and what was her career?
What did isabella d%26#039;este do for work?
Well, she was given a good education, and at 16, married to Francesco II Gonazga, the marguis of Mantua. She administered his lands during his absence, as noble ladies in that time were generally expected to do, while he led Venetian forces against Charles VIII in 1495 In 1509, when her husband was taken prisoner by the Venetians, Isabella ruled Mantua and held it against the threatening forces of the Venetians. her husband was released by intervention of the Pope. Isabella was very highly educated and was a patron of arts and letters, she presided with her husband over an impressive and splendid court.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
And to what extent do you think current political and economic elites still have the same values?
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Survival of the fittest (Darwin) , wow you must be out of this world not to know that 1, or you have not been in sixth grade, where you learn that the survival of the fittest with animals.
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Probably because mankind has been fighting for his place in the world since he first emerged from the plains of Africa. It is an inborn human trait. The same conditions exist today, ... and likely always will. The weak are displaced by the strong. It%26#039;s not a pretty picture, but it%26#039;s a true one. We, as humanity, have divided ourselves into groups which must continually compete for resources and dominance. It is the only way a group can insure it%26#039;s own survival, ... good or bad, ... right or wrong, ... that%26#039;s just human nature.
Reply:I don%26#039;t think it has ever been socially acceptable like hunting , or fishing , or playing baseball . It%26#039;s more a case of necessity . If you%26#039;re starving and dieing of thirst and some one says they have food and water over there let%26#039;s go get it . Do you say no that%26#039;s not right or do you say okay let%26#039;s go . That has often been the case of conquest . One people has something another group of people needs or wants . If you think back just a few years we here in America were in an absolute frenzy to go to war with Iraq . The reasons for that invasion proofed unjustified but the frenzy was so intense war was inevitable . Those that tried to oppose it were shouted down . I think we are moving into a time when our leaders will find other ways to deal with our nations adversaries . A time when war is the last resort not the first reaction . Still as time goes by the horrors of this war will fade and sooner or later war will come again because of foolish intentions .
Reply:The victors write history. So they write about how great they are. They used to call themselves explorers, instead of pillagers. I imagine the conquered would have had much to say, if they had been allowed to. Today most of our news seems to be sanitized, which is scary. I think our leaders found out how unpopular they became when we watched the real stories from Viet Nam on TV. We weren%26#039;t even allowed to see pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq, until they were released on request through the Freedom of Information Act. It seems that for awhile reporters were allowed to investigate and report news. Now I think you have to dig to find the truth, and most people are so busy trying to make a living that they can%26#039;t use their spare time, if they have any, to investigate what is being done in their names. So we were told what to believe. But now it is in our face, where are the WMD? They don%26#039;t seem to be in Iraq or even under Bush%26#039;s desk. Thousands of young people are being killed and billions of dollars spent to no purpose. I hope that history will record what has actually happened and most of all that we will learn from it and remember this time.
Reply:It is socially acceptable that%26#039;s why. It will be until the time that it is not acceptable anymore. It%26#039;s just a matter of time.
Reply:Because it is economically efficient. Conquest has two wonderful aspects: It obtains more land/wealth if one is successful which can be taxed by the state (often the people who encouraged the campaigned) and two (importantly) regardless of outcome it decreases the number of reproductive males in a region.
Fewer males, less crime. Fewer males, less selective females for those living non injured males. In less modern times, the more females a male had -- (wives, daughters, or slaves) his wealth went up --- due to their productivity --- Women were the weavers, reapers, etc --- women did this hard skilled work.
Current political opinion is still the same --- concentrate power/wealth and make people slaves. Today it is easier to do this with taxes and restrictions on individuals. Reducing males used to keep population low (for is takes 9 month for a woman to have a child and 6 + years for it to become work worthy) --- but if you as elites encourage abortion --- and promiscuity --- women defeat their own interest. Children are why males stay around --- to see them succeed and reproduce but if a women will abort any seed planted and does not choose males for virtue but sexual prowess --- Women are both not dependent on the elite and not producing replacement people. The elites win.
Note: It was not until 1776 when Jefferson et al encouraged that rights belonged to the individual (male and female) was their any hope of progress --- Women between 1776 - 1932 in American gain more collective wealth then ever before --- Yes , there were extremely wealthy women prior to that however their wealth came from males often royality.
It was when the social programs --- of the New Deal and Fair Deal discourage families that women enslaved themselves.
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Survival of the fittest (Darwin) , wow you must be out of this world not to know that 1, or you have not been in sixth grade, where you learn that the survival of the fittest with animals.
Why has conquest been such a socially accepted way of making a living throughout much of human history?
Probably because mankind has been fighting for his place in the world since he first emerged from the plains of Africa. It is an inborn human trait. The same conditions exist today, ... and likely always will. The weak are displaced by the strong. It%26#039;s not a pretty picture, but it%26#039;s a true one. We, as humanity, have divided ourselves into groups which must continually compete for resources and dominance. It is the only way a group can insure it%26#039;s own survival, ... good or bad, ... right or wrong, ... that%26#039;s just human nature.
Reply:I don%26#039;t think it has ever been socially acceptable like hunting , or fishing , or playing baseball . It%26#039;s more a case of necessity . If you%26#039;re starving and dieing of thirst and some one says they have food and water over there let%26#039;s go get it . Do you say no that%26#039;s not right or do you say okay let%26#039;s go . That has often been the case of conquest . One people has something another group of people needs or wants . If you think back just a few years we here in America were in an absolute frenzy to go to war with Iraq . The reasons for that invasion proofed unjustified but the frenzy was so intense war was inevitable . Those that tried to oppose it were shouted down . I think we are moving into a time when our leaders will find other ways to deal with our nations adversaries . A time when war is the last resort not the first reaction . Still as time goes by the horrors of this war will fade and sooner or later war will come again because of foolish intentions .
Reply:The victors write history. So they write about how great they are. They used to call themselves explorers, instead of pillagers. I imagine the conquered would have had much to say, if they had been allowed to. Today most of our news seems to be sanitized, which is scary. I think our leaders found out how unpopular they became when we watched the real stories from Viet Nam on TV. We weren%26#039;t even allowed to see pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq, until they were released on request through the Freedom of Information Act. It seems that for awhile reporters were allowed to investigate and report news. Now I think you have to dig to find the truth, and most people are so busy trying to make a living that they can%26#039;t use their spare time, if they have any, to investigate what is being done in their names. So we were told what to believe. But now it is in our face, where are the WMD? They don%26#039;t seem to be in Iraq or even under Bush%26#039;s desk. Thousands of young people are being killed and billions of dollars spent to no purpose. I hope that history will record what has actually happened and most of all that we will learn from it and remember this time.
Reply:It is socially acceptable that%26#039;s why. It will be until the time that it is not acceptable anymore. It%26#039;s just a matter of time.
Reply:Because it is economically efficient. Conquest has two wonderful aspects: It obtains more land/wealth if one is successful which can be taxed by the state (often the people who encouraged the campaigned) and two (importantly) regardless of outcome it decreases the number of reproductive males in a region.
Fewer males, less crime. Fewer males, less selective females for those living non injured males. In less modern times, the more females a male had -- (wives, daughters, or slaves) his wealth went up --- due to their productivity --- Women were the weavers, reapers, etc --- women did this hard skilled work.
Current political opinion is still the same --- concentrate power/wealth and make people slaves. Today it is easier to do this with taxes and restrictions on individuals. Reducing males used to keep population low (for is takes 9 month for a woman to have a child and 6 + years for it to become work worthy) --- but if you as elites encourage abortion --- and promiscuity --- women defeat their own interest. Children are why males stay around --- to see them succeed and reproduce but if a women will abort any seed planted and does not choose males for virtue but sexual prowess --- Women are both not dependent on the elite and not producing replacement people. The elites win.
Note: It was not until 1776 when Jefferson et al encouraged that rights belonged to the individual (male and female) was their any hope of progress --- Women between 1776 - 1932 in American gain more collective wealth then ever before --- Yes , there were extremely wealthy women prior to that however their wealth came from males often royality.
It was when the social programs --- of the New Deal and Fair Deal discourage families that women enslaved themselves.
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
a) the presence of the united states in the middle east and its support for Israel
b) the rising cost of oil
c) the collapse of the soviet union
d) the questionable election results of 2000
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
A i believe
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
If I have to choose one of your four options, I%26#039;d have to say %26quot;A%26quot;. The other answers have nothing to do with 9/11.
Reply:a
Reply:A but C and D didn%26#039;t help and the whole mess led to B and, as some believe, a repeat of D four years later.
Reply:They were not a %26quot;response to%26quot;; they were an excuse for %26quot;A.%26quot;
Terrorism is never a rational reason for anything. To give it rationality by insisting it was a %26quot;response%26quot; means that we can %26quot;respond%26quot; to Iran%26#039;s hatred of Jews by killing the students at Tehran University; or %26quot;respond%26quot; to China%26#039;s treatment of Tibetans by killing the people in a market in Beijing.
If a terrorist is truely %26quot;responding,%26quot; then no reason A through ZZZ is necessary--they will do as they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want, because they can choose anything they want to, as something to %26quot;respond%26quot; to.
The correct answer is: %26quot;Muslim terrorists kill even their own kind, if their own kind do not keep strictly to the terrorists%26#039; views of the Muslim religion. The good Muslims are as terrorized by all this as we are. Look at all the good people killed in the markets and squares of Iraq. Look at how many of their policement were slaughtered, some of them just waiting in line to ENLIST in the police.
%26quot;Muslim terrorists need no reason, need no excuse, but hide behind the %26quot;idealism%26quot; of a %26quot;purified Muslim society.
%26quot;It is their own form of %26quot;ethnic cleansing,%26quot; except that the whole world is what they want to cleanse.%26quot;
Answering %26quot;A%26quot; gives legitimacy to these brutal acts of inhumanity to man. Do not give them that legitimacy.
Reply:Who are the terrorists? Lacking a legitimate political base and having no real popular support, they use terror to lash out at the strongest opponents who occupy positions of power. We have always had terrorists and they cannot be appeased or negotiated with. There is no reason guiding their actions except to create as much havoc and suffering as they can. There is no way for the terrorists to gain a position of power because they would be crushed by legitimate governments who are the true representatives of the people. It is simply a struggle of sanity and reason vs the madness and savage wrath of a frustrated foe.
Reply:INCREDIBLE ANSWER BY GENE!
I go with: GENE%26#039;s answer + a^2
Well, there you have it.
.
Reply:The Islamic extremists responsible for the attack chose these buildings as symbols of United States dominance of the world, and particularly the subjugation of Islamic countries to Western interests and ideologies. I would say that they considered the killing of thousands as regrettable %26quot;collateral damage%26quot; to their act of higher purpose. All too familiar logic these days.
Though the level of complicity is unknown, the 9/11 attacks were most probably bankrolled (and perhaps with some Saudi government knowledge) from Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia -- through Osama Bin Laden. He is a member of one of Saudi Arabia%26#039;s most powerful families (which the Bush administration thought it %26quot;controlled%26quot;). %26#039;Exiled%26#039; in Afghanistan, Bin Laden masterminded a %26quot;double-blind%26quot; network of terrorist cells -- perhaps with the tacit support of his family or government, or both. He himself probably did not know the exact nature or timing of the hijack plan. In any event, it is unlikely that anyone, including the perpetrators or Bin Laden, expected the Twin Towers to be entirely destroyed. The attack, while meant to be devastating, was primarily symbolic, and far exceeded expectations. Hence his obvious surprise and glee we see on video of him as he watched the events on television. The target scheduled for United 95, (crashed at the cost of their lives by the heroic resistance of its passengers) is not known, but it was most probably destined for The Capitol or The White House.
These buildings symbolically stood for what the terrorists (18/20 of whom were Saudis) saw as the epicenters and symbols of United States%26#039; and Western Judeo-Christian imperialism -- economic (The WTC), political (The Capitol or White House) and military (The Pentagon).
In all, 9/11 will be seen by history as one of the most significant events of our era, whose long-term effects are still in the process of resolution -- particularly, (and contrary to common belief, at least in the United States), in Iraq. Our invasion there was a response to 9/11 (directed toward the Saudis, NOT Saddam Hussein and his mythical WMD%26#039;s, nor his relatively small oil reserves), and was absolutely necessary in order to bring a significant military presence into that theater after the attack, and thereby protect our national security as well as to guarantee the safety of our enormous economic AND strategic interests in the area. In that sense the invasion, war, and occupation -- however costly, were and are justified. And again, once 9/11 occurred, immediately necessary as the only viable plan of action, short of a direct invasion of the Saudi peninsula which would most probably have provoked WWIII.
Reply:a
b) the rising cost of oil
c) the collapse of the soviet union
d) the questionable election results of 2000
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
A i believe
The attacks on the pentagon and the world trade center in 2001 were a response to?
If I have to choose one of your four options, I%26#039;d have to say %26quot;A%26quot;. The other answers have nothing to do with 9/11.
Reply:a
Reply:A but C and D didn%26#039;t help and the whole mess led to B and, as some believe, a repeat of D four years later.
Reply:They were not a %26quot;response to%26quot;; they were an excuse for %26quot;A.%26quot;
Terrorism is never a rational reason for anything. To give it rationality by insisting it was a %26quot;response%26quot; means that we can %26quot;respond%26quot; to Iran%26#039;s hatred of Jews by killing the students at Tehran University; or %26quot;respond%26quot; to China%26#039;s treatment of Tibetans by killing the people in a market in Beijing.
If a terrorist is truely %26quot;responding,%26quot; then no reason A through ZZZ is necessary--they will do as they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want, because they can choose anything they want to, as something to %26quot;respond%26quot; to.
The correct answer is: %26quot;Muslim terrorists kill even their own kind, if their own kind do not keep strictly to the terrorists%26#039; views of the Muslim religion. The good Muslims are as terrorized by all this as we are. Look at all the good people killed in the markets and squares of Iraq. Look at how many of their policement were slaughtered, some of them just waiting in line to ENLIST in the police.
%26quot;Muslim terrorists need no reason, need no excuse, but hide behind the %26quot;idealism%26quot; of a %26quot;purified Muslim society.
%26quot;It is their own form of %26quot;ethnic cleansing,%26quot; except that the whole world is what they want to cleanse.%26quot;
Answering %26quot;A%26quot; gives legitimacy to these brutal acts of inhumanity to man. Do not give them that legitimacy.
Reply:Who are the terrorists? Lacking a legitimate political base and having no real popular support, they use terror to lash out at the strongest opponents who occupy positions of power. We have always had terrorists and they cannot be appeased or negotiated with. There is no reason guiding their actions except to create as much havoc and suffering as they can. There is no way for the terrorists to gain a position of power because they would be crushed by legitimate governments who are the true representatives of the people. It is simply a struggle of sanity and reason vs the madness and savage wrath of a frustrated foe.
Reply:INCREDIBLE ANSWER BY GENE!
I go with: GENE%26#039;s answer + a^2
Well, there you have it.
.
Reply:The Islamic extremists responsible for the attack chose these buildings as symbols of United States dominance of the world, and particularly the subjugation of Islamic countries to Western interests and ideologies. I would say that they considered the killing of thousands as regrettable %26quot;collateral damage%26quot; to their act of higher purpose. All too familiar logic these days.
Though the level of complicity is unknown, the 9/11 attacks were most probably bankrolled (and perhaps with some Saudi government knowledge) from Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia -- through Osama Bin Laden. He is a member of one of Saudi Arabia%26#039;s most powerful families (which the Bush administration thought it %26quot;controlled%26quot;). %26#039;Exiled%26#039; in Afghanistan, Bin Laden masterminded a %26quot;double-blind%26quot; network of terrorist cells -- perhaps with the tacit support of his family or government, or both. He himself probably did not know the exact nature or timing of the hijack plan. In any event, it is unlikely that anyone, including the perpetrators or Bin Laden, expected the Twin Towers to be entirely destroyed. The attack, while meant to be devastating, was primarily symbolic, and far exceeded expectations. Hence his obvious surprise and glee we see on video of him as he watched the events on television. The target scheduled for United 95, (crashed at the cost of their lives by the heroic resistance of its passengers) is not known, but it was most probably destined for The Capitol or The White House.
These buildings symbolically stood for what the terrorists (18/20 of whom were Saudis) saw as the epicenters and symbols of United States%26#039; and Western Judeo-Christian imperialism -- economic (The WTC), political (The Capitol or White House) and military (The Pentagon).
In all, 9/11 will be seen by history as one of the most significant events of our era, whose long-term effects are still in the process of resolution -- particularly, (and contrary to common belief, at least in the United States), in Iraq. Our invasion there was a response to 9/11 (directed toward the Saudis, NOT Saddam Hussein and his mythical WMD%26#039;s, nor his relatively small oil reserves), and was absolutely necessary in order to bring a significant military presence into that theater after the attack, and thereby protect our national security as well as to guarantee the safety of our enormous economic AND strategic interests in the area. In that sense the invasion, war, and occupation -- however costly, were and are justified. And again, once 9/11 occurred, immediately necessary as the only viable plan of action, short of a direct invasion of the Saudi peninsula which would most probably have provoked WWIII.
Reply:a
Coketown Hard Times?
In hard Times by Charles Dickens when he compared a machine to a human being, why did he do this? what are some compareses you can make between a person and a maching. What are the qualities in a machine that are also in a human. As many as you can think of would be very helpful for my understanding, as I was reading this book. thanks!
What happened in Poland in 1939?
September 1, 1939 got invaded by the Nazis. Got overrun in about 25 days by the Luftwaffe Airforce, and Panzer Tank divisions. World War II was underway.
What happened in Poland in 1939?
The German and Russian armies decided to vacation in Warsaw.
The invasion of Poland Sept. 1, 1939, was the start of World War II as the British and French goverments decided the only way to stop Hitler was war. Hitler invaded Poland after concluding a secret treaty with Stalin to divide Poland if the Soviet Union would stay out of the coming war.
Coming off severe purges of the officer corps in the 1930s and the disasterous Fino-Soviet War of the late 30s, Stalin knew that Russia was in no shape to fight Germany. Hitler, on the other hand, didn%26#039;t want to take on Russia until he had addressed France and Britain...
What happened in Poland in 1939?
The German and Russian armies decided to vacation in Warsaw.
The invasion of Poland Sept. 1, 1939, was the start of World War II as the British and French goverments decided the only way to stop Hitler was war. Hitler invaded Poland after concluding a secret treaty with Stalin to divide Poland if the Soviet Union would stay out of the coming war.
Coming off severe purges of the officer corps in the 1930s and the disasterous Fino-Soviet War of the late 30s, Stalin knew that Russia was in no shape to fight Germany. Hitler, on the other hand, didn%26#039;t want to take on Russia until he had addressed France and Britain...
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900?
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900: miners, cattlemen, and farmers
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Western European immigrants.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Limitless and diverse natural resources unavailable in many other countries as well as an ever growing cheap labor force. Americans were also great innovators who were often on the cutting edge of the day%26#039;s technology and willingly employed it. As a so-called %26#039;new world%26#039;, the US wasn%26#039;t overly tied to the inefficiences of the old world, ... and took advantage of all the opportunities which presented themselves as science and technology progressed. Freedom and democracy also played a big role in allowing the American dream where anyone, from any background or social class could achieve greatness with hard work and dilligence.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Raw materials, including coal for energy, a good transportation network and a large population that provided workers for the factories and buyers for the products...
Reply:A trans-continental railroad system;
The development of cities around manufacturing centers and seaports;
A large urban workforce from farms and immigration;
Advances in industrial process and technology;
A new generation of capitalists willing to take full advantage of all the above.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Limitless and diverse natural resources unavailable in many other countries as well as an ever growing cheap labor force. Americans were also great innovators who were often on the cutting edge of the day%26#039;s technology and willingly employed it. As a so-called %26#039;new world%26#039;, the US wasn%26#039;t overly tied to the inefficiences of the old world, ... and took advantage of all the opportunities which presented themselves as science and technology progressed. Freedom and democracy also played a big role in allowing the American dream where anyone, from any background or social class could achieve greatness with hard work and dilligence.
What factors allowed the united states to indusrialize very rapidly during the last half of the 19th century?
Raw materials, including coal for energy, a good transportation network and a large population that provided workers for the factories and buyers for the products...
Reply:A trans-continental railroad system;
The development of cities around manufacturing centers and seaports;
A large urban workforce from farms and immigration;
Advances in industrial process and technology;
A new generation of capitalists willing to take full advantage of all the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)