.

Someone who lacks empathy does not vicariously feel the experiences of another. It does not mean they are predatory. It does not mean they are irresponsible. It does not mean they are sadistic. Do not be persuaded into demonizing such people.

Sociopaths and Psychopaths lack an empathy and/or guilt barrier that would prevent them from doing something that is generally perceived to be "wrong" "bad" or "immoral".

They are indifferent beyond measure,without mercy and justice.Try to imagine the indifference itself as a power.The truth is, indifference really is a power, selectively applied, and living in such a way is not only eminently possible, with a conscious adoption of certain attitudes, but facilitates a freer, more expansive, more adventurous mode of living. Joy and grief are still there, along with all the other emotions, but they are tempered – and, in their temperance, they are less tyrannical.Sociopaths are people who grit their teeth and tolerate pain and suffering.They’re serene and confident in the face of anything you can throw at them.

Think of the spartan warriors (IMO the most stoic society that there was). They were trained since kids to get rid of fear, they were encouraged to get in fight and make fun of each other in order to not take emotions seriously. The spartans had several types of drills that they did in order to abandon primal instincts and reflexes. For example, they would hit aspiring warriors in their eyes with vines until the warriors could stop reflex from closing both eyes when they got hit.

The spartans abandoned all primal instincts, including fear, so that they could be their 100% rational and tactical self during battle, and that's part of the reason they were such good warriors.

Some psychopaths may murder, but it’s not because of their psychopathy that they murder. Indeed, psychopathy or any other condition may have played an important role in someone’s decision making—obviously, no one makes decisions in isolation from their neurological condition—but it’s not the psychopathic mind that turns people to kill—and kill in numbers.

Contrary to being immoral, their social blindspot empowers them to avoid many moral pitfalls. Empathy frequently leads to morally bankrupt behavior:

When a control group in an experiment were asked whether a ten year old girl with a serious illness should be allowed to skip a queue to get medical treatment ahead of children who needed it more, they appropriately refused. When the subjects were encouraged to empathize with her by being given her name, face and personal story, subjects overwhelmingly opted to move her to the front of the queue, consigning faceless children to death.

This is a phenomenon that salespeople, politicians, lawyers and every one with an agenda knows to exploit. I'm exploiting it in this very post, and you didn't even realize it! Those who lack empathy have no such lever by which their thinking may be hijacked. They are more apt to make fair and rational judgments.

As with most things, empathy is not simple. It is not binary; it is not something you either have or don't. You will feel empathy for some people sometimes and other times you won't. Even if you are an empathic person, you frequently act with indifference or disproportionately small concern. Thousands recently died in the Philippines in a disaster that exceeded the 9/11 terror attacks; how many Americans fell to their knees and wept? Did you? The difference between you and someone who doesn't feel empathy is that they behave all the time like you do most of the time.

Champions for empathy will protest, "what's to stop someone from being a violent vandal if they don't have empathy?" Lets be clear about something; empathy won't prevent someone from doing horrendous things . Read the account of a Nazi reservist in Police Battalion 101 who, in spite of being viscerally empathic, participated in the point-blank execution of Jews:

> The shooting of the men was so repugnant to me that I
missed the fourth man. It was simply no longer possible
for me to aim accurately. I suddenly felt nauseous and
ran away from the shooting site.

Empathy is not a safeguard against cruelty. Empathy can even be manipulated into "counter-empathy" or sadism .Empathy was never a deterrent, and those who lack empathy have no more incentive than you to engage in foul behavior.

u/anthropology_nerd · 9 pointsr/worldnews

Archaeologists are finding increasing evidence that large portions of the Amazon are, to a certain extent, man-made. 1491 discusses these finds and I highly recommend the book if you like popular history reading.

Edit: People destroy things, the only that changes is the scale of the damage.

u/matttk · 9 pointsr/europe

Read an interesting book about the different nations/cultures in America. I don't think it's so straightforward that Americans are all the same. People in Alabama, for example, want very different things out of life and see things very differently than people in NYC, for example.

u/mhornberger · 9 pointsr/history

It predates modern politics by quite a bit, at least in my understanding. I've read Albion's Seed and American Nations, and from my understanding Appalachia and the Scots-Irish culture, plus the Deep South, have always supported war. All of them. The South is also saddled with a culture of honor, and, having been raised in Texas, I can say you lose serious face walking away from a fight.

We like to attribute the contemptuousness towards education as an outgrowth of their poverty, but I think the reverse is true. And I think the contempt for education comes from all the admiration going to "men of action," soldiers, fighters, etc. If you have to distinguish yourself with books and fancy words, you probably can't fight. Or worse, you're afraid to.

u/tombsheets · 9 pointsr/slatestarcodex

That was more likely to be in American Nations and not in Albion's Seed, which covers only British immigration and is, as I remember it, more anthropological than political.

From a summary by Woodard:

> NEW NETHERLAND. Established by the Dutch at a time when the Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world, New Netherland has always been a global commercial culture—materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience. Like seventeenth-century Amsterdam, it emerged as a center of publishing, trade, and finance, a magnet for immigrants, and a refuge for those persecuted by other regional cultures, from Sephardim in the seventeenth century to gays, feminists, and bohemians in the early twentieth. Unconcerned with great moral questions, it nonetheless has found itself in alliance with Yankeedom to defend public institutions and reject evangelical prescriptions for individual behavior.

From skimming this wiki page, it appears there were multiple rounds of immigration, and that the Dutch who live in Michigan moved 200 years after those who settled New Amsterdam.

u/Rollondger · 9 pointsr/WarshipPorn

I have a book recommendation for you: Command and Control

It's a superb read regarding a series of briefs on nuclear weapon safety in fire conditions, and how safe modern weapons are in comparison.

u/nixed9 · 9 pointsr/politics

Because the current government of Israel is far-right warhawks who need constant conflict so they can always be "defending themselves" and keep political power, and they do not tolerate ANY criticism

American is a thing that can be easily moved - Benjamin Netanyahu, unaware he is being recorded.

9/11 Was good for Israel because it shifted public opinion away from arabs and towards Israel - Netanyahu

See also: Mearsheimer & Walt, The Israel lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Published: 2007 by Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Available at:
> "Pressure from Israel and the lobby was not the only factor behind the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element."


Pro-Israel Lobby caught on tape boasting that its money influences Washington (WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT Rep OMAR WAS SAYING)

Netanyahu says THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION FOR GAZA as he renews calls for military action - Times of Israel, Nov 2018

Netanyahu Beating War Drums is about Politics More Than Security - Haaretz, Nov 2018

u/Skadwick · 8 pointsr/Atlanta

Reading my first 'techo thriller' - a non-fiction booked called Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety.

If I'd have heard of the genre independently of this book I'd likely not find it appealing, but I am really really enjoying it. Absolutely blowing through it for how dense of a book it is. Also, if I could sum up the contents of this book so far I'd say 'shit is fucked'

u/Nessunolosa · 8 pointsr/changemyview

Hiya, I am a person who lived in Korea in 2012-2013 and for six months up to April this year. I don't have a military perspective on the issue, but I can tell you a little about my experiences in Korea.

Firstly, know that this uptick in worry and hand-wringing about an imminent nuclear attack by North Korea goes in cycles. The US media get annoyed or bored with whatever it is that they are covering, and start to focus on NK again. This happens about once a year, usually in the springtime. In 2012 it was an imminent existential threat. In 2013 it was, too. As it was in 2014, 2015, 2016, and this year. You can almost set your watch by the coverage, and it is almost always as doomsday as the last time. I went on google's search engine and looked for 'north korea' as a search term for the time since 2004 and made images of each individual year here. Admittedly, 2017's graph looks a little different, but you can clearly see the cycles in the previous years. I would be willing to bet that 2017's graph is more due to POTUS tweeting and the generalized anxiety of the Left in the States than a genuine march toward war.

I'll be that you didn't know there was a genuine exchange of fire in Korea in 2010. There were tense moments of actual live fire for that whole of that year, leading to a 23 November bombardment of a South Korean island by North Korean artillery. 70+ South Korean houses were destroyed, and several were killed on both sides. Even with the tensions and the live artillery, the peninsula did not descend into open war.

In addition, you should know that the coverage of NK issues tends to be overblown in US media. I heard this story from even the likes of NPR the other day, and laughed aloud at the ridiculousness of it. It's lines like this that get the people back in the US riled up:

Defense Secretary James Mattis went within feet of the curbstone separating North and South Korea, where grim-faced North Korean troops stared across at him. It's known as one of the scariest spots on the planet.

That whole story is hyperbolic (and irresponsible reporting, imho). I went to the border at that exact place. It's part of a civilian tourist trip that runs almost every day. It wasn't exactly as the reporter made it seem, like he'd been helicoptered into an active conflict zone.

The DMZ is sad, confusing, and very absurd. But it's probably one of the safest places on Earth. You are infinitely more likely to be shot in any major United States city than at the DMZ. I'll concede that landmines are not a normal worry in US cities, but they don't tend to go off in the DMZ, either. The last time one went off was in 2015 (wounding two).

This time, admittedly, Trump is involved. But that doesn't change things too much except for making people feel more nervous. For this, I'm afraid that I have only a long-term remedy. You need to read Eric Schlosser's Command and Control. This book changed my views on nuclear weapons and greatly improved my understanding of the ways that a nuclear war could start. I don't feel comforted necessarily, but hearing about the ways that generals dealt with say, an alcoholic, depressed, borderline suicidal Nixon during the Watergate scandal made me feel a whole lot better about Trump being POTUS.

Finally, China. They are ascendant, gaining power, and working to make the region stable. They will not tolerate NK's bullshit rising to the level that the US might strike them. They'd just invade first. It wouldn't lead to massive, open conflict with the USA or South Korea. China is a player of the long game, and they will withdraw their support from the NK regime if necessary.

Hope that this helps! Please don't worry about this. Worry about more immediate problems in your own community.

u/APOC-giganova · 8 pointsr/Physics

I recomend the book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety by Eric Schlosser, also available in audio format. It's a much better history and synopsis of the issues at hand.

u/Korgzilla · 8 pointsr/worldnews

Also, Command and Control is a good (non-fiction) read on the topic.

u/neoquixo · 8 pointsr/AskHistorians

I would like to nominate Roger Goiran, a Bronze Star winning OSS Captain. Roger was head of CIA's Tehran station in the early 1950s and in Belgium in the early 1960s. Goiran had a very promising CIA career but somewhat fell out of favor after he resigned his Tehran post in protest when the plan to depose democratically elected Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddegh came through. Goiran believed the plan to put the Shah in power compromised US principles and threw its support behind English and French colonialism.

He is mentioned in Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes and Meyer and Brysac's Kingmakers

u/jhib456 · 8 pointsr/samharris

Virtually all of the hyperlinks lead to bogus media outlets and some of the arguments can only be argued by giving remarkably uncharitable interpretations of things other people said. Consider the one against Ellison. In 2010, Ellison said, “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right?” The author deems this "paranoid anti-Semitic themes." Maybe, or it could be just true, given how many Middle East scholars have made similar claims.

u/fdeckert · 8 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

Because if you have money, you too can buy Senators and Congressmen and Presidential candidates and play King of the World

Spend enough money, and terrorists are no longer terrorists

And money buys lobbyists and PR campaigns

Two bigtime mainstream profs of international affairs will explain it all for ten bucks on Kindle

>The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Here's the shorter version -- they had to have this printed in the London Review of Books because no one in the US would print it

u/elbac14 · 8 pointsr/books

Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demick. I can't explain why in just a few words but it is simply the best book I've ever read.

u/suby · 8 pointsr/atheism

I read the same thing. 99% sure I read it from the book nothing to envy.

It's a pretty good book.

u/motwist · 8 pointsr/books

I have an English degree, but I didn't read nonfiction until I graduated a few years ago. Here are the best I've read: Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick, The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon by David Grann, and Kon-Tiki by Thor Heyerdahl.

u/Monkeyavelli · 8 pointsr/worldnews

> Yet, how is it any different from those of you who suggest that life is better than death?

What the hell is wrong with you? North Koreans aren't some alien race, they're human beings who also don't want to die. Read memoirs from NK escapees like The Aquariums of Pyongyang or Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea. I attended a talk by the man written about in Escape from Camp 14, a man born in a NK prison camp who managed to escape.

These are not people longing for death; they're people longing for life.

>Why do you feel that it is fair to use your own experiences in this life to determine the value of life for other people?

We're not. You are:

"We shouldn't let people starve to death."

"But how do we know they don't want to starve to death!?"

You have absolutely no idea at all what you're talking about, your opinion is idiotic, and you're an awful person for having it.

Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? I hate this false "all positions are equal, teach the controversy!" charade.

u/Groumph09 · 8 pointsr/books

You might get "more" by starting to look at more specialized books. Biographies and non-fiction.

u/BoomierBoom · 8 pointsr/tifu

I've a traced direct paternal lineage to a group who were taken from Mullingar in the 15th century to work in Dublin's docks, 10 generations of those men up to my great grandfather living in absolute poverty in tenement houses. Then there's the horror show of the West of Ireland, people subsisting off a 10x10 plot of potatoes, labouring at gunpoint for landlords with vast estates. Then of course millions died when the potato blight came, not because there wasn't food produced in the country, but because the country was a breadbasket. They went as far as blocking donations of aid to the Irish from other countries. The squalor, indignity and suffering of the Irish under British rule is scarcely worth trying to quantify. Chattel slaves suffered also, obviously, they were subjects to a whole other system of oppression, but ultimately, it seems like they've been unable to shake the oppression complex because they continue to experience or perceive it in many aspects of their life to this day. Irish people, by comparison can blend with British society better now, but even up to the 2000s, because of the conflict in Northern Ireland, Irish people were regarded suspiciously in the UK, had civil rights movements against sectarianism in government services (protestants being privileged over Catholics for many years). Many British people also still tell stupid Irish jokes. The point is, all that is there, and still experienced, but we don't flinch and snarl like a beaten dog every time we encounter it. Here's some further reading around the subject if you're interested.

u/rgiggs11 · 8 pointsr/ireland

According to "How the Irish Became White" author Ignatiev , Irish people were basicially treated as an 'other' race in the US initially.

u/Mr_Blonde0085 · 8 pointsr/enoughpetersonspam

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book)

u/ChicagoRex · 8 pointsr/Foodforthought

It's not simply ad hominem; his interpretation of facts has been disputed. The findings and ideas -- not just the man -- are controversial. Here are some good places to start for people who want to learn more. (The links with plus signs are books, not full texts online.)

An overview

Another overview++

A summary & review of three notable books on the subject

The Bell Curve++

The Flynn Effect++

IQ Tests


u/FRedington · 8 pointsr/MensRights

This book compares genders for IQ.
The smartest men are smarter than the smartest women.

The number of lowest IQ men is greater than the number of lowest IQ women.

This would suggest that "the glass ceiling" is just an artifact of which gender is smarter in aggregate.

Women try to redefine the problem and it does not work.

u/Static_Line_Bait · 8 pointsr/AskHistorians

I'm not sure if these necessarily meet the standard for this sub, but two layman-friendly and highly interesting books you might like are Lies My Teacher Told Me and Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches.

u/mm242jr · 8 pointsr/politics

China is the newest hegemony. The US didn't have a choice in Germany or Japan after WWII, since it was either step in or let Stalin take over. Read this fascinating article:

> Stalin had been secretly plotting an offensive against Hitler’s Germany, and would have invaded in September 1941, or at the latest by 1942. Stalin ... wanted Hitler to destroy democracy in Europe, in the manner of an icebreaker, thereby clearing the way for world communism. The book undermined the idea that the USSR was an innocent party, dragged into the second world war. Russian liberals supported Suvorov’s thesis; it now has broad acceptance among historians

The US was founded by slaveowners using the pretext of representation, but it was all about commerce. They put in place a horrific non-democratic system, the Electoral College. The US has intervened repeatedly in democracies and put in place brutal regimes. Read All The Shah's Men, for example.

One reason you might have started with a rosy view is that republicans control how US history is taught to schools across the country; see last two chapters of this book.

As for California, your Congressional representatives are amazing. I'm counting on them to nail that fucking orange traitor.

To counter the criticism above, it was the US that finally shoved the UN aside in Bosnia and stopped the genocide with a few well-placed missiles, albeit three years and 100,000 civilians too late, and it was the US that shoved the UN aside very early when Serbia attacked Kosovo later in that same decade. Fucking Kofi Annan and his inaction in Rwanda... (The hero of that story is Canadian: Romeo Dallaire.)

u/_diacetylmorphine- · 8 pointsr/news

Dude... It was never great by any stretch of the imagination.

Good primer would be Zinn's "People's History of the United States". In the words of Matt Damon, that book will "blow your hair back".

About the only thing remotely "good" this country ever really accomplished as a whole was assisting the Allied Forces in securing a victory in WW2. And the only real significant part we played in that (as far as the European theater) was materiel. If it wasn't for Operation Barbarossa and the Soviets kicking the ever loving shit out of the German forces we would have been destroyed (or never really got involved in the first place).

Edit: I'd like to add that even the "good" done in WW2 must be tempered by the fact that even General Curtis LeMay commented "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal". We were most certainly guilty of horrific atrocities and violation of international standards of war (i.e. the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings that actively targeted civilian populations) among other thing.

u/NoDakJackson · 8 pointsr/serialpodcast
u/pablo95 · 8 pointsr/politics

A Peoples History Of the United States is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in politics, history, or sociology.

u/res0nat0r · 8 pointsr/politics

> What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

Replace the title with any GOP controlled state.

u/Y_pestis · 8 pointsr/biology

just some of my standard answers.

The Disappearing Spoon- yes, it's chemistry but I found it very interesting.

Abraham Lincoln's DNA- if you have a good background in genetics you might already know many of these stories. Read the table of contents first.

New Guinea Tapeworms and Jewish Grandmothers- disease based biology. There is a follow up book if it turns out you like it.

Stiff- more than you wanted to know about dead bodies.

And by the same author but space based... Packing for Mars.

I hope these help... Cheers.

u/civildefense · 8 pointsr/IAmA

have you ever read stiff by Mary Roach? its quite good.

u/ChagSC · 8 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

There is actually a lot of controversy on the lack of regulation for the global cadaver trade.

This is also a great read:

u/TinyPinkSparkles · 8 pointsr/todayilearned

There are a LOT of uses for cadavers.

Reading this book made me want to donate my body to science.

u/DanishWhoreHens · 8 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

What we practice in the US now, embalming with airtight caskets (they have “burping coffins” like Tupperware to release gas) began during the Civil War because of the hideous condition the bodies would often arrive home in after so long. If you’re down with learning about all the different things having to with the funeral industry and as well as how industry professionals have either lobbied to make some absurd practices legal requirements or will try to convince you they are when they’re not then these are fascinating to read, Jessica Mitford’s The American Way Of Death and Mary Roach’s Stiff: The Curious Lives Of Human Cadavers. Some of the most interesting reading you’ll ever do to be sure.

u/tedistkrieg · 8 pointsr/Documentaries

This book, Stiff is partially about the body farm, among other things. It is an awesome read

u/HippyxViking · 8 pointsr/worldbuilding

Honestly I don't think you need to come up with complex religious justifications - just read 1491. There's a lot of knowledge that's been lost or purposefully destroyed, but all across the Americas there were stunningly complex civilizations that largely didn't use metals at all.

It is probable that Indigenous American civilizations had several of the most advanced agricultural systems in the world, politics, philosophy, writing, mathematics, science and astronomy, etc. Architecture and engineering were somewhat different, but still complex and advanced, and their city planning was completely different than Europe's - Tenochtitlan was literally unbelievable to the Europeans who showed up, it was so clean, organized, and beautiful.

Post contact, or if there was no contact, it's very difficult to say what trajectory they would have gone, or if you can have a 'modern' or industrial society that skips metallurgy altogether - I can't really see how that would happen. Then again what do I know.

u/metatron-one · 8 pointsr/badhistory

I've been reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari, due to an interest in the history of the human species brought about by an Intro to Biological Anthropology class I'm in. I'm maybe three chapters in so far, but I'm engrossed. Harari theorizes that the reason that Homo Sapiens were able to outlive all the other Homo species is our ability to conceive fiction, our ability to conceptualise things that don't exist, like religions, nations, etc. This isn't really a historic text, but it's well written and seems to be worth reading if you have an interest in the topic. I'd like to read some critical reviews from experts in the field, though.

u/wievid · 8 pointsr/news

Sorry, but you are sooooooo very wrong.

I encourage you to read Steve Coll's book Ghost Wars (Amazon) - it provides an extremely detailed look into the run-up to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the entire war itself and the aftermath leading up to 11 September 2001. I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you, but the United States had absolutely no direct hand in the Taliban's creation. Certainly there were fighters that received training and funding via the US and Saudi Arabia, but the true origins of the Taliban were with a group that the US hardly dealt with but received the full support of Pakistan's ISI in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion during the 1990s.

u/minnabruna · 8 pointsr/AskHistorians

You might like My Khyber Marriage and Valley of the Giant Buddahs. They are autobiographical reports by a Scotswoman who married a Pashtun and moved to Afghanistan in the 1920s. My Life: From Brigand to King--Autobiography of Amir Habibullah may also be of interest. It is an as-told-to autobiography of an Afghan brigand who briefly overthrew the King about ten years after the first two books were written. The Road to Oxiana is a bit clunky but offers a Western perspective on Afghanistan in the 1930s.

The more general Afghanistan of the Afghans, written by the husband of the woman mentioned above, focuses a lot of culture and cultural history, Afghanistan is a more general history and this Afghanistan claims to be more about the military history but I haven't read it myself to judge.

If you want something more contemporary, The Places In Between is a decent travelogue by an adventurer/preservationist/mercenary who walked through parts of the country. It didn't blow me away but it is interesting and most contemporary Afghan books from the West are such trash that this one shines in comparison. The author really did go to areas of Afghanistan about which most people know very little.

Ghost Wars is a popular book that focuses on the US involvement in the area during the Soviet Afghan war. Taliban is another popular book, and focuses on the Taliban in the 1990s and early 2000s. The link is to the second edition which I believe is updated.

u/saltandvinegarrr · 8 pointsr/history

Hey OP, the book you want to read about this is Ordinary Men

The book covers the activities of an honest-to-god Einzatsgruppen unit, recruited from policemen around Hamburg. It's one of the most chilling books I've ever read about Nazi atrocities. The perpetrators of these massacres really were just ordinary people, yet as the author discovers, fell quite naturally into their role as executioners.

Browning provides a summary like so. ~10% of the unit committing atrocities became enthusiastic killers. ~80% performed their roles joylessly, but killed reliably and made no refusals. ~10% refused or hesitated at some point, without any real consequences.
A minority (13 of 500), abstained from killing outright.

In reality, if a German officer or soldier wished to abstain from committing atrocities, there was no real consequences for them. This held true even for the Einzatsgruppen, and certainly held true for regular army units.

u/MAI742 · 8 pointsr/history

TLDNR: the average German person never had strong positive or negative feelings about Jews, they just said that they hated Jews when the Nazis were in power and then said that they were okay with Jews when they were removed.


If you're not familiar with group psychology and conformity then the idea that you don't need to hate a people to commit genocide upon them might seem like a bold assertion to you, so I'd urge you to pick up one of the best (and cheapest) texts on this exact topic:

In that particular case it proved possible to get almost every member of a unit full of people who'd never killed anyone before, recruited from an anti-Nazi city (Hamburg), to kill a whole village's worth of innocent people by explaining how it was necessary to safeguard their country's National Security and indirectly making them feel embarassed about backing out in front of their friends and coworkers. They didn't have to threaten them, order them, or indoctrinate them. They just had to tell them that it would protect their loved ones and let them feel pressured not to slack off when they were with their peers.

You were absolutely right about the hardcore believers. They formed groups like the Wehrmacht Veterans Association and the SS Veterans' Association (which campaigned for the Waffen-SS to be decriminalised and its members to receive state pensions). People like Field Marshall Erich von Manstein went to the grave either refusing to say a single negative thing about Hitler or the regime or its policies, or outright saying (usually just to trusted friends) that they had been right.

Of course, even during the war the strong supporters of the regime and direct participants in War Crimes would have found it extremely emotionally damaging to change their views. To believe that what they had done was evil would have destroyed them. So they doubled down and believed as hard as they could that they had done the right thing and therefore were good people. Post-war 'De-Nazification' just strengthened their convictions.

Between the lacklustre response from average Germans, and the counterproductive effect among most hardcore ex-Nazis, even observers of the time called "De-Nazification" an abject failure. Later scholarship has made the depths of this failure even clearer.


Compare and contrast the relatively mainstream fear of Asian Communists, which endured in the public sphere/polite conversation even after the war - but with progressively softer rhetoric and more emphasis on the "Communist" than the "Asian" part.


EDIT: I can see why you'd want to believe that De-Nazification worked, but that doesn't make it true... I've yet to see the words "De-Nazification was a success" in any book or journal covering the process.

u/Gen_McMuster · 8 pointsr/slatestarcodex

Your last point is pretty reminiscent of ordinary men though this is definately easier to pull off when your exporting the jackbooted into communities they dont have ties with

u/NewbombTurk · 8 pointsr/agnostic

There's a lot you have wrong here. I'm fairly sure your posting in good faith, so I'll try to hit all your points

> Yes I understand that some religion uses it as cover

They do. And it makes them and it makes them intellectually dishonest, at best, and flat out liars, at worst.

> and I also know that almost all atheists believe that life just started as a coincidence and evolved to where it is now

OK, so a couple of things here. The first is that atheism doesn't have anything to say on the matter of abiogenesis, or evolution. Atheist is the response to a claim. The lack of a belief in god(s). That's it. And second, while there are some common beliefs among atheists, no one is saying that life started as a "coincidence". The beginnings of life are largely unknown.

> and that intelligent design is a direct attack to that believe but still why the hate,

What do you mean by hate? I don't see that, and I've been a secular activist for 30 some odd years. ID isn't a direct attack on atheism, it's a concerted effort to rebrand creationism in an attempt to get it into class rooms. The liars at The Discovery Institute have admitted as much. And you not familiar with the Wedge Document?

> I thought they were supposed to be the rational ones

As I said, atheists aren't a monolith. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're rational. People can arrive at an atheist position for bad reasons.

> but every time a scientist releases their evidence for ID no matter how convincing and scientific it is

That has never happened. Ever. There's no such thing as a "creation scientist". Are you aware that organizations like The Discovery Institute create their own publications so they can call their work peer reviewed?

> you will still see it pasted on an atheist forum and shitted on with no real refutes but instead insults about how dumb and stupid the scientist ,

Insults are wrong, but there's typically nothing to refute.

> how intelligent design is just pseudoscience

It's not even pseudoscience. It's a religious claim that can't be supported. At all.

> or just the usual religion argument counters like if God created humans then who created God,

That's not the argument. The argument your referring to properly stated, would be "If everything has a cause, what caused god?". I'm not a huge fan of this response to the Cosmological Arguments, but it's a legitimate one.

> if god is perfect then why is the human body so terribly designed or other arguments like these that depends entirely on god being the Christian one or must be perfect, omnipresent etc.

We can only response, or refute, to the claims we're presented. Most Christians claim that god is perfect, and omnimax. Calling out the contradictions in these statements in, again, legitimate.

> In the end both theories are not 100% proven

OK, again, this is lack of understanding about what science is. A scientific theory isn't a guess, or unsupported conjecture. A theory in science is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Also, science doesn't "prove" things, let alone to 100% certainty. And, when a conclusion can't be reached , that doesn't mean that all assertions are equiprobable. For example; if we have a large jar filled with jellybeans, but we don't know how many there are in the jar, is one billion as likely the correct answer as two hundred? Of course not.

> and both have their faults like an ID believer will also argue that if life randomly started then why has it no happen again

No one is saying that life start randomly. Please stop building this strawman. I bet if you googled this, you'd find many, many scientific responses to this question.

> or if life randomly started because of the different nature of early earth then why do we have only one common ancestor not hundreds.

We did have more than one. I suggest you read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It's brilliant, and it will straighten you out on some of this stuff. If you have a PO BOX, I'll send you a copy.

> So why the bias to ID, why is it that God must be imaginary and that is it?

Because there is zero evidence of ID. Zero. All they have to offer are strawmen, Arguments of Ignorance, and Incredulity. And attempts to poke holes in legitimate science. At best.

The time to accept a proposition is when it's indicated by evidence. Not before.

u/Singulaire · 7 pointsr/KotakuInAction

A bit of pedantry here: you wouldn't have necessarily been a Nazi, since many citizens of Nazi Germany, including members of the army serving in the eastern front, weren't actual members of the Nazi party. However, you probably would have "Sieg Heil'd like a motherfucker" and gone along with the orders to "liquidate" this or that batch of Jews.

> There's a story in Peterson's book about a troop of German Military police who go to Warsaw. Normal guys with families. Their officer tells them that its going to be rough, that nobody has to come who doesn't want to, but he'll be there and their comrades will be there. Almost nobody steps back from it, and they all go to Poland. Six Months later they're Bayoneting women in the street and kicking in doors to shoot people.

I recommend Ordinary Men, as linked above, for further reading. It goes into great depth on the story of how Reserve Police Battalion 101 went from average Joes to war criminals.

u/lobotomatic · 7 pointsr/Christianity

Not to tread on the verge of falling prey to slippery slope argumentation, but I do think it is a rather short distance from, "we need to carry guns during worship to protect ourselves from... [insert vague and unlikely threat of your choice]," to, "kill them in the name of God."

One thing a reading of events surrounding the Nazi genocides has shown me is that the greatest amount of evil was perpetrated by normal people who believed they were helping the common good.

That's not so say Christians are Nazis or any such thing like that, only to point that the distance from "us vs them" mindsets to outright violence is not that far, even for otherwise peaceful and non-violent people.

An example of what I am referring to:

u/Wsallgood · 7 pointsr/HistoryPorn

That really was a pretty rough read. Not a bedtime story. Link

u/SirViracocha · 7 pointsr/JoeRogan

While I do think it's podcast fodder. He brings this up. You must push back before it goes to far, incremental steps soon lead us far from where it was reasonable. An example of this gone wrong, was an ordinary german police force that ended up shooting women after nazi indoctination

u/LGBTreecko · 7 pointsr/Negareddit

Have you tried reading this book? It explains the mindset of being a younger male back then. If you know that 3.5 million other Germans have already been sent to death camps for resisting, you'd probably get in line right next to everyone else, because, lets face it, that's what you'd be trained to do.

u/eorld · 7 pointsr/history

You clearly didn't read the second link, (also wtf is executing leaders of an opposing ideology, they were murdering prisoners of war) here's a few crimes by the 'ordinary men' of the Wehrmacht

> The 707th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht put this principle into practice during an "anti-partisan" sweep that saw the division shoot 10,431 people out of the 19,940 it had detained during the sweep while suffering only two dead and five wounded in the process.[64]


> At Mirgorod, the 62nd Infantry Division executed "the entire Jewish population (168 people) for associating with partisans".[65] At Novomoskovsk, the 444th Security Division reported that they had killed "305 bandits, 6 women with rifles (Flintenweiber), 39 prisoners-of-war and 136 Jews".[65] In revenge for a partisan attack that had killed one German soldier, the Ersatz-Brigade 202 "as an act of retaliation shot 20 Jews from the villages of Bobosjanka and Gornostajewka and burnt down 5 Jew-houses".[66] Even more extreme was the case in Serbia, where the majority of the Jews there were murdered by the Wehrmacht, not the SS.[67] At Šabac, "Central European Jewish refugees, mostly Austrians, were shot by troops of predominantly Austrian origin in retaliation for casualties inflicted by Serbian partisans on the German Army".[65] The orders issued by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel in September 1941 called for the German Army to shoot 100 Serbs for every German soldier killed by the Serb guerrillas and did not call for Jews to be singled out.[68] But because of rampant anti-Semitism in the German officer corps, it was more or less automatically assumed that the Serbian Jewish community were behind all of the partisan attacks, hence the targeting of Jews in the mass shootings carried out in retaliation for guerilla attacks.[68] The German historian Jürgen Förster, a leading expert on the subject of Wehrmacht war crimes, argued that the Wehrmacht played a key role in the Holocaust and it is wrong to ascribe the Shoah as solely the work of the SS while the Wehrmacht were a more or less passive and disapproving bystander.[67]

Edit: Just to add, when you say that part about "normal people not liking that" that just isn't true, the Nazis made regular people key parts of the holocaust all the time. You should read about the 101st reserve police battalion, very regular normal people. They were middle aged, didn't grow up under Nazi propaganda, working class people from Hamburg, drafted but found ineligible for regular military duty. They ended up being a major part of the holocaust in Poland. (The citation for most of this is 'Ordinary Men' by Christopher Browning)

u/Kiwi_Force · 7 pointsr/Battlefield

How is this brigading? I can provide more academic sources if needed.

The Clean Wehrmacht myth is a well documented fact in history academica. I just generally start off with a wiki article as they are easy to read and the sources for it are found at the bottom of the page if you want to verify it. No one is saying all or even half of the Wehrmacht were members of the Nazi Party. Quite the opposite, the entire point is that just because you weren't a card carrying member, doesn't mean they didn't do just as bad and sometimes worse things in the name of Nazism.

u/jij · 7 pointsr/Christianity

For a few reasons.

  1. It would really really hard for it to not break the establishment clause because you know some teachers will take it too far... thus it's a liability.
  2. There just isn't that much factual about it to teach from a history perspective... most historians think Jesus existed (according to /r/askhistorians) , but they don't go much beyond that. The actual historical lesson on it would take like an hour.
  3. History classes in general are bland and full of fact memorizing, the whole subject is generally hollow and lifeless in order to cover massive amounts of time and things instead of actually having discussions and focusing on certain events and places. Not to mention the textbook writers try to please every group with an agenda, thus making the book absurdly neutral. A decent write-up about this last point can be read here:
u/jmurphy42 · 7 pointsr/todayilearned

That's definitely a failure of your school system, though I'm not going to comment on Georgia's in general since I know nothing about it. I'm a former teacher who's had experience in several school districts, and all of them required a basic world history course that heavily covered Europe. Heck, when I was in school we covered European geography and history in 5th grade, then again in middle school, and again in high school.

Sounds like you got robbed. Luckily, there's lots of great books out there you can use to catch yourself up if you care to, and some of them are free. (I tried to only highlight affordable ones, but libraries are a great resource too!)

u/disuberence · 7 pointsr/neoliberal

This is the entire basis for the worst book ever written.

u/redroguetech · 7 pointsr/nottheonion

What's the Matter with Kansas. Good book.

(Relevant, because Kansas used to be at the forefront of progressivism.)

u/graps · 7 pointsr/news

Everytime something shitty happens in Kansas(pretty often these days) I recommend this book

It's an excellent run down on politicians and single issue voters were played over and over again making Kansas what it is today. If you want to know why people routinely can be counted on to vote against their own interests it's a good read

u/bodhidharma6 · 7 pointsr/GamerGhazi

For a comprehensive read on the subject, can't recommend How the Irish Became White enough. The myth that the Irish ascended into the mainstream for meritocratic reasons obviously has wildly racist undertones, but the book does a great job of laying out exactly how it actually occurred: by demonstrating to the existing white power structure that they could readily participate in the brutalization and marginalization of blacks. Eventually the Irish came to dominate police departments in major cities, and spent most of their time on the job rounding up both other Irish people and black folks. They were also welcomed into various industrial occupations as alternatives to black people, and eventually formed a variety of labor unions that also excluded people of color. That's not to say all Irish folks gleefully traded solidarity with another oppressed group for whiteness, the book also goes into detail about Irish abolitionists and later union organizers and agitators who actively fought racism as well.

Any "rags to richest" story about minorities tends to ignore one glaring feature of the American racial ideology: That anyone who wasn't black immediately had a leg up over black people, because blackness by definition denoted the lowest possible status. That's not to say there aren't another 100 nuances and complicating factors in these stories, e.g. wealth and educational status of incoming immigrant waves, but the particular "constants" of the American race equation is a big one.

u/evansawred · 7 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Yeah I'm pretty sure they weren't considered black but they were considered non-white.

Amazon's summary of How the Irish Became White:

>The Irish came to America in the eighteenth century, fleeing a homeland under foreign occupation and a caste system that regarded them as the lowest form of humanity. In the new country – a land of opportunity – they found a very different form of social hierarchy, one that was based on the color of a person’s skin. Noel Ignatiev’s 1995 book – the first published work of one of America’s leading and most controversial historians – tells the story of how the oppressed became the oppressors; how the new Irish immigrants achieved acceptance among an initially hostile population only by proving that they could be more brutal in their oppression of African Americans than the nativists. This is the story of How the Irish Became White.

u/devolka · 7 pointsr/AskHistorians

No. The Irish were never brought to America as slaves. There are a few parts to this:

  1. The Irish of the 19th century were not considered 'white' or white in the same way as Anglo-Saxons. I would refer you to the book How The Irish Became White for some of that history

  2. There was some history of prisoners sent to North America for labor but according to John Donoghue, ("Indentured Servitude in the 17th Century English Atlantic: A Brief Survey of the Literature," History Compass (2013)) the numbers were small. The total number of European immigrants to all 13 colonies before 1775 was about 500,000; of these 55,000 were involuntary prisoners. Another 300,000 were African victims of the Atlantic slave trade.

  3. People often point to indenured servitude as a type of slavery. According to Christopher Tomlins ("Reconsidering Indentured Servitude: European Migration and the Early American Labor Force, 1600–1775,") of the 450,000 or so European arrivals who came voluntarily 48% were indentured. However these people had contractz of 3 years on average and had the same rights and protections of other free people. There are examples of indentured servants being kidnapped. But these are rare.

    Long and short.... no, there was no systemic or wide slavery of Irish people in the Americas.

u/LaviniaBeddard · 7 pointsr/HistoryPorn

For anyone wanting to read the whole story

It's not often you get to say "Fuck Belgium"

u/vipergirl · 7 pointsr/ukpolitics

> The social, cultural and linguistic differences between Oregon and North Carolina are minuscule, even though they're thousands of miles apart.

Not true whatsoever.

u/Sesquipedaliac · 7 pointsr/Warthunder

From my understanding of how the implosion-type device that was Fat Man worked, the explosives that would drive the uranium into the plutonium core (which would cause the reaction) might go off. Since damage would have occurred when it was hit, the timing would be off on these detonations, preventing a full nuclear reaction.

For the record, there was also a concern that lightning strikes would cause the electronics on early nuclear devices to go haywire and detonate. It's a bit of a wonder that there weren't more nuclear accidents between 1940-1970.

(Source: Command and Control, by Eric Schlosser)

u/nickiter · 7 pointsr/videos

I'm currently reading Command and Control by Eric Schlosser, which weaves together a story about a nearly catastrophic accident at a missile site and the broader history of the command and control systems that governed the US nuclear arsenal.

Contrary to the widely held belief that nuclear missiles are highly "fail-safe" and stable in adverse conditions, most of the nuclear arsenal was (and perhaps still is) quite dangerous. Armed, ready-to-detonate bombs have been dropped by accident multiple times... Missiles have caught fire in their silos, threatening to fling a cloud of plutonium across hundreds of miles of American heartland... Warheads have been in the custody of an American force so tiny that they'd have no hope of protecting against a host country's decision to seize a weapon...

The list goes on. It is terrifying. I've long been deeply skeptical of putting too much power in the hands of an unaccountable government, and this book has solidified that fear so much.

The standard by which the US government evaluated choices with regard to nuclear weapon is hideous. Generals and Presidents talked regularly of options which would result in hundreds of millions of deaths, including pre-emptive strikes against the USSR during a period without any hostilities at all.

u/Phallic_Moron · 7 pointsr/Austin

For supplemental reading, check out Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, The Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Nuclear Safety. By Eric Schlosser. A Pulitzer finalist.

There is also a documentary on Netflix(?) about the Damascus Accident, where a liquid fueled ICBM exploded inside the silo.

u/55tfg7879fe42e345 · 7 pointsr/worldnews

I think it might be time you do some reading. This will do:

Warning: Will correct your views about the capabilities of the CIA.

u/AStormsABrewin · 7 pointsr/politics


Suggested reading.

u/evildemonic · 7 pointsr/Israel

This book is one of the most neutral and honest takes on the subject I have read:

Are you familiar with it? I think most people in this thread, on both sides, should give it a read.

u/Axana · 7 pointsr/TrueReddit

There's an interesting passage in the book Nothing to Envy about the fertilizer shortages. Since North Korea can't afford to buy or produce fertilizer, they use human shit to fertilize their farms. To obtain this fertilizer, the government instituted a poop quota for each neighborhood block. Basically this meant that after you finished your business, you deposited your poop into specially designated buckets. The government would then collect the buckets and distribute them to the farms. If your block didn't meet the quota, then everyone in the block would get in trouble.

u/GerbilPants · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

I'll throw this in here as well because I see it in just about every thread similar to this. Jared Diamond basically tries to explain why some civilizations on our planet have advanced beyond others by leaps and bounds. So if you're looking for a good overview of the past 15,000ish years that attempts to explain how civilizations advance, this is definitely a good one.

u/Vaxthrul · 7 pointsr/conspiracyundone

We need lots of the basics, MKultra, JFK assassination, Operation Northwoods, Iran-Contra, GLADIO, Project Paperclip, etc.

One thing I feel strongly about is history white washing, so I recommend A People's History of the United States, which is also available from amazon in book format.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is another good book to read once you understand the flows of political power.

Also a shout out to Noam Chomsky, Lots of his books are worth reading and going over, however for those that don't wish to read, I recommend the documentary based on his book Manufacturing Consent, which I hope you were going to include anyway :P

EDIT: Here's a decent source for ebooks -

u/spedmonkey · 7 pointsr/AskHistorians

While I agree that your question is quite subjective, I'd suggest taking a look at Guns, Germs, & Steel, the ubiquitous recommendation when dealing with this question. I'm not sure I agree with all of Diamond's ideas, but it's a thought-provoking book, and he makes some excellent arguments within.

u/rockne · 7 pointsr/todayilearned

Also, Collapse and Guns, Gems and Steel by Jared Diamond

u/that_cad · 7 pointsr/todayilearned

If you haven't, you should read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond ( Taking a very scientific, objective approach to civilization and the development thereof, it provides an interesting and, in my opinion, highly plausible reason why African countries have typically fared worse than Western-European countries over the past 500 years (and which has nothing to do with race).

u/shady_mcgee · 7 pointsr/history

Most of my knowledge comes from Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Christianities and a bit of resultant self study. Unfortunately my copies are out on loan right now so I can't pull out and direct examples. In lieu of that I did find some examples of changes/omissions between different branches of copies.

There's an entire field of study which seeks to discern the original from all of the different copies. It's my understanding that the result of this work has been the elimination of most of the copy errors which occurred after ~300AD or so, but as /u/TheIceCreamPirate states, we don't have any complete copies, and very few fragments, of the gospels prior to then, so any errors which would have been introduced prior to that time are hidden from us.

u/doosjoos · 7 pointsr/exchristian

Maybe you could try showing that the Bible really isn't a reliable document in the first place. I'm currently reading Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus which is opening my eyes to the problems with the accuracy of the text in the New Testament.

For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is not found in early manuscripts of John and was most likely added at a later date. If your family believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, it makes it hard to explain why something added by a scribe later should be counted as scripture. And if part of it has a dubious textual past, it calls into question the rest of it.

u/kaneda33 · 7 pointsr/videos

> I believe the biggest event that led Bin Laden to set his sights on the US was the fact that during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia welcomed US troops into their border despite Bin Laden petitioning the government to leave the responsibility of defending Saudi Arabia (and Mecca/Medina etc.) to Muslims and the mujahidden.
> When the Saudi government spurned him and allowed the US to "temporarily" establish bases and put US troops on Saudi soil, he began to take serious issue with the Saudi government. And when it became clear that the "temporary" status of US troops in Saudi Arabia was bullshit, he truly began to hate the US.

Yep yep. Steve Coll goes into great detail about this in Ghost Wars.
Great read.

u/flexcabana21 · 7 pointsr/worldnews

Not the guy making the claim but you can read ghost wars, it talks about what the U.S. knew.

u/Samuel_I · 7 pointsr/worldnews

I take issue with some of the points raised here:

  1. This is not one of them, as it is certainly a reason why we stay. I'd also include the perceived PR failure of being the one to 'admit defeat.'

  2. This logic is exactly what exacerbates these supposed hotbeds of terrorism. It's a product of fully internalizing the narrative of the War on Terror, which, I would argue, has led to things like ISIS. "...we will basically see a global terror state erupt," no we already have that in the form of Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan gives them a rallying cry and a casus belli for their actions. Our continued involvement in the war breeds more militants than a 'terrorist haven' ever could.

  3. It's justifying a war by saying, "Well, we've been doing it for 20 years, why would we stop now?" which isn't exactly a great justification in and of itself. What's it matter that this is now a more conventional war? That just demonstrates that the conflict has gotten completely out of hand. The Taliban currently controls more territory than they have since the invasion. We're using the fact that nothing we're doing is working as a justification for continued involvement? Furthermore, it's not surprising that the Taliban's 2015 rise was the result of a power vacuum, since that's how they rose the first time. And guess what? We share a lot of responsibility for that conflict and vacuum too! It was a US, KSA, and Pakistani support that ratcheted up the conflict in the wake of the Soviet invasion and led to a lot of the destabilization that we've seen in Afghanistan, including the power vacuum left after the main players in the civil war were exhausted that allowed the Taliban to rise. Our actions, including attempting to stem 'terror threats' have directly contributed to a cycle that perpetuates that very terror and destabilization.

    >The british and french used to fight in these kinds of colonial hot spots for decades at a time, withdrawing troops and then sending more troops back whenever there was a flareup. Its not entirely different here.

    Typically using the logic of literal colonial powers isn't the best look in the year 2018.

    >Its important to note that this isn't entirely OUR WAR either. It is a civil war in afghanistan, that we are involved in.

    A civil war that only took the form it has because of our actions dating back decades.

    >Its important to note that this isn't entirely OUR WAR either. It is a civil war in afghanistan, that we are involved in. This isn't like Vietnam where we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers there, occupying the country. This is more just a war where we are supporting one side of it. We only have a few thousand troops there at the moment, we aren't the main fighting force. However, if we pulled out, the taliban would win and conquer the country.

    As you rightly point out, without our support the central government would possibly be overtaken by the Taliban, or, at the very least, forced to negotiate (though, they're now doing that anyway). The point here is that one cannot force a people into taking a government that they don't want without mass suppression and violence. Is that really the end game we want? If so, how exactly are we better than the Taliban? We've brought death and destruction to Afghanistan with very little to show for it, especially if we take things all the way back to 1978.

    >We simply can't have that happen, its unthinkable and the consequences would be horrific. So we will stay, for a very, very long time, if need be.

    And such a policy of perpetual war is morally abhorrent. I'd say that the War on Terror has skewed our collective moral compass, but, to be fair, it's never been oriented toward justice anyway, so we're really just seeing more of the same.

    Regardless, I'd advise we take a minute to think about how we got here, how Afghanistan became a hotbed of terror, why these terrorists do what they do, and the role we play in it all. Are we really working toward a better end for the Afghan people? Or are we just finding nails for the bloody hammer that is our military?

    Edit: For those looking for a good history of our involvement in Afghanistan from 1979 to 9/11, I would recommend Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.

    Edit 2: Changed some language with the clarification that OP was referring to US policy and not offering his own prescriptions.
u/juliebeen · 7 pointsr/books

Jared Diamond - Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel

Both are great. Not at all boring. Both are favorites of mine.

u/Shisno_ · 7 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

What an absolutely idiotic response.

Whites weren't successful because they were white. They were successful because, their harsh environment and access to resources caused them to look toward innovation to overcome nature. After that mindset was established, they further advanced through structured warfare, and after that, colonization.

If you want to dumb it down and say, "cuz white ppl", then by all means...

Guns, Germs, and Steel can give you an absolutely masterful understanding of why white European peoples came to preeminence.

u/CrimsonGear · 7 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

So, all white people in America have the same culture? A culture that values education and politeness? What about the deep south, where, let's be honest, higher education is not overly stressed? Or how about the differences between a person from New York and a person from Idaho?

"White" is a homogenized term that refers to skin color only. The culture you speak of is "American".

I'll also just point out that Africa is not a uniformly shitty hellhole, and the parts that ARE hellholes are like that largely due to outside influences. I'd also point you toward places like Egypt, with cities like Alexandria that were the once the center of knowledge and learning in antiquity. If you're interested in learning why certain cultures seem to be underdeveloped while others thrive technologically, you should read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. There's also a movie version on Netflix.

Anyway, let's get down to brass tacks. When I see a "black cultural event", I see a group of people with common interests and common troubles who come together to support one another. The fact that they feel the need to do this tells us more about the environment they exist in than it does about their culture. If I were in another country - one that did not support or welcome me as an American - I would probably find other Americans or like-minded people to hang around.

During the time of slavery, the ONLY people that would support black people was other black people. They formed a culture that meshed (mainly southern) American elements with their African heritage. Because they had no real support from the outside, they had to support themselves from within, and that leads to a very strong cultural identity - one that still exists. And a big reason that it still exists is because, by and large, they are still not completely welcomed or accepted.

Now, when I hear a white American complaining about black events, I think of a child who has always gotten his way, who throws a tantrum when someone else gets to do something that he can't. Largely because he, and people like him, created a NEED for those sorts of things in the first place. Black people wouldn't feel the need to form these groups and events if the larger population accepted them the same way they accepted other cultures. And regardless of what you, personally, may feel or believe, there is still a very large group in America that sees blacks as foreign and thuggish. It's a foolish thing to think, and is clearly untrue.

And it's this "why do they get an event, I want an event!" mentality that makes anyone who wants to form a "white culture" event or group seem like a spoiled brat who wants something solely because someone else has it.

u/TwoChe · 7 pointsr/standupshots

Most Catholics were not considered "white" in America, hence Italians having the same oppression issues. I am surprised to see reddit so misinformed on race in America, really. "White" is a constantly evolving, and growing, ethnicity in America.

Which is why it is so peculiar to see current "white" people abused for their privilege. Tell my ancestors about that privilege please. I got invited to that party after the keg was tapped out, the queso was gone and there was nothing but chip crumbs in the bottom of the bag.

u/AxelShoes · 7 pointsr/AskAnthropology

In my short time on /r/AskHistorians, it seems that 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus is consistently and almost universally recommended.

u/polynomials · 7 pointsr/worldnews

Everyone should read the book 1491 by Charles Mann! He talks about this a lot. There is actually already a significant amount of evidence that the hypothesis humans came across the Bering Strait and migrated southward during the Ice Age is not correct. There were some people that crossed the Bering Strait but some evidence in the past couple decades has been tending to show that the people that crossed tended to stay up there, and the people that made it farther south got there by other means.

For one, the speed of it is implausible because during the Ice Age most of Canada was covered in massive glaciers that early humans would not have been able to traverse. There was a melting period where it would have been traversable, but this was only for a few hundred years (if I remember the numbers correctly). It takes much longer than that for populations to permanently migrate. Archaeologically speaking, that amounts to a sprint southward, and there is no apparent reason why they would have pushed so far south so fast. There is also a curious dearth of archaeological evidence of human presence to be found along the proposed routes.

For another thing, the language evidence is consistent the Bering Strait crossers staying up north. The language of present day native peoples of the far North seem much more distantly related, or not even part of the same language family as those of more southern native peoples.

And there is also the fact that OPs post is not the first time archaelogoists have found evidence of human presence inconsistent with the Bering Strait hypothesis.

If I remembered more specifics I would say them but my friend has borrowed the book from me. But everyone should read this book!

u/Kitworks · 7 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Wow. Okay. Start here, it's an awesome book about Native American civilization before Europeans.

Then go further back and find literally any source talking about the way modern humans spread from Africa around the globe.

u/liltitus27 · 7 pointsr/bestof

while that is on the high end of estimates, it uses new knowledge to revise the much lower estimates you referenced. great read with methodologies, sources, and explanations of how and why the estimate is actually closer to 100 million: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

u/Cloverhands · 7 pointsr/books

How about this?

u/techumenical · 6 pointsr/books

I'd recommend 1491 by Charles Mann over Guns, Germs, and Steel. It tries to answer the same questions regarding the apparent gap in technology between new world and old world peoples without resorting to geographical determinism--which, to me at least, felt like a bit of a stretch. 1491 is a good source for learning about science/technologies that fell by the wayside as new world clashed with old world (textile technology, using fire to shape one's environment, etc.).

u/gblancag · 6 pointsr/AskWomen

I'm traditionally more into literary fiction, but I've been exploring non-fiction recently.

Currently Reading: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

Recently Finished: The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration and Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam Trilogy

Next on the List: Either Guns Germs and Steel or Devil in the White City. Haven't decided yet

u/MattieF · 6 pointsr/Futurology

In our era carbon capture brings the greatest measurable benefit, and it's young growth that accomplishes that most effectively.

Given the degree to which Native Americans cleared brush before their populations were encumbered by European disease and predation (see:, "more trees than 1900" pretty much means more trees than at any time in human history."

Together: That means a hell of a lot.

u/secesh32 · 6 pointsr/history

Read a book called 1491 opened my eyes to a lot of ideas id never heard.

u/Guanren · 6 pointsr/funny

The book 1491 goes into this at length.

Largely what we would call circumstantial, but convincing, although you'll probably be reluctant to be convinced (as I was) because it's so mind-numbing depressing to think about.

Note: This was just after Columbus.

u/CorticoefferentCrab · 6 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

US imperial ambitions in the Middle East, and in particular the Levant, are themselves motivated to a large extent by Israeli "security interests." From a pure geopolitics standpoint Israel is way more trouble than it's worth. It's not antisemitic to acknowledge that the Israel lobby plays a huge role in directing US foreign policy.


u/filibusterdouglas · 6 pointsr/circlebroke

Yeah I didn't really have a clue about how it was in North Korea until reading this book. As an american who has never gone more than two days without food, it was hard for me to even imagine what they went (and go) through. Thanks for the link

u/bearhat808 · 6 pointsr/conspiracy

The defector in Escape from Camp 14 recanted parts of his story.

I recommend reading Nothing to Envy instead, which is about daily life in North Korea.

u/OptimusPrune · 6 pointsr/worldnews

Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea, by Barbara Demick, is an excellent if disturbing read if you're really interested.

Nothing to Envy

u/IntangiblePanda · 6 pointsr/AskReddit

Guns, Germs, and Steel is spectacular.

u/nc863id · 6 pointsr/politics

I strongly recommend reading this book. The super-short TL;DR for it is that Europe sort of hit the jackpot in terms of geography, biodiversity, natural resources available, etc., which gave the people settling there an inherent leg up versus other areas of the world.

u/vikingsquad · 6 pointsr/Anarchism

Can someone who's knowledgeable about this issue comment on the racialization of the Irish, which the author of this article claims didn't exist? I've heard of this book but I haven't read it, but the title and summary alone would lead me to believe that the Irish were somehow racialized and then integrated into white society as a means to oppress people of color.

u/rodmclaughlin · 6 pointsr/SargonofAkkad
u/jordanreiter · 6 pointsr/changemyview

You might benefit from reading How the Irish Became White.

It's absolutely true that Irish, etc. have faced discrimination. And there are still Irish-American, Italian-American, and Jewish clubs and organizations where a vast majority of participants are of that ethnicity. Are those organizations racist? I would argue no. On the other hand, an overtly "white" organization basically serves no purpose other than the reinforcement of structural racism based on skin color.

u/EugeneLawyer · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

There is a good book about the Congo and King Leopold, called King Leopold's Ghost.

u/DorkQueenofAll · 6 pointsr/rage

If anyone wants to learn more about this topic, there is a book called King Leopold's Ghost. It has a very well-researched and heartbreaking view on the crimes committed.

u/president_of_burundi · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

Check out King Leopold's Ghost for a really interesting non-fiction book about Leopold in the the Belgian Congo and the men who brought the genocide to light- it's an incredibly engaging read.

u/HomoFerox_HomoFaber · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

King Leopold II to be specific.

And he devastated the Congo. This is a book everyone should read.

Also, this book is an essential read on "ordinary men" in a Nazi reserve batallion and how they coped with (or outright enjoyed) the tasks entrusted to them. Some ran away, some drank themselves to oblivion, severe depression, etc.

u/nickismynickname · 6 pointsr/belgium

If you want to learn about our colonial history in the Congo you should read "King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochschild.

Amazon Link.

u/guitar_gabe · 6 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

No, it’s a sub for fans of this book

u/FB-22 · 6 pointsr/DebateAltRight

Similar but not the same.

Racial Differences in Crime Holding IQ Constant

Two studies have looked at what happens to racial crime differences after IQ is held constant. First, Beaver et al. (2013) looked at the degree to which racial differences in crime disappeared after controlling for self-reported life time violence and verbal IQ. Their sample consisted of  3,029 males.

African American men were 43% more likely to be arrested than White men. However, this dropped to a statistically insignificant 13% after controlling for life time violence and IQ. Before applying the controls, Black men were 56% more likely to have been incarcerated. After applying controls, this figure dropped to a statistically insignificant 18%. Finally, once arrested Black men were 50% more likely to end up incarcerated and, after applying these controls, that value dropped to a statistically insignificant 24%.

Secondly, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) analyzed a large nationally representative data set and found that the Black-White incarceration gap decreased by nearly ¾ after simply controlling for age and IQ.

Thus, racial differences in IQ probably explain a good deal of the Black-White crime gap, though not all of it.

u/LBKosmo · 6 pointsr/news
u/astroNerf · 6 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

So... that's a yes.

The problem is that scripture is often wrong or inaccurate. It also contradicts itself in numerous places.

If you are willing to have your view on this changed (I suspect you don't) check out Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman has a video talk by the same name here, if you're interested. If you're going to use the bible as the ultimate authority for your knowledge, you should at least hear what scholars have to say about the history of the bible as a collection of documents - who edited them, when, and why.

u/Syjefroi · 6 pointsr/worldnews

> But almost all of the Nazi command were fairly ordinary.

Interesting choice of words. A well known book was written about the folks far lower down the chain, the regular troops. Ordinary Men. It goes into where these guys came from, how they got through the gig, etc. Indeed, they were ordinary men, and they did extraordinarily evil things. Very much worth a read, it very methodically goes through the process of how regular folks got broken down to the point of committing terrible crimes.

u/Patchknight · 6 pointsr/HistoryMemes

I'd suggest reading this book.

Your pop understanding of the Holocaust lacks nuance. Soldiers who refused to participate in war crimes were hardly 'Gestapo'd'. They were allowed to stay in the barracks - though they'd usually 'come around' due to peer pressure. People who criticized the Nazis were quietly deplatformed, but only radicals like antifascists and communists were black-bagged. Ghettos and cattle car shipments were public. Slave camps in Germany were adjacent to civilian centers to facilitate transportation.

The extinction of the untermensch was a popular directive in Germany. People knew and believed and acquiesced not under the jackboot'd pressure of tyranny but out of the logical conclusion of fascism.

u/landb4timethemovie · 6 pointsr/answers

Many of those responsible for the worst of the Nazi's atrocities, such as mass killings of Jews in Poland and Russia (e.g. rounding up all of the Jews men, women, and children in a particular Polish town ~3000 in all and shooting them), were members of reserve German police and could be considered "normal" citizens not really politically affiliated with the Nazi party. Many (not all) were from humble backgrounds, young, not very educated, not very wealthy and did regular police work until the Nazi party/Himmler reconfigured such reserves into death squad-like battalions carrying out extermination efforts.

The author of this one book I recently read went through hundreds of firsthand accounts from such complicit men to see how everyday Germans could possibly be swept into committing such horrible war crimes. As an Amazon review says, some factors included "cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty." In one particular passage I remember, members of one of these death squad battalions were told that participation in another one of these mass murders was not mandatory, was not forced, and the Germans were allowed to take some rest if they were not up to it this time around. Though like the quote above says, many of those who decided reluctantly to continue did so not because they were particularly geared up to do so out of faithfulness to the Nazi racial ideology or what have you, but because it was their duty within their battalion. Often on nights after having carried out such missions, commanders would allow/encourage draftees into drinking a lot to "forget."

Still, for me too, it's difficult to see from a modern point of view, just how almost an entire society could have sunken into savagery under Hitler. In the end, the implementation of the Final Solution rested on the complicity of the individual in playing their part and its difficult to say exactly why each person went along with it.

u/zellman · 6 pointsr/polandball

> Flirting with fascism

I think you meant flirting with totalitarianism. America is very far away from Fascism, but it flirts with totalitarianism with those acts you mentioned.

But your point was not wrong. Have you ever read "Ordinary Men"? Basically, the guys who shot jews in cold blood were often just normal guys, no weird background, or even crazy views...things just got out of control.

u/Gizortnik · 6 pointsr/KotakuInAction

It's not a mental condition, it's normal human psychology that technology has pathologized into a profit motive.

That should really be the most terrifying aspect of this. These are absolutely normal people who can be ushered forward by ideology to commit unspeakable horror.

u/Ned_Shimmelfinney · 6 pointsr/PipeTobacco

Some personal favorites:

u/Aussiewhiskeydiver · 6 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Great question and a good answer. It's called the Cognitive Revolution and is described in more detail here

u/Catamount90 · 6 pointsr/barstoolsports

Sapiens is an excellent book about the history of humans and it is a super easy, thought-provoking read. Puts into perspective how short modern humans have been around in the scheme of all humankind

u/citizen_reddit · 6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

If you read Lies My Teacher Told Me the author touches upon this concept. A certain cultural and societal mindset was required - for the most part (vastly simplified) the Chinese simply lacked the motivation or mindset to do what Europe did.

u/h54 · 6 pointsr/TrueAskReddit

There are tons of examples out there. American interventionism was following an upward trajectory in the late 19th century. The Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Russia, etc, etc were all targets of American intervention. Wilson invaded more nations than any other president in US history.

This book is a pretty good starting point:

u/HighHorseHenryLee · 6 pointsr/The_Donald

Roosevelt was one of the first major Progressives of his day and his activism brought about the war mindset many progressive liberals have. When in war, there's no room for basic human decency, rationality, etc. Hence the left's irrational "wars" on climate change, capitalism, healthy eating. There's a good book about this subject

u/Barnst · 6 pointsr/tuesday

I agree with your concerns for the future of the moderate left, especially when I see the likes of Sanders and Corbyn. But, honestly, the party’s are responding to the incentives given to them. The last generation of liberal politicians was the most moderate produced by either political system in a generation. And what did they have to show for it? Torn apart by both sides as out-of-touch elite technocrats, with the attack from the right feeling even more vicious for the party’s moderation.

A couple of decades of that also makes it pretty hard to muster the energy to say, “no, no, we should take the other side’s concerns seriously.”

Take Kevin Williamson. I honestly just don’t have much concern left for defending the author of this. Jonah Goldberg is another good example. I follow him on Twitter and like his dogs, but every time he says something about civility in discourse, this cover flashes through my head.

My grandparents emigrated from the bloodlands of Europe of world war 2. I was raised to be well aware of the horrors of totalitarianism from either side of the spectrum. Telling me that because I think government has a role in the solution to societal problems puts me on the slippery spectrum to Stalin and Hitler is both intellectually lazy and deeply personally infuriating. It’s better articulated and researched, but it strikes the same chord with me as old school John Birch Society crap. It’s exactly why the one point I reacted against in the first place was claiming that no one links liberalism and communism.

So what motivation do I have to come to the defense of thinkers who apparently are willing to lump my political preferences in the same camp as the 20th century’s worst monsters? Again, I understand that nothing I’m saying is particularly fair or constructive, and you could point to plenty of authors on the left guilty of similar rhetoric. But I also don’t see a groundswell of discussion insisting that those authors get a voice on Fox News or the National Review. I’m tired of being in the only camp (moderate liberals) apparently expected to take everyone’s views and preferences into account.

u/SporkOfThor · 6 pointsr/politics

This guy nails it. "A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People."

u/jub-jub-bird · 6 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> A Democrat will blugeon the customer over the head with moral outrage and smug superiority because their "customer" is too much of a "dumb redneck" to see the amazing wonders of the same old product they've been offering.

This could be the cover blurb for "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

u/antonivs · 6 pointsr/ShitAmericansSay

> Can you disagree?

Of course, because your position is false, not to mention ridiculous. The claim that the US has "yet to develop much of its own culture" is simple ignorance. I can only assume that you're merely doing what this sub criticizes Americans for doing, talking about something of which you have no direct experience or education.

> My point is that American refusal to just describe themselves as American, without all these ridiculous qualifiers, is part of why America continues to lack a distinct culture.

Your point is invalid in both premise and conclusion. You're taking anecdotes about silly behavior from a circlejerk sub, ignorantly extrapolating that to encompass an entire population of 320 million people consisting of probably hundreds of diverse cultures, to reach a conclusion that's every bit as silly as the silliest things Americans are made fun of for in this sub. Hence my original comment, this is just shityuropoorsay - you're the precise equivalent of what you're mocking.

There are many different cultures in the US, varying significantly by region. The book American Nations identifies 11 regional cultures in North America, and those are just broad regional divisions - there's significant variation within each of those. An example of an area where there's a great deal of local cultural variation is Louisiana, but there are many other similar regions throughout the US. The local culture in particular areas is often a variation of a larger regional culture, for example the Culture of Georgia is a variation of Southern US culture.

The US attitudes about ancestry and ethnicity have perfectly reasonable roots in the fact that many people in the US are in families that immigrated quite recently, often in living memory. For those families, their X-American identity is a real feeling that has to do with where they or their parents or grandparents came from, and the culture they brought with them and passed on, to some extent, to their children. It's not some sort of attempt to make themselves feel special, it's who they are.

Yes, you then also get people who try to turn their distant ancestry which is no longer actually remembered in the above sense into some sort of claim on the culture and identity of countries they've never visited. That's quite rightly made fun of here, because it's silly. But drawing broad conclusions from such behavior, while simultaneously lacking any real knowledge of what you're drawing conclusions about, leads to nonsense.

If you study cultures in the US, you'll find that the history of migration in a given area has a strong influence on the culture - the Louisiana example above is a good one. But the fact that these cultures are strongly influenced from the culture of earlier immigrants doesn't mean there's no unique local culture. Quite the opposite. When people live in a place for centuries, they develop a culture - that's just how human societies work. Your ignorance of those cultures doesn't mean they don't exist.

u/DaSilence · 6 pointsr/ProtectAndServe

>Did you even go to college?

Yep. A couple of times, in fact.

>have you ever read a book?

Just finished this one. Excellent read. I highly suggest it.

>I dont expect someone like you to be an expert at philosophy, let alone be threatened by a concept so much that the only people who believe in it MUST be juveniles.

No, I just know enough about the philosophy to see the absurdity of it. I also know enough about human nature to know it's yet another in a long line of mildly interesting intellectual exercises that have no bearing in practicality because of the very nature of humanity.

>If you could entertain a future of private law enforcement, you might be out of a job.

It's more likely that I end up being assigned to a manned mission to Mars that your absurd AnCap ideas actually be tried in any actual civilization.

u/f10101 · 6 pointsr/spacex

Great book on the topic, that exposes a lot of the madness that led to and surrounded the incident. There's also a film of the same name.

u/ExileOnMyStreet · 6 pointsr/worldpolitics

He did not throw...oh, for fuck's sake, just google the background.
Then read.

An read some more.

Or watch a movie.

u/Cool_Bastard · 6 pointsr/samharris

It sounds like you have two subjects, Sam Harris on Israel and is there anything stopping them. I am no friend to Islam, in fact I am in agreement with Sam that "it's the mother load of bad ideas." However, my feelings towards Islam does not blind me to the plight of the Palestinians. It's painful to watch and the sorrow that Israel heaps upon them only fuels and legitimizes the Arab/Muslim world against the West, specifically the US for funding Israel. What is going on there is nothing short of globally accepted genocide.

I too am a huge fan of Sam Harris. For the most part, I agree with everything he so eloquently states...except for Israel. I listen to his podcast every day and find myself marveling at his use of the English language in expressing such well thought out concepts and ideas. However, I try to avoid his talks on Israel, but it's really not that hard since it doesn't come up much. I just accept him for being soft on the subject.

Regarding "nothing stopping them" I hate to submit to the idea that they are on the path to steamroll all Palestinians and nothing will stop them. As long as the US is their money-guy, they will do whatever they want and nobody can say anything. Why? Because there is a huge Israeli lobby by the name of AIPAC that will destroy any American politician that questions Israel. They are organized towards one goal and fund both right and left leaning politicians and to see that goal come true, which is to ensure Israel takes ownership of the entire country of Israel and push out the Palestinians. Zionism is alive and well and its victim is the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, to say anything about the subject turns the speaker into a bigot and antisemite; there is no room to criticize Israel.

I suggest reading two books on the subject The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

u/Disquestrian · 6 pointsr/The_Donald

Entirely different situation with this woman. Rahm in Chicago is a dual citizen. His loyalty is not to the US. His father was an Irgun terrorist, the group that "taught the Palestinians all they know". Many false flags ( King David Hotel, USS Liberty) and used white phophorous on Palestinians as late as 2014. Please research on actual non Mossad propaganda on the situation. Hard to find, not impossible. Start with

US Politicians Who Hold Dual US/Israeli Citizenship (as of 2014... More now)

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

u/ShrimShrim · 6 pointsr/pics

Nope. 100% have a B.A. in history a B.A. in education and a B.S. in health science. Currently in graduate school.

I didn't respond to your "facts" because you didn't list any. You went on some schizophrenic rant about race. You've completely failed to understand how geography influences the success and failures of societies. If I had handed in a paper with your line of reasoning my professor would have handed it back and said "start over, this is trash."

I'd suggest you read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond or the "Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David Landes

You're going to have to go into reading those books with an open mind, because they might not fit your predetermined narrative that societies are only successful because of skin color.

u/HufflePuff2xPass · 6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Trust me- if you're a donor, at least one part of you's gonna get used. Now, it might not be in a way you'd expect (your skin might end up in someone's ahem sausage enhancement), but the transplant lists are long as fuck. They're not gonna risk wasting even a tiny piece if they can help it

(Stiff-The Curious Life of Human Cadavers has more information on what happens to you if you're an organ donor postmortem if you're interested)

u/cochon1010 · 6 pointsr/SkincareAddiction

I cringed so hard when I was reading Stiff recently (which I actually highly recommend) and the author apparently interviewed Dr. Oz and cited him as a credible, medical source because of his work in cardiology.

The book came out in before his Oprah days and before having his own show, but it's just crazy how you can go from respected doctor at the top of your field to huge sell-out. I guess he just must be money hungry and eating up his newfound fame. I can't think of another reason why someone would make that career decision.

u/bkwyrm · 6 pointsr/Jessicamshannon

Along with Mary Roach’s Stiff, I have often recommended
Last Breath: Cautionary Tales from the Limits of Human Endurance
. The former is science writing about cadavers, albeit lighthearted, and the latter is a collections of essays-wrapped-in-fictional-example (for lack of a better term) about what the body and mind go through when dying in various ways.

u/MountainPlanet · 6 pointsr/history

I realize this is off topic, but there is a fine scholarly book called How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev. Essentially, a cataloging of how Irish immigrants to the United States altered their social position by acquiring "white privilege" long before the word was even known. I recommend it to those interested in the American immigrant experience.

u/_UNFUN · 6 pointsr/gatekeeping

I haven’t read it yet, but I believe the answer to your questions will be found in the book How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev

It’s been on my list to read for a while, but instead I started playing Skyrim

u/Daaachiefs · 6 pointsr/ShitAmericansSay

Yes. You could write a book with this as a premise. in fact there is a book that everyone in this sub would like. It's called "a people's history of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It's a classic book that is a detailed criticism of the US policies over the years. Treatment of native Americans, slavery, women's rights, treatment of immigrants in the early 1900s, Vietnam, all the way to bush and Iraq. All the stuff we didn't go into much in school. We have a very biased version of history taught in our schools. Everything is spun in a way to make America good.

Link to book

u/OnionMan69 · 6 pointsr/todayilearned

You don't?

Because for a very long time in this country. In fact, for most of it's history, this country was violently racist. In fact, so many people of color were left out of opportunities that cost them their children's birthright, all to satisfy a status quo of whites first and everyone else dead.


Live Read a little!

u/BowlOfCandy · 6 pointsr/technology

I highly recommend the book A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. RIP.

u/Wunishikan · 6 pointsr/socialism

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is good, although it talks more about the history of labor and oppression in the US than about what socialism itself is. Still, it's quite eye-opening, and this was the book that turned me.

u/sp1ke0kill3r · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Bart D Ehrman Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted would be a valuable place to start.
There are also some videos on youtube of related lectures or debates.

Edit, I would add Dale Allison's book, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus.

u/George_Glass · 6 pointsr/atheism

> I believe the New Testament is literal

I think you might enjoy Misquoting Jesus.

u/pianomancuber · 6 pointsr/exchristian

The Dead Sea Scrolls actually show that early Christians were very un-methodical in translation accuracy. I can pull sources when I get home, but the dead sea scrolls were in fact being produced by scribes in the process of copying and intentionally altering the text. Also they are just one of many hundreds of documents we've discovered. Even if they were somehow 100% like our modern Torah, the other hundreds which contain deliberate and huge negligent modifications show that in most cases they were not concerned with preserving the text's accuracy.

Early Christians commonly altered text on purpose, to support their own agendas. I really recommend you read some literary criticism of the Bible, like that of Ehrman. Certainly the vast majority of changes were of no theological significance--spelling errors, missed lines, etc--even though sometimes those innocent changes caused later scribes to misunderstand the text and then modify it even more in effort to "fix" it.

As just one example off the top of my google, John 8:3-11 is entirely a fabrication added by older scribes.

u/annagri · 6 pointsr/financialindependence

I'm currently reading Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, and he spends some time discussing the collective myths we invent (money, countries, religion, etc.). I would highly recommend the book, it's quite interesting.

u/mthoody · 6 pointsr/Military

Billy's Afghan adventures are chronicled in First In by Gary Schroen. First person account of the first team into Afghanistan after 9/11 (CIA prep for SF).

Also read Jawbreaker by Gary Berntsen which picks up where First In leaves off, including the taking of Kabul. Also a first person account.

Then read the prequel that ends on Sep 10: Ghost Wars. 2005 Pulitzer Prize.

These three books are truly a trilogy in every sense.

u/reallyserious · 5 pointsr/Kombucha

If you're interested, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, is an incredible book where such ideas and many more are examined.

u/Mescalitoburrito · 5 pointsr/Showerthoughts

One of my favorite guests on the Joe Rogan Experience was Johann Hari who gets really deep into how depression and values interact. He pretty much talks about a lot of the same stuff at the beginning of that book Sapiens - for thousands of years we evolved to use whole villages to raise children and now we're at this point, at least in Western society, where (misquoting Hari here) 'most people don't have someone they can turn to in a time of need.'

Essentially, many of us are pushed like round or square pegs into the wrong hole our entire lives and yeah, of course you're going to be depressed. But our society values working hard at the sake of happiness so don't complain or you're a bitch. Annnd, depression should probably be treated with a healthy diet, exercise, free cows, and more - not just popping a pill.

This comment feels meandering and I wasn't sure what to say but this thread had a lot of pain. Seriously, this video helped me through a tough time a few weeks ago and then I quit the job that was making me miserable! Got an offer for an equivalent job today and probably a better one next week. Maybe don't quit your job but that was what I needed to do to make my life enjoyable.

Find something that intrinsically gives you happiness and go for it.

Edit: I cannot link. Also, don't let Bro Jrogan scare you off, he's chill

u/mystrdat2 · 5 pointsr/Cinemagraphs

Give a read to Sapiens, namely the gossip theory (which I'm quoting) and cognitive revolution fundamentals, it might give you another perspective.

u/PatsyTy · 5 pointsr/CombatFootage

If you're ever interested in learning about the lead up to 9/11 in full immaculate detail read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars. At around six hundred pages the book is quite long, but it is the most in depth analysis of what was happening on the ground of Afghanistan from the 70s through to 2001. Coll manages to do this in a uniquely non-partisan way, that I have found to be lacking in most books on the wars in the middle east.

u/Pardoism · 5 pointsr/videos

Stolen from here: "Al Qaeda is a global terrorist movement with the United States (including the American homeland) as a prominent, if not the primary, target. The Taliban is a Pashtun political movement with a focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan's largely Pashtun border".

Basically, the Taliban mainly cares about Afghanistan, Al Qaida cares about the whole of the Islamic world. They're active in lots of countries.

It's not that easy to explain, unfortunately. If you're really interested, I recommend the book "Ghost Wars".

u/sweetlou · 5 pointsr/politics

Also in the "conspiracy theory" category:
Ghost Wars, an enthralling piece of investigave journalism done by the Washington Post's Steve Coll about the rise of bin Laden:
Hubris, another excellent investigative book about how the Bush Administration sold the Iraq War:
Conspiracy of Fools, a book about how Enron collapsed. I guess it's not really a "conspiracy theory" book in that it describes a conspiracy that actually took place and for which people were convicted.

u/lemme-explain · 5 pointsr/conspiracy

> Racism isn’t rampant. Its factually not.

You and I live in different worlds, with different facts.

> If you really believe racism is thriving, you either don’t interact with real people or you are projecting your own bigotry onto the rest of the world.

LOL. First of all, I'm not a bigot, and if I was, I can't imagine how I would "project" that onto the world and convince myself that racism was both rampant and a serious problem. Bigots do not think that way. Bigots think that the way they think is normal, that everyone agrees with them, and that they are not bigots.

And, I definitely do talk to real people, including real people of color, and I know what they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Look, I get where you're coming from -- I grew up in a part of the country that was heavily segregated, where the public schools taught a lot of lies about equality while papering over every bad thing that ever happened in U.S. history. Our 10th grade U.S. history teacher told us that black slaves in the antebellum South were happy to be slaves, and weren't ready for freedom. I later learned that these lies and more are rampant across the South.

And, if you know your history, it makes perfect sense! The Civil War wasn't even that long ago, and the resentment lingers. People don't want to believe that their ancestors were evil, so they tell themselves that blacks are inferior and subhuman. Hell, we get at least a post a day on this forum telling us that blacks do terrible on IQ tests and that there's a conspiracy to hide this. Racism is everywhere around us. It's woven into our culture, inextricably. I could start pointing to examples but it would never end. If you're not seeing it, that's because your eyes aren't open.

u/Cyhawk · 5 pointsr/TumblrInAction

The Redneck Manifesto, Jim Goad puts a good finger on why exactly people in the US confuse class with race and even predicted the rise of SJWs to some extent years ago. Other material such as Lies my Teacher Told me and A people's history of the United States help put a better perspective from a historical standpoint.

TL;DR the books: The Wealthy (read: Not rich, but wealthy) decided that after the Civil War and after the conclusion of the French Revolution, they would pit the poor against each other and fight for the scraps instead of turning their eyes upward and see who is dropping the scraps. Seems to be working well.

u/rabidfurby · 5 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

+1, definitely read as much history as you can. I'd highly recommend Lies My Teacher Told Me in addition to Zinn.

u/cbyrnesx · 5 pointsr/circlejerk

We leterally are not hitler.
See? fucking libtards.

But srsly tho. I love killing jews. I am hitler.

u/Box_of_Rain_1776 · 5 pointsr/antifa

You don't even know what that term means.

u/ovoutland · 5 pointsr/politics


>The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.

u/Kazmarov · 5 pointsr/circlebroke2

If you look at the states with the lowest per capita income, a large chunk of which are the former Confederacy, it's a split. Mississippi has a large black population voting overwhelmingly Democratic, and a white population voting overwhelmingly Republican (now that the parties have finally switched polarities). The split is cultural/racial, despite the fact that the black and white working class in the state have far more things in common than differences.

My dad recommends What's the Matter with Kansas? as a way to show the split between the economic status of conservative voters and those that benefit from conservative policies.

u/aahfeekiee · 5 pointsr/singapore

to summarize, it will depend on three points: [1] your race (or the one you pass as) relative to [2] its history in the place you go to, as well as [3] the purpose of your visit.

[warning: a lot of generalization] for example, as a Chinese person in the US would be viewed as a model minority in most spaces (especially employment) and would not face disproportionately higher incarceration rates as your black or latinx peers. To assimilate into the local lifestyle and culture can help you blend in, but it definitely won't completely prevent incidents of name-calling, racial aggression, etc.

On the other hand, if you went to Indonesia for job opportunities, despite still being Chinese, you are probably more likely to be met with hostility and discrimination, because the impressions Indonesians have on their local Chinese populations is different to what Americans have on theirs. HOWEVER if you make it clear that you are there as a tourist (and not a threat to their employment opportunities) the reaction might differ.

Of course, all of these are generalizations to be taken with a grain of salt; they are simply there to illustrate how there can be differences in how you are treated based on the abovementioned factors. I'm here not to help you predict what you, in your context, will face in the country you would be visiting/residing in, instead I am here to introduce to you factors that you have to consider and apply to your particular situation.

Here are more examples to further illustrate how history can further complicate how you can be treated based on race:

  • We as Singaporeans view white people as almost homogenous, but there very much is racism within whiteness.

  1. Aryans in Nazi Germany discriminating (and lots of murdering) against Jewish people, despite both being essentially white to us.
  2. Put an Irish person in White America and there's a history of how they went from being discriminated against to being largely incorporated into whiteness.
  3. Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins are treated as just Slavs in their diaspora, but put them in the Yugoslavian region and suddenly the identity divides and they discriminate each other based on their national identities despite speaking mutually intelligible Serbo-Croatian languages and sharing overlaps in culture & history.

  • Sikhs in India have a history (of brutal tension) with Muslims, but put them in the US and they will in most instances actually pass off as Muslim and will frequently be the target of Islamophobia.

    The answer to such a broad question is truly more complicated than what the analogies in the comments section can give. The solutions to helping cope with or reducing the incidents of racism in such circumstances will also differ, and you might have to look beyond the advice of "just assimilate and you will be fine".

    Do your research!
u/DevFRus · 5 pointsr/philosophy

Nobody said "caucasian", they said "white". The fact that you now equate (to some extent) white with caucasian (in the US) is a historic process that you can read more about in this book among other sources.

u/caramal · 5 pointsr/politics

I highly suggest you read this book. Changed my world, it did.

States rights were a secondary issue to slavery, but they have been pushed as the issue of the civil war in a campaign that began in Woodrow Wilson's day (if I remember correctly from the book) as the country's backslide back to racism gained a lot of steam.

u/archaeofieldtech · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

1491 by Charles Mann is a good read, and it gives some great population stats for the Americas.

I would also recommend searching out some peer-reviewed articles using Google Scholar and search terms like "Cahokia prehistoric population" or something. I don't have specific articles off the top of my head.

u/nikkos350 · 5 pointsr/history

PRobably the Cahokia Mounds in IL. If you are interested in learning more about this topic, check out the book "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus."

u/iponly · 5 pointsr/WhiteWolfRPG

For books, /r/askhistorians (which has a strong group of indigenous American studies academics) often recommends 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and downplays Guns Germs and Steel, because Jared Diamond's research process was basically 1. create theory, 2. seek facts to justify theory, and the result is about as flawed as you would expect from that reversal of normal historical analysis. (Mind you, his book blew my mind as much as anyone's when I first read it...)

Or, if you're just asking for rpg books: I don't think White Wolf has anything set in Texas at all. It might be interesting to do 'banes as they lived in Texas before Pentex, and how the arrival of an organizing structure changes them' though. Especially if you take into account the difference in timing between the colonization of the east coast, central america, and texas, there could be repercussions in the spirit world long before your players see human impact. (ex: California didn't have major colonial impact until the 1800s, which is kind of crazy to think about.)

u/581-4094 · 5 pointsr/The_Donald

Please, anyone wanting to understand the Native American / colonial period better please read the books "1491" and "1493" by Charles C Mann
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
They're the most insightful books on the reality of the European migration west and what really happened to the natives of North and South America. Whenever I hear someone opine about the plight of the Native Americans I tell them to read these books first.
I'm someone who has a big heart for their situation, it's just that there's a lot of history to understand on how we got here and it's not all what libs will spout off about.

u/CharlieKillsRats · 5 pointsr/travel

I'm a big fan of the books 1491 and 1493 by Charles C. Mann regarding the history of the Americas before and after Colombus and all of the misconceptions about it and the most up to date analysis of the american cultures.

u/phil_1991 · 5 pointsr/Ask_Politics

Good question! This relationship has actually come under some academic scrutiny recently. In terms of realpolitik - israel is a US ally where there aren't really a great wealth of state actors who are considered us state allies, so the practical advantages of having a friendly nation state slap bang in the middle of an area that is teeming with anti American sentiment is clear ( arguably due largely to the sheer scale of US intervention in the middle east, which intensified from and after the gulf war in the 1990s, there's a book called "blowback", I forget the author but it could really contextualise the debate). The book I came on here to reccomend to you is by Miershiemer & Walt, called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" - here's a clumsy amazon link (I'm on my phone) - it was fairly influential and has been discussed at policy level. It essentially argues that the costs (favourable arms agreements, housing grants [that can't be spent in the legal minefield of Palestine, but, sort of is]) don't actually outweigh the benefits of having Israel as a dedicated ally. It's definitely worth a look because it will weigh up all the pros and cons for you and show you what America gets for its massive expense, and will set out the debate so you can get an edge on the competition, good luck!

u/keck314 · 5 pointsr/IAmA

Yeah, parent is entirely untrue. In fact, many of their TVs are Chinese and Japanese, which are then modified by the telecommunications bureau to only receive government stations. As you might expect, hacking them back to full functionality is a time-honored pastime.

This book describes the phenomenon, and is generally excellent. It even describes what happened when an NKer got their hands on a copy of 1984!

u/STATINGTHEOBVIOUS333 · 5 pointsr/MilitaryPorn

NK has changed a lot. People understand that they are left behind.

u/chaircrow · 5 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Nothing to Envy is good. Disturbing as hell, though, so be prepared.

u/bakedpatato · 5 pointsr/NorthKoreaNews

obviously the numbers aren't 100% accurate but the comment is reasonable per this book

u/jaywalker1982 · 5 pointsr/MorbidReality

I encourage, as always, everyone pick up The Aquariums of Pyongyang , Escape from Camp 14 , as well as Nothing To Envy as u/winginit21 mentioned.

Also David Hawk's The Hidden Gulag:Second Edition is a great resource. (PDF File)

u/zerrt · 5 pointsr/IAmA

For number 3, here are some good books that will go a long way to answering this question:

Nothing to Envy (stories of ordinary citizens who eventually fled)

Escape from Camp 14 (this one is about a prisoner camp inmate who escaped)

The short answer is that many people are starting to (illegally) cross between the border of North Korea and China to trade, as well as escaping permanently. There are smuggling businesses that you can hire to get you or a loved one out. If you have the money, this will involve a fake passport and even a plane flight all the way to South Korea. If you are poor, the trip is much more harrowing and dangerous.

The amount of people defecting seems to be growing by quite a bit each year.

u/InscrutableTed · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

Oh geez, who invited Stormfront?

If anyone would like a less bigoted examination of history:

(But if you would rather trust a GIF on the internet than a Pulitzer-prize winning book, go ahead. It's a free country. Be as dumb as you want.)

u/Carrue · 5 pointsr/Survival

Here is how I would organize it:

Physiological needs of survival.

  • Temperature
  • Water
  • Food

    Techniques for temperature

  • Basic principles of heat transfer, warmth, and cold
  • Techniques for clothing
  • Techniques for shelter
  • Techniques for fire

    Techniques for water

  • The importance of water purity
  • Water purification, sanitation, and filtration

    Techniques for food.

  • Foraging
  • Hunting
  • Trapping and fishing
  • Primitive cooking

    Miscellaneous techniques

  • Wilderness hygiene
  • Hiking properly
  • Land navigation
  • Things idiots do

    Psychology of survival

  • The importance of optimism and never quitting.
  • The parasympathetic nervous system and you.
  • Operant extinction and how it makes you crazy, plus how to survive through it.
  • The Basil Ganglia and automation, the strength of habits, and how to learn and maintain skills effectively.

    Each numbered section could be a book of its own, and some of them have already been written. I think this is a good way to organize wilderness survival for the short term. I think once you start thinking about preserving food you are entering a new realm where you'll need a new, more complicated organization. Maybe I'll write the psychology one some day, as I haven't seen a good survival psychology book out there, just a bunch of bullshit.

    Now I don't agree that society has failed us. I think you would really like to read Guns, Germs, and Steel. It will put societies into a perspective where they are just groups of people providing themselves with the same physiological needs of survival, in ways most efficient for their environment. But I also think it's best for society that individuals can carry on in the event of a problem. So I hear what you're saying. Anyway, I hope you find this helpful.
u/xyzerb · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

If you're interested in reading more about how the Bible changed over time, read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

It's a little on the dry side, but it's not a rant, and if you're unfamiliar with textual criticism, you may find it interesting on that point alone.

For example, while some stories sound very "Christ-like", the story of the good Samaritan doesn't appear in any of the earliest versions of the New Testament--it was added by monks hundreds of years afterwards.

Fascinating material if you have an open mind.

u/MichaelClarkeDuncan · 5 pointsr/neutralnews

Maybe to you, but plenty of the guys working in the death camps weren't people who signed up for that, many or most were just regular civil servants who didn't have a choice. It's easy to sit back on reddit and judge them, but the people working those death camps may be more like yourself than you're comfortable admitting. Ordinary Men by Browning is a good monograph on this topic. So you can say that I have the distinction of not willingly participating, but plenty of these participants we now look at as monsters weren't willing either, but they didn't have a choice. I'm not saying they're saints, but the situation isn't as easy as we would like to imagine.

u/-Cryptomaniac- · 5 pointsr/HistoryPorn

I cannot recommend reading this book enough


You should not be shocked that humans are capable of this. Chances are if it were you or me in that position, we would have done the same thing.

u/Blacksheep01 · 5 pointsr/HistoryPorn

What you wrote is only partially accurate. Check out Ordinary Men I recommend this book to everyone interested in the topic of how and why regular Germans participated in the Holocaust.

The reason I mention it here is that the batallion was asked to murder thousands of Jews, many agreed, yet multiple individuals refused and do you know what happened to them? Nothing, nothing at all, the Germans not only didn't punish those who refused, they weren't even looked down on. So it begs the question, how forced were German police units/soldiers? How much of the violence was driven by individuals? What if entire units refused? Some of those questions are unanswerable but the one answer provided in this work is compelling. That German soldiers could say "no" and they would not be punished.

u/LaskerEmanuel · 5 pointsr/MultipleSclerosis

I have been struggling with the same thing, after years of being what some people might think of as a bit of a workaholic, once I got to “Now I can’t work, what do I do” (After I got done struggling with “Now I can’t work, who am I), this is what I came up with:


Exercise: Everything I have read thus far, highly encourages persons with MS to get as much exercise as they can get. All of the stories I read about MS that make you think “I would like to experience what that person is experiencing” start out with “I got MS, and I thought my life was over, but then I got very serious about sleep, diet, and exercise”) This gentlemen just posted a very nice one on this very subreddit:
One of the challenges for me was as someone who used to be fairly athletic years ago, for me exercise was a way to enjoy the wonders the human body was capable of, and going for a short, shuffling walk at the end of which I was exhausted felt… I don’t know, not great. At that point I went to a talk on MS and one of the doctors that was speaking talked about the importance of exercise, and relayed a series of stories about exercise and MS. One of them was about a gentlemen who had lost the use of everything but his left arm. His words were something like “That arm is one of the most important things going on in my practice, it’s the arm he uses to order food, to facetime with his children…”, and then he went on to describe the stretching and exercise he would do to try to preserve as much function as possible.
Some days of course are better than others, on the good ones I try to get in as much exercise as possible. On the bad ones, well I can do less, but I try to do what I can. One thing that has helped for me is thinking of the MS like a foe. It wants to destroy you, take things away, crippled you (I realize this is silly anthropomorphizing, but I feel like it helps me maintain a good state of mind). On the days I feel good, it makes it easier to go out and do what exercise I can, it feels like I am gaining on my foe. On my bad days, I think “Alright, you got me today, but let’s see how I feel tomorrow, perhaps the MS leaves a hole and I can slip through”. Somehow approaching it this way makes me feel slippery and determined, rather than crippled.


Reading: When I was younger I read a great deal, but it fell off as my career picked up. I got to a point where I would only read a handful of books a year. Now with more time, I have been spending more time with a book.
I recently finished Sapiens, and very much enjoyed it:
I am now working my way through the histories of Herodotus (and am finding them fascinating):


Watching: The wife and I watch some TV together, and we have both been on history kick. We have been watching some of the great courses, and really enjoying the experience. Some of our favorites: Everything I have seen by Greg Aldrete is good, he seems to conduct creditable scholarship (For example, he calls out when historians disagree on some topic, shares the views of both camps, and THEN shares his thoughts), and he tells a fantastic story. Robert Garland takes moments out of history and works to make them come alive. I would argue that (at least for me) he succeeds spectacularly in this series. The history of food, and history told with an eye to how everything has been shaped by food.
In addition to these, there are countless other good ones. As someone who purchased some great courses in the past (at what were some fairly exorbitant prices even on their sales), I very much like their new subscription model where you pay a fee each month and have access to everything. You can try out a lecture and see if you enjoy the lecturer style.


Gaming: Weirdly, being sick has destroyed a lot of the fun of gaming for me. Before I got sick, gaming was a thing I enjoyed “After I did my work”. Now that I don’t have work to be done with, someone how I don’t feel like I have “Earned the right to game”. Not saying this makes sense, necessary, but of course we feel how we feel. I have continued to play EVE Online (which I played before I got sick), albeit at a much lazier pace. I played through much of the latest Zelda with my 6 year old, which was fun, and recently played through FAR: Lone Sails which is a quiet, atmospheric puzzle solving game that involves piloting a vehicle through a post apocalyptic wasteland. Despite that description, I feel like the game is more soothing then it is anything else. It’s beautiful made, it was an enjoyable experience.


In addition to this jazz, I have of course been spending time with my wife and children. After my last flare I was spending a lot (almost all) of my time in the house, and more recently I have been making plans to see friends. Because my energy does not last so long, I have been trying to do lunches, perhaps meet a friend on their lunch break at work. The lack of outside the family adult contact once I stopped working has been weighing on me, and having a chat with an old friend has been a real boost.

u/Captain_Midnight · 5 pointsr/AskReddit
u/twitchster · 5 pointsr/Firearms

Gitmo, the secret prisons in Chicago, and Stop and Frisk, are all rights violations.

I do not support any rights violations by the Fed, State, or Local Governments.

You have a choice - you may stay ignorant.

OR - you can be come educated.

I advise reading the following:

Battle of Athens:

TLDR: WWII Vets remove corrupt Mayor & Sheriff from office, after inaction from the Fed.

This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed:

TLDR: Visiting Martin Luther King Jr. at the peak of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, journalist William Worthy almost sat on a loaded pistol. “Just for self defense,” King assured him. It was not the only weapon King kept for such a purpose; one of his advisors remembered the reverend’s Montgomery, Alabama home as “an arsenal.”

Like King, many ostensibly “nonviolent” civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to selfprotection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history.

A People's History of the United States

TLDR: We have a 40 hour work week, weekends, the right to organize and join a Union. All purchased with bloodshed, and via the barrel of a gun.

Banning guns = Tyranny.

All forward social progress will cease if we give in to tyranny.

u/output_overload · 5 pointsr/politics

Ever heard of a history book?

The People's History of the United States.

You should read it.

u/labrutued · 5 pointsr/Anarchism

All history you learn in high school is that kind of bullshit. Unfortunately, a lot of history books will give you the propaganda dissipated at the time as fact, much as I imagine nationalistic history books written in 200 years will quote from CNN and Fox to describe Bush's great war against the terrorists who hate our freedom. People don't like questioning nationalistic mythologies. Especially when they explain that we're all great heroes of idealistic freedom.

Given that you're on /r/Anarchism, you'd probably enjoy A People's History of the United States. Or really anything by Howard Zinn. The Populist Movement by Lawrence Goodwyn is good for talking about the post-Civil War era economic bullshit. Any biographies or autobiographies of the founders (even those written from a nationalistic point of view) will be unable to hide their business dealings and positions of power before, during, and after the revolution.

Any decent US history class you take should have a good list of readings. Better than I can remember off the top of my head.

If you have a Kindle The Autobiography of Ben Franklin is free and goes into great detail about his wealth, his positions in the Pennsylvania colonial government before the revolution, and his terms as President of Pennsylvania after the revolution (before the Constitution was adopted abolishing such positions). It does, of course, completely gloss over the fact that he knocked up a prostitute at 19, or that he was constantly having affairs. But often history is about recognizing what people aren't saying.

u/DeusExCochina · 5 pointsr/atheism

No answers yet?

Many of the atheists here agree on Bart Ehrman as a good source. He's a Bible scholar who used to be Christian but whose studies have left him an atheist. He's written a whole series of books about how the Bible was cobbled together and, self-plagiarized, forged and fiddled, and so on. There's a field or method of study called critical analysis that makes the Bible's authenticity problems apparent, and Ehrman writes that stuff into popular books.

Two of his hits have been Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted and Forged. The latter is perhaps his most explicit indictment of the intellectual crimes behind the Bible. Lost Christianities and other books talk about the many gospels and other writings that never made it into or were excised from what's known as the Bible today.

Ehrman also has a bunch of talks on YouTube where he engagingly presents those same ideas.

There are alternatives, of course, and it could be argued whether Ehrman is "the best." But he certainly knows what he's talking about (mostly), is a recognized authority on this kind of stuff, and presents it well. Best of all (from our point of view) he doesn't Lie For Jesus.

u/jpguitfiddler · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

> Its kind of like how Jesus' apostles wrote the New Testament.

No they didn't. None of the gospels are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life, and, they are all written in Greek and not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Here's a good read..

u/verveinloveland · 5 pointsr/DebateAChristian

Yep, I recommend misquoting jesus. It talks in depth about the translation issues in the Bible.

u/regypt · 5 pointsr/TrueAtheism

The book you're looking for is "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"

I'm about 70% though it and it's been a great read. It's thick reading, but super interesting.

Free (legal?) ebook links here:

u/Norenzayan · 5 pointsr/exmormon

If she's interested in books, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman really dismantled my belief in the veracity of the New Testament. I haven't read his other books but I've heard they're good. Also, Mormon Stories has a really interesting series on the New Testament featuring religious academic Jared Anderson.

She might want to check out the New Order Mormon board for a safe place to ask questions. It might feel less threatening than this sub.

u/InterPunct · 5 pointsr/MapPorn

Great map, one of the best I've seen.

You may enjoy this book: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America

I'll advocate for one small change to the map, New York City and the Hudson Valley should be its own thing. Call it New Amsterdam or New Netherlands. This would range from Brooklyn (excluding Long Island) and up the east side of the Hudson River to Albany.

u/Funktapus · 5 pointsr/MapPorn

My misconception was that were common standards of decency. As in "universal". That isn't the case, and I acknowledge that now.

What Trump does is completely indecent according to myself and most people I've ever interacted with. I also find most of the behavior of Trump's supporters at his rallies, etc, to be indecent. Revolting, even.

Obviously, the communities who voted for Trump find him to be decent, and think its decent to behave as they did during and after the election.

So we clearly disagree on what constitutes decency. There is no common standard of decency. There is no consensus on "American" values. We are (at least) two peoples, and we can either acknowledge that and start coming up with a federal system that respects that, or we can devolve into chaos. I don't think we need to split into two countries, but we need to start separating the culture wars from federal governance, and that likely means decentralizing certain legislative functions.

Great book on the subject, and there's a 2016 follow-up

u/spidermonk · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Also I wouldn't be super confident about that - reading this book shows that the security and safety of nuclear weapons has historically been pretty slap dash.

u/tugs_cub · 5 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

anybody who is tired of not being worried about accidental nuclear annihilation should check out this book

u/fingerrockets · 5 pointsr/news

Read Command and Control it's far from the first time Airmen were getting high while working around nukes.

u/jonlucc · 5 pointsr/politics

It's a bit of a mixed bag, if you look at the Politifact tracker. Even so, we're never going to have transparency into the DoD or intelligence operations. There's a book called Legacy of Ashes that points out that the very existence of an intelligence office is counter to an open democracy. That really made it clear to me that we can't actually have everything in the open, and we elect officials to be in those dim rooms seeing what we can't and making decisions in our best interest.

u/DimitriRavinoff · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

From what I understand, the CIA had been running operations to assassinate Castro without Congress' consent and they thought/think that the Kennedy assassination was retaliation.

See here for a good history of the CIA and this incident in particular --

u/ShellOilNigeria · 5 pointsr/news


The CIA is responsible for some crazy shit.

I don't know if you have ever read Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner but it's a great book that talks about the agency from it's founding up to the 2000's.

u/kbergstr · 5 pointsr/TrueReddit

This is pretty much the thesis of Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA about the history of mistakes and failures in the CIA. It's obviously biased against the intelligence community, but it makes some pretty damning claims.

u/Nemester · 5 pointsr/DarkEnlightenment

For people who are interested in more information on AIPAC, there was a book published a few years ago by a Harvard and a university of chicago professor:

Here is the wiki on it

u/ErdeTyrenne · 5 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

Are you retarded? I'm saying & giving you a source for the fact that Natives were dropping like flies from diseases brought over by the survivors of said diseases, who had biologically developed immunities that prevented them from dying at nearly those high of rates. The natives had a far less varied, lower caloric intake diets than did the Europeans who not only had a wider selection of crops but also of cattle. They had steel weapons and steel armor that the natives did not develop as well as guns, all of these factors growing out of the generally higher level of diffusion of technology on the Eurasian landmass & it's east-west orientation as opposed to the more difficult to traverse, mixed climate north-south orientation of the Americas. It's very similar to how the north-south orientation of sub-Saharan Africa hindered greatly the abilities of it's people to develop relatively advanced societies as opposed to Eurasian societies. Read [Guns, Germs and Steel](Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond.

u/InhLaba · 5 pointsr/booksuggestions

Some nonfiction books I enjoyed that came to mind:

u/SmallFruitbat · 5 pointsr/YAwriters

I can't see it being a problem. Here's a Goodreads collection of cannibalism books if you need comps. Some appear to be YA.

For research purposes, I would recommend chapters in Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers (non-fiction). Contrary to popular belief, The Sex Lives of Cannibals doesn't contain cannibalism. It is hilarious South Pacific travel writing though.

u/SiameseGunKiss · 5 pointsr/Frugal

If you wouldn't be weirded out by it, I high recommend reading Stiff. It's a really great read about the various ways they use cadavers for scientific research. It's actually quite helpful and important. There's a story in there about medical students at a University (I can't remember which) who would have memorial services for their cadavers at the end of the semester. Really neat stuff.

u/TheTeachingMirror · 4 pointsr/Teachers

World History: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. (It is also made as a documentary now)

US History: A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

In regards to being sensitive for issues like slavery and the Holocaust, I recommend Teaching Tolerance. They have some good resources.

u/WRSaunders · 4 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

You might be interested in Jered Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel. He does a pretty thorough discussion of the subject. If boils down to white people coming in quantity from a content that's wider (East-West) than it is tall (North-South). This means temperate bands are longer, providing more opportunities to fight over crops and resources. This builds up the capability to fight, and when the advent of long-distance sailing comes into the picture, these fight-prone groups sail around the work, find less fight-prone people, and vanquish them.

u/p0x0rz · 4 pointsr/Fantasy

Gotta add Guns, Germs, and Steel to these, though it paints in much broader strokes. Fantastically interesting read.

u/jones1618 · 4 pointsr/history

I'd really recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

It's one of the rare history books that takes on the grand sweep of human history, upending a lot of what you were taught and weaving it all together in a highly-readable and entertaining way.

u/VetMichael · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

If I may jump in here, /u/Mycd is making a similar argument to Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Though I am not sure about the claim that livestock were a significant source of disease. I know that they were a significant source of vaccination in the 18th century, but disease? Zoonotic diseases aren't usually small pox level variants (except for exotic ones which emerge well after the Columbian exchange).

There is a history of continual exposure to the major, and quite deadly, pathogens in Eurasian history that were the subject of medical inquiry from about 1000 CE onward; Chinese and Indian physicians, for example, experimented with blowing the dust from dried scabs of plague victims into the noses of people who had not gotten sick yet in order to inoculate them. It didn't work as well as modern science would have liked - the Black Death claimed tens of thousands of lives in Cairo alone - but it was better than nothing.

In Diamond's book, he makes the argument that since Eurasian trade routes were roughly east-west, the pathogens had similar enough environs - and continual human hosts - to survive and even mutate. On the other hand, Diamond points out, there was no equivalent to the Silk Road in the Western Hemisphere, thus preventing continual human-to-human transmission necessary for viral or bacterial mutation to the degree in Eurasia. Also, the fact that different latitudes often brought wildly varying environments, hampered potentially deadly plagues from emerging on such a vast scale in the Americas. He doesn't say, though, that Mesoamericans or other major empires didn't have plagues - they did - but compared to Eurasian ones, they were relatively weak or mild.

Other sources: Bernard Lewis Islam: From the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople

Arthur Silverstein A History of Immunology

Jared Diamond Guns, Germs, and Steel

u/RockyColtTum · 4 pointsr/CFBOffTopic
u/pantherwest · 4 pointsr/booksuggestions

One of my all time favorites is Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air, about a climbing season on Mount Everest where a lot of things went wrong.

I also enjoy Mary Roach - she has a great gift of being able to convey information while being really entertaining in the process. Stiff is my favorite of hers, but I also really enjoyed Packing For Mars.

u/Wohowudothat · 4 pointsr/medicine

>there are also surgical anatomy electives you can take later that involve surgeons (and aspiring surgeons) doing specific operations on one or more parts of your body.

This is also mentioned in the book "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers."

u/PComotose · 4 pointsr/IAmA

> never smelled a dead body

In fact, I'm reading this right now. Yes, there's a description of the body breakdown and the, uh, aromas generated.

u/vurplesun · 4 pointsr/books

I've been on a non-fiction kick myself.

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson is good. Very funny, very informative.

Packing for Mars and Stiff: The Curious Lives of Cadavers both by Mary Roach were also fun to read.

u/tunafan6 · 4 pointsr/morbidquestions

Books: "Morbid Curiosity Cures the Blues", "10 Ways to Recycle a Corpse: and 100 More Dreadfully Distasteful Lists", check for related items on Amazon for both of these books.

Buy something from oddities/taxidermy shops. - I don't know if they sell online, it's a small shop, but you get the general idea.

Take her/him to the museum of death or crime or anatomy. Many cities have them.

Go to together to St. Petersburg, Russia (Russia itself is morbid enough!) to visit this museum:

If you don't have much money, buy a (fake) shrunken and from Amazon, take it out of box and say it's real :)))

This website might be also a good start to find something close to you:

Edit: also this book:

u/ifonly12 · 4 pointsr/books

Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why? by Laurence Gonzales

Swimming to Antarctica : Tales of Long Distance Swimming by Lynne Cox

Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach

I was home for a holiday, and found these laying around my mother's book stash. She recommended all of them and I thoroughly enjoy each one. Although, usually I read fiction. All of these books are intriguing, well-written, and educational. If you never read non-fiction a good place to start is reading Mary Roach. Here is her TED talk about orgasms.

u/mst3kcrow · 4 pointsr/worldnews

I also forgot to mention AIPAC. They're one of the big reasons you see overwhelming support for Israel in the US Congress. Just keep in mind the US government does not always represent the citizens; hell, just look what happened over the past 10 years. As well, it's important to note that the aid we give to Israel is military aid which is used to support the MIC. I don't mean to keep replying but I'll put it this way: there is a lot to know about Israeli/American affairs. If you want to know more than the typical American does about the situation, I recommend skimming the Israel Lobby (fairly dense), Finkelstein, and Chomsky.

u/Halo6819 · 4 pointsr/Fantasy_Bookclub

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond: An amazing look at how civilization was formed

On Killing by Dave Grossman: If your characters kill anyone, know what it will do to them

*edit: Hero of a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell: You think Eragon is a rip off of Star Wars, or that Star Wars is a rip off of Jesus, or that Jesus is a rip off of some obscure norwegan god, find out the true origins of just about everything you have ever read and find out why Harry Potter had to die and had to come back from the dead!

u/lil_britches · 4 pointsr/books

Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It explains why there has been such disparity in income and technology between Eurasia and the rest of the world. It touches on most of the topics you said you'd like to learn about.

u/scurvydog-uldum · 4 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Jared Diamond's masterpiece, Guns, Germs, and Steel had a chapter on this.

Zebras get nasty as they get older and don't stay tamed.

u/LE4d · 4 pointsr/InternetIsBeautiful
u/Banzeye · 4 pointsr/gameofthrones

Shit, some interesting reading material is Guns, Germs, and Steel.

It's an interdisciplinary work but it's pretty fascinating and its a good read.

Interested in a fun East Asian account? Try reading The Last Samurai: The Life and Battles of Saigo Takamori. This is the book that the movie of the same name was adapted from. (I seriously mean ADAPTED, by the way.) It's an interesting read about the Meiji Restoration and how the Japanese countryside reacted.

How about something from Africa? Read Sundiata: an Epic of Old Mali. It's an epic poem about the founding of the African state of Mali (MANSA MUSA DA GOD). Captivating read.

Get cracking.

u/Stubb · 4 pointsr/askscience

Go read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Europeans lived in proximity with a far greater variety of domesticated animals than Native Americans.

u/NYC_summer · 4 pointsr/history

I would recommend you read Guns, Germs and Steal by Jared Diamond. Talks about this subject and it is an easy read.

u/iTriggerWhiteBoys · 4 pointsr/nyc

As for the other question ive explained it here like a thousand times.

its more tied to the social construction of "whiteness" than anything to do with skin color or ethnicity. please see this

there is some good writing on the matter by W. E. B. Du Bois, Theodore W. Allen, and a few others, on the phenomena. Noel Ignatiev actually has a pretty good book on the matter, its called "How the Irish Became White"

this is a critique over sociopolitical status, not skin color, nor ethnicity, its not a discussion about english people, or Irish people, or Italian People, or german people. nor is it based on skin color, there are Iranian(literal Aryans) with white skin, there are people living in the Caucasus(literal Caucasians), they not classified as "white".

u/parkalark23 · 4 pointsr/peacecorps

I'm currently working through King Leopold's Ghost. It's interesting and well-written, but it is pretty darn dense. I haven't read Stuffed and Starved except in excerpts in a class but it's on my list to bring during service. Guns, Germs, and Steel is also on my list. Very popular and while there is some controversy around it I think it could prove to at least be a very entertaining read.

u/PotatoQuie · 4 pointsr/politics

It sounds like you're trying to justify Imperialism by the actions of modern Zimbabwe.

If you want an example of European Imperialism being harmful in Africa, look no further than King Leopold II of Belgium's rule over the Congo where over 10 million people were killed while he extracted ivory and rubber from the country. This was not "self-inflicted". Source

The original point was the difference between Chinese power and European power in Africa. You brought up the failures of Zimbabwe's self rule. Nobody else was talking about self rule, we were comparing Europe to China. Since European involvement in the Congo resulted in upwards of ten million deaths over a period of twenty years, I'm going to go ahead and say that European control of Africa was not good.

u/Will_Power · 4 pointsr/collapse

Thank you very much for expounding on that. So much of what you say rings with truth.

>That was probably more than you wanted to know? :)

No, you reply was wonderful, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it.

Now that I understand the terms a bit better, I understand that I broke away from the blank slate model about a decade ago when I read The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. It discussed the evidence that IQ is both largely heritable (and less environmental) and affects life outcome in almost every way. I thought the book was compelling. What surprised me was the outcry from academia. I realized then that they had some sort of egalitarian agenda that they didn't want disturbed.

u/TheFissureMan · 4 pointsr/classic4chan

I'm not talking specifically about war crimes.

History textbooks ignore the role that Native American had in our history. For example, for the first 2 centuries of American history, our government waged constant war against Native American tribes. Many of the democratic principles incorporated into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were present in the Iroquois Federation. This wasn't coincidence.

When they are discussed, they are written from a one sided view, removing any controversy and often written from the archetype of the savage.

Textbooks also try to give you the impression that if only Native Americans assimilated into European culture, they would have been accepted. However the reality is that Americans did not want Native Americans to assimilate and denied them their basic rights.

Did you use one of these textbooks? These were all critiqued by James Lowen in his book.

  • The American Adventure (1975)

  • American Adventures (1987)

  • American History (1982)

  • The American Pageant (1991)

  • The American Tradition (1984)

  • The American Way (1979)

  • The Challenge of Freedom (1990)

  • Discovering American History (1974)

  • Land of Promise (1983)

  • Life and Liberty (1984)

  • Triumph of the American Nation (1986)

  • The United States: A History of the Republic (1991)

  • The American Pageant (2006)

  • The American Journey (2000)

  • The Americans (2007)

  • America: Pathways to the Present (2005)

  • A History of the United States (2005)

  • Holt American Nation (2003)
u/awesley · 4 pointsr/history

> He was a warhawk and an imperialist.

And a big racist. See Lies My Teacher Told Me

u/potatolicious · 4 pointsr/WTF

There's a really good book that I'm reading right now that goes into detail with this. The book's theme is basically ripping on common American History textbooks for gratuitously false and misleading representations of history and the dangers of it - there are several chapters dealing with race relations and how the North is far from innocent, despite the common view of American history.

u/xxruruxx · 4 pointsr/japan

I went to a top 100 high school and a top 30 university. Didn't actually learn about the destruction of the Americas until my sophomore year of college. The "Thanksgiving" myth is one of the most insulting--which public school only reinforces.

I don't think a proper account of the destruction of the Americas is school-appropriate. You know, stabbing pregnant women's bellies with spears and throwing children into pits of knives. Cutting off their hands and tying them around their necks to "go send a message" to the others. Mass executions by hanging or burning at the stake. Dismemberment. Sending the dogs to tear villagers apart from limb to limb. Entire clans hanging themselves in the woods to escape the horrors. Friendly competition on who could torture the best. Slavery. Don't really think the PTA was so keen on this rated R account.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe that any textbook I read actually acknowledges uses the term "genocide" in public education.

You should really read Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, if you actually believe that US public education adequately describes genocide in the Americas. Also, Las Casas is the source for my first paragraph.
Edit: Yes, I understand that Las Casas was writing about South America, but I still didn't learn about the Spanish Inquisition in any detail. We were tested more on what resources were valuable, and the names of European Kings.

u/GameMusic · 4 pointsr/Political_Revolution

Read Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong

u/pier25 · 4 pointsr/Psychonaut

In the academic world this is called the cognitive revolution.

I really recommend the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind which touches this topic when the author talks about the formation of culture and civilisation.

u/ReginaldLADOO · 4 pointsr/worldnews

Ghost Wars by Steve Coll Check it out, very informative.

u/Pseudonymical · 4 pointsr/vexillology

You might be interested in the Shadowrun universe and how they dealt with a futuristic devolution of the US and Canada.
Theres also this book that might pique your interest.

u/Asterion7 · 4 pointsr/himynameisjay

Just got the New Joe Abercrombie book, Short stories set as prequel to the First Law Trilogy. Pretty interesting. Also going to pick up that book I recommended in the Book Club thread yesterday about the history of american politics as different nations/tribes. (

u/keryskerys · 4 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen was an eye-opener for me. I read it years ago, and haven't read the updated version, but I did find that one interesting.

Also Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" is thoroughly entertaining and educational.

u/RushIndustries · 4 pointsr/AskMen

You should read this book, I think you might like it...

u/stabbyrum · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

If you are interested in this, I highly recommend Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. He covers several history books and looks how how each one addresses important events in american history. sometimes it's kinda depressing, but it's a great read.

u/KeithBlenman · 4 pointsr/booksuggestions

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James Loewen

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 4 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Archives for links in comments:

u/HTownian25 · 4 pointsr/politics

NRO was Fake News before it was cool.

Editor and Chief Johan Goldberg famously released Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning way back in 2008, when we were still debating whether Obama was a fake Muslim from Kenya and how long we have to wait for the Death Panels to kill our grandmothers.

That the article spends about eight paragraphs trying to explain how Erza Klein lied about Hillary's popular vote victory really doesn't help it along.

u/MisanthropicScott · 4 pointsr/nyc

From here, if I remember correctly, read it long ago:

u/mrmanager237 · 4 pointsr/neoliberal

How did we NOT tell he's a succ?

>the U.S. needs more input from sociology and less from economics


>The Democrats have been the party of the social safety net, and have long wondered why so many working-class Americans don’t seem to appreciate those benefits.

E C O N O M I C A N X I E T Y: jobs edition

u/SingleMaltWhiskonsin · 4 pointsr/wisconsin

> You were the one citing the 4 of 5 statistic. I assumed you had the data.

FTA, means From The Article. Just quoting from the article. You mentioned an assumption.

> I know several others in similar situations. I don't have data, but that's because I have life experience.

That isn't how any science works. Not even the social sciences which aren't pure or even necessarily just applied sciences, but humanities with scientific principles.

> I lived in a small town for over 20 years.

See, here is where we really need to define what is truly rural and what is urban. There are also costs associated in small towns growing so if you come to a small town, and say you build new, those houses unlike the original ones, will have impact fees built into the cost. What you might not realize is that housing over the last few decades has gotten significantly more expensive, often because of sprawl or lack of efficiency.

Any its not the point of you car breaking down. What if you have an ongoing problem, what if the mechanic is busy? The point being you can be seriously inconvenience, and since you offered it as advice of how to live cheaply why should we assume some has a brand spanking new car. It likely might be a car that needs maintenance.

> I lived in a town of 10,000 people. You don't need to leave, especially with internet access.

Well I've know plenty of people in towns of 10,000 people and they often were bored out of their minds, so they would drive to the next closest larger city for things to do.

> Yeah, but the initial water quality is what we were getting at I thought.

No, that's the thing, modern treatment plants can take literally crappy water and turn it into something pristine. I know because I have toured the facilities and know people in the field. I also have a property with a well and have been blessed with good water, yet neighbors down the road have had problems. You need to test regularly, there is just more responsibility to have to worry about.

But see you're talking about a city of 10,000, so you may not really be living all that rural. Depends on how far out you live.

> Fracking issues? Really? Please cite one of these occurrences in Wisconsin.

Does it really matter that it is Wisconsin? You held up your statement like it was a universal truth. Wisconsin honestly has been lucky but note, its not just the fracking itself, but the materials, like sand and water which can drop the water table.

Well have always had this consideration especially if local agriculture sucks the water table down and people have to re-drill to get it.

> I lived in a rural setting for 20 years. I know the situation. I don't have to "trust you" on what I lived.

There is only one fact in that sentence, and even that's sort of debatable. It sounds like you lived in a small town in a rural area that had some of the amenities that larger cities might have especially due to recent advances in technology. Trust is not an issue. Numbers, data, research is what we should seek, and we don't trust those, we verify those. Trust involves faith.

But personal anecdotes are not applicable to general situations. So if that is going to be presented as evidence it may be dismissed by everyone as such. Doesn't mean its not true, just that we have no way of knowing, nor should we trust it, for the reasons stated above.

> Many rural areas are near small towns. A rural county usually has 'the town' that serves that purpose and is only 10-15 minutes away.

That's still travel. Again we're sort picking apart just some simple examples, there could be more, still beside the point. Gas will be more because anything that isn't in immediate proximity will need to either be shipped, or you will need to travel for it. If you hang out online for entertainment and order from Amazon, then the discount rural life might be just fine, if you have good Internet access. Again, if.

> A riding mower? If you're going to have a yard that big, you should probably afford it before you buy it. That's like saying that someone's swimming pool costs are too high.

No, its not. People choose to have a pool. No only chooses the size of their yard, it is part of the parcel they buy. Or were you only talking renting?

> I was saying that people who live in rural areas make less money, many times minimum.

Well then that complicates things further. You make less money in a rural setting, and you supposedly pay less, according to you because you don't have the overhead of the city. But on the flip side the reason people are paid more in the city is because of supply and demand which is why the housing may be more, you may have some more taxes, but all services are far more economical to provide per person or per capita because of economies of scale.

So what you have to do is calculate the CoL rural and compare to CoL urban factoring in all aspects and then compare. You might, I'm not saying you won't. I'm saying its not a guarantee that you will unless you do all the math.

> It might be anecdotal, but it doesn't make it untrue. A strong farming community can support itself.

Never said it did. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it has a very small sample size so we have no way of knowing the truth until it is no longer anecdotal. I'm saying that you have to look far more into the situation with all the data, and that still doesn't refute the OP which appears to be based on research or non-anecdotal evidence.

But, a strong farm community is harder to find. Why? Because the individual farmers that supported each other are growing scarce being replaced with industrial farming.

> Because cities tend to have liberals who want to spend that money rather than return it to the people who earned it and it's impractical to have a public bus in a town of 500.

Okay, now you are just being silly. If you check Wisconsin history, farmers used to be progressive because they were in battle with the train owners who liked to gouge them for their shipment costs. Its recent manufactured fokelore that Urban=liberal and rural=conservative.

You might actually want to read this one book, What's The Matter with Kansas which shows how of some of what you are referring to came to be.

> It also doesn't mean those problems don't exist in urban areas too.

It seems to be grasping at straws. All areas may have problems. Like I said over concentration has problem, under concentration also has problems. The OP was talking about a problem of rural poverty that any sociologist could tell you is a problem, but you, if I understand correctly, seem to be denying its existence by personal experiences.

> I disagree. I seem to recall hearing constantly during the farm bill debate about why the food stamps were included, and that was the reason I mentioned.

So you heard something once recently and that makes it a fact? You realize that is what is wrong with the current media and public, we don't challenge these ridiculous notions out of hand. Plenty of politicians on either side of the aisle support farm subsidies if it affect them or their people.

The OP topic was "The silent problem - rural poverty is rampant." Unless you have some information to say why the post is completely wrong that doesn't involve your singular personal experience coupled with a few people you know, then we'll have to go with the post having merit and needing further discussion and investigation.

> Have you lived in a rural setting? For how long if so? I get the feeling I'm trying to explain what a burger tastes like to a man with no taste buds.

Actually I know what a good grass fed burger tastes like, but we don't find them as often. Do you know why?

Actually I own a rural property that has been in the family for a couple generations. Its not farmed but it is in a rural setting. And all the problems that I cited, you know the personal anecdotes, those are all things that we contend with when were are there. Do you know why we don't live there full time? Because the city, a reasonable sized city offered many, many more choices especially employment. And grass fed burgers should I desire them.

> I disagree. Plus, if you think rural areas need the help, isn't this a good thing for them?

No. Not at all. Because the money isn't going to local areas that are desperate for tax money to maintain services like schools, another thing that doesn't scale well in the rural setting, no they stay just far enough out. It's a very deliberate tax dodge and its not simply retiring boomers, as many of them may not be well off. These are people who did not make money off the land as farmers but did so elsewhere and now flee from the city with their earnings and create paradise in the middle of nowhere.

> Not really. You can build/buy a 2006 2 million dollar house for $300,000. I know of a sale like that that just happened near my hometown.

This actually is getting to be beside the point, it was a simple observation that raises questions.

To be honest, I think it is more people who like the idea of having wealth that no one can see.

> That's a reasonable retirement mortgage if you invested wisely and are putting the sale of another house toward the purchase.

And if you didn't lose your pension, 401k, job, have a major healthcare problem or any number of circumstances. But that was just an observation. And now we're debating over budget mansions?

I'd go back and read the article itself and see if there wasn't a larger point you missed, no offense. It was never to argue against a rural way of life nor disrespect those who live in a rural setting. Quite the contrary. In fact, since it says it is the title and you said it yourself. You lived in a rural setting and even you don't it to be a problem.

So that means The Silent Poverty rampent in rural areas actually is a mystery especially if neighbors like you are unaware.

u/mrkurtz · 4 pointsr/science

i guess it depends on the extent of the collapse.

i'm reading 1491, and estimates are that 90% of the native populations of the americas was wiped out very early on. and due to this, they lost everyone who knew their science, history, math, language, etc. which led to the perception that they were a backwards people, as some people continue to try to use their written language, but they no longer understood what the language meant...

that sort of catastrophic loss could mean no "recovery", though given enough time, i think people will continue to progress.

i mean, i'm a smart guy, but i couldn't run over to the nuclear (or any other) power station and make sure operations continue in a safe and efficient manner.

i couldn't continue food processing or production on a massive scale.

i couldn't perform the most basic types of surgery.

i think the guarantee is that you're fucked in the short term.

and there's at least good odds that you're fucked in the long term.

u/PhilR8 · 4 pointsr/books

Africa: A Biography of the Continent by John Reader

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann

Both cover some of the same concepts as GG&S, but in a much more rigorous fashion. Both are better reads with a less self-congratulatory tone and much more interesting information. GG&S is a kids book compared to these works, which is fine because GG&S is a great introduction to these sorts of concepts. Now you can get down to reading the good stuff.

u/Shovelbum26 · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

Especially considering the major population centers were, depending on the time period, mostly in Central America and the North American Mid-west. All of those cultures were definitely sedentary.

For good information on this I'd check out Mann's flawed but interesting 1491. I (and many archaeologists) feel he overestimates the size of pre-Columbian populations, but it's as exhaustive a look at demographics in the Americas just before contact as you will find, and it's very approachable for the layperson.

The upshot is, per capita, by European Contact, absolutely most Native Americans lived in sedentary, agriculture based state or chiefdom level societies. Maybe by geographic area nomadic hunter-gatherers might win out, but certainly not by population.

u/Vermillionbird · 4 pointsr/TrueReddit

Comparing invasive species to GMO crops is a false equivalence. Also, your entire post rests on an outdated and bullshit view of the natural world as existing in this pristine state upon which modern man has recklessly trampled. I highly recommend reading the book 1491, which does a good job unraveling the thesis that 'nature=pristine, man's interference=bad'.

Also, we aren't talking about zebra mussels or rabbits in Australia, we're talking about domesticated crop species that are the result of thousands of years of breeding and cultivation, and generally don't thrive in the wild without human intervention. I'm not talking GMO, I'm talking your 'heirloom' varieties. Inserting a gene which codes for a vitamin A synthesis is nothing like releasing birds because we think they'd be pretty. The rice plant already grows in the Philippines. The fundamental biological method by which the plant grows and reproduces has not changed. If we accept farming as part of the natural tableau of the area, then we're changing nothing in the status quo, aside from providing more rounded nutrition to the population

u/pipocaQuemada · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

> Armchair generals can argue over and over about what the English 'should have done', but the fact remains that the decline in archery training led to the downfall of the longbow.

To be honest, half the reason for my asking this question was because I've been reading 1491, rather than trying to be an armchair general for the English. The book mentioned that guns weren't all that much better than bows (in terms of accuracy, etc.), so I was wondering how long that would have been true for.

u/ninja_zombie · 4 pointsr/Economics

>Also, you seem to buy into the the impoverished savage theory, which can be remedied by even a cursory overview of the journals of the Spanish who landed in Haiti -- it was the wealthiest place on Earth, and there was no capitalism there.

You seem to be buying into the racist theory that native americans were a bunch of "naked savages" (1). In fact, they had highly complex societies, trade, and many areas (New England in particular) had personal and economic freedom unrivaled in Europe.


>By at least 2,500 years ago, trade networks brought copper from the Great Lakes region, mica from the Appalachian Mountains, shells from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and obsidian from the Rockies into the Tennessee region. During the Mississippian period, traders may have come from as far away as the Aztec cities of Mexico.

I also can't recommend the book 1491 highly enough.

(1) The modern PC type will describe Native Americans as peaceful natives living in perfect balance with nature. It's no less racist, but at least sounds prettier.

u/harlows_monkeys · 4 pointsr/science

Your picture of Pre-European Native American Life is not as bad as that Pocahontas DVD, but it is still way off. For a good look at what it was actually like in the New World pre-European, see the book 1491 by Charles Mann. This has been generally well recommended on /r/AskHistorians and /r/askscience.

For example, they made extensive use of fire to convert dense forests to less dense forests, open woodlands, or grasslands which lead to huge population increases in the kind of herbivores they liked to hunt, and made it much easier to hunt them. They did not just passively live at the mercy of Nature.

u/novangla · 4 pointsr/AskAnAmerican

Different regions of America were settled by different groups with different values, and those haven't gone away. I highly recommend the book American Nations, which is an accessible overview of the differing histories of the 11 major cultural regions.

I study colonial history and even as early as the 1600s, New England cares about education and community welfare more than anywhere else, New York City is diverse and driven by finance, the Southern backcountry is violent and fiercely independent, and the Southern tidewater is driven by inequality and reputation/personal honor.

u/DocGrey187000 · 4 pointsr/JordanPeterson

This article is not written by Sowell. It's slyly written referencing Sowell ideas, by Prof. Richard Cocks (Cocks is white, so I think he [correctly?] believes that referencing the black Sowell gives him cover to express these ideas).

That being said----I think there are solid points here.

The idea that there are distinct cultures in the U.S. that bring baggage with them is interesting to me (see this book ).

I think there's a lot of merit to it, and it does explain a lot of our race and culture war.

But ummmm..... a huge part of the collective culture is slavery and an extended apartheid, and it clearly kneecapped black attempts at success repeatedly. Not 200 years ago, not 100 years ago. Oprah Winfrey and Denzel Washington were born during Jim Crow. It had a real depressing effect on accumulating wealth, on strengthening inroads in various sectors, and of developing a culture that believed that effort would be fairly treated and compensated----I mean it really WAS crazy for a black person to believe they could go to medical school a few generations ago, or buy a home in any but a few segregated neighborhoods. That wasn't in their heads, they were openly excluded.

So I think these issues should be added, but not entirely take the place of, discrimination as an explanation for why black folks are struggling relative to whites in America.

u/MMurd0ck · 4 pointsr/brasil

Thanks for bring this.
This is actually a big and important point that our media didn't cover properly.

There is also an interesting theory that says America could be divided in 11 different nations. Which one with their own culture and identity.

u/floodcontrol · 4 pointsr/worldnews

Not strictly about that topic but check out Command and Control, it covers the development of U.S. nuclear and nuclear safety policy from inception to present.

Does support some of what CommandoDude is saying, MAD was a U.S. invention. Doesn't cover the Russian aspect of it unfortunately.

u/fealos · 4 pointsr/worldnews

Except torture has been repeatedly shown to be less effective than other methods of interrogation. Read The Black Banners, Legacy of Ashes, or one of the numerous other books that cover the CIA's recent actions before you continue to perpetuate the lie that torture works.

u/NotYoursTruly · 4 pointsr/worldnews

I grew up during the Cold War in a military family that traveled around the world from Germany to Morocco to Japan. The Cold War was just an excuse for the military industrial complex to make a shit-ton of money.
Just like any business there's this thing called 'marketing' where you try to convince the customer they really need your fancy widget. Has worked really well for decades now.
Yes, the Soviet Union was a brutal dictatorship where Stalin murdered millions to keep power. They also lost a substantial amount of their male population during WWII and were ruined economically following the war. They were in no position to project power and if one wishes to do the research the Soviets really did little compared to the brutal dictatorships the US installed. The books listed below go into far greater detail about all of this if you chose to do some research. The Russians are human beings led by a corrupt government they don't support.
The same goes for the US. An 8% approval rating for congress, the lowest they've ever received in US history bears that out. You can't claim to have the moral high ground and be the world's policeman when your own country's people have such low regard for it's leadership.

Legacy of Ashes

The Secret History of the CIA

All of Chalmer's Johnson's books

u/Mookind · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

We do know why they're happening.

Have you ever read a history book? Generally speaking every single discussion* they ever had required a "note taker" and it's our custom to speak about these decisions a couple decades after. Obviously the whole truth isn't out there, and certainly not everyone tells the truth. But the motives behind everything I mentioned were clear as day.

I would encourage you to read books like

These men aren't all powerful, they don't take orders from some homogenous group that always retains the same position. And most importantly the information our leaders are given is often woefully inaccurate. The president more than anyone has the information that he is presented to him manipulated. Although some certainly have been more savvy than others.

u/nusuth · 4 pointsr/TrueReddit

You should read "Legacy of Ashes" if you want to be terrified by just how incompetent the CIA is and has been.

u/FactsBeforeFiction · 4 pointsr/france

je ne connais pas cette histoire, mais l'histoire de la CIA est bien connue malheureusement, "Legacy of Ashes" est un bon bouquin sur le sujet, et ce que l'on sait fait tres peur.

u/loki_racer · 4 pointsr/JoeRogan

Mike should read Legacy of Ashes for a different perspective of the OSS and CIA.

u/lizzieb_23 · 4 pointsr/geopolitics

You won't find much written about AIPAC and the pro-Israeli lobby's role in the Iraq war because that is a VERY touchy issue since the pro-Israeli lobby is VERY sensitive about being seen pushing the US for war, despite the fact that they are also VERY active in doing so

(Note the original article has mysteriously gone missing)

However I can recommend reading Walt & Mearsheimer's book

>The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The authors are top-level American foreign policy experts, and their book created a HUGE reaction because until then it was pretty much taboo to talk about the role of Israel and the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby in US foreign policy (anyone who did was dismissed as a Nazi nut -- although George Ball had written about it:, and also Findley

Note that the pro-Israeli lobby denies that a pro-Israeli lobby even exists and attributes claims to anti-Semitism, while yet at the same time the pro-Israeli lobby itself brags and boasts about its influence:

> I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”
I would recommend Walt & Mearsheimer's book

The authors had difficulty getting the book published at all in the US and no major US newspaper touched it. They could only initially get the London Review of Books to publish their essay on the subject too

As for the claim that Chalabi was an "Iranian agent" that somehow duped the US into invading Iraq, this was a bit of nonsense promoted after the war in an effort to justify it when the much-touted WMDs failed to turn up. In fact the Iranians warned the US to not invade Iraq

There were other such spins too. For example is was claimed that the US invaded Iraq because that Saddam had supposedly pretended to have WMds in order to deter Iran, but that somehow ended up mistakenly inducing the US into invading. Because you know, the US was too stupid to know better.

In reality the decision to invade Iraq had already been made despite the fact that the US knew there were no WMDs, and furthermore Iraq had filed a 12000 page detailed report to the UN showing how they had gotten rid of their WMDs as required. The Bush admin naturally claimed that this was all a lie and the WMDs were still there, Rumsfeld claimed they were "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat" -- and later he denied saying that Iraq had WMDs at all.

Also the funny thing is that while the US was accusing Iraq of lying in their 12000 page report, it was also busy removing the pages from the report that implicated American and Western companies in the same WMD programs

u/williamsates · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

What gives the dynamic a particular look is the large population of Evangelical Christians. Now what you have to understand, is while the professed rates of religiosity are extremely high, the general population simply does not know anything about the Bible, or Judaism nor Islam. This goes for the evangelical crowd as well. There are a set of cliches that they all know, you know, 'Jesus saves," type of knowledge. So you end up with stuff like you see in this very thread, with 'we have a Judeo-Christian' background level of rhetoric.

The fact is that people just don't know anything about Judaism or Christianity.

On top of this you had a conscious Zionist political project, to make sure that culturally pro-Israel views dominate the news, academy and churches.

There are two academics who wrote a paper that eventually became a book concerning the influence of the Israel lobby. The book is a must read, but you should give the shorter paper a try for sure.


The book:

Pew study on religious knowledge.

u/Puzzleheaded_Match · 4 pointsr/lebanon

>every single one of your sources are megaphones of IDF

John Merscheimer wrote an entire book against Israel. If The National Review is a "Megaphone for the Israeli Army" then why did they invite John Merscheimer to write new articles ? It's completely illogical.

The Economist is the most respected magazine in Britain. It was founded in the 1840. Bill Gates says "I read every issue of The Economist, from cover to cover, it makes me think critically"

You claim that the targets were not Iranians. When I give you sources explaining a proxy war is happening, you falsely accuse the sources of helping the Israeli Army. While still refusing to answer about your claim

I have a very hard time following you.

u/RockyIV · 4 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

I'm late to the party, so this comment may be buried, but /u/SergeantSully, I'd recommend you read some of the books by Bart Ehrman, a professor at UNC who attended Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and Princeton Theology School. His works describe in extraordinary detail the evidence that the New Testament is entirely manmade and contradictory. You might start with Misquoting Jesus.

u/surfingatwork · 4 pointsr/atheism

As far as Christianity goes, probably the best book I've read about the "unathenticity" of the Bible is "Misquoting Jesus."

I wrote the following book about Christianity that's less professional but still raises some interesting points. It's free. So don't accuse me of spamming:

u/lisper · 4 pointsr/Creation

> The same techniques that lead us to suspect the ending of Mark might not be genuine show us that the vast majority of the New Testament exists largely unchanged from the original manuscripts, save for the odd spelling error.

No, they don't.

But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...

> I believe only in the God of the Bible.

With or without Mark 16:17-18?

Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?

u/scottklarr · 4 pointsr/books
u/aPinkFloyd · 4 pointsr/exmormon

They should replace it with this...

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

u/timojen · 4 pointsr/DebateAChristian

The point of my comparison was: It seems unstructured to me. And I am often confused by that lack of rules moderates live by.

I constantly meet people who consider themselves Christian or Muslim or whatever but do not follow the rules of that religion. For instance a good friend of mine who is a Catholic, like many american's, believes the sacrament is symbolically the body and blood of Christ and also uses contraception. These are big no-nos for a Catholic. Another friend is Muslim and he loves bacon and also uses contraception and does not believe his daughter should grow up thinking herself less than a male.

Essentially, these types of people make up the bulk of religious people I meet. So maybe they are a good %age of the religious in america. But effectively they are not religious. They simply believe in a god and pick the rules they want to follow based on a number of different criteria. Those criteria are almost always cultural.

This seems like sentimental (in the philosophical sense) religion to me. Why not drop the religion altogether?

EDIT: have you read this book?

u/TheFlyingBastard · 4 pointsr/europe

Np. If you like this kind of stuff, you should look into the books by Bart Ehrman. He's a New Testament scholar that writes about this stuff in a very easy to understand way. Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted are the two books he became known for, and they have ruffled a lot of feathers, but his other books are very readable too.

u/owlie_ · 4 pointsr/MorbidReality

Oh, you once read? Well then it must be true.

u/TheGuineaPig21 · 4 pointsr/canada

Yes, actually. First of all the SS was a volunteer force (before 1943, when conscripts started to be transferred into the Waffen SS). The Einsatzgruppen were also volunteers-only. Furthermore, because of psychological casualties among units tasked with carrying out mask executions, it was common to transfer out of these units on request. Participating in mass executions was typically voluntary. Ordinary Men is an excellent history about a police battalion that was used as an execution unit which goes into a lot of the details about this.

Finally, there is not a single recorded instance of a German serviceman being executed for refusing to kill a civilian. (need jstor to read it)

This notion that individual Germans were somehow not at fault for joining the SS, joining mobile death squads, and then executing Jews/Poles/POWs/"partisans" whatever is mind-boggling

u/SplendourFalls · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

The way you've phrased this question caught my attention, and I'd like to point you in the direction of what I think is one of the most important books ever written about the Second World War:

Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning tries to explain how a group of apolitical middle-aged men who weren't even professional soldiers, guys who had reached adulthood long before Hitler took power, men who weren't particularly anti-Semitic and didn't vote for the Nazis, became enthusiastic executioners of thousands upon thousands of Jews.

The process that turned law-abiding, conscientious citizens into murderers was an intricate and subtle process and cannot and never will be explained by simplifications like 'brainwashing' or 'the Nazis were all psychopaths', and that's the point Browning tries to get at in his book.

There are other books like Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners which argue that Germans have always been hell-bent on the elimination of the Jewish race since the beginning of time which will answer your question in a way that will make you feel much more comfortable, if that's what you want. If not, Browning's your man.

u/missginj · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men. How did the Nazi regime get ordinary men to commit genocide? A fascinating, compelling, sometimes horrifying read. The words and experiences of the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 (which was assigned to Nazi-occupied Poland), gleaned from 1960s interrogations, are very present and alive in the text.

u/Asshole_for_Karma · 4 pointsr/worldnews

Well how about we just assume Hitler killed a 'shit-ton' of people in gas chambers and furnaces? Is that a number we can agree on?

And while there is some lack of concrete evidence, we can assume that the number 6 million was not pulled out of a historian's ass.

For instance, reports written by camp guards or death squads that survived the massive paper-shredding that the Nazis performed at the end of the war? See the book Ordinary Men for just one regiment's recounting of the 'Final Solution'.

u/avatar_of_prometheus · 4 pointsr/DecaturGA

Because making loose correlations between anecdotal observations is a lot easier than thinking about socioeconomic issues. Because humans are hardwired to be tribal, and most of our self selected tribes are monochromatic. Sapiens, Outliers, and The Tipping Point touch on these flaws in our wetware.

u/katsuhira_nightshade · 4 pointsr/DebateReligion

This is actually the thesis of Yuval Harari's book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Essentially, he believes that what separates humans from other animals is our ability to create and collectively believe in common fictions, allowing for greater social cohesion.

u/rdar1999 · 4 pointsr/btc

As she said, the potential to do harm and to do good is huge. This is in all dimensions.

The good side is to make the world even more connected for mutual enrichment. Our species's great leap was the ability to cooperate with large amounts of unknown people, this means trade with them (see

We want to interact with other groups because we want to trade with them. To do this, we need communication, which is flexible but also standardized: languages. Trade is the biggest drive to language, the same way trade is the biggest drive to money (and only from this we derive the concept of store of value BTW).

All of this makes me pretty confident that we need bitcoin (cash), it is the natural step forward. We can only cooperate in higher degree if we can eschew the trust element, that's why national issued "cryptocurrencies" are an uninformed move to keep the obsolete alive, it won't work, I'm 100% confident of that.

The "evil" part of it is the perception that if I control communication, I control the economy. If I control money, I control trade, I control cooperation, I control an important part of communication.

Hence the tension.

ps: that's why I always agreed with Ver on how stupid core's concept of "bitcoin as reserve of value" really is, it is fundamentally flawed.

ps2: Teal Swan, whoa, what an alluring human being :D

u/Soperman223 · 4 pointsr/CGPGrey

So I recently read Sapiens, which is a book that attempts to explain human history from a bit more of a cultural perspective.

I found it absolutely fascinating (and started reading guns, germs, and steel afterwards because I wanted more), and I was wondering if you’ve read it and what you thought about it.

Also, in terms of relating to the podcast, I kind of agree with Grey on just disconnecting (from social media at least). I don’t think it’s psychologically healthy to be exposed to that as often as we are

u/heyimamaverick · 4 pointsr/politics

He may be better served by A People's History of the United States.

u/ahhdum · 4 pointsr/esist


a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

If you havent already, you should read 'A People's History Of The United States' by Howard Zinn.

u/railzen · 4 pointsr/korea

> I completely disagree with all your points other than the last one. I'm Korean, but I tried to write that from an international perspective. Honestly I didn't put a great deal of thought into the 'unpatriotic' implications because I think we should start moving past the 'OMG KOREA IS THE BEST OMG OMG' narrative that comes from most story concepts written by Koreans that take place in Korea.

Except it's not being written by Koreans.

> The main reason I began with a Japanese protagonist was because I wanted to open with the Sino-Japanese war. I also felt that opening with a Japanese character would be much more marketable to American (the biggest game market) audiences as they are much more familiar to Japan and then gradually introduce Korea as an independent country with significantly different culture. Having a foreign protagonist learning about the country is a tried and true method of doing so. I felt this would be a more appropriate way than to just ram gamers into a completely unfamiliar background leaving them confused.

This is also the same line of reasoning that led to the complete cast white washing of The Last Airbender, 21, Dragonball Evolution, and the upcoming Akira live action film.

It's also a very pathetic trope rooted deeply in racist colonialism.

> I also made the protagonist half-Japanese as I didn't want to drive home a narrative full of racial hate. I want the story to focus more on the evil Templars who (fictionally) took control of the Japanese government and call to attention the fact that evil is not racial, but societal, and that everyone has power to change it. Call that white-washing if you want. Personally I think it's a better way to stop this racial circlejerk bullshit.

I don't understand this line of thought. All it does is continually relegate the poor, beleaguered natives as sheep that can exist only to be controlled or freed upon the whim of the oppressor.

> I had also just finished reading Korea's Fight For Freedom by Fred McKenzie this very morning which is the main reason I was compelled to think of a story with this background. Among other things it outlines in some detail why the Japanese were so interested in the peninsula, and briefly goes into the Sino-Japanese war (which I see as the most significant event during that era).

Why can none of this be shown from a Korean perspective? I'd recommend another book: A People's History of the United States. Assassin's Creed is about freedom for those who live under oppression.

This is also why in Assassin's Creed: Liberation, most of the Assassins you encounter are actually former black slaves. You pretty much reverted this message by making your protagonist Japanese. The half Korean part doesn't do much because he never had a Korean identity to begin with.

> Also, you do realize how barebones that storyline was right? I skimped on describing Japanese atrocities as I've seen enough of that on this subreddit. Yes, my grandmother (who I currently live with) also speaks Japanese and has countless horror stories. She still uses Japanese terms for cooking ingredients. I even have a great aunt who apparently committed suicide in the 70s because of PTSD from being a comfort woman. I too feel the 한 when it comes to Korean history, but I think enough is enough. Every time Japan comes up in this subreddit I see a fuck ton of bashing. Does it really need to be mentioned in every gory detail every time?

What gory details did I mention? What was I bashing? I just thought it was surprising that in your barebones storyline, the most important details were about concubines and queens and not the injustices that were happening at the time when civil oppression is a hallmark of the franchise. AC3 devoted a lot of time to the ambiguous moral conflict between the colonists and the Indians.

It's strange that you didn't think the brutality of the Imperial regime was something worth mentioning in your stripped down storyline.

> For this fictional story, in my mind, 유관순 was more the product of love between two charismatic characters rather than a bastardization of history. In my mind she was the product of a father that had committed an unforgivable crime (the murder of Empress Myeongseoung) trying to redeem himself, and a mother that managed to overcome seeing that sin and loving the man instead, producing a daughter that could look past petty racial differences and focus on the issue of colonialism (From what I learned in public school about 유관순 she was different from a lot of her contemporaries because she didn't focus on hatred of the Japanese which was an easy narrative to sell, instead she tried to incite a hunger for actual independence of the Korean people).

Let me draw an analogy. Perhaps it will shed some light on why what you are suggesting is off base.

Imagine if Ubisoft made an AC game set during the British Raj and historically revised Gandhi's heritage so he's actually the bastard of a British noble and an Indian concubine. Does this sound like a touching commentary on overcoming petty racial hatreds to you?

> As for your last point, yeah, the 'going native' tool is common because it's a good tool for introducing an audience to an unfamiliar setting without a fuck ton of confusion. It might be overused, but it sure is effective.

Did Assassin's Creed need some English crusader to "go native" with the local Arab culture to portray what life was like in the Holy Land during the 1100s? Did Assassin's Creed 3 need to pull a Last of the Mohigans?

This trope exists because it panders to ethnic superiority fantasies, not because it allows a foreign audience to connect better to an exotic setting.

u/Vein77 · 4 pointsr/atheism

My absolute favorite read. It’s in our recommendation list.

u/HaiKarate · 4 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

These are written on a more popular level

u/jdefriez · 4 pointsr/exmormon

Indeed. Such a person, however, would likely be unfamiliar with biblical textual criticism, the history of homosexuality in the Roman empire at the time of Christ, the history of homosexuality within the Christian tradition, the history of the interpretation of these scriptures, and unfamiliar with psychological literature that almost unanimously shows that people who live repressing same-sex attraction are nearly universally miserable.

Here's a to read list:

u/mechtonia · 3 pointsr/AskEngineers

Pick up a book on American labor history. A People's History of the United States is a good one.

If we built an automated port, the unions would strike at all the non-automated ports. All shipping would grind to a halt.

u/uncomfortablyhigh · 3 pointsr/LonghornNation

So it took a year of on-and-off reading, but I finally finished Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.

Anybody here ever give it a read? I think the salient takeaway I had was that almost all of the social issues discussed via old and new media today (racism, economic freedom, war, politics) have occurred and been solved -- to an extent -- with relative frequency over the history of the US. There's a lot to take away from our history that grants perspective regarding modern struggle, which in turns has a calming effect.

Time is a flat circle, I guess. Everything we have done or will do we will do over and over, forever. Something comforting in knowing that.

u/captain_craptain · 3 pointsr/pics

I would recommend this but there are a lot of good sources out there that will give you an honest narrative on the war. The book I recommended covers just about everything so just chapter 9 is what you would want. A book specifically on the Civil war may be a better tool.

u/Borimi · 3 pointsr/history

I'm assuming here that you haven't really studied any history since high school, and at the time you likely found it dreadfully boring (don't we all). If this is correct, take solace in the fact that you were being taught history in likely the worst way possible, and the system almost seems designed to bore you and the rest of the students to death.

One tactic, then, would be for you to work on thinking about history more as it is: seeking answers to the fundamental "why" questions that tell what it means, collectively, to be us. It's a study of choices and struggles and understanding the challenging, horrible, daunting circumstances they faced. High school curriculum drives out such notions of struggle and difficulty because they invite controversial questions, like why the rich manipulated the poor or why the white mistreated and killed the black/Native American. In doing so they deny any of the historical actors, whether oppressed or oppressor, their humanity, and without that who cares about studying them?

I would hope that once you get more exposed to actual history and not names and dates, that you'll grow more of a natural interest for the subject. As such, I have two books to recommend you:

  1. A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. This book, initially controversial, will turn your initially learned narrative of American history on its head. The good people are usually bad and the quiet people are loud. Be careful, though. It's a new, highly useful angle from which to view American history but its not some gospel of truth either, just because it has a forbidden fruit feel, like you're learning what they don't want you to know.

  2. Lies my Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. This book says in better words that I mentioned already, how school textbooks water down American history into nothing so that everyone swallows it without complaint. It'll also shake up a bunch of assumptions and, hopefully, leave you wanting more.

    These books won't give you a complete view of American history but my hope is that they'll introduce you to a form of history that's interesting while also exposing you to a wide array of American history topics. From there you can see what you actually enjoy learning about and pick better books from there.
u/jddrummond · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

This is a natural follow up to Lies My Teacher Told Me and a classic among "woke" books.

u/Thurkagord · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

I did actually, back when I didn't pay attention to how the real world worked, and just thought that the general, vague concept of "more freedom" sounded good. Maybe I didn't go full tilt into internet Libertarian where the closest thing to a structural critique comes down to "taxation is theft!!" and "Dale gets it!" and all real analysis is predicated on thought experiments, hypothetical fantasy worlds, and have no real foundation in the reality in which we live. Like honestly, if you do any actual examination of how society is structured, and you STILL think that government and taxation, as a concept, are the most oppressive forces in the world keeping you from success rather than the moneyed interests that manipulate and fuel legislative policy, then your vicious meme takedowns are going to contribute nothing to discussion or understanding beyond giving yourself a temporary right-wing dopamine rush of 0wn1ng the l1bz.

If you'd like a chance to broaden your understanding of some of the structural concepts I am referring to, rather than just a general title of "liberal" or whatever, here are just a couple pretty basic reading options to get you started.


A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn (1980)

The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem (1968)

The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein (2006)



u/prinzplagueorange · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Becoming politically literate is not like learning how to fix a car. There is no "unbiased" how-to manual. The reason for this is that political discussions consist of claims about: a) what the facts are, b) which facts matter and how they matter, c) whose claims about the facts are trustworthy, and d) what justice consists of. Most of these disputes are ideological, and so you will not find an ideologically netural ("unbiased") account of politics.

I would suggest immersing yourself in different political media and then see which points of view tend to best account for the facts and to best correspond to your sense of justice. Spend some time watching Fox news (hard-right), skimming through the NY Times (center-right), and and then listen to FAIR's Counterspin (hard-left).

Here are some books I would recommend. (These are all written from a hard-left to center-left perspective, but their authors are all serious scholars/intellectuals, and you will learn a lot from them.)

-Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States

-Vijay Prashad's The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World

-Joseph Stiglitz's The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them

-Doug Henwood's After the New Economy

u/Fenzir · 3 pointsr/infj

Is it truly the duty of the conquered and oppressed to bend to the conquerer?

Gitchu some of this, then get back to me.

There are only so many cheeks to be turned.

u/jerrymatthewmorris · 3 pointsr/funny
  1. There is a lot of reason to think the Nazi party would not rise to power without Hitler.

  2. Columbus was also one man. Take him away, and the colonization of America by Europe still happens (at least, by logic equal to what you're using).

  3. If Columbus never came to America, European Americans would simply be Europeans (except those with Native American genetics). Arguing that we'd be different people goes back to the snowball effect that you say you're not trying to argue.

  4. The first to resort to personal attacks is usually the one losing the argument. (ref: "OMG...Seriously you cannot be this stupid.")

    Give this a read:

    Alternatively, just buy the book:

    It was part of our required history reading in high school.

    Excerpt from Columbus's writing:
    >As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.
u/MagicWishMonkey · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Check out A People's History of the United States:

Our history is pretty fucked up, prepare for a depressing read.

u/from_the_tubes · 3 pointsr/politics

This whole post is arguing against a point no one made. Unprecedented is not synonymous with the worst thing ever done, and that's not even what WhenWillILearn was saying. He/she said unprecedented authoritarianism could be synonymous with that, and that's a pretty big difference.

Besides, far worse authoritarianism has existed in this country's history. The genocide of the native population, enslavement of African-Americans, and use of deadly force against striking workers are a few that come to mind. Shit, during the civil war the government shut down newspapers and imprisoned people for even speaking out against them.

Instead of a dictionary though, might I suggest reading a history book? start with this one.

u/macosxsealion · 3 pointsr/politics

Let's not ignore what really happens to people:

Also. Let's not ignore that not many liberals are against capitalism. (though that doesn't make for interesting Talk Radio and Fox news analysis.)

u/PRiles · 3 pointsr/funny

According to Misquoting jesus there were several meetings of the curch to decide what was allowed in the bible and what wasnt, on top of there being arguments about how to word things in each book and what to cut out of books. Some stuff in contradicted its self and they had votes to make changes that would support the position of the church at the time.

u/napoleonsolo · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Misquoting Jesus. It's by a highly regarded New Testament scholar and covers the history of the creation and development of the New Testament brilliantly.

u/getzdegreez · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Mistranslated and completely rewritten in many instances. Misquoting Jesus is an excellent book on the topic.

u/Scary_The_Clown · 3 pointsr/atheism

By the way, anyone interested in learning more about the Bible as a historical book of legend, I highly recommend Misquoting Jesus - written by a very spiritual man who considers the Bible a book written by man, not God.

u/Decium · 3 pointsr/atheism

Good books. Did you have any particular subjects within atheism that you would like to read about?

If I can make 2 recommendations for what to read next;

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman

Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan

The FAQ has a nice little section on books.

NukethePope also has a nice list.

u/AHarshInquisitor · 3 pointsr/atheism

>Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Anthony DeStefano uses this Bible quote toward the end of his new book Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There Is No God, pointing to the resiliency and truth of Christianity. “You can hide it, persecute it, denigrate it, scoff at it, lock it up, even murder it—but all to no avail . . . those words of Christ have not passed away.” He talks a bit about the book and why he wrote it.

Um. Actually, now that I think about it, "Jesus'" "words" did pass away. Pretty well documented in the book, Misquoting Jesus, too. If you take the traditional view, that "Jesus" is also "God" and it's the same "words", that point is driven home, especially with the Old Testament.

For the New, one knows if he existed, or what this "Jesus" even said anymore, if he did, with any confidence.

I consider that another failed prophecy.

u/Sansabina · 3 pointsr/exmormon

just remember that (well read) mormons don't interpret polygamy as a flaw or a problem, it is viewed as a critical core doctrine that is not currently practiced due to historic government interference (even though the modern PR driven church does everything to avoid discussion of it and minimise attention to it).

Also, while you can easily see the flaws in her religion (I mean it is kooky and obvious) don't forget to apply the same critical eye to your own Christian beliefs which appear equally kooky and obvious to outsiders.

If you haven't already I'd recommend Ehrman to start

u/xconde · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

The Bible was badly translated for 1,500 years, not just "at one point".

"For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand––and mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions."

u/Supergeckodude · 3 pointsr/politics

You should give the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman a read. He walks the reader through the process of textual analysis to determine how the bible has changed from its original form, and ultimately casts doubt on the idea that it is the literal word of god. For example, there's evidence to suggest that the story of Jesus sparing the adulterous woman ("Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone") was a later addition.

u/FunkyFortuneNone · 3 pointsr/exchristian

I highly recommend Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman is a legitimate academic focused on the New Testament. Misquoting Jesus (and his other books) are great if you find yourself asking questions like this.

u/nicolaslloyd · 3 pointsr/atheism

this book is what finally pushed me over the edge into atheism / freedom. it's about how the bible as we know is completely inaccurate. this naturally led me to ask myself, if what we base our worship and knowledge of god is inherently inaccurate, then that's as good as believing a fiction. quite simply, believing a lie.

u/the_bigger_jerk · 3 pointsr/teaching

Acting classes, plural! I took a few as electives in college because it was fun and I am so very grateful I did! Now, as a "seasoned" teacher, I recommend them to the student teachers and practicum students I deal with daily. You HAVE to know how to improvise for more reasons than I could explain here.

As far as books I would base my recommendations on the population you want to serve, and you have to WANT to serve. As a general rule I would start with Educating Esme, A Kind and Just Parent, Lies My Teacher Told Me, and a lot of kid and young adult books. If you want specifics just let me know. I teach banned books!

u/spiceydog · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

You might also enjoy Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me which was very popular some years ago. My husband was in college learning to be a history teacher and absolutely loved it.

u/white_crust_delivery · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

What about Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong ? It's a bit above his age group (high school level I'd say) but if he's the type of kid who wants to read books about American history then he's probably above his reading level. This will also allow him to be obnoxiously pedantic and quite possibly correct his teachers in school, which I feel like a good amount of 13 year old boys would enjoy. I also think it's perfect for his age, considering he's probably starting to question authority, and this book pushes back against some of the whitewashing and blind optimism that you see in some American history textbooks.

u/fingolfin_was_nuts · 3 pointsr/books

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong is a great book. Importantly, to the study of history, it goes beyond debunking and setting the record straight and stresses history is not cut-and-try but a series of possibilities, arguments, and evidence. Very readable, too.

u/jaythebrb · 3 pointsr/history

Lies My Teacher Told Me was a good read, but kinda the opposite of textbook.

u/JoeSki42 · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Lies my Teacher Taught Me: Everything your American History Textbook got Wrong by James Loewen. Fascinating book about what, and why, much of what is taught in Us history textbooks is inaccurate and why most of it is written in a manner that makes the subject boring as sin. Amazing read.

Gig: Americans Talk about Their Jobs. Over 120 masterfully conducted interviews with american workers; ranging from crime scene cleaners to lawn mowing men to transvestite prostitutes. Each interivew is about 4-5 pages long so there's no need to read it in order or in a long sitting. One of my most favorite books and one that helped me decide what I wanted to do for a living. Criminally overlooked and incredibly eye opening.

u/youreillusive · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon


["Lies my Teacher Told Me"] ( by James Loewen. This is about how the world really works, basically. It's all about history and politics and economics and how world powers interact with each other and their own population. It's incredibly eye-opening and will make you understand why everything is the way it is today! It's also ridiculously fun to read :D

["The Quantum and the Lotus by"] ( by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan. This is a super fascinating read! It's actually a transcribed conversation between a Buddhist who became a quantum physicist and a physicist who left science and became a Buddhist! It's this AMAZING look into complicated science and it's explained in such simple terms anyone can understand it. But beyond that, it's this really fascinating glimpse into a world where science and spirituality can co-exist. It's like science explaining spirituality, or spirituality giving a wholesome quality to science. It's just so unique and amazing!

["The Power of Myth"] ( by Joseph Campbell. If you can, read EVERYTHING by this guy that you can get your hands on! This book is especially poignant because it's addressing all of the aspects of our modern day society, from religion to gangs to marriage, even education. It is incredibly powerful and eye-opening and explains so much about the way we work as humans and the way the individual interacts with society. Plus, you'll learn a shit ton about mythology that you never knew before! And you'll be looking at mythology from a ridiculously profound perspective that I've never seen anyone else address before.

I can give you more if you tell me what you're interested in learning more about :)

EDIT: Typos.

u/Balrog_of_Morgoth · 3 pointsr/movies

James Loewen gives a convincing argument in Lies My Teacher Told Me that slavery was indeed the primary cause of the Civil War. He also directs the reader to South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, in which the string "slave" appears 18 times.

u/Commander_Shepard_ · 3 pointsr/videos

And it's been going on for quite a while. American Textbooks are biased, uninformative, and often filled with outright lies designed solely to promote the American Mythos (the idea that certain historical figures were almost godlike or otherwise infallible and filled with pro-american spirit and viewpoints.)

And you can read more about it. Lies my Teacher Told Me is an excellent book on the subject. The author went through dozens of textbooks paragraph by paragraph and counted the inconsistencies, errors, and outright lies he found.

u/freezoneandproud · 3 pointsr/scientology

I think you misunderstand me, or at least you're using a different definition of "hero" than I am.

My point is that a hero is someone who does the right thing at the right time, despite his fears or weaknesses. Someone who runs into a burning building to save a child is not necessarily a wonderful human being in every way possible; he might be an embezzler who cheat on his wife. For the moment in which he committed the heroic act, however, he is a hero. The moment of heroism (and its effects) is admirable, even though the other behavior is not.

There's a marvelous book called Lies My Teacher Told Me, which is about the way American History is taught in high school. In it, the author goes to great lengths to describe how we're taught a whitewashed history in which the people we're expected to admire (such as presidents and the founding fathers) were all wholly admirable. Yet, as the author points out, it's not the human weaknesses of these people that is notable but that they rose above them. Flawed human beings managed to work together to create a Declaration of Independence that is somehow a reflection of the best of our ideals, and gives us something to work towards.

I see scientology the way I do the vision of the founding fathers. We start with the premise that the ideals are attainable, and we work towards attaining them -- even if we do not reach any kind of perfection.

I don't think that LRH was any kind of saint. I think he could be an asshat, and worse. I think he could have done far better with scientology if he let it continue to be okay for others to contribute to it, both technically and in leadership ways, and if he had acknowledged the contributions others did make. But he did devote most of his life to finding ways to get us all out of the mess -- including himself, even if he did not succeed.

u/bigbishounen · 3 pointsr/The_Donald

Liberal Fascism is also an excellent book. Well footnoted and referenced, written by Jonah Goldberg:

u/pontificate38 · 3 pointsr/Conservative

I've been hooked on Jonah Goldberg since Liberal Fascism. I don't think i've ever found something to disagree about with him.

u/childoftherion · 3 pointsr/news

I don't think that has anything to do with fascism. I think they word you are looking for is Authoritarian.

Technically speaking we already live in a de facto-fascist state.
Fascism is the combining of corporate (private business) and government entities to form one power that controls the state and Means of Production for the economy.

Fascism forming in the United States (and maybe the world) has not come over night, but slowly thru the passing of laws and restricting individual liberties.

Giving businesses the right to own property, have rights as People (including the right to vote) and the Citizens United case was a large turning point in my opinion.


Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

u/abudabu · 3 pointsr/progressive

He's famous for writing "What's the matter with Kansas?"

u/tdk2fe · 3 pointsr/obama

I'm about to read What's the Matter with Kansas? It's supposed to answer this very question.

u/ALoudMouthBaby · 3 pointsr/circlebroke

Do you have any data to support these assertions? Im curious, but hard numbers really are important here.


This seems as relevant as ever. Im adding it to my "to read" list, sadly itll be a while till I get to it though.

u/VanceAstrooooooovic · 3 pointsr/Trumpgret
u/ImpressiveFood · 3 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

Look, I don't even know where to begin. That was a lot of assumptions. I'm sorry you have this view of the left. I don't believe at all that leftists dislike rural people, nor dislike them simply because they are rural. The hatred that many on the left is not directed at rural people, but conservative ideology.

The left does see conservative ideology as a major barrier to making the world better, for both economic reasons and reasons of social justice. But the left doesn't see the rural, white working class as the cause of this ideology. The ideology is perpetuated by the wealthy and powerful. But for me personally, I don't blame anyone personally for believing in this ideology. I don't think conservatives or even the wealthy are bad, evil people, I simply think they are wrong.

Liberals are more likely to pity rural folk, if anything (which granted is condescending), because we feel that they've been duped by the wealthy into supporting politics that simply make the wealthy wealthier, allowing them to exploit the working class further and destroy the environment for their own profit.

I know I can't convince you of anything here or even force you to see another perspective on your politics.

But I would like you start making an attempt to learn more about liberals, and get to know some personally. Liberals are people, and I feel like you've forgotten that. You've really managed to demonize them, because you sincerely believe that they have demonized you and the people you care about, but I don't believe that's largely true. You can cherry pick examples of anything. I'd really appreciate it if you would make an effort to talk to more liberals. Maybe asks some questions on /r/askaliberal, or expand your media diet. Especially try to talk to some in person.

This is a classic book which claims that conservatives, in the 90s, came to see politics as no longer a matter of rich vs. poor, but a matter of NASCAR vs Starbucks, as a cultural matter rather than an economic matter, which works out really well for the rich.




u/Sanderswersky · 3 pointsr/SandersForPresident

What's the Matter With Kansas by Thomas Frank. 2005.

u/GirlNumber20 · 3 pointsr/politics

Yeah, it's that whole "What's The Matter With Kansas?" phenomenon.

u/vincentvertuccio · 3 pointsr/BlueMidterm2018
u/particle409 · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

"What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" is a great book on this subject. It talks a lot about how rural conservatives have been convinced into voting for harmful measures against small town America.

u/throwawayforhapa124 · 3 pointsr/hapas

Ever read this book?

The Irish did not become white until they started treating blacks like the rest of them did.

I digress, as much as black people had it worse in many instances, I'm not here to play oppression Olympics. Black people and Hispanic people sneer at me and tell me to my face they would rather be thought of as "smart and hardworking". Guess what, if I fail, all the blame is on me according to American society rather than other minorities whom are disadvantage and can mention that. Asians are seen as more "privileged" even by white people and that can be further from the truth. You want to know the reason why most Asians are "doctors" or "engineers" or whatever? It's because American society has made it difficult for Asian Americans to enter other sectors of the American workforce such as the entertainment industry and business in order to perpetuate white as the greatest. So don't invalidate my experiences by claiming that everyone else experiences this because maybe they do. At the same time, the difference between other minorities and Asians is that Asians and half asian problems are dismissed.

u/gus_ · 3 pointsr/bestof

> That's not true. Yes, the irish were oppressed for being catholic. But they were considered white.

Why are you just announcing this? This is a real argument that people make. It's not like anyone's skin is literally white, so it's just a category with cultural input.

u/magnabonzo · 3 pointsr/PoliticalHumor
u/thepoeticedda · 3 pointsr/ShitRedditSays

The police force exist to enforce the bureaucratic order.

Democracy under capitalism is the bureaucratic management of capitalism for the enrichment of the bourgeois, imposed on the proletariat. Police enforce it locally, military enforce it internationally

Police are members of the proletariat given privileges to enforce this system. And I don't just mean the hero worship, being in the police advanced your social standing. Look up how the Irish became white. Irish people "became white" by joining the police force to work against PoC.

Dividing the proletariat into different classes (which in America usually means different race classes) makes it harder for the proletariat to combine as a unit against the bourgeois. "Bad cops" revel in this. "Good cops" are in the force to help people, but are still a part of a system designed to work against the poor.

Look at the United Airline incident. Airlines deliberately oversell planes to keep the costs down. That practice catches up with them at a predetermined calculated rate, and when it does they have to kick people out of the plane. When no one wants to volunteer with the cash voucher, they send the police to violently drag someone off (a PoC flying economy), completely ignoring his logic for staying.

So the large corporation deliberately screws over individuals in the name of profits, then the police enforce that with violence. There are not evil reasons why people join the police. And there are "good cops" who just need a job or were promised that they would help people. But the police are still an occupying army.

u/ileolai · 3 pointsr/politics

I said living memory.
The Irish integrated and no longer experience the institutionalized xenophobia in America that they once did. Sorry.
Like lol seriously, we even get a parade every year where people try desperately to prove how ''Irish'' they are.

Now if you want to talk about how the Irish are treated in Europe, that's a different story. And one that has pretty much nothing to do with modern-day ''Irish'' people living in America.

u/lorok · 3 pointsr/TumblrInAction

So yes and no. The irish weren't considered to be black, but they weren't white people. They were segregated and seperated. Being involved with the irish was bad form, etc. etc.

u/ahalfwaycrook · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

My choice would be King Leopold's Ghost. I would want them to read a book that is somewhat less academic because I would want as many people as possible reading it to understand it. I also deal with many people who do not understand the costs of colonialism and the deep scarring impact of colonialism. I remember reading this book a while after reading some of the pro-colonialism work by Niall Ferguson and wanting to force him to read this book and justify his views on benevolent colonialism.

u/irongyent · 3 pointsr/worldnews

A really good book on the subject of the time was King Leopold's Ghost

u/WardenOfTheGrey · 3 pointsr/WTF

Here's some suggested reading you ignorant shithead.

Or if you'd rather a quick source, here. It's even got this picture.

>Nsala, of the district of Wala, looking at the severed hand and foot of his five-year old daughter, Boali, who was killed and allegedly cannibalized by the members of Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company (A.B.I.R.) militia. Source: E. D Morel, King Leopold's rule in Africa, between pages 144 and 145

u/cLnYze19N · 3 pointsr/europe

> "King Leopold's Ghosts

Do you mean King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild? I have that one, it's great.

u/kudomonster · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

We actually had to read about it in my undergrad core class. Very dense, very disturbing read.

edit: failed hyperlink...

u/fna4 · 3 pointsr/rage

This refers to rule under Leopold well before the time this picture was taken, but it's a great read.

u/GhostOnWheels · 3 pointsr/Mr_Trump

Important reading: The Bell Curve:

u/NothingsShocking · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

an actual study : The Bell Curve

u/lappath · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> suggesting color or race is any indication of intelligence

You don't know how foolish you look when you say that.

u/justinmchase · 3 pointsr/politics
u/Total_Denomination · 3 pointsr/facepalm

Everyone should read Lies My Teacher Told me.

u/symonsays · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Most animals cant be domesticated. In history i think only 14 animals have been fully domesticated. In the book Guns Germs & Steel you can find more info on this

u/aRealNowhereMan_ · 3 pointsr/TiADiscussion

Understanding that they are saying something out of pain is one thing, being expected to shut up and apologize for something I didn't do, while simultaneously being something else all together. So tell me, when did you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? I'm sure you have, given the sanctimonious way with which you preach your superior understanding of history and the development of modern societies.

Also, the notion that someone is likely prejudiced for not "understanding history" or "understanding privilege" is a non sequitur; you are essentially saying anyone who doesn't agree with you is likely a racist, and that's absurd.

You know who keeps contributing to the problem of racism? People who see everything in terms of race; you know...racists. People who inject race into situations where it would otherwise be absent, or people who justify bigotry against a specific subset of people, because those people are somehow less deserving of basic human decency, kindness, and empathy.

It is not the kind-hearted but impoverished white man, nor is it the kind-hearted but impoverished black man who perpetuate racial tensions. No, it is the man who acts as the self-appointed champion, the man who would claim to speak for those who are fully capable of speaking for themselves; It is the man who would burn our bridges rather than help build them, the man who prefers the ease of antagonization over the difficulty of ingratiation. It is these men who stoke the fires of racial animosity, it is these men who are truly racist.

u/celeritas365 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

This is a really complex question that doesn't have a single answer. I do think it is a stretch to say that the exploitation didn't help at least a little bit. There are also other factors than economic policy, innovations, and social institutions. You should check out Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond if you are interested in this kind of stuff. I don't agree with all of it but it is pretty interesting. If you are more into documentaries PBS made some documentaries based off of the book that are also pretty well done. CGP grey also made a video summary of a small section of the book's argument.

u/BionicTransWomyn · 3 pointsr/DebateFascism

>And how can colonization make the African nations all inferior to the European nations?

Because when you litterally enslave millions of people and force them to work for you without providing their offpspring with education, it might harm their long term potential for a bit. As for Africans themselves, are you even kidding? We basically took over their entire continent and kept them in abject poverty, actively creating colonial institutions that worked against their betterment. What African kingdoms were actually doing well, we quashed with superior technology (ie: Zulus)

>Why are Europeans richer and brought up in better circumstances than Africans? Who creates these circumstances? Europeans built the strongest nation on Earth today, the USA, on the same land that Native Americans lived on for thousands of years while accomplishing little. Africans or Native Americans have done this no where.

A combination of geography, access to natural ressources and communication with every part of the world. This is a question that would require a small book to answer on its own, so I'm simply going to link you to some of the more prevalent theories:

>I don't know if I should bother arguing with someone who just claimed that most of Europeans great generals were of African descent.

What? Can you even read. Here's the quote for you, emphasis mine:

>Some of Europe's most talented generals and officials were of African descent.


>Surely the Africans wouldn't have been so badly defeated and enslaved if they were truly equal with the Europeans.

Actually, it turns out that when they are given a good education and the tools to succeed, they can hold their own quite well:

Also, it might surprise you that for a long time, Europe was basically irrelevant and weak. Its ascent really doesn't start until the 16th-17th century, and even then, most empires were able to marshall, by then, ressources that Europe could not dream to match. Already, Western Europe is weaker than China and Russia, and depends on the US to prop itself up.

>The different races of humans are certainly genetically different and have different traits.

Physical traits certainly, but there's a marginal difference between a half-black/half-white kid and a kid from either ethnicity.

PS: You should probably source your claims, I'm sure Darwin would love to have a word with you about the misinterpretation of his theories.

u/Rab-bit · 3 pointsr/science

If anyone is curious about this stuff, there's a good book that goes into great detail about this called Guns, Germs and Steel: The fates of human societies.

u/Pertz · 3 pointsr/geography

I think you're mixing up two visually similar maps, with two highly different concepts.

This one that you're talking about.

And this that I think you should be focusing on:

Also: here is a rough map of your observations about general wellbeing.

Countries with low levels of prosperity generally have relatively recent history of slavery or other types of subjugation effecting large swathes of the population. Africa is a perfect example as shown on the second and the third map.

There are exceptions to everything, but countries with high quality of life were either colonizers (Spain, UK, Holland), or were colonized mainly through genocide (Canada, US, Australia, some southern countries in South America).

The purposeful destruction of culture and the devaluation of whole peoples seems inseparable from the process of colonization, and it sets back the people effected for over a hundred years. Take a look at what has happened to remaining native populations of Canada, the US, and Australia, and you'll see the same patterns as what you're observing in what is called "The Global South".

I could go on forever but I think studying colonization and oppression will help you explore the concepts you brought forward. This is a good resource on oppression:

Remember the important difference between correlation and causation!

A different question you may also be asking now is "Why did the Northerners get to oppress the Southerners?" A lot of it has to do with luck (to have metal, to learn to use it, and to be accustomed to filthy diseases), and I think this book gives a really interesting starting point.

u/this_is_poorly_done · 3 pointsr/SecurityAnalysis

1)Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1926-1945 - David Kennedy

2)From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations Since 1776 - George Herring

3)History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective - E. K. Hunt and Mark Lautzenheiser

4)When Washington Shut Down Wall Street: The Great Financial Crisis of 1914 and the Origins of America's Monetary Supremacy - William Silber

5)Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond

6)A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present - Howard Zinn

7)20th Century Baseball Chronicle: A Year-By-Year History of Major League Baseball (what? you asked for history books sitting on my shelf)

8)Gunpowder: Alchemy, Bombards, and Pyrotechnics : The History of the Explosive That Changed the World - Jack Kelly

and currently I've just started working on U.S. Bank Deregulation in Historical Perspective - Charles Calomiris. Should be interesting since it was published in 2000...

edit: I like Drited's idea, so I'll take some time to add on some stuff. 1, 2, 4, and 6 give me perspective on how government institutions interact with each other and with the public they are supposed to serve as time and events take place, shaping the history of the US. 3 has given me insight into the evolution of Neoclassical and Labor-value (Marxian) economics. Though Hunt writes with a very heavy labor bias, his book has shown me how a persons beliefs affect there analysis, even when claiming to be value-free. In it he discusses the origins of marginal productivity and efficient markets, and his writings have allowed me to grasp in economic terms why certain ideas are flawed, even though I already knew them to be false after I had studied Psychology. 5 and 8 are a bit different because to me, they remind me that it's not what actually happened that matters, our interpretation of history relies solely on the importance we give those events. All and all, the above texts give me a longer time frame in which to view current events. In fact that's why I like companies such as GOOG and GS so much is because the above readings allow me to look beyond balance sheets, and gives me alternative ways to judge a potential investment. I understand GOOG's importance to the internet world, and the internets importance to our world, and how that relationship might continue on into the future. Stuff like that

u/rukestisak · 3 pointsr/serbia

Dosta ljetno štivo:

Šala, ali ova knjiga je ful zanimljiva ako imaš jak želudac.

u/rattlesnarks · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Someone once told me that the parts left over after med school assignments sometimes end up in art projects. Is this true?

Asking because I'm 1,000,000% donating my body if I get to be science AND art.

Also: Stiff by Mary Roach made me want to donate myself to the body farm.

u/woodycanuck · 3 pointsr/IAmA
u/myhusbandsrepublican · 3 pointsr/books

Stiff by Mary Roach. It deals with cadavers, which most humans don't like to think about, but the author writes it in a way that balances heavy content with humor.

u/theheartofgold · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

Mary Roach! Mary Roach Mary Roach!

Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

Packing of Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void

I can't recommend these highly enough. Mary Roach is the most engaging, funny science writer I've read.

Also [A Natural History of the Senses by Diane Ackerman]

u/LieselMeminger · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach. The writing is so good you won't care about the squeamish content.

The Poisoner's Handbook by Deborah Blum. A perfect blend of a historical retelling and science.

A Treasury of Deception by Michael Farguhar.

The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat by Oliver Sacks. Short stories of the mentally abnormal patients of Sacks.

My Stroke of Insight by Jill Taylor. Very good insight on what it is like to live with, and recover from brain damage. Also talks science about parts of the brain as a nice intro to the subject.

Mutants: On Genetic Variety in the Human Body by Armand Leroi.

And of course,
Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

u/vishuno · 3 pointsr/movies

Written by Mary Roach who is hilarious and has other great books! I recommend these in particular:

Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal

u/hibryd · 3 pointsr/IAmA

I read in Stiff that plastic surgeons practice on cadavers. Is that more or less gross than working on a live person?

u/PaperParakeet · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

And if you're intrigued about the decomposition of the human body, or what might happen after you donate your corpse to silence, here's a good read!

Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers

It's one of my long time favorites. It's the first place I read about this skin slippage, termed "gloving."

u/soapydansk · 3 pointsr/Gore

I'm a lady! I started on a long time ago, too. I've always been a little morbid I guess, but I am also just fascinated by the things we don't see that (a) we used to or (b) other cultures still do. My mom worked around a lot of medical illustrators for most of my life, too, so I grew up seeing random fetuses in jars and understood the importance of cadavers.

Also, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers is one of my favorite books.

But I'd add, as other meta posts have before, that I learned way more than I expected when I started coming here.

u/eklektech · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

you would probably get into this book, parts of it talk about the body farm

u/barnosaur · 3 pointsr/pics

This book is all about the different ways human cadavers are used and it really is fascinating.

u/Groty · 3 pointsr/WTF

The interesting thing about rapid deceleration deaths is that it's rarely the pavement, tree, water, whatever that kills a person. Most of the body is pretty good at taking severe impacts. Hit most places with an object at the same speed and it's not immediate death.

However, there is one MAJOR weak spot. The aorta! It tears from the rapid deceleration. Immediate blood lose and you're a goner.

Here's a great book that talks about it. I was actually reading the falling death/aorta tearing chapter 32,000 feet over the east coast on my way to vacation. Nodded off, had one of those dreams where I could see through the floor of the airplane and weird falling sensation. Jumped, felt bad for the person next to me!

u/mtalbot · 3 pointsr/IAmA
u/send_nasty_stuff · 3 pointsr/SubforWhitePeopleOnly

/r/911truth and r/holocaust has source driven stuff. The ron unz site is good.

Starter, source driven, articles.

Source driven full texts.

Jews and sexual 'freedom' agenda

Jews as revolutionaries and subversionaries through history all the way up to the neo con movement.

If you don't have the time to read 800 and 1200 page books here are two documentaries.

this doc covers lots of the issues.

The late Emeritus Professor Dr. Tony Martin covers jews and the slave trade. WITH SOURCES

Here's a shorter read on jews and the slave trade.

Those sources should cover 90% of /u/translate4mepls post. Please let me know if you have questions.

and if you need jews and bolshevism the Juri Lina books and documentaries are good and of course Solzenitzyn.

edit. if you are VERY short on time this is a compact documentary (20 minutes) yet still data/source driven.

edit 2. sorry I left out more specific israel lobbying books.

Need more sources?

Also read the Hooton Plan and Kalergi plan. Here are two funny animations about this topic as well.

need more?

Quick history on the last 200 years of jews.

Small collection of jpgs on the jews

Thread on Study resources

Step by step guide on Jews

Jews and Communism

Why the JQ is important to white identitarianism movements

Jews and Pedophillia

The JQ simplified in plain language.

Thread on THE Epic Unz Article

Jew in their own words

A redpill story and some JQ info from /u/certifiedrabbi

Jews vs the Parsi

Jewish Tricks: driving cognitive overload to overwhelm enemies

Example of how jews first stigmatize, isolate and destroy enemies.

Examples of jewish subversion in the west

Understanding Jewish motives

Understanding why whites ignore the JQ

Do jews really want to genocide whites?

Data on broken social cohesion

u/arickp · 3 pointsr/videos

>Would anybody be able to tell me what North Korea is like? Not as a western tourist, but as an average citizen, privileged and favored or not.

No, sorry. It really is the "hermit kingdom." The closest you can get is watching interviews with defectors on YouTube, this AMA or reading Nothing to Envy.

u/TubePanic · 3 pointsr/italy

> Sugli imprenditori però non sarei così tranchant.

Non credo - se non altro, perche' prima dei Padani ci sono i gli imprenditori Cinesi.

E il Grana Padano lo vendi male in un paese dove la gente qualche anno fa crepava di fame per le strade. Source: Nothing to Envy di Barbara Demick

u/karlth · 3 pointsr/worldnews
u/fuhko · 3 pointsr/needadvice

So I recently graduated with a 3.0 GPA with a Biology degree. I'm two months out and I've still been having a tough time finding a job. I wanted to go into research but lab jobs are scarce.

However, I have been taking some classes at my local community college and I discovered that there are some programs that are relatively cheap to get into. For example, getting certified as an EMT only costs a few thousand dollars or so. This is a lot but if you save up, you might be able to afford it.

Basically if you can't get a job in your field, look into getting retrained cheaply, either in Community College or trade school or even military. You may not necessarily want to do this immediately but think about it.

And I absolutely second JBlitzen's advice:

> It would be beneficial, though, for you to start asking yourself what value you intend to create for others. And how your current path will help you to do so.

Essentially, figure out a plan on what you want to do with your current skills. Next, figure out a backup plan if it goes bad.

It definitely sucks to graduate knowing that you didn't do so well in college. I feel for you man, I'm pretty much in the same spot. Don't give up, don't get discouraged, lots of people have been in worse situations and have come out OK. Just read the book Scratch Beginnings or Nothing to Envy. In both stories, the protagnoists succeed in overcoming incredible odds to live a good life.

Figure out what your dreams are and keep going after them. I believe you can reach them. And no, I'm not just saying that.


Also, network! Get to know your teachers and make sure they like you so you have references!!! Show interest in your classes this last semester. You have no idea how important personal references are. Better yet, ask your teachers if they know of any jobs or have any job advice.

All job searching is personal. Employers want to hire people they know will do a good job. Hence the need for personal connections or references (At least someone though this guy was competent.) or demonstrating interest in a particular position. You're still in school so you still have a solid amount of opportunities to network.

Also, some hepful links

u/rawketscience · 3 pointsr/northkorea

I think the first point to consider is that The Orphan Master's Son should be read as a domestic drama, more along the lines of Nothing to Envy than any of the foreign-policy focused news and zomg-weird-pop-performance-footage that dominates this subreddit and /r/northkoreanews.

In that light, the Orphan Master's Son is a lovely, well-told story, and it was well-researched, but it's still clearly a second-hand impression of the country. It doesn't add to the outside world's stock of DPRK information; it just retells the tragedies already told by Shin Dong-hyuk and Kenji Fujimoto in a literary style.

Then too, there are places where the needs of the story subsume the reality on the ground. For example, the book entertains the notion that the state would promote just individual one actress its paragon of female virtue and one individual soldier as the paragon of male virtue. This is important to author's point about public and private identity and whether love also needs truth, but it's wholly out of step with the Kim regime's way of doing business. Kim Il Sung is the one god in North Korea, and the only permissible icons are his successors, and to a lesser extent, senior party politicians. Pop figures are disposable.

But The Orphan Master's Son is a good read. It would go high on my list of recommendations for someone who wants a starting point on the country but is scared of footnotes and foreign names. But if your DPRK obsession hinges more on predicting the fate of the Kaesong Industrial Zone, it won't give you much.

u/Triplanetary · 3 pointsr/socialism

>How does society deal with 50% unemployment? Do jobs themselves become goods or commodities?

There is precedent for this: North Korea. I read this book about day-to-day life in North Korea, and jobs do indeed end up getting traded and bartered between people. Obviously this is illegal, but it's a desperate situation there and people will take risks, not to mention the rampant bribery (since the officials themselves are often equally desperate).

u/Poulol · 3 pointsr/worldnews

They know plenty but trying to leave the country or having external media is illegal. It's not that easy for them to even escape because their families will be punished for it.

If you are interested in more North Korean Life I recommend this book

u/thelawsmithy · 3 pointsr/ColinsLastStand

For more, read: Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea


Fascinating insight into the country.

u/samurai77 · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Jared Diamond has an interesting take on that very subject. read or watch Guns, Germs and Steel. Link

u/oh_no_its_shawn · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societes

An amazing read if you like anthropology/geography. It very briefly recaps the history of human civilizations from evolutionary migratory patterns to civil conquests for land and so forth. The emphasis is on how western civilization achieved it's global dominance today. I would recommend this to everyone.

u/phandy · 3 pointsr/WTF

Jared Diamond wrote a book on this topic: Guns Germs and Steel

He argues that culture and civilization is determined by geography, not genetics.

u/mynuname · 3 pointsr/DebateAChristian

Many of these facts I read about in "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "The Fall", both written by non-Christian anthropologists. These statistics and generalizations were confirmed by friends of mine who's are in the field.

u/100dylan99 · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

None of these answers are good. The reason why light skinned people have succeeded more than to darker skinned people is because of geography. Before I start, it is face that the farther you get from the equator, the lighter skinned people get. Now, while I don't remember exactly what diseases, I do remember that the farther you get from the equator, the lighter skinned you generally become, and vice versa. That was a simple answer.

Now, people started farming around nine thousand years ago in many places around the same time, like in China, North America, and the Middle East. However, while farming was a big advancement and led to to things like villages, war, and diseases, which are very, very important for the development of humanity, there were two big factors to how successful a civilization got. The second was how many domesticated animals you had in your area. In the middle east, where humanities first big civilizations started, you had four domestic animals. They had sheep, cattle, pigs, and horses. In other places, you only had one dmosticated animal. For example, the Inca had one domesticated animal, which was the llama. The Middle Eastern's got lucky, because they had horses, and cattle, two very strong animals. This allopwed them to have a plow, which revolutionized farming and was used from prehistory all the way up to the industrial revolution. Not only that, but they could move faster on their horses, which allowed them to hunt and war better. About a thousan years after the middle easterns developed farming, they started migrating because their land was similar to the US's in the 30's. Some of them went west, to conquer Europe, and some East, to conquer China. I can elaborate further, but I am a mere freshman. If you want more information I reccomend:

Bill Nye's The Eyes of Nye, Episode 108, "Race"

Guns, Germs, And Steel. Also a documentary on Netflix.

Mankind, the Story of All of Us. A truly wonderful History Channel documentary that was released this year, covering all of humanities's achievements.

Also: This was all of the top of my head, so please tell me if something I said was inaccurate or wrong. And if you want me to elaborate more on something, ask.

u/MalignantMouse · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond

Have you ever wondered why the world is the way it is? This book basically answers that question. It's so broad-reaching it's amazing.

u/OrbitRock · 3 pointsr/onehumanity

Book list:

Nature and the Human Soul by Bill Plotkin. The author discusses this same theme of The Great Turning. Argues that people in modern western society are pathologically orientated towards adolescent things, and among our main problems is that few of us mature fully, and few of us can ever be considered elders who guide each other towards a wise way of life. He also argues that we historically have developed equally in both nature and culture, but modern people spend their lives solely in culture, and lack understanding of the natural world.

Future Primal by Louis Herman. The author lays out a big picture view of human history and how the solutions for the future we face can be found in the past among primitive cultures. He links his own personal struggles to the planetary struggles we face, and shows that it is true that the personal and planetary are linked.

The Ascent of Humanity by Charles Eisenstein. Lays out huamn history, and "how the illusion of a seperate self has led to our modern crisises".

Sacred Economics by Charles Eisenstein. Looks at how primitive economies differed from our own, and how we can come to a different understanding of economics and wealth in our own society.

The More Beautiful World our Hearts Know is Possible by Charles Eisenstein. Lays out a vision for what the world could be and how we could organize ourselves in a wiser way.

Limited Wants, Unlimited Means an analysis of the economics of hunter-gatherer societies by an actual Economist. Very in depth look at the different foundational beliefs and practices. This is the most scientific and in depth book I've ever come across on this subject.

Eaarth by Bill McKibben. Goes into great detail on the the stark reality of the effects that climate change have already had and will likely have over the next decades and century. Finsihes by making reccommendations for how to make a life on a rough new planet.

Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. A look at the deep history of our species. This book presents an understanding about what humans are and where we've come from that I think is hard to get anywhere else, really great work.

Blessed Unrest by Paul Hawken. Very similar to the theme of my above post, the author explains how this new movement is much larger than you might think, and could soon become one of the largest cultural movements in all of human history.

Active Hope by Joanna Macy. On "how to deal with the mess we are in without going crazy".

Greening of the Self by Joanna Macy. An exploration into the idea that we are interdependent with the ecology around us.

Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken and others. A look at how we can start a green industrial revolution.

The Green Collar Economy by Van Jones. Lays out the idea that one solution- work on constructing a sustainable infrastructure- can fix our two biggest problems: the ecological crisis, and the rampant poverty and inequality in our society.

Spiritual Ecology: the cry of the Earth by Thich Nhat Hanh, Joanna Macy, and others. Outlines a spiritual perspective of what is happening to the world, and how we can remedy it, rooted in Buddhist thought.

Changes in the Land by William Cronon. A look at how the ecology of New England has been altered since Europeans first set foot there.

A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. This is one of the classics of nature writing by a great naturalist. I include it here because I think it fits, and shows how much of this in not new thinking. Leopold talks about his experiences in nature and from living off the land, and lays out his own 'land ethic' for how best to coexist in nature.

The Evolving Self: a psychology for the third millennium by Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi. Explains the authors view of psychology and how to find meaning in the modern world. Talks about playing an active role in the evolutionary processes of life, and linking that up with your own personal evolution.

Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimerer. Brings together scientific understanding, indigenous wisdom, and respect for nature and for plants, in a very poetic book.

The Future of Life by E. O. Wilson. Wilson is one of the greatest biologists of our time, and gave us many of the foundational concepts that we use today, such as popularizing the idea of "biodiversity" and the desire to preserve it. Here he talks about the future of life and the challenges we face in preserving the Earths biodiversity.

Half Earth by E.O. Wilson. Here Wilson lays out his strategy for saving the biodiversity of the Earth and preserving it through the hard times it will face in the future, by devoting fully half of the surface of the Earth to wildlife habitats. This book just came out so you might not be able to order a copy yet.

If you know of any other books or media in this sort of genre feel free to post it.

u/attofreak · 3 pointsr/india

Wow, I didn't know he wrote a book dedicated specifically to "the Grandest Society of Merchants in the Universe". East India Company has been a subject of intrigue for me since the first time I got to know of its exploits during school. This company had an army (not mere mercenaries) to fight kingdoms! Imagine that in today's time. In Sapiens, Harari briefly mentions them, and the trinity of Imperialism-Capitalism-Scientific Revolution that swept the entire globe from Europe. Reading John Keay's unbiased narrative and propensity to be poetical in A History, The Honourable Company looks like an amazing read. And something that I naturally want to know more of, once getting at least some idea of the grand history of this country. Thank you!

u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/davidsa35 · 3 pointsr/Israel

>Who/which are the best Israeli musicians/bands in your opinion?

I like Avraham Tal (singer) he has unique and stirring songs

>How much can you understand Arabic (or other Semitic languages) just basing on Hebrew?

While watching "Fauda" last year (an Israeli tv series about Israeli unite disguised as Arabs to collect intelligence and make operations and arrests in the Palestinian authority) I realized that there are many words in Arabic which resemble Hebrew

>How are the relationships between the Mizrachim and the Ashkenazim?

As the time goes by the differences between the two are blurring more

>How are the Ethiopian Jews treated in your opinion?

There is some racism from private people and not from the government which gives them many privileges as scholarships and affirmative actions

>What's the greatest thing about living in Israel? What's the worst thing about living in Israel?

The greatest thing in my opinion (as one who had also lived abroad) is to feel Jewish pride, to see the renascence of the ancient Jewish identity in Israel (Judea) after 2000 years and having our own country and military to take care of ourselves
The most irritating thing in my opinion is the feeling that here is too much corruption, especially on the municipal levels, I've seen many bribery and such stuff that I feel that it's not fair for the law abiding citizens who work their ass off for a decent salary. I also think that some of the public sector is not efficient in that there is much hidden unemployment. People who literally contribute nothing and get large salaries just because they have "connections" with the right people - although those phenomenons here aren't as bad as in 3d world countries and I think there is some improvement and efficiency under Netanyahu's tenures

>Got any good (and translated) Israeli poets or writers to recommend?

Edit: in second thought I remember that Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by prof. Yuval Noah Harrari was a good read

>Why are Israeli girls so cute?

I think that it's because of 2 main causes:

  1. "Intermarriages" between Jews of different backgrounds in Israel (Europeans with North Africans and so) which make some amazing kids with unique facial features - reminds me a little of Brazilians

  2. Military/civil service - this period in their lives is shaping their personalities and make them grown up women in their early 20s

    >I've got to say that your national anthem is sick wicked. Fucking a+ music.

    This is my favorite performance, by the Jewish community in Moscow

    I hope I was informing, take care.
u/fallflight · 3 pointsr/Anthropology

For books, The Fossil Trail and The Complete World of Human Evolution are good overviews, while Sapiens and Lone Survivors are interesting accounts of evidence about the emergence of our species.

I also really recommend the CARTA lectures available on YouTube -

You can browse through that playlist to look for interesting topics, or search for something like 'carta university california' or 'carta uctv' or 'carta uctv [topic]' to see what's popular, or follow YouTube's recommendations between videos. Each one is pretty short at ~20 min, with 3 sometimes linked in hour-long videos.

There's a wide range of evidence and interpretations about things like coexistence of varieties vs intra-population diversity, the general nature and causes of genetic structure between populations, extinction due to direct conflict or competition vs. other factors, and so on - so it helps to see the range of viewpoints between different researchers, and range of evidence and interpretations from different fields.

These are some examples:

Emergence of Homo:

Sapiens origins, population movements, non-sapiens admixture:





u/23143567 · 3 pointsr/rational

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and Good and Real - each could be considered a canon of rationalist thought on evolution of humankind and ethics respectively.

u/LetoFeydThufirSiona · 3 pointsr/worldnews

> I would highly recommend the book ghost wars if you want to know more

Yeah, absolutely, thank very much for the recommendation; I've always been really curious about this time and place.

For others interested, didn't know of him, but the author seems wholly legit and here's the link to the book's Amazon page:

u/jamillian · 3 pointsr/books

Ghost Wars by Steve Coll is a very interesting explanation of the roots of the current conflict in Afghanistan

u/RebootTheServer · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Yeah I have been reading this and it talks about that. They didn't start getting roads until the 50s! Like what the fuck

u/SqoishMaloish · 3 pointsr/CFBOffTopic

Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa is a phenomenal book about postcolonial central Africa, the Rwandan genocide, and the two Congo wars. If you've ever wondered what drives conflicts in the world this book is a great place to learn.

The next one on my tap is: Ghost Wars: the CIAs Secret History in Afghanistan from the Soviet Invasion to 9/11

u/chipvd · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Reading this thread makes me want to recommend [Ghost Wars] ( to anyone interested in this topic.

u/chinese___throwaway3 · 3 pointsr/aznidentity

Democrats vs Republicans is largely a conflict between liberal and conservative whites, who are very culturally different. They use minorities as a pawn. I read a book called American Nations that discussed this.

u/hammersklavier · 3 pointsr/geography

Check out Joel Garreau's Nine Nations of North America, Colin Woodward's American Nations, and Dante Chinni's Our Patchwork Nation -- these are excellent primary sources for such a project.

u/Diabolico · 3 pointsr/atheism

Many instances in which Jesus is referred to as actually being God or of divine origin in the bible were antiadoptionistic changes made to the texts by theologians in order to discredit a group best described as messianic Jews (the Ebionites). They believed that he was born via the natural union of Joseph and Mary, and that he was given a special calling by God that invested him with divinity only after his birth.

By this theology Jesus did not preexist creation and was truly a normal human being until after his crucifixion. The prevailing Christian groups who opposed this wen to extreme measures to wipe the group out, especially because they demanded that all Christians would also have to be Jews, as Jesus was, and this required circumcision and kosher eating practices: two things not very popular in the classical Roman empire.

See these excellent books for extensive details about Biblical alterations and pre-orthodox Christianity:

Misquoting Jesus

Lost Christianities

u/jaywalkker · 3 pointsr/atheism

Inconsistencies begs the question of how they got in there, so I'd reference [Misquoting Jesus]( "eye opening") by Bart Ehrman. You can tie his work in with the modern equivalent [Conservative Bible Project]( "Cognitive Dissonance").

u/handlebartender · 3 pointsr/atheism

I'm in Texas now, but I grew up in the Toronto area. The church isn't quite so tied to the public school system, although it wasn't always so. I remember part of the daily opening exercises would include standing and singing along for O Canada, followed by recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Due to the growing cultural mosaic, they finally did away with the latter.

Then there was the Separate School system, where the Catholic Church was tightly interwoven with the school. Church doctrine was taught as part of the standard curriculum. Teachers needed to be Catholic in order to have/keep their teaching job. I also seem to recall hearing about one teacher whose husband wasn't Catholic and she was at risk of losing her job if he didn't convert.

I don't know if it's still the case, but the Separate School system somehow got additional government funding and/or tax breaks. Details escape me now. I just remember hearing time and again how they would have smaller classes, better school resources, and never on strike whereas the public school teachers would end up on strike every so many years.

To your previous point, I also find I have to watch what I say when folks here inject conversations with "I'll pray for you/him/her" or quote sections of the Bible. Certainly when I see it posted on Facebook I'm tempted to go try and dig up a Buddhist quote or possibly something from The Art Of War or some other non-religious but recognized quote (or simply post this link). Then the moment passes and I decide not to be a dick about it, and just move on.

u/alanX · 3 pointsr/atheism

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a wonderful and much more complete picture of where we stand in textual criticism of the Bible.

And what the author fails to point out is that if you take the best translations of the best texts (many not available when the King James Version was written) and compare them, you just don't get that many differences.

The King James is often more poetically written, even with some slight inaccuracies in the process.

As a theist, I find the process of textual criticism fascinating, and it reinforces my belief that the very heart of Christianity isn't in its theology, but in the First and Second Commandments (as reportedly taught by Christ):

  • Love God with all your heart
  • Love your neighbor as yourself

    Nothing there about making my neighbor conform to my morals and ethics. Everything there about me treating my neighbor with respect and honor, as I would want to be treated myself. Coupled with other teachings of Jesus, and clearly the idea that we are supposed to police the behavior of others is not Christian, despite any issues of textual criticism. We are instead to police ourselves.

    Edit tl;dr: Anyone who invests heavily into theological concepts that hinge on just a word or two in these texts is already playing with fire. On the other hand, committing to the core ethical and moral teachings in these texts is pretty safe.
u/lesigh · 3 pointsr/books

Actually, I think Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus By Bart D. Ehrman would give better insight to christianity/bible.

u/beebMeUp · 3 pointsr/HistoryPorn

Timeless question indeed. Dehumanization is a necessary condition but it's deeper than that alone. Inside each of us lurks this beast.

I recommend Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning. There's also a recent lecture on the topic.

u/MuffinMedic · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning does a really great job of explaining much of what was done to the Jews over time.

u/Vitalstatistix · 3 pointsr/politics

I'd like to see your source on that story. I was taught by this man, and I distinctly remember numerous discussions on the topic, and that Nazi soldiers weren't punished for not killing Jews or any of the other persecuted individuals. The Nazi command who set the policy on these matters, viewed the extermination of Jews/Gypsies/Gays etc. as a difficult but necessary task; they simultaneously felt pity for, and glorified their soldiers, who were heroes doing what was best for the Aryan nation by squashing out the succubus races/nations of individuals.

So, while there was definitely strong social pressure to kill in order to fit in, move up the ranks, etc., there wasn't any formal military policy on punishing those who did not feel up to the task, which is one of the more frightening aspects of the whole situation.

Read more:


u/TheSwellFellow · 3 pointsr/ShitWehraboosSay

Easy one is Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning

Another good one is Becoming Evil by James Waller

BOTH of these directly address "normal" soldiers killing massive numbers of civilians. They will destroy any Wehraboo.

Also the Third Reich Trilogy by Richard Evans... Anything by Ian Kershaw.

u/randysgoiter · 3 pointsr/JoeRogan

I'm in the middle of Homo Deus currently. Its great so far, Yuval is a great writer and his books are a lot more accessible than traditional history books. I'm sure there are a lot of liberties taken with some of the history but I think Sapiens is a must-read. Homo Deus is more assumption based on current reality but its very interesting so far.

Gulag Archipelago is one I read based on the recommendation of Jordan Peterson. Awesome book if you are into WW1-WW2 era eastern europe. being an eastern european myself, i devour everything related to it so this book tickled my fancy quite a bit. good look into the pitfalls of what peterson warns against.

Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning is another history book discussing that time period and how it all transpired and the lesser known reasons why WW2 went down the way it did. some surprising stuff in that book related to hitler modeling europe around how the united states was designed at the time.

apologies for inundating with the same topic for all my books so far but Ordinary Men is an amazing book chronicling the people that carried out most of the killings during WW2 in Poland, Germany and surrounding areas. The crux of the argument which I have read in many other books is that Auschwitz is a neat little box everyone can picture in their head and assign blame to when in reality most people killed during that time were taken to the outskirts of their town and shot in plain sight by fellow townspeople, mostly retired police officers and soldiers no longer able for active duty.

for some lighter reading i really enjoy jon ronson's books and i've read all of them. standouts are So You've Been Publicly Shamed and The Psychopath Test. Highly recommend Them as well which has an early Alex Jones cameo in it.

u/tirril · 3 pointsr/worldnews

Not being able to stomach it is something that changes over time. This should be part of history curriculum perhaps as soon as high school. Read Ordinary Men

u/Whiskeyjack1989 · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

The book is Ordinary Men.

u/lsop · 3 pointsr/HistoryPorn

The Book you are talking about is Ordinary Men by Chris Browning

u/killyouintheface · 3 pointsr/buccos

> …whoever wrote Guns of the South.

Harry Turtledove.

Mostly I read war stuff. Storm of Steel, The Guns of August, shit like that. I really, really want to read this. Think it'll probably be my next Amazon purchase since I've given up finding it at the used store.

u/LaunchThePolaris · 3 pointsr/worldnews

This is a pretty good book on that subject.

u/LessQQMorePewPew · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

One of my favorite holocaust books is Ordinary Men link and is about a battalion of the Order Police and their experience in Poland. Some enjoyed killing, some were indifferent, some hated it and did it anyway, a few refused to do it, and then there were the Lithuanians.

u/hobbes305 · 3 pointsr/skeptic

>Do you have any non-Jewish sources?

I linked to the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) website above. that isn't good enough for you?

United States Library of Congress: Nuremberg Trials

Ordinary Men : Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, New York, by Christopher Browning

u/Imatros · 3 pointsr/warfacts

I just searched using a string with a couple unique words; specifically, I just searched for the quote "Henceforth [...] engines"

u/mesosorry · 3 pointsr/BeAmazed

Read this book. It'll blow your mind :)

u/kindness12 · 3 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

Got the timeline of the universe from here, here, and from the book Sapiens by Yuval Harari. The years are not exactly the same from all sources but I tried to triangulate. Also it doesn't make a big difference since I'm converting it to a 72 year period (made all the conversions on excel). Average lifespan of a human being is 71.5 years over the 2010-2015 period according to this Wikipedia article; this is the primary source.

u/albino-rhino · 3 pointsr/AskCulinary

Coming to this a little late but wanted to say that (a) I completely agree, and (b) I'd take it a little further.

The thought that there was some Valhalla of wonderful food in earlier days is easily proven wrong. We live in the best time for eating there has ever been. For instance this article explains at some length and convincingly to me that food has only improved. Think about it - name one major city in the US where food was better 15 years ago. I can't think of any.

And if you go back further in time, you find that agriculture is coincident with higher population but also with malnutrition. This book is awful in some parts but it explains at length the accepted knowledge that agriculture = more people, but is also = disease and malnutrition at significant levels.

Skipping forward, I think 'modern' agriculture starts with crop rotation, Source, and pretty soon you have the British Agricultural revolution that kickstarts the industrial revolution.

Coincident with that you have the greatest rise in per-capita GDP there has ever been. Source, The Great Divergence.

And then that's why I get to work at a desk instead of doing mind-numbing, back-breaking work in the fields, and that's why I enjoy more material plenty than anybody could imagine 200 years ago, and why I can choose among multiple places, in my major urban center, to get pretty damn good pho. Lo those many years ago when I was young, sushi was a foreign concept. Now I can get it (or a rough approximation of it) in a strip mall in the middle of nowhere.

There is a downside to removing people from their food. There is also a downside to industrial agriculture. A lot of folks eat out more often. We have lost the spiritual connection to our food in large part that is created by hunting for your food or growing it and shepherding it the whole way through. We don't take food as seriously, and we don't contemplate as closely where it came from. We are complicit in the dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi and in the overuse of antibiotics in, and ill-treatment of, our livestock, to name but a couple examples.

But come the fuck on. I more than likely owe my life to my forebearers moving away from the fields and working in factories. I certainly owe my material comforts to that. I don't have to wonder whether I'm going to have a crop failure and starve to death.

That some of us can turn back and re-discover a better connection with food is a wonderful luxury. Appreciate it as such.

u/TheInfidelephant · 3 pointsr/seancarroll

"Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind" - also by Yuval Noah Harari

u/signmyup · 3 pointsr/politics

As relevant 10 years ago as it is today, but i think people are beginning to catch on.

u/category5 · 3 pointsr/politics

"What's The Matter With Kansas" is actually the title of a pretty interesting book.

u/Edward_the_Penitent · 3 pointsr/travel

> Peru. I want to learn more about the history of that place, and visit machu pichu. Very interested.

I've read and recommend:

u/cavehobbit · 3 pointsr/worldpolitics

Good point. That was an apocalypse.

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

u/the-mormonbatman · 3 pointsr/latterdaysaints

>So where are they or their civilizations today?

Lehite successor states were ground to pieces by a combination of disease epidemic, climate change, and European aggression like the rest of America's endemic nations.

If you haven't read them, I highly recommend 1491 and 1493.

>Where were they when they were at their peak?

That's a great question that is not answered by modern revelation. John Clark thinks Joseph Smith believed that Book of Mormon events occurred around the Yucatan peninsula. I agree with him but I'm happy to cede ground if future evidences don't support that.

> Based on DNA and archaeology, it's a tough case, no?

Not really. This is an article you may (or may not) enjoy:

I found that its cautions were very prescient.

u/siberian · 3 pointsr/IAmA

And before that the indigenous population was highly managing the forests. The lie of The Pristine Myth is so interesting to study.

> When John Smith visited Massachusetts in 1614, he wrote that the land was "so planted with Gardens and Corne fields, and so well inhabited with a goodly, strong and well proportioned people ... [that] I would rather live here than any where." But by the time the colonists reached Plymouth in the Mayflower six years later, they found one deserted village after another—the Indians had been felled by European diseases to which they had little resistance.

u/krustyarmor · 3 pointsr/NativeAmericans

1491 by Charles C. Mann

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter Matthiesson

Custer Died For Your Sins by Vine Deloria Jr.

Those are the three that I always answer this question with.

u/sirbirdface · 3 pointsr/PoliticalHumor
u/talkingwires · 3 pointsr/books

1491 was a great read that examined the technology and cultural developments of the Native Americans before the arrival of Europeans. One of its main conceits is to tear down the myth that they were simple people in touch with nature, when they actually actively worked to alter the landscape to fit their needs. It was one of the first history books I found so engrossing that I couldn't put down.

Collapse has a wider scope; it examines dozens of societies that have existed throughout history that for one reason or another "collapsed". It shows how combinations a society's choices and external forces caused the failure of Viking settlements in Greenland, the extinction of the people of Easter Island, to the failure of modern countries, like Rwanda. Each chapter is about seventy or eighty pages and fairly self-contained, so you can pick it up and jump in where ever you like.

u/stayshhhh · 3 pointsr/BlackPeopleTwitter

I'm talking about the Inkans, based on this well received book.
Check it out, it's good.

u/Spiketwo89 · 3 pointsr/Mexicana

Yea I haven't really ever seen any documentary about the Mexica or other mesoamerican groups that wasn't built around the older conquest myths like Cortez was mistaken for a god or the spaniards single handily beat them, but that doesn't mean that those old ideas aren't changing. There's a few pbs ones I've seen about the Aztecs and new discoveries of the teotihucan culture. Watching a documentary is easy but if you can reading is your best bet. Conquest by Hugh Thomas is an extremely detailed and well researched account of the rise and fall of the Aztecs, buried Mirror by Carlos Fuentes is an examination of the rise of a unified Spanish nation state and the parrels with the cultures of the new world and shows that the two groups had more in common than one would think. 1491 by Charles C. Mann has some stuff on the Aztecs, but looks at different new world cultures and shows that overall they were more sophisticated than generally thought of

u/Me-Here-Now · 3 pointsr/exmormon

If you are interested, you might like to read the book "1491". It is an actual history of north and south America. The author spend decades researching everything he could about the pre-Columbian Americas. Very interesting book, but it makes no mention of the book of mormon, or anything that lines up with the book of mormon.

u/x6hld2 · 3 pointsr/MapPorn

You may be interested in

Population of the Mississippi valley was quite high, farming was ubiquitous amongst East Coast tribes. Land bore signs of alteration due to agriculture.

Most of them did die during the Contact Plagues though.

u/bserum · 3 pointsr/imaginarymaps

If you're not already familiar with it, you might be interested in Colin Woodard's American Nations.

Here's his version of the map.

u/GeeJimmy · 3 pointsr/MapPorn

American Nations, by Colin Woodard. It's a good book, with a fascinating take on why, e.g., people in New England and the Pacific Northwest are liberal and why people in Appalachia hate the government. He basically boils it all down to the reasons why the white people who settled those places left their respective European homelands, and how those attitudes persist to this day.

u/w3woody · 3 pointsr/history

Honestly I would start with the U.S. Civil War.

Then work your way backwards in time from the Civil War, tracing the events (cultural and political) that led to the Civil War. This will eventually include the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution, as well as a discussion of the cultural differences between the different original colonies, such as those outlined in Up in Arms, a review of American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. Deep diving into the Antebellum period also will take you by the history of everything from how the US was formed, the revolutionary war (which slammed multiple very different cultures together against a common foe), to the impact of slavery, the economics of the North's industry and the South's plantations, and how things like the Cotton Gin gave southern slavery a second life.

Antebellum compromises even shaped the northern and southern borders of the United States. The South didn't want the North to push upwards into Canada (and add more free states, upsetting the balance between Free and Slave states), just as the North stopped a Southern push into Mexico and central America for the same reason.

Also, working your way forward from the Civil War, you can trace the threads from a shortened southern Reconstruction period, as well as an increased impetus towards westward expansion driven by an economy left in ruins. (Interesting fact: in terms of absolute numbers more American died during the Civil War than in all other wars America was involved with, including World Wars I and II--combined.)

Tracing forward from the Civil War you can see the effects of a failed Reconstruction on racism, eventually leading to the Civil Rights Movement 100 years later, as well as subtexts of racism on everything from the how we handled the Great Depression to our involvement in World Wars I and II.

If you also look at the U.S.'s approach to military affairs, you can also see it sharply echoed in how we fought the Civil War. And that warrior culture has painted U.S. attitudes towards foreign wars and even underlies the irony of a population that, as soon as the shooting starts, becomes extremely patriotic.

tl;dr: I really think the U.S. Civil War is an extremely important event in U.S. history, and a lot of U.S. history prior to the Civil War and afterwards can be framed in terms of the Civil War itself.

Edit: stupid typos.

u/EsquilaxHortensis · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit

For more, check out Woodard's American Nations, which expands the conversation to eleven regional cultures, including those mentioned in Albion's Seed, and fills in a lot of the gaps Scott Alexander wonders about.

u/mikeflys1 · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Command & Control if you never want to sleep again. Its more related to the controls systems/procedures than overall development though.

u/somnambulist80 · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

> Now, Fat Man and Little Boy? Those were different stories. Apparently they were just kept under heavy guard before being loaded onto the planes, and actually arming them was as easy as pulling a pin (imagine a big hand grenade), setting the burst altitude, and dropping them out of the plane.

That lack of security control on nuclear weapons was allowed to persist for a shockingly long time. Some in SAC considered the lack of control a positive, arguing that the weapons wouldn't be rendered useless in the case of a decapitation attack.

Eric Schlosser's Command and Control is a great and easily accessible history on nuclear weapon safety.

u/Theia123 · 3 pointsr/thenetherlands

Niet alleen daar, fouten zijn vrij vaak voorkomend. Lees dit boek:

u/BurtGummer938 · 3 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

This is an entertaining book on the history of nuclear weapon incidents.

They also go over the Damascus incident, where a Titan Missile silo in Arkansas exploded in an accident. Apparently they made a film about it.

u/Vaeon · 3 pointsr/worldnews

> and paying them to efficiently and cheaply extract and sell local resources.

For your consideration.

Skp to the section about how the CIA overthrew the government of Guatemala so the United Fruit Company got a sweet deal with the new government.

u/Cozret · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner won the National Book Award for Nonfiction for 2007 and is based on >50,000 documents(mostly from from the CIA archives), and hundreds of interviews with CIA veterans (including ten Directors of Central Intelligence).

u/Uhhhhdel · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

I think the biggest reasons people hate the US is because of the CIA and how destructive its history has been. is a great read. It explains why the world thinks we are meddlesome. And by we, I mean the US government, not its people. As a whole, the US population doesn't really get how destructive the CIA has been and the repercussions because of that.

u/TheHobbitryInArms · 3 pointsr/politics

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA

Not our first misadventure. Sure as hell will not be the last.

u/scarlet_stormTrooper · 3 pointsr/StrangerThings

one of my Criminal Justice professors recommended this book: legacy of ashes
Not entirely focused on the MK Ultra but good nonetheless.
It's a very good read.

Also the Men Who stare at Goats a good cinematic example.

It's very intriguing to see how they added the program into the show. Very cool way to introduce 11 (messed up) but cool.

u/tcatlicious · 3 pointsr/worldnews

The CIA is the one who said that Iraq had WMD's to begin with. They also had the war plan already drawn up and in place. I thought this was common knowledge. There have been several investigative books written about this.

The CIA is a rogue organization that is the cause for much of the chaos around the world. "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner has the best book (best sourced and footnoted) on how the CIA actually operates.

u/SpuckFez · 3 pointsr/WikiLeaks

> A legacy of ashes

Some of the reviews here are useful:

u/jinkyjormpjomp · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

This is why there is such dissonance between the actual CIA and the one presented to us by Hollywood.

I'll just leave this here for those interested int he history of the CIA:

u/BelligerentBenny · 3 pointsr/samharris

Yea because if you're not a white christian or jew it's obvious

We're fighting Muslims over sand no one should care about

Do you not understand our foreign policy?

Here is the most famous book on the topic

Written by a harvard and a u chicago professor.

I'll say it again. You have no fucking idea waht you're talking about. White nationalists love Israel. You are so unbelievably ignorant. Fucking Hitler loved Israel

If you think we would have invaded Iraq without our relationship with Israel you're fucking delusional. And again proving your ignorance. Stay out of politics. Clearly you know nothing about anyone politics or American policy.

u/Al_Shakir · 3 pointsr/DebateAltRight

It is not exactly what you are asking for, but if you have not read it, you must read The Israel Lobby:

u/FartfullyYours · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

That was the same conclusion reached in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

u/katie5000 · 2 pointsr/TrueAskReddit

Regarding competition, a lot of it is rooted in the types of people who settled the United States and the reasons why they came. Some of the people who came were religious or political dissenters trying to escape persecution, yes; but many, many of them were speculators here on behalf of some venture or company to see what they could discover/exploit the hell out of (and for how long) to get filthy rich and please the financial backers in the venture back home (some of whom were royal). That behavior was simply carried forward, both by Southern plantation owners and Northern industrialists: if you spend as little as possible running your venture, you'll have much greater profits in the end. And there is always somebody who will think they can do it more cheaply than you.

Here's an interesting book that might provide more insight: American Nations (Amazon)
An interesting article posted elsewhere on Reddit: NY Times article on American capitalism

Regarding college, there are many factors that have sort of dovetailed over the last 70 or so years to create the current situation. There's a big obsession ("madness") with attending college because the vast majority of employers now seemingly require college degrees for basic, halfway decent positions, and nobody wants to be left behind. This has led to a lot of bloat and the (unfortunate) de-valuing of the average degree. And this leads into why people are angry ("mad") about attaining/having college degrees: over that same period, college tuition has steadily gone up as costs have gone up. At the same time, wages have stagnated and subsidies (like for the public universities) have been slashed. Employers still want that degree, though, so many people take out loans to cover the difference in cost. And when they get to the end and get that job, they find out that they're going to be sorting garbage or filing widgets. And they still have to pay the loans back. You'll basically never get to use the university knowledge that you paid so much for, that the employer themselves required. So, yeah. Anger.

Of course, this doesn't explain why the US doesn't have a more robust (or publicized) vocational training system. Were I in office, I'd work to organize some kind of educational summit between industry and academia where they could hash all this out. What sort of knowledge does a university degree confer? Is it really necessary for most jobs? If you want your employees to have some kind of post-secondary training, what would be an acceptable alternative to university? Stuff like that. Then I'd work with the Department of Education to make it happen.

u/reluctantly_red · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

The interesting part of the book is how it compares Canadian culture to that of various regions of the United States. Canadian culture turns out to be most like Massachusetts and least like the deep south. To make this comparison the author had to first describe the various regional cultures of the United States.

An American author did a similar examination with similar findings in this book

u/Mynameis__--__ · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, by Colin Woodard. It is an excellent read.

Another book that is similar to this (but much longer) is Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America, by David Hackett Fischer

u/lovesthebj · 2 pointsr/Ask_Politics

I found it, Colin Woodard's "American Nations".

"...pointing out that rebellion in the North American colonies against the rule of a distant king started not in the 1770s, but in the 1680s, and not “as a united force of Americans eager to create a new nation, but in a series of separate rebellions, each seeking to preserve a distinct regional culture, political system, and religious tradition threatened by the distant seat of empire.”

  • Daily Beast

    It's almost two books, with the first half describing how each of his eleven nations were settled and cultivated, then spending the second half discussing how those separate nations contribute to the current political climate.

    Also from the book:

    “Since 1877, the driving force in American politics hasn’t primarily been a class struggle or tension between agrarian and commercial interests, or even between competing partisan ideologies, although each has played a role. Ultimately, the determinative political struggle has been a clash between shifting coalitions of ethnoregional nations, one invariably headed by the Deep South, the other by Yankeedom.”

  • Washington Post

    Edit: added references
u/this_shit · 2 pointsr/philadelphia

> Just because something is out of the mainstream doesn't make it bad

Agreed. But white nationalism is bad for the reason that it's an attempt to break apart the American national identity. It is also bad because it attracts and empowers white supremacist groups who are motivated by hate rather than national identity.

> Segregation wasn't always mainstream.

I'm not really clear what you mean by this? Segregation was mainstream in the pre-civil rights era, but is very much not mainstream now.

> I think a bunch of separate cultures staying separate and isolated

Oh, I think I follow. You're framing multiculturalism as a rejection of "melting-pot" theory. My understanding of multiculturalism differs in that I understand it to be a system that enables differences in culture united by law. I.e., you can worship whoever you like, as long as doing so doesn't violate other people's rights.

You should check out Colin Woodard's American Nations. His take is that "melting-pot" theory was the Puritan's approach, whereas "multiculturalism" stems from the Dutch colonies, and that these two theories of American nationalism have both existed and clashed over the last 300-odd-years. Great read.

Anyway, isn't "white nationalism" a greater threat to the american national identity than multiculturalism? It basically says that there can't be black Americans, or latino Americans. That they should go find their own national identity separate from white Americans.

u/mystyc · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

I read an article recently about a book that remaps america (and part of canada and mexico) into 11 distinct cultural regions. Interestingly enough, the various cultural traditions in each region can be traced back to one of the original major colonies in that region.

If you think about it carefully, the religiosity of americans is not totally homogeneous in degree or even in the particular religious beliefs underline that religiosity. In other words, what you might be observing here, may have more to do with "regional american culture" rather than "religion" specifically. When thought of this way, it becomes possible to account for the pervasive puritan mentality and calvinistic traditions that appear even amongst secular americans.

u/ryan_illman · 2 pointsr/preppers

More than once. Eric Schlosser wrote a book about it that was turned into a PBS documentary:

u/VirulentVoid · 2 pointsr/videos

An excellent book that covers the Damascus Incident is Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. I've read it myself and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the US nuclear arsenal and the accidents surrounding it.

u/MaginTheBranded · 2 pointsr/CatastrophicFailure

A study after the fact found that some of our most used bombs were subject to “accidental” detonation. I forget the bomb but I think it was mounted on a rotary rack on a B-52. If you want to know more read this wonderful book Command and Control.

u/octave1 · 2 pointsr/europe

Anyone interested in nukes should read Command and Control, pretty amazing.

u/Incorrect_Oymoron · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Especially with nukes, the idea was that launch codes and arming/disarming systems are an unnecessary waste of time if ww3 were to happen.

Edit: Citation (

u/nucular_mastermind · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

If anyone is interested in the insane mechanics of nuclear warfare and warhead safety (it's just dumb luck someone hasn't blown themselves up so far, almost happened several times), there is this book called "Command and Control" - a chilling read.

u/mrfudface · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

I recommend a very good book if someone is interested in Nuclear Weapons and their incidents. Here you go

u/Daduckything · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety

Very good read there. It's utterly amazing that someone (a country) did not blow themselves off the map during this time period.

Fun fact for the night - there's still a 7600lb nuclear bomb "lost" off the coast of Savannah, Georgia !

u/ninklo · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Just finished reading Command and Control, so want to say that it almost happened several times with the US too:

  • One time the US BMEWS detected a Soviet first strike with 99.9% accuracy, and the SAC had only 15 minutes to respond or risk obliteration (at that time second-strike capabilities weren't quite so well established so knocking out the entire American leadership in one shot may have been a viable strategy to winning a nuclear war). Only after finding out that Khrushchev was giving a speech at the UN in New York did the SAC calm down since the Soviets were unlikely to kill their own leader, and when everyone was still alive 20 minutes later it was obvious it was a false alarm. Later it was found that the BMEWS had detected the moon rising as a missile strike. Who knows what might have happened had Khrushchev been in the USSR on that day?
  • Another time all communication to the BMEWS was knocked out from SAC headquarters, east to west. The probability of such a thing happening randomly throughout the entire extent of the BMEWS was considered highly unlikely, especially since there were redundancies in the phone system, and they were also unable to contact Thule. It was thought that a missile strike had started against the BMEWS. The only evidence otherwise was a bomber flying 24/7 over Thule whose sole purpose was simply to provide visual confirmation that Thule still existed, and sure enough this bomber finally played its role by confirming over radio that yes, Thule was still there and hadn't been obliterated in a first strike. Later it turns out that fucking AT&T had said it installed redundant phone connections, but hadn't actually done so, and one of the phone switch stations failed. Corporate greed inadvertently brought us close to a nuclear war (imagine if the bomber's radio system happened to fail for any reason?).
  • Twice SAC headquarters showed tons of incoming missiles and destruction of American cities displayed on its status board, in a highly realistic attack that fully confirmed SAC's every prediction of what a Soviet attack would look like, but communication with radar stations revealed that they failed to detect anything, and the American cities were clearly still there. Turns out to have been practice simulation tapes that were mistakenly loaded by a technician, so no wonder they confirmed SAC expectations of what a Soviet attack would look like. Only after the second time this happened did they decide to build a separate place solely for simulation war games.
  • Multiple times SAC computers received messages telling them that there were 202 missiles or 22 missiles, etc, heading towards the US. Once again radar stations detected nothing so it was a false alarm. The cause? A defective CPU chip that randomly replaced 0's with 2's, and a sort of ping message from computers simply confirming that they were still transmitting information, except the ping message was something like "0000 missiles detected". The CPU was replaced and the message rewritten to have no mention of missiles whatsoever.

    Of course things like this probably also happened on the Soviet side that the general population doesn't know about. But this is just to show that we fuck up too, and our early warning systems have in fact malfunctioned several times in the past.
u/willsueforfood · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

The best book I've read about nuclear safety protocols, the reasons behind them, and the historical lapses is Command and Control.

I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the subject:

u/AlphaLima · 2 pointsr/space

There is a good book on this, Command and Control really good.

Tldr:we've come very very close to nuking ourselves more than most of the public knows.

u/I_Hate_Soft_Pretzels · 2 pointsr/CIA

Try reading the book "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Wiener because it is a good non-biased history of the CIA. It will tell you about how they have behaved in the past as well as give you a good history about the CIA. They have done some very questionable stuff but they have also acted in the best interests of the USA at times. It really is a tough call but reading more about the history of them might help.

u/ProfShea · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

right... just like in the 500 page book, legacy of ashes or this lovely book, the main enemy. Argghhh! I wish we had books we could refer to!

u/mmm_smokey_meats · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

You should read Legacy of Ashes . This story, and many others are included.

u/LongformLarry · 2 pointsr/Intelligence

Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner is the history of the CIA from WWII through anti-terrorist policies post-9/11. Weiner interviewed former CIA bosses but the most attractive part might be the Agency's dismissive review:

"What could have been a serious historical critique illuminating the lessons of the past is undermined by dubious assertions, sweeping judgments based on too few examples, selective or outright misuse of citations, a drama-driven narrative, and a tendentious and nearly exclusive focus on failure that overlooks, downplays, or explains away significant successes."

If that's not a recipe for an entertaining read I don't know what is.

u/fatkiddown · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

> Because the moment americans start puting more trust in a foreign nation than their own institutions.

Of all such possible institutions, I trust the CIA the least.

Edit: getting downvoted so let me add: I am reading "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA," and this is primarily why I made this comment.

u/Lasting-Damage · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

This doesn't surprise me at all. The CIA is a notoriously horrible place to work, and has been plagued with extremely serious morale and management problems for decades. They have a tendency to focus on their slick covert operations part of the organization to the expense of analysts. You know, the people who actually provide...intelligence. Also, on more than one occasion the CIA has gotten news about a major development in world affairs from CNN.

Extremely good book on the subject.

u/DiscursiveMind · 2 pointsr/books

With your interest in the Cold War, you might find Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner interesting.

As far as gaining new perspective, I alway suggest Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. He's in the field of behavioral economics, which looks at the choices people make and how the arrive at those choices. One of my favorite books.

u/kleinbl00 · 2 pointsr/

You know not of what you speak.

Read this and get back to me.

u/Thumpser · 2 pointsr/worldnews

The book Legacy of Ashes is a pretty good history of the agency. Sadly, the evidence points out that they weren't any better in the past. We continually meddle in other countries and seem to generally make things worse for it.

u/dubyafunk · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

Read this book and you'll learn a lot more.

u/Jorster · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA by Tim Wiener. I've also read a few others I can tell you (if I find them).

u/BanMikePantsNow · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

> It's patently obvious, at least in this sub, that the overwhelming majority of anti-Israel/ anti-Zionist statements come from people who are bigoted against Jews as a people.

It's like a broken record. You really need some new tactics, as the word antisemitic has lost all meaning due to overuse.

>I have no patience for that, especially from losers who can't either see the real problem in their society (still the military-industrial complex) or take ownership of their actions (being deluded by jingoism and xenophobia).

Israel was complicit in 9/11 and is responsible for the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya and soon Iran. These are facts that you should have no patience for.

>There is no foreign boogeyman.

Read a book.

u/friendship_n_karate · 2 pointsr/politics

Secretly? I assume this is just one big work if antisemitism?

u/vigorous · 2 pointsr/worldpolitics

Mearsheimer and Walt wrote up the Iraq war substantiating that claim They are among the few recognizable and respected US commentators with good credentials to have done so.

u/LorTolk · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

I would also recommend The Globalization of World Politics as an introductory text to the field. It's an absolutely phenomenal textbook, while summaries you've posted are indeed comprehensive and succinct.

To elaborate, with more comprehensive texts (should the OP choose to read them), IR is a broad field. But specifically regarding International Politics, I would recommend Nye's The Future of Power, as a current perspective on international power (and the fairly recent differentiation in power resources, eg. "hard" and "soft" power). Focusing specifically on International Politics (as opposed to other IR subfields like development), the seminal works for the current theories on international politics include:

Theory of International Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz (1979), which serves as the foundation for structural realist (or neorealist) school. Neorealists are generally split between offensive realists (like Mearsheimer) and defensive realists (Waltz and Walt) as general categorizations, and you can find related works from these scholars for a focused view from either on the issues they disagree upon.

After Hegemony (1984) by Robert Keohane is the neoliberal institutionalist response to Waltz (Power and Interdependence by Keohane & Nye (1977) is probably its founding text), and one of the leading works of the theoretical field itself.

Finally, Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt (1999) is the comprehensive overview of the social constructivist school.

These largely cover all the major theoretical branches of current International Political theory (without diverging too heavily into IR subfields), though I do emphasize that these classifications are fairly fluid, given the readiness of offensive realists like Mearsheimer to look into the "black box" of domestic politics in the (highly controversial) piece, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Again, these are the main theoretical works in these respective schools, and it is not necessary for you (the OP) to read through all of them to understand the subject.

While not exclusively International Politics focused, World Systems Theory is highly influential critical theory for IR studies, and understanding it (and Marxist-influenced dependency theory) as well as game theory (Nash Equilibrium etc) are both integral to modern IR methodologies and theories. By in large, Hobbes and the Leviathan (and a bit of Rousseau) is the only political theory that you need to start delving into IR theory, so you should be good on that front.

There are also specialized and diversified IR fields such as Development, Peace and Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights, but those are most likely not necessary given the scope of your conference (by the sounds of it, predominantly focused on state-centric International Politics).

u/CanuckPanda · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Highly recommend you give this a read, mate.

Lobbies give to people who will support them, that's why the money is useful. They're not going to help fund those who go against their interests. Help elect the friendly people, and then quietly remind them you helped them and they owe you.

u/agfa12 · 2 pointsr/politics

Eli Lake can "raises questions" all he wants but All of NIAC'S budget, is about $1.5 million. Less than what AIPAC spends on shoeshines, and if that amount only %20 can be used for lobbying.

Pretending that Israel does not have a pernicious and unbalanced influence on US foreign policy is just being a flat earthen when even the most distinguished mainstream US experts say it does:

What other FOREIGN GOVT gets the special treatment given to Osrael? Our congressional and presidential candidates and office holders regularly appear before AIPAC and swear never ending fealty to a foreign govt. We don't do that for the Germans, Poles, Japaneae...just Israel.

u/skeeterbitten · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Botany of Desire. The title turned me off, but it's actually really interesting and my whole family has read and enjoyed it.

Nothing to Envy: Ordinary lives in North Korea Serious stuff, but so fascinating.

Stumbling on Happiness. Fun read on human nature and happiness.

u/MrPisster · 2 pointsr/worldnews

"Nothing to Envy"

Good read if your into that stuff.

Also "Escape from Camp 14"

That one is less about ordinary citizen's lives and more about the modern day concentration camps the North Korean government is controlling.

u/Liquidator47 · 2 pointsr/pics

Ok fine, but where's even that coming from?

After reading this I don't assume that it could be easy.

u/jejuislander · 2 pointsr/korea

Upvote for this. The excellent Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demick deals with this issue towards the end of the book. A good read.

u/inkWanderer · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

If you're looking for a more in-depth work, there's a fantastic book about six North Korean refugees who are mostly rehabilitated in Seoul now. Here's the link; I highly recommend it.

u/NigelLeisure · 2 pointsr/History_Bookclub

If you're looking for a book on life in NK I'd recommend Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea.

u/Both_Of_Me · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon
u/ponanza · 2 pointsr/geography

At lot of people mentioned some pretty cool map books already, but these are two geography-related books I'm getting for Christmas: How the States Got Their Shapes (probably better if she's American) and Guns, Germs, and Steel. The latter is less to do with maps and more to do with how geography influences civilizations. Hope that helps!

u/undercurrents · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Any book by Mary Roach- her books are hilarious, random, and informative. I like Jon Krakauer's, Sarah Vowell's, and Bill Bryson's books as well.

Some of my favorites that I can think of offhand (as another poster mentioned, I loved Devil in the White City)

No Picnic on Mount Kenya

Guns, Germs, and Steel


The Closing of the Western Mind

What is the What

A Long Way Gone

Alliance of Enemies

The Lucifer Effect

The World Without Us

What the Dog Saw

The God Delusion (you'd probably enjoy Richard Dawkins' other books as well if you like science)

One Down, One Dead

Lust for Life

Lost in Shangri-La


True Story

Havana Nocturne

u/Hostilian · 2 pointsr/atheism

Old dead classical dudes are always good. I ransack Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius for good ideas and advice fairly regularly. There are some excellent secular philosophers and thinkers out there. I enjoy Sam Harris' work the most. One of my favorite reference books is The Portable Atheist, which is a collection of secular philosophers, edited by Hitchens.

To get a sense of your place in the universe, try to find an old full-color hardback copy of Cosmos.^1 For your place in the Human story, Guns, Germs, and Steel, and your place in the American story with A People's History.

[1] As a minor biographical note, I credit this version of Cosmos for getting me through horrible angsty teenager time.

Edit: Also, good question.

u/SerratusAnterior · 2 pointsr/TrueReddit

There are lot of popular books that venture into these type of topics. I recommend The 10,000 Year Explosion, which is about how civilization and agriculture shaped recent human evolution. It's very interesting, though at the same time it sometimes creeps me out thinking to much about human biology in this way. I might add that they have a chapter on human intelligence which is controversial because of the nature of the topic. Anyway it's a good read, just don't turn into an eugenicist. ;)

I also the often recommended Guns, Germs and Steel on my reading list, which looks on how biology and illness shaped human civilizations.

u/Ryguythescienceguy · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Sorry this is a big post, but you've asked a big question

If you want a full and complete (but lengthy) answer, you need to read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

I'll sum up some of his main points to give you an answer here. It all began with food production. There are many different parts of the world that independently "invented" the farming of many different local crops, but it was mainly the Fertile Crescent area that really began having agriculture on a large enough scale to support enough people in a small enough area to form cities. Why? Well, long story short, they had the right types of indigenous plants for farming. The same goes with the domestication of animals. There are many types of wild cattle, horses, and sheep in the middle east/fertile crescent region. What did north/south america have? They did domesticate animals, but mainly dogs, chicken-like birds, and alpacas. They had no large animals to break the land and increase the productivity/acre. All of this began in the fertile crescent and eventually was imported into Europe.

Another obvious advantage Europeans had was resource allocation. Iron and copper (along with other elements) were readily available throughout Europe, and other less obvious but equally vital resources such as rivers and wild animals were easier to navigate/hunt. The geography of Europe is also such that it isn't too difficult building roads that can carry goods quickly and efficiently from point A to B. Trying building/maintaining a road in the Amazon.

Next germs. As I'm sure you were taught in history class, Europeans wiped out most native americans in North and South America with several diseases, mainly smallpox but also the flu, malaria and others. What you probably weren't taught was just how massive this die off was. Tens of millions of native North/South Americans were killed off decades before whites even made it to most areas. The devastation that smallpox wreaked on these native populations was massive, swift, and in some cases, total. Whole societies were wiped off the map in a matter of months, so invading whites didn't really have to complete (ie go to war) with millions of natives. So why was it Europeans giving diseases and not the other way around? Once again he answer lies with livestock. Many of these diseases were a result of either humans living in very close contact and constantly spreading them around (the flu), or they were diseases in livestock that "jumped" to humans, like the cowpox virus. After thousands of generations of battling these diseases, Europeans became (comparatively) immune but Native Americans were left with no defense. This doesn't really answer why Europe was "ahead" of the Americas, but it certainly is telling when it comes to wondering why it was seemingly so easy to colonize the New World and subjugate the natives.

Another huge reason (perhaps the largest one you could actually point to) was that Europe became organized socially much sooner than anyplace else in the world. I mean this in terms of religion, class, and especially government. All other places in the world had these ideas at some level or another, but it seems that in Europe it reached a sort of critical mass where all of these institutions fed one another to form a stratified and organized culture. Once you have specific classes of people that are either on top or the bottom, the "ruling class" and run the land, making laws and a government that funds things like infrastructure and trips around the world looking for gold to steal.

Finally a more minor point, but one that I found most interesting. Look at a world map. All the continents except Eurasia are "tall" and not "long". In theory, being "long" is much much better for the transmission of crops and livestock because when you move longitudinally the climate changes rapidly, but when you move along a latitude line the climate doesn't change nearly as much. All livestock, and especially crops are very sensitive to the climate they live in. If it's too cold or too hot or too wet or the season isn't the right length, your crops won't grow well. Therefore it's much easier to spread agriculture and crops east west instead of north south.

u/brokenearth02 · 2 pointsr/WTF

If you like those books, also try [Guns, Germs, and Steel]( "basically a short history of humanity") by Jared Diamond.

u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 2 pointsr/mormon

The book list just keeps growing in so many different directions that it's hard to identify which I want to tackle next (I also have a tendency to take meticulous notes while I read and that slows the process down even further!). Some of the topics I intend to read about once I'm done with the books mentioned:

u/aletoledo · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I've read a lot on the subject of food, so these two recommendation go beyond winning some debate points on reddit.

Real food

guns, germs and steel

u/Flarelocke · 2 pointsr/science
u/jillredhand · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

You're doing this wrong. If you approach books as a task for self-edification that you view as a duty, you're going to hate it. Read whatever you want, for entertainment. Read funnystuff. Read thrillers. Read fantasy. Read weird science fiction. Heck, read history, economics, and science.

TL;DR: Read whatever the hell you feel like, and I guarantee you you will feel better about yourself than you would have by forcing yourself through Ulysses or War and Peace.

u/sylvan · 2 pointsr/canada

Europeans didn't come to dominate the globe because of any inherent superiority.

We lucked out when it came to access to domesticable crops and animals, on which to build a thriving technological society.

Our Enlightenment era values, philosophical and legal heritage, and technological prowess are good things, with which we can help the world. Our history of colonialism, the theft of land and culture from the natives, and legacy of self-interested exploitation of vulnerable peoples around the world are not.

Marsden is simply a racist who doesn't see the value in trying to build a world in which everyone can benefit equally.

u/el-comandante · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

If you're interested in questions like this, you should really take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel, the good old classic by Jared Diamond. I love it because it confronts questions about human history from a very academic perspective.

u/Nrussg · 2 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

No problem - like I said, history is my jam so I never mind talking about it.

In terms of history subs - I think /r/AskHistorians is great, and usually really well sourced - they have an FAQ that is fun to browse and a cool collection of best answers.

In terms of books, I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel - it is far from a perfect book (I don't agree with a lot of it) but it presents a very interesting perspective, and based of the types of things you were asking, I think you would really enjoy it. It's also fairly accessible as far as these types of books go. Just make sure you think of it as a starting point rather than an end point.

I would also recommend both Mike Duncan's podcasts (the History of Rome - dealing with Roman History, and Revolutions - dealing with various historical revolutions) Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast is also pretty good and spans a lot of topics.

If you're in college or have the opportunity to attend classes, I'd also recommend just trying out a class on non-European history.

If you ever have any questions feel free to message me.

u/jaghutgathos · 2 pointsr/opieandanthony

Yo, dopey. Do some research. Believe it or not, languages are often related. Think of a set of grandparents. In Europe you might have two sets of grandparents and in Sub-Saharan Africa you might have 6 sets of grandparents. Even if Europe has more languages, if they are related (as they are) its easier to communicate than with fewer languages that are totally unrelated.

As to the animals - why do people not ride zebras? Do you think its from lack of trying? The domesticated animals that we have now were domesticated because they COULD be domesticated. Dummy.

Here is a good book related to the subject - its a wonderful read (seriously):

u/Rose1982 · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

Your dad sounds like my dad, and he loved this book that I got him- Guns, Germs and Steel.

It has great reviews.

u/Neodamus · 2 pointsr/worldnews

There so many other factors. If you want to feel superior, you'll find some reason to. But that doesn't mean it's objectively correct. You may need to do some reading on the subject of why those cultures are "better" than others. You'll probably find it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of people's skin. Try reading this. It's a book about why cultures are the way they are.

u/Zelazny7 · 2 pointsr/asoiaf

The answer to your "why did it start here instead of there" questions can be answered by reading Guns, Germs and Steel.