Was there not a movement inside Israel to push on and take more control of GAza and the West Bank up to the Jordan?

​

Why did Palestinians flee 'Israel proper' but not want to flee from Gaza or the West Bank?

[deleted]

Sorry if this isn't there right subreddit for my question but this sub seemed the closest to what I was looking for.

What are some good sources to read about the history of Laos. Post 1500s would be preferable but I'll take anything really. Finding good sources by myself has been kind of difficult because I'm not sure what is considered reliable.

Hello everyone,

I'm interested in doing some reading on Pennsylvania coal country, where my grandma and grandpa grew up. My grandpa was a third-generation Italian immigrant who apparently tried his hardest to assimilate quickly, but continued to face some discrimination on account of his Italian heritage and Catholicism. My grandma's family was of German descent and came to Pennsylvania in a much earlier wave of immigration. She too was Catholic. Her childhood stories are filled with various European immigrant communities in the area: Slovaks, Hungarians, Czechs, Lithuanians, Latvians, etc. I visited Pottsville, where they both lived, and saw evidence of these old communities in the local cemeteries, which were segregrated by ethnicity and creed.

I'd love to learn more about this region and its immigrant experience. I've done a library search, and there seem to be tons of books on the urban immigrant experience in the 1920s, but I'd be really interested in reading specifically about Pennsylvania's coal country and the decades preceding my grandparents' birth. Any books - pop history or academic - would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

I’m a young medieval warrior (be it Viking, Knight, samurai or whatever) and I get a chronic or recurring injury (something like a rotator cuff or slap injury). It’s not immobilizing and even though it does hurt quite a bit, I’m a medieval warrior damn it, I can take it. But I realize that my strength isn’t the same. The pain does take its toll and my mobility isn’t the same. I’m not as good a wrestler, not as good a swimmer, and not as proficient in battle. All because of that one stupid injury. How is my life affected by this? Do my peers acknowledge my injury or am I considered weak? Do I keep on partaking in sports, battle training and actual war? Is this injury an excuse to stop fighting? Do I consider myself weak for having this incurable and insufferable pain, specially when there are people around me that have lost arms or legs in war and still try their best (yet don’t experience the same daily pain as I do)? How would that have been for a person back then?

[deleted]

And on the other side of the coin, how would I make sure my relative is safely released for the funds I am handing over. Was there a common method of exchange in these situations ?

This interesting historical anecdote came up in my memory.

So a though I had recently is that has the modern more simplistic english alphabet always existed alongside cursive writing, or was the modern alphabet introduced relatively recently as more and more people became literate as a way to help let more people be able to read?

Second question: Are there any other languages or alphabets (either modern or ancient) that have a form of "cursive" writing as well?

Princip has been in prison for 4 years till he died, so he probably knew about all the casualties of the war. Did he realise he was the cause of all the horrible events that happened after the assassination of Frans Ferdinand and his wife? And if so, did he remorse his action?

I am an Israeli student at university getting my degree in history. When I was in school I read quite a lot of philosophy and became interested in Arendt after hearing her name mentioned a lot in the same sentence as Martin Buber, whose work has had a huge affect on me even though I disagree with his politics. I had mixed feelings about The Origins of Totalitarianism and On The Human Condition but I found Eichmann in Jerusalem to be immensely interesting, and although it was even obvious to me as a 16 year old that her own biases were colouring her perception of events, I didn’t take issue with that because everyone sees the world through the lens of their bias and for most part I thought that her record of the trial was factual.

However, my lecturer spoke about the work today and said that it should be read as a work of philosophy and not as a factual account of the trial or an honest profile of Eichmann. He said that Arendt deliberately misrepresented the facts of the trial and took Eichmann’s testimony as 100% honest and true, because Eichmann as unideological functionary rather than Eichmann as deliberate mass murderer validated much of her thought in On The Origins of Totalitarianism and her opinions about the banality of evil, he went on to say that there was a strong strain of self hatred in her thought, she was disgusted by the fact that the Jews had not fought back harder as she had encouraged in the 1930s and that as such we were pathetic, and that her opinions on the trial proceedings were influenced by her prejudices toward Ostjuden (who at that time comprised most of the establishment in Israel including the judge at the trial, Attorney General Gideon Hausner who was from Galicia) and the Oriental Jews from countries in the Arab world who by the 1960s were the majority in Israel. I obviously cannot confirm or refute this because I can’t read her mind from beyond the grave, but I did sense a resentment toward her people for a perceived ghetto mentality, and I do know from my own great-grandparents who were assimilated German Jews who only became religious, Zionist and conscious of their Jewishness after Hitler came to power and they escaped with my grandfather and his brother that German Jews, especially Prussian Jews thought that Jews from Poland and the Russian Empire were uneducated, uncivilized and dirty and sought to disassociate from them. I would have thought that most would have abandoned that after the Shoah and in Israel that was definitely the case but I suppose that for someone like Arendt who after leaving Germany spent her life in America in communities of secular German Jewish intellectuals might not have.

I’m getting a bit off topic so I’ll stop here, but to restate my question, was the lecturer correct, did Hannah Arendt misrepresent Eichmann to validate her own philosophy?

I found this excerpt in a book that does not mention the source. It is kinda important for me because I need to quote it at an important conference next week. I can't say it's quoted in this article because it's part of this book called "100 Great Modern Lives", which isn't like proper articles.

"Why should I clothe M. Hugo in the ridiculous masculine fashions of our time? There is nothing more banal than those statues of recent notabilities masquerading as tailor's dummies of their ugly period. On the other hand man's naked form belongs to no particular moment in history; it is eternal and can be looked upon with joy by the people of all ages".

It was about his 1886 statue of Victor Hugo. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

PS: I just looked up the author of this article. He died around the time I was born, so I pretty much can't contact him.

Basically what it says on the tin. When we speak about the experiences of the common man or woman in that period (and to be sure, wiggle room is fine, just keep it High Middle Ages please!) what are we basing that on? How much source material survives today? What is the weight between written sources and material remains?

How much variance do we see by location? Is there a great imbalance between what we know about Aquitaine versus England versus Burgundy?

How representative do we judge it to be, both within the region of those sources, and cross-regional as well?

To elaborate, something I've seen talked about in my country, is that history is taught and seen in the manner where previous events reflect our way of thinking still, this in due to our grandparents and our parents experiences being vivid, which would in turn affect our way if thinking.

This is not to imply records shouldn't be made, rather, what exactly can not discredit historians analysing today's events if they have not the distance and impersonal approach which is needed to detail what happens in our surroundings.

If today we study all that has occurred in this planet, more precisely the ways of living, the concepts and the other more distant matters of before, what can be classified as closest to the truth in the present without being tainted with our own bias?

Is it by exterior and less local views? Trust on one's own objectivity, using only logical approach to describe without emotion?
Is it the reference to the past, making use of what can normalize our assessment, IE like the UK's method of trialling and sanctioning in accordance to old judgements?

This doubt has been in my head for a week. When we talk about fascism almost everyone agrees that it belong in the right, but to make things confusing the nazis were nacionalsocialist and Mussolini was a socialist and Gentile was a neo-hegel idealist. But thet were xenophobes and have an believe in a strong nacionality.

I probably have some wrong ideas so I want To clarify thus doubt

An oft repeated dichotomy online is that science fiction is progressive while fantasy literature is reactionary. Considering the widespread popularity of fantasy literature in the west after the publication of Tolkien's books, was there a parallel movement in the USSR? Or did the supposedly reactionary nature of the genre cause it to fall out of favor with the state?