Conservapedia talk:World History Lecture Thirteen

Holy shit batman! WTF is this load of crap ment to be? Mick McT 16:41, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

It's meant to be a course on how glorious America is and how evil and incompetent the Communists are. Par for the course. I wonder about this, though: "When [Ho Chi Minh] returned in 1941, he founded “Vietminh”, with the name reflecting that he intended to rule as a dictator." Does Andy think that Ho named the Viet Minh after himself, or what? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:51, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

"Négritude" was a non-African phenomenon

I think you may be overstating your case a little bit. After all, Senghor was one of the key negritude writers and thinkers. If I were writing this, I would probably have gone with something like: "Négritude was not a uniquely African movement, but an Atlantic movement that united Black writers and thinkers from Africa, Europe and the Americas in an attempt to use African identity as a basis for political and cultural liberation." Still, first-rate work as always. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 16:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, PintofStout (which I could really do with after this crap!); I got a little carried away being annoyed. Would you mind if I plagiarise your more accurate sentence? :) Ironclad (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be honoured. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome

Never saw these fiskings before. I'm very much enjoying seeing history in a "new light." I would also like to say [Redacted by order of Big Schlafly.] Now off to the memory hole! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

oy, what the hell iron?

how do you read". Nixon also increased bombing of North Vietnam and Vietcong strongholds in Cambodia and Laos. " and get the impression that Is Andy in favour of even more intensive chemical- and high explosive- bombing of civilians? When did this man become the new Reichsmarschall?. He stated a fucking fact; nixon increased bombing, didnt say if he did or did not support it. I expect quality in the commentary; not "HUR DUR ANDY IS A WAR HUNGRY PRICK!"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You honestly expected quality commentary from the same people that push the Ken

template?   Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I do when yhe's done it more or less so far. W--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am speaking from personal experience that the detonation of high yield explosives and expenditure of high caliber munitions is a powerful stimulant. That being said, the high burns off pretty quick and one is left feeling empty and hollow with shame sloshing around at the bottom afterward, much like I would suspect a crack addict experiences, even when civilians are nowhere near the engagement area. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh hello again, Mikalosa. Thankyou for your aggressive point. As I have stated in the commentaries, what Andy chooses to write and what he chooses to omit, is very revealing about his worldview; how he narrates history is as insightful as what he actually narrates. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from being unpleasant towards me. Might I remind you that barely a week ago you were demanding that I start commenting on Lecture Thirteen (and I don't appreciate being called "boy"), and while plenty of others have had the decency and manners to drop me a line to say thankyou for writing these long commentaries - which I am under no obligation, from you or anyone else, to do - all you have done is complain and insult me. As for "I expect quality in the commentary", you shouldn't expect anything. I don't have to do these refutals. I choose to write them, for entetainment and education. Nobody's forcing you to read them. If you don't like what I've written, don't read it. It's that simple. As it states on your own userpage, "It bother you? Fuck off; you don't have to talk to me" Ironclad (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for my earlier snipe about there being no quality commentary on CP—I didn't actually read your analysis. It's just, there are maybe six people still doing quality commentary on CP—and you're one of them (the rest of us just sit around pointing out how much smarter we are than them), and I missed your earlier dissections of Andy's lectures, so I assumed this was just more juvenile commentary. I apologize. I'm reading it right now, and it is very good. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, Stabby - we all make mistakes :) Glad you're enjoying the reading! Ironclad (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish settlement patterns in Europe

(I'm not sure why so many European Jews settled in Eastern Europe, but they did) The answer to that is worth knowing, and contrary to what some fools seem to believe it has little to do with the Khazars. The ancestors of the Ashkenazim first moved up to the Rhine valley from southern France and Italy during the reign of the Carolingian Dynasty. Their communities prospered for some two hundred years until the Crusaders nearly destroyed them. They survived in a severely weakened state as did most of the Jewish communities in the west. Fast forward about three hundred years and you get the black death, despite a Papal Bull being issued which repudiated the idea that Jews were responsible for the plague Jews were still attacked and massacred. And fast forward another two hundred years when the inquisition gained power, not just in Spain, but in Portugal and France as well. In between the crusades the black death and the establishment of the inquisition Jews were subject to allegations of blood libels (most Jews see blood libels as proof that the European peasants were knuckle dragging idiots who would believe even the most bizarre fantasies that pandered to their fears) and well poisoning, they were subject forced conversions, additionally the local aristocrats had a habit of canceling debts by way of massacring, or for those who were lucky, expelling the communities of the Jews to whom they owed money. Throughout most of Middle Ages Poland was the sole state in Europe that tolerated us and gave us sanctuary and relative freedom. Poland was a lot bigger then than it is now and during the Late Middle Ages and Rennaissance period it's borders only increased and Jews took advantage of the lack of laws regulating our settlement which were so common elsewhere by spreading out across the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. While there have been some tough feelings among Jews towards Poles over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries prior to that relations were okay and during the height of the Commonwealth they were stellar compared to the rest of the continent. Indeed if I recall correctly it was only after the Commonwealth began to fall to pieces in the 17th century that the Jews in Poland began to experience severe persecution. When the Commonwealth was finally destroyed Jews and all the other peoples of Eastern Europe found themselves split between three Empires (Austria/Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Prussia/Germany) that had no reason or motivation to look after any of their interests, which helps a lot in explaining the History of past two and half centuries in that region. Alsto003 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Alex

Arguably, the Jews in Austria-Hungary had the advantage of being "just another minority" and like in the Kingdom of Prussia/German Empire, Jews were treated comparatively well - especially when compared to the state of affairs in Russia whose pogroms were seen as signs of its backwardness by other European states at the time. While Jews may not have been exactly popular in 18th and 19th century Europe, such open persecution was clearly beyond the pale (very apropos, btw). If I'm allowed a minor niggle, it would be to place the "falling apart" bit of Polish/Polish-Lithuanian history in the 18th century, rather than the 17th. During the Deluge, the Poles still managed to fight what was arguably, man for man, one of the era's greatest armies, the Swedish, to a standstill. By contrast, the Great Northern War weakened both Sweden and Poland-Lithuania while it strengthened Russia (and to a lesser extent Prussia). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Small Correction about Islamism and Nationalism as it regards to South Asia

"Again, Andy seems to think that Islam is a force more powerful than nationalism... It's not as strong as national and ethnic identity." Knowing a lot about the recent history of the Middle East (and I'm actually thinking more about the 20th century than the present crisis taking place as I write this) You could indeed be forgiven for thinking that Islamism is a force as powerful as nationalism, after all, that is the narrative that Islamists themselves have been promoting across the Muslim world for the past century. The justification for the existence of Pakistan itself was because Jinnah's Muslims league insisted that that the Muslims of British India be given there own state. I don't really consider it a coincidence that Pakistan has a prominent place in the Islamist movement. Pakistan was not founded to be an Islamist state it was founded to politically empower the Muslims of South Asia. As it turns out the concept of political empowerment for Muslims can very, very easily be misinterpreted as meaning political empowerment for Islam. And Pakistan's history over the past forty years or so is proof of that. General Muhammad Zia al-Haq who ruled Pakistan during the eighties is quoted by the Economist as having done a very bizarre thing for a ruler of a Muslims country during the 1980s and compared his own country to Israel: "Pakistan is like Israel, an ideological state. Take out the Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse." While the leaders of Pakistan may have privately acknowledged the ideological similarities between themselves and the Zionists they weren't stupid, the Israelis made some have hearted overtures to Pakistan but alas the Zionists weren't stupid either, both of their brands of nationalism were opposed to one another. Thus until the 1990s distrust of Israel was one of the few things Pakistan and India (which was ruled by the secular and mildly pro-soviet Indian National Congress) could agree on, albeit for different reasons. So in conclusion, Islam, may not be as powerful as nationalism but keeping in mind the history of the Middle East these past forty years one could be forgiven for thinking that it is. Alsto003 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Alex

Yeah, but the problem is that Andy always jump to the "because ISLAM!"-scenario without even considering alternatives first. Sure, you could be forgiven for thinking that Islam was a greater force than nationalism, but then you're left with the awkward fact that pan-Islamic movements have had singularly little success in breaking down national borders anywhere. If you then go around treating history as ineptly as Andy, then you can't be forgiven for this (or at least Andy would have to be forgiven for a whole lot of other things first). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)