Here's the painting. Seems like a subject matter with a story to be told.

I have recently read this article. According to the article, the country of the size of the USSR with few allies can't antagonize the rest of the world and win the arms race when the world economy is globalised.

I made this post on TIL after reading on Wikipedia that FD never smiled in the many photographs he took to avoiding playing into racist Minstrel caricatures because he believed it would undermine his cause and public image as an abolitionist.

There was a lot of confusion about the accepted style of photo posture and facial expression back then, with many people I suspect generalizing from this popular Vox video. A lot of comments seem to reflect the belief that exposure times were too long to smile ("He's not smiling because he couldn't hold it"), and that it was against cultural norms at the time ("He's not smiling because nobody smiled"). For all I know, the claims in the video are well sourced, but these is different from the original claim. The original claim is that he gives the camera a stern look, which, regardless of the norms on smiling, is a different expression. The Wikipedia article I got the original fact from cites this NPR interview with John Stauffer, who wrote a book on FD. He says in the interview:

MARTIN: So these [photographs] were not just taken for fun.

STAUFFER: That's right. So he spells out in four speeches - essays - that he gives why photography is so important in ending slavery and racism and achieving civil rights. And he believed in the camera's truth value - that even in the hands of a racist white, the camera will not lie. Thus, it was a wonderful critique or counter to the proliferation of racist caricatures, particularly in blackface minstrelsy.

MARTIN: How much control did he have over the way he was portrayed in these photographs? I mean, was it his choice never to smile, or was that the convention of the time?

STAUFFER: Yes, yes. It wasn't necessarily a convention, but Douglass specifically - in print, he said that he did not want - he did not want to be portrayed as a happy slave. The smiling black was to play into the racist caricature. And his cause of ending slavery and ending racism had the gravity that required a stern look. And so he tended to confront the viewer, look directly into the camera. And so it was a confrontational pose that countered what most photographic manuals instructed the photographer - to position the sitter in a visionary gaze so that you looked up or beyond the camera, looking far away.

He was very self-conscious and sensitive of his visual image, even as a slave in the early 1840s. He describes feeling down in the mouth and looking in a mirror and perceiving himself as ugly, which is really fascinating. And he was very self-conscious of how he presented himself both as - in a photograph, as a speaker, as a writer. The public persona - the look of the public persona was crucial to him because he wanted to enter into the public sphere with an equal voice with an equal image and have the same rights as any other citizen.

Could it be that, in an age of selfies, smiles, etc., we bluntly categorize FD's expression as 'smiling or not smiling' because of our expectations for old photos, while to his contemporaries, his 'stern look' would stand out as stonier than the prevailing non-smiling norm? I think only FD's word can solve this.

However, while it is relatively undisputed that FD took an incredible number of photos, I've found it much more difficult to locate sources to this end, beyond John Stauffer, or, what texts John Stauffer is referring to. Other authors seem to attribute his attitudes regarding the value of pictures and his marked stare to inconsistent or nebulous reasons.

So, at 18,000 upvotes and boosting a murky truth, what are some other reliable authors, or primary sources which can succinctly get to the bottom of this? Did Fredrick Douglass take every one of his numerous photos with the intention of sending a message?

There's this song by Miike Snow where he references Genghis Khan in the following lyric - "I get a little bit Genghis Khan.I don't want you to get it on. With nobody else but me."

BUT one of my friends I showed this song to didn't know who Genghis Khan was or its reference use in the song.

So I'll quit horsing around and just ask the question.

Wasn't there a period or event that Genghis Khan was famous or infamous for where there was a type of border conflict/struggle between him and some other country (because of race or something).So his solution to the issue was to smuggle his people to their country and breed with their people so that they had a harder time telling who was what race. (The "I don't want you to get it on. With nobody else but me" part in the song.) Making it a little easier to conquer?

Maybe I thinking of some other historical event? Maybe that never happened at all and I look pretty dumb asking this question lol.

But if this was a event what was it called? If it wasn't then what would your take on the lyric be? because I honestly don't know then. I know he did quite a bit of conquering but for some reason I have a old memory in the back of my head that he did that as one of his strategies. Maybe someone else did that.

Anyways it's been bugging me for sometime and I was hoping someone could tell me if I was right or wrong.

Thanks a bunch fellas! Hope you all have a lovely day.

The letter in question can be found in the Wikipedia page about Ali Sulayman al-Assad.

That estimate comes from a recent editorial in the Atlantic by former congressman John Dingell. While it may not prove to be entirely accurate, it is an interesting problem to consider for responsible government.

I know the senate was setup as a prevention against the "tyranny of the majority," but I'm wondering if the founding fathers ever contended with the idea of a "tyranny of the minority."