We thought the Incas couldn’t write. These knots change everythingby go2dfishin history

[] -0 points

Aboriginal Australia:

A hastily made message stick sent by an Aurukun man to a Weipa man consenting to the marriage of his sister. The message also asks for payment of a cloth from the woman, singlet and trousers from the man and the completion of an abode.

https://qmtalksscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/e493-message-stick-2cropped.jpg

https://blog.qm.qld.gov.au/2012/11/06/message-sticks-rich-ways-of-weaving-aboriginal-cultures-into-the-australian-curriculum/

    Battle of Rossbachin history

    [] -0 points

    Why France hates Germany hates France

      Germany Could Not Win WW2in history

      [] -0 points

      It could if American Jewry hadn't agitated (though 50% ownership of the media at the time) American entry into the war. Lease-lend was the only reason that the Soviets so much as put up a fight

        Quod si legere aut audire voletis externa, maximas res publicas ab adulescentibus labefactatas, a senibus sustentatas et restitutas reperietis.in history

        [] -0 points

        Cicero is essentially saying...

        If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.

          The History of the Second Amendmentby go1dfishin history

          [] -0 points

          Something I've been curious about that no one seems to have analyzed is the interpretation of the 2nd amendment within a generation of its existence.

          Clearly the modern understand has to be so contorted that it would take more than one generation to achieve, which it did. But that would mean that case law in the first generation would likely be at odds with their specific contortions of certain phrases.

          So for example the idea that bear does not mean to carry on your person, as modern legal experts of one sort claim. It would be hard to square that will all judges in the same era the law was written, who spoke the same english as the authors, admitting in cases the constitutional fact that a person can't be prohibited by the government from retaining a firearm on his person.