This week, ending in June 16 2016:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
The hell is "quiritary ownership"? Just came across this concept, used casually by Wallerstein, and I was hoping someone could help explain it to me.
As best I can tell, quiritary ownership refers to a specific kind of ownership, dating to early Roman law, in which Roman citizens held property by virtue in their membership in a given their relationship to their clans and could only be obtained by a limited number of clearly prescribed ways, or something? It is supposedly opposed to "bonitary law" which is later Roman law and a lot more open about ways through which property could be acquired?
Explanations of this concept are either so vague they don't tell me anything or presume a level of familiarity with Roman law that I just don't have.
Any help is appreciated.
I have a theory and I'm interested in what actual knowledgeable people think of it: We aren't likely to see a true WWIII because it isn't in corporate interest.
My theory is that WW2 was possible because it was the last time national and corporate interests aligned more or less. Now business interests span the globe, so to have two superpowers collide would be terrible for business.
Any water held?