I have to make a webpage for my political theory class. Here are the instructions: create a webpage that offers advice to political leaders and citizens. Use Hobbes, Locke, Madison, Rousseau, Mill and Marx and Engels to devise answers to problems of your specification that involve delegation of political authority, challenges to existing political power, and questions of fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens. The scale of organization for which you are offering advice can be national, international or local. You can present the information in whatever format you like, including photographs, quotes, FAQ’s, best practices, mission statements, etc.

The webpages require reflection and discussion to consider the kinds of political problems political leaders and citizens face for which political theory is useful. Your website should not just be a series of Wikipedia-like entries on who the political theorists are and what their major points were. The project asks you to apply their ideas. You set the parameters for how to do this. One possibility is to consider a particular set of problems - the crisis in Syria, the emerging democracy in Myanmar, the establishment of a new political party in the United States, the consolidation of a global political order to address environmental problems and the resource use that contributes to them. Feel free to draw on your experiences (in the military, diplomacy, in neighborhood associations) in thinking about political organization.

Any ideas? Thanks guys!

why would making slavery legally impossible incentivise the south to give up?

Since this year marks a hundred years since the beginning of World War I, what /wereare the short/long term consequences of it? How did it change/impact the world? Can some consequences be felt today, if so what are they? (English is not my first language so excuse any grammar fault!)

Me and my boyfriend were talking about this a lot and I wanted to ask some people that might actually know something pertinent. Natural male biology insists that a male reproduce as often as possible, and sex is also generally enjoyable. Many cultures in the past accepted homosexuality such as Rome, Persia, and Asia, and it makes sense to have sex recreationally with whomever you please when the goal is not procreation.

We know the Bible played a big role in the anti-gay culture, but we're unsure of why Christianity took that stance (or what inspired the Bible's stance?). Is it simply because homosexual unions don't produce children that it was deemed unnatural, or were there movements or events that made homosexuality seem contrary or heathen?

I apologize if this isn't the right subreddit for this - if there's a better place to ask, let me know and I'll be happy to delete this and post it somewhere else.

I am homeschooling my 15-year old, and she has chosen to study the Holocaust as our next unit. I am choosing to start with a brief (!) overview of World War I, then move through the Weimar Republic, the Golden Age, The Great Depression, then on to the rise of the NSDAP and the Holocaust itself. My thinking was that the period before World War II is critical in understanding how things happened the way they did.

I am trying to incorporate many different subjects into these themes - for example, I would like to talk not only about political and military events, but look at art movements during these times, gender issues, rationalism, etc.

There is so much material out there that I'm finding myself struggling to identify good resources so we can do some broad learning, but still stay somewhat focused on the unit's "theme". So far I have identified the following resources as supplemental materials:

• Blank maps of Europe for her to fill in for various time periods
• The movie Metropolis (assuming I can find it)
• Discussions about Brave New World, which she has already read
• Little Man, What Now? by Hans Fallada
• German Propaganda from Calvin.edu
• The movie Conspiracy with Kenneth Branagh
• Frauen: German Women Recall the Third Reich by Alison Owings
• One or more of: Night by Elie Weisel, The Drowned and the Saved by Primo Levi, Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl
• The Frontline documentary Memory of the Camps

I feel like I'm already getting into huge overload territory - this seems like enough stuff for a year's worth of study. What recommendations do any of you that focus on this time period have for either narrowing this down more or replacing some of what I have listed with better options? Additional options? My daughter is smart, so I don't have to simplify it too much, but I do want to make sure that I'm keeping things broad enough to explore tangents if we feel compelled to do so.

My question is as follows:

When the Romanov dynasty ended, some people believed that an heir had survived. I cannot remember her name, but I do recall one woman claimed to be Anastasia until it was proven she was not. Why were people so willing to believe that an heir existed? And further, do historians consider the era of communism to have been better for the Russian people than the Romanov's?

My follow up would be this: Why wouldn't the leaders of the revolution sought to 'ransom' the Romanov's? Would they not have been able to get money for their safety considering they were related to much of the royalty in Europe?

First, there are quotes of the then young Dalai Lama complimenting Mao and even say Mao was "like a father". In which context did that happened? How much time it took for the relations become worse to the point of Chinese soldiers raping Tibetan monks and nuns?

Second, the Dalai Lama has shown simpathy for Marxism - however, the rebels who took him from power where Marxist, weren't they? I don't understand, why did the Tibetan people rebelled against the smiling man we all like in the West? What kind of government did they have?

Finally, I understand we have the 20 years rule, but could anyone tell me what changed in Tibet and how modern Tibet is doing regarding welfare, government, etc?

Lately I've noticed that the large empires and powers of the Ancient World never bothered taking the Arabian peninsula into their control. Why is this? Hostile people, enviromment, not worth the time? Also any tidbits about the ancient people of the peninsula would be great.

We are often fed a view of the middle ages as being violent and a time of crime and murder. Was this the case? Were the Middle Ages actually violent or were they a time or relative peace?

EDIT: I realise someone already asked a similar question about the Middle Ages but this was related to Game of Thrones... I'm asking more specifically about violent crime in general and not in relation to a TV show. Thanks!

I was watching "300 rise of an empire" and, although not a good reference for historcial facts, it struck me that as a slave you had no hope of surviving such battles.

To be specific, the main artillery round is a six inch shell, they have a .50 calibre machine gun etc.

Was Theodore Roosevelt really given the Vice Presidency to effectively remove him from politics? Did no one think he could ever become president?

Did he have a negative view of the position? If so, why did he accept?

Suppose a horseman's mount was killed in combat. I assume the cavalryman would break away from battle lines and return to camp sans horse, right? What would happen after that? This question pertains to no particular historical period, simply whichever you are most familiar with.

I'm scouring through historical documents (expedition accounts, ethnographies, etc.) to see if I can find information about this topic. I figured I'd see if anyone here had any sources they knew off the top of their heads. I am particularly interested in the northern part of New Mexico.

anyone an expert or have any sources or books to read in regards to slang used in French prisons during the 19th century? It would be very helpful, thanks.