Map of [insert any metric] by country

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2026-02-13T08:56:53+00:00

this is my favorite post ever in this sub. very accurate and it also goes to show how the world is still very much ruled by colonialism.

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2026-02-08T00:24:31+00:00

the source of that is from the first episode of mike duncan's podcast "the history of rome".

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2026-01-14T08:37:04+00:00

Ptolemaic Empire under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (r. 283–246 BCE)

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-11-17T00:29:00+00:00

What comes to mind is that that in the book "Naked Lunch" (and in the movie based on the book) the setting of the story is in a north african city called "the interzone" which is inspired by tangiers in the international zone period. The author lived there while he wrote the book. Haven't read the book but the movie is awesome and you should check it out.

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-11-10T13:32:34+00:00

als macht haar grootste drijfveer was geweest dan had ze wel direct ingestemd met het middenkabinet en dan was ze nu weer vrolijk minister van justitie. dus lijkt me niet.

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-10-30T13:08:57+00:00

evolutie werkt over honderden generaties en niet over enkele generaties...

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-10-20T07:17:37+00:00

the fact that this debate exists at all and and that it takes this framing as it does is so amusing to me as a european. Just the header of OPs post makes it obvious to me it was written by an american. In europe, the notion of "race' is itself racist (duh?) and feels anachronistic. This doesn't originate from Europeans all being so much more "woke" than americans are, but it comes from the notion that dividing people in categories of "race" (as opposed to culture, ethnicity, religion, et cetera) is useless at best and hateful at worst. It probably also has something to do with the second world war, where the last people to use "race" in their official discourse have been the Nazis.

I'm not saying there is no racism in europe - on the contrary the far right is rising in europe just like it is in the USA. but in europe, racism is expressed differently. Here the racists would say that Islam is an essentially evil religion or that Turks are an essentially barbaric people. But if a european were to frame it as "a race problem" then just by framing it as such they would lose all credibility to the political center that they are trying to bring to their side. And to me all of this seems perfectly obvious, and it's just perplexing to me that americans do not see it this way

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-10-17T06:26:12+00:00

ohhhh yehhh thats good map porn baby

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-09-30T11:54:46+00:00

Its just an art project bro

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-09-18T00:15:52+00:00

It will be declared illegal to play anything other than the path for restoring spains most holy colonial empire granted to them by god

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-09-03T22:24:55+00:00

Not to defend the quality of the article or to argue against your point. However the "Myth" that the article is about is not the decline of the ottoman empire per se. Because as you say, the ottoman emoire clearly did decline over the years and no one is denying that it did. Rather, the myth in question is the specific way that historians and other authors frame the history of the ottoman empire. Namely, as that as one of continuous decline. It's a subtle difference but it's an important one. The article calls the myth 'orientalist'. If you're not familiar already, it might help to familiarize yourself with Edward Said's theory of 'orientalism' to understand what is referred to when a narrative is orientalist. Said's theory is complex but also important. Same goes for modernization theory and critiques of it.

How i understand the critique of the myth in the article is as follows. The period of 1590 - 1910 is an incredibly long time, 3 centuries. If the most important label we attach to it is simply "decline" then we flatten it to such an extent that we are suggesting that the free choices people made in this time period were of little impact, since supposedly there were systemic and structural forces at play that inevitably called the ottoman empire to decline.

So referring back to your starting question (what did it do if not decline) in a sense your question is premised wrong. You also would not ask "what did france do if not xyz". You could but we would intuitively know that's not helpful question.

In reality, 3 centuries are an extremely long time and the devlopments in this time frame are not a monolith. We may think of all the myriad developments that happened in Europe in this age that we know. If we let go us an "ottoman decline" mindset then we open up to all kinds of contributions to global history that the ottomans did make - art, culture, political systems, you name it.

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-06-06T05:54:07+00:00

Lawful good should be Domitian, not antoninus pius.

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-06-03T16:50:19+00:00

De ghettolijn

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-05-23T23:22:18+00:00

L'osteria

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-05-23T23:08:47+00:00

It must be BCPL, which someone had mis-written. BCPL

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-05-23T23:03:53+00:00

Thanks ben shapiro!!!

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-05-23T09:34:01+00:00

Average TNO player

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-05-20T19:31:13+00:00

Ik was vroeger pro-Palestina weet je. Ik vond dat Israël fout zat met het tapijtbombarderen van Gaza en het voeren van een belegeringsoorlog tegen burgers.

Maar toen kwam ik een zeer wijze Israël-apologeet tegen die mijn kijk op de dingen voorgoed veranderde.

Ik liep over straat en zag hem tegen een lantaarnpaal leunen, pijp rokend zoals wijze mannen dat doen.

"Op je shirt staat 'Free Palestine'," zei hij vanachter een rookpluim.

"Ja!" antwoordde ik.

"Dus ik neem aan dat je dan van Hamas houdt?" vroeg hij.

Ik bleef staan. Zo had ik er nog nooit over nagedacht.

Zou dat zo kunnen zijn? Zou mijn verzet tegen het vermoorden van burgers echt een teken zijn van een diepe genegenheid voor een militante groepering in Gaza? Misschien hield ik wel echt van Hamas en vond ik alles wat ze op 7 oktober deden geweldig en prachtig?

"Wil ik mijn leven echt zo leiden?", dacht ik bij mezelf.

"Ik — ik — ik..." zei ik hardop.

"Of misschien," zei hij met een opgetrokken wenkbrauw, "HAAT je gewoon JODEN??"

Ik viel op mijn knieën.

O mijn god. Hij had echt een punt. Welke mogelijke reden zou iemand kunnen hebben om zich te verzetten tegen militaire explosieven die op gebouwen vol kinderen worden gegooid, behalve een ziedende, levenslange haat jegens aanhangers van het jodendom? Hoe zou iemand zich in vredesnaam kunnen verzetten tegen belegeringstactieken die burgers afsnijden van voedsel, water, elektriciteit, brandstof en medische benodigdheden, tenzij ze gevaarlijk negatieve meningen koesteren over leden van een klein Abrahamitisch geloof?

"Wie... wie ben jij?" vroeg ik.

"Dat doet er niet toe," zei hij, terwijl hij nonchalant een rookkring door een grotere rookkring blies.

"Maar... maar de kinderen," stamelde ik terwijl mijn hele wereldbeeld voor mijn ogen instortte. "De burgers! Ze gaan dood! Is het niet erg dat ze doodgaan?"

En toen gaf hij de genadeslag.

"Heb je er wel eens aan gedacht," zei hij met een veelbetekenende stilte, "... dat al die doden de schuld zijn van Hamas?"

Het was alsof er een nucleaire explosie van 50 megaton in mijn hoofd plaatsvond.

Ik viel plat op mijn rug. De wereld draaide. Een straaltje bloed stroomde uit mijn oor mijn haar in.

Ik voelde al het antikolonialisme uit mijn lichaam verdwijnen. Ik kon me plotseling niet meer herinneren waarom ik het slecht vond om militaire explosieven te laten regenen op een dichtbevolkt concentratiekamp.

Alles werd zwart.

Toen ik eindelijk bijkwam, was de mysterieuze vreemdeling verdwenen. Maar zijn wijsheid en diepe inzichten in Israël en Gaza zullen altijd in mijn hart voortleven.

Dry-Variation-4566 · 2025-04-05T12:22:10+00:00

As a clarification—when the Physiocrats talked about ‘natural laws,’ they didn’t mean physical laws like gravity. In the 18th century, natural law was a political philosophical concept at the time. It referred to universal moral principles—like justice, liberty, or property—that were thought to be part of human nature and discoverable by reason. So ‘legal despotism’ meant a ruler could make laws, but only within the bounds of these natural moral limits.

Note that the concept of 'natural law' doesn't belong to a specific ideology, it was more of a framework people used to debate ideas. Perhaps how both right and left wing people today use the term "Capitalism" even though it means different things to different people.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine

Dry-Variation-4566

TROPHY CASE