#or between a constitutional monarchy and a democratic republic

[i-am-dulaman]

petition for that long rant on revolutions here, i really enjoyed the way you laid out your facts and explained the first rant and am not too good at reading theory myself (i am still trying tho) thanks!!

Okay okay so the problem with revolutions is they get messy. Real messy. You get counter-revolutionaries, moderates, extremists, loyalists, and everything in between. One revolution turns into 5, and even if your side wins, its almost guaranteed to have been tainted some way or another along the way.

Take the first french revolution. It started as civil unrest, the estates general initially called for reform of the french state into a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain. Even king louis XVI was in support of this. But extremists wanting a republic and counter-revolutionaries wanting absolute monarchy clashed and things became more and more chaotic and violent. Eventually the extremists won, the jacobin reign of terror ensued, and 10s of thousands of people were executed. Now don't get me wrong, i am all for executing monarchs and feudal lords, but look what happened a few years later; Napoleon used the political instability to declare himself emperor, a few more years later his empire had crumbled, and the monarchy was back with Louis XVIII.

Or take the 1979 iranian revolution. It started as protests against pahlavi, who was an authoritarian head of state and an American pawn. As the protests turned into civil resistance and guerilla warfare it took on many different forms. There were secularists vs islamic extremists. There were democrats vs theocrats vs monarchists. Etc. Through all the chaos, Khomeini seized power, held a fake referendum, and declared himself supreme leader and enforced many strict laws, particularly on women who previously had close to equal rights. Many of the millions of women involved in the revolution later said they felt bettayed by the end result.

Or the Russian Revolution. It started as protests, military strikes, and civil unrest during WW1 directed at the tsar. He stepped down in 1917 and handed power over to the Duma, the russian parliament. This new provisionary government initially had the support of soviet councils, including socialist groups like the menshiviks. But they made the major mistake of deciding to continue the war. Lenins bolsheviks were originally a very tiny group on the fringes of russian politics, but they were the loudest supporters of peace, so they gained support and organised militias into an army and thus began the russian civil war. Lenin won and followed through on his promise to end the war against germany, but its a bit ironic that they fought a civil war, that killed about 10 million people, just to end another war.

Im not saying any of these results were either bad or good. They all have nuance and its all subjective. But the point i am trying to make is that they get messy. The initial goals will always be twisted.

France wanted a constitutional monarchy, they got an autocratic emporer.

Iran wanted democracy and an end to American influence, and well they ended american influence alright but also got a totalitarian theocrat.

Russia wanted an end to world war 1 and got one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.

I cant think of a single revolution in history that achieved the goals it set out to achieve.

But again, im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, just a warning against revolutionary rhetoric and criticisms of reformism. Sometimes revolution is the only option, when you're faced with an authoritarian government diametrically opposed to change, then a revolution may be worth the risk. But it is a risk.

But if you live in a democracy, claiming revolution is the only way is actively choosing both bloodshed and the risk of things going horribly wrong over the choice of peaceful reform.

So when i go online in some leftist spaces and see people claiming revolution in America or UK or wherever is the only way out of capitalism I cant help but feel angry.

I know our democracy is flawed, and reform is slow and can even go backwards, but we owe it to all the people who would die in a revolution to try reform first.

I know socialist reform is especially hard in our flawed democracy where capitalists own the media, but if we can't convince enough people to vote for socialist reform what hope do we have of convincing enough people to join a socialist revolution. Socialism is supposed to be for the people, but how can you claim your revolution is for the people if you can't even get the support of the people?

So what I'm trying to say is; if youre one of those leftists that are sitting around waiting for the glorious revolution, doing nothing but posting rhetoric online - at least try doing something else while you wait. Join your labour union, recruit your coworkers, get involved in your local socialist parties, call your local representatives (city council, senator, governor, member of parliament, whatever) and make your opinions known, push them further left, and keep pushing.

[kemetic-dreams]

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

The basic political unit among the Igbo is the village. Two types of political systems have been distinguished among the Igbo on both sides of the Niger River: the democratic village republic type, found among the Igbo living to the east of the Niger River, and the constitutional monarchy type, found among Igbo in Delta State and the riverine towns of Onitsha and Ossomali. Most of the villages or towns that have the latter type of political system have two ruling monarchs—one female and one male. The obi (male monarch) is theoretically the father of the whole community, and the omu (female monarch) is theoretically the mother of the whole community; the duties of the latter, however, center mainly around the female side of the community.

Women engage in village politics (i.e., manage their affairs, separately from the men). They do this by establishing their own political organizations, which come under an overall village or town Women's Council under the leadership of seasoned matriarchs. It was this organizational system that enabled Igbo women and Ibibio women to wage an anticolonial struggle against the British in 1929 known as the Women's War (Ogu Umunwayi).

Both types of political systems are characterized by the smallness in size of the political units, the wide dispersal of political authority between the sexes, kinship groups, lineages, age sets, title societies, diviners, and other professional groups. Colonialism has had a detrimental effect on the social, political, and economic status of traditional Igbo women, resulting in a gradual loss of autonomy and power.

[badgermolebender]

I so desperately want a massive political history of The Earth Kingdom. If I could have any other thing from the world of ATLA/LOK — book, show, comic, game — it would be that. Bc I am so interested in it.

🚨 Spoilers for every thing — Yangchen and Kyoshi books, ATLA, LOK, Comics, etc. 🚨

The earliest we hear about an actual Earth Kingdom and Earth Royal family is in F.C. Yee’s Yangchen books. At this point, the Earth Kingdom has just gone through a civil war, wherein the White Lotus manipulated the Water Tribes and Fire Nation to sponsor a challenger to the throne, which is wild. The challenger was defeated and the Earth Kingdom entered a period of intense isolationism. There are a handful of port cities where foreign trade is allowed, with incredibly powerful governors who actively manipulate the system to build their wealth at the expense of the citizens. The Earth King is paranoid af, to the point that he is donning disguises and sneaking around to catch plots against him. And some of these governors are actively plotting against him and inventing new weapons of mass destruction (combustion benders) in order to usurp him.

The next we see of the Earth Kingdom is in the Kyoshi novels were it’s a devolved mess of warlordism. Various daofei groups had taken over parts of the inner provinces and the Earth Monarch was incredibly weak. There’s also the whole Wars of Secrets and Daggers scramble for the throne, which is only mentioned.

According to the Wiki, in the online comic Escape from the Spirit World, Kyoshi pressured the ineffective 46th Earth King to adopt a constitutional monarchy in order to prevent further oppression. This occurred in the aftermath of a peasant revolt that occurred after the death of Chin the Conquerer.

Avatar Legends then gives us a King Jialun, who reversed many of the progressive changes of this constitution and murdered the sages who agreed with Kyoshi in “The Night of the Silenced Sages.” The government was recorrupted, but no other successor had the same power as Jialun. So the Earth Kingdom monarchy was corrupt but weak.

Then we next see the Earth Kingdom with King Kuei (the 52nd Earth King). According to the old website, he ascended to the throne at the age of 4, which is why Long Feng — who served as regent — was able to essentially takeover.

But based on what we see in the show, the Earth Kingdom has completely splintered. The Earth King only has power in Ba Sing Se, and that power is only ceremonial. He is unaware of the 100 year war and completely inept to rule. Then it’s Azula and the fire nation takeover.

In the comics that come between ATLA and LOK, King Kuei, without the influence of Long Feng, takes an active role in the governance of the Kingdom. He is willing to go to war over the colonies in “The Rift,” but is also willing to be shown wrong. He was instrumental in the peace after the war and fully restored the monarchy as the full power of the Earth Kingdom government.

Then we get to LOK. Hou Ting is a fairly powerful, incredibly corrupt monarch. She tried to exert more control over the people, especially the outer provinces. She’s then killed by Zaheer. The power vacuum is ultimately filled by Kuvira, a non-dynastic dictator who rules by force and sponsors brain washing and the forced removal of Fire and Water nation descendants. The next dynastic ruler is Wu (whom Kuvira had usurped). He is Hou Ting’s great-nephew, and at least third in line from her. He is the only surviving member of the dynasty and seems unprepared to rule at his coronation, after three years of living in Republic City.

After the whole Kuvira thing is taken care of (Book 4 of LOK), Wu then decides to abdicate and democratize the Earth Kingdom. The post-canon comics (Ruins of Empire) show the struggles and setbacks of this, but ultimately reaffirm this path.

And I am so obsessed with this whole history. There are, according to the Wiki, at least 2 dynasties, the Hao and the Hou Ting. It resembles Chinese history, but doesn’t just follow it. There’s dynastic decline and really interesting incidents that I wish were more fully fleshed out. Not to mention as the centralized monarchy weakens, you see the rise of local powers, like the King of Omashu. I just find the whole thing so fascinating and I wish I had a comprehensive book.

[minetteskvareninova]

Republic Of Many Nations - Historical Opportunity for Central/Eastern Europe?

(This is a translation of an exhibition created with the cooperation of multiple Slovak and Polish institutions for the study of history that hanged in the corridors of University of Prešov in late 2023. Consider this an introduction to Rzeczpospolita for all my 1670 girlies. It's heavily biased in favor of Rzeczpospolita, luckily in ways that are neither subtle, nor do they detract from its informational value. I am leaving out most of the pictures and the commentary under them, as well as the quotes included - simply because I couldn't fit them into the format of a tumblr article. The notes bellow in [] brackets are mine, the rest of the text is from the exhibition itself, and the pictures, or something close to them - like the same building from a different angle - appeared on the exhibition panels as well. Commentary on the pictures is also from the exhibition.)

***

Did you know that from the end of the 14th century untill the end of the 18th century a unique republic existed in what is now Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus, which was the biggest state in Europe and which wasn't founded by military expansion, but by a peaceful alliance of Kingdom of Poland and Grandduchy of Lithuania? This republic gradually fell to the pressure of surrounding absolutist monarchies led by the Tsardom of Muscovy [1], but its legacy persists in the ethos of civil liberties, democratic participation and diversity. Legacy of this republic has become a part of the identity of nations in the Middle/Eastern Europe, which for more than two centuries resisted Russian imperial rule and which cling to these values to this day.

1.) REPUBLIC OF MANY NATIONS The beginings of the "republic of many nations" can be traced to the year 1385, when the hand of Jadwiga, heir to the Polish throne, was offered to Jogaila, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, with the stipulation that he should become a Christian. When Jogaila ascended the throne of Poland as Władisław II. Jagiełło, it created a dynastic link between Poland and Grandduchy of Lithuania, which besides Lithuania consisted of lands in today's Belarus and Ukraine. When on the 1st of July 1569 in the Lublin Castle Polish nobility agreed to extend their privileges to the Lithuanian nobility in exchange for Lithuania ceding large territories to the Polish crown, an agreement was born, on the basis of which a dynastic union transformed into a commonwealth, now called Rzeczpospolita, i.e. The Republic. Though initially the union of these polities was motivated by the existence of common enemies - the Teutonic Order and later Russia - the strongest bond between them turned out to be the unique arrangement established by the Polish and Lithuanian representatives. The "Republic" in the name of this polity was supposed to demonstrate that the Commonwealth would be ruled by its noble citizens regardless of whether their mother tongue was Polish, Lithuanian or Ruthenian (common ancestor of Rusyn, Belarussian and Ukrainian). Though Republic was for hundreds of years plagued by numerous internal issues, and by the end of the 18th century it was destroyed by the aggression of its neighbours, in 1791 citizens managed to approve a unique document - Constitution of 3 May 1791, now considered the first modern constitution in Europe...

2.) STORY OF THE CROWN AND THE GRANDDUCHY Even after the Union of Lublin, the Polish Crown and Grandduchy of Lithuania were still separate states, just like they used to be for hundreds of years before that. After all, the rulers of Poland had their own archbishopric and royal title since the early 11th century, struggling for power against the likes of Přemyslids, while the grand dukes of Lithuania, attempting to revive the legacy of Kievan Rus', still hesitated whether to accept baptism from Rome or Constantinople. While many of the differences between them disappeared after the creation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as the Lithuanian estates adopted the lifestyles of Polish nobility, the grandduchy continued to have their own legislature in the form of so-called Lithuanian Statutes, as well as their own army and finance, and a strong sense of self-determination. However, the connection between Lithuanian and Polish society was very strong - in October 1791, shortly before the final occupation of the Republic by the Prussians, Russians and Austrians both Polish and Lithuanian representatives agreed upon The Mutual Vow Of Both Nations [2], in which they promised that the story of Rzeczpospolita should continue in perpetuity as an indelible federation of the two countries...

3.) THE STORY OF UKRAINE: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR THE REPULIC? While its name points to a country "somewhere on the edge", Ukraine was a tempting target for many powers since the Middle Ages. After the fall of Mongolian Golden Horde in the 14th century, it was, as the former core of Kievan Rus' added to Lithuania, which presented itself as a continuation of this great Kievan empire. In this way, Lithuania came into the crosshairs of Muscovy, which held similar aspirations. After 1569 the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania, which in many ways respected the distinct Ukrainian identity and unlike Moscow didn't consider it to be just a branch of the Russian nation, became its protector from the Muscovite incursion into Ukraine. Even the Polish-Lithuanian nobility living in Ukraine identified and called themselves "Ruthenians", and Grand Duchy of Lithuania used so-called Ruthenian as its official language. Cossacks living in the Wild Fields in the Dnipro river basin, who on the one hand didn't accept the autority of Polish-Lithuanian nobility, on the other hand helped to safeguard the borders of Rzeczpospolita from Moscow and the Ottomans, were also bearers of the sovereign Ukrainian identity. In the middle of the 17th century dissatisfaction of the Cossacks with certain magnates and issues of religion grew into the bloody uprising of hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky, who in 1654 turned to the Muscovite tsar [1] with a plea for protection. However, among the Cossacks, critical voices towards Moscow could also be heard, especially the voice of Ivan Vyhovsky, who in 1658 made a deal with the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania about its transformation into the Republic of Three Nations with a coequal position of the Grand Duchy of Russia [3] and orthodoxy. Because of the opposition from a portion of nobility, Cossacks and Moscow, the agreement never went into effect, and thus both the Republic and Ukraine missed their historic chance...

4.) KING IS THE FIRST AMONG US, THE FIRST AMONG EQUALS The creation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was also a key flashpoint for the transformation of royal power. Since Polish king Sigismund II. August, who thanks to the Union of Lublin became the ruler of Rzeczpospolita, died in 1572 without issue, Polish-Lithuanian nobility in accordance with the original agreement established the viritim election principle, according to which every noble present could elect their own king on special convocational sejms (diets). Ruler elected in this manner had to confirm noble privileges trough the so-called Henrician Articles and a collection of vows Pacta Conventa. Ruler's political power was thus perpetually subject to the rule of law (lex regnat non rex), and if the nobility deemed the ruler's actions unlawful, they could in the case of an emergency even call up a confederation and declare armed resistance. Thus, from then on until the acceptance of Constitution of 3 May 1791, the election of Polish-Lithuanian monarch became subject to the interests of foreign dynasties and local magnate houses. In the 18th century, an era during which the surrounding countries mostly adopted absolutism, the weakness of royal power came to be seen as the fundamental reason for the political decline of the Republic.

5.) NOT A MONARCHY, NOR AN ARISTOCRACY, NOR A DEMOCRACY The name Rzeczpospolita (the Republic) wasn't chosen for the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania by accident. Polish-Lithuanian nobility actually believed that their country can revive the lost ancient legacy of the just polities, and so they considered their Rzeczpospolita, to which they had given the epithet "most serene" [2], to be the third real republic in human history (after the Roman and Venetian ones). Members of the Polish nobility, who were convinced that the noble station brings with itself the duty of civic virtues, thus positioned themselves as the new Aristotles, and considered the so-called mixed constitution, which combined virtues of the monarchy, aristocracy and rule of the people, to be the best way to organize the state. Power in Rzeczpospolita was thus divided between the elected king, the Senate consisting of highest state officials, and a chamber of noble-born representatives, who could use the later infamous liberum veto [4], or the right of individual protest, which especially in the 18th century severely hampered the flexibility of the Republic. However, in the Republic, a specific form of political decisionmaking wasn't practiced only by the parliament of nobles. In Ukraine, the Zaporozhian Cossacks created a very peculiar form of military democracy. In their fortified camps (sietches [2]) the sietch councils formed by direct election, and they in turn elected their military commanders (atamans) and government officials, made decisions about war and piece, economic policy, even legal judgements.

6.) DIFFERENT FAITHS LIVE TOGETHER WITHOUT NEED FOR BORDERS Calling the ancient Republic "Polish" might be misleading, because today the epithet "Polish" is tied mostly to the ethnic nation. However, since in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the nation was the nobility, which based its honour on citizen loyalty towards the common polity inspired by antiquity, the noble "nation" at the time included all members of the class no matter the country they were born in, language they spoke, or the faith they professed. That's why, concerning the question of self-perception in the period, we often see the phrase "I am of the Polish nation, but of Ruthenian birth." This citizenship-based definition of Polish identity was closely related to the unprecedented religious tolerance, as codified in 1573 by the so-called Warsaw Confederation. The fact that the noble "nation" included not only Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Uniates and Orthodox Christians, but Mennonites and Arians, led to Rzeczpospolita being called "a state without stacks", because the foreigners there didn't end up burned at a stake, but finding a refuge. However, in the 18th century, this fragile coexistence of different denominations was severely disturbed, because the neighbouring great powers loved to use the rights of religious minorities for their own ends. In the 3 May 1791 constitution, all faiths were thus tolerated, but the Catholicism was supposed to be the state religion.

7.) POLONIA PARADISUS JUDAEORUM While the Jewish people were often banished from the rest of medieval European countries, kings of Poland granted many privileges to the arriving Jews. That being not just The Great Charter of Jewish Rights [2] from 1264, but also Privilegia de non tolerandis Christianis, which allowed Jewish merchants to settle in designated communities without Christian competition. Jews gradually gained the right to their own local administration (so-called kahalas) and around the time of the Union of Lublin even to summon their own parliament, called the Diet of the Four Countries [2] (also known as Va'ad). It is therefore no wonder that in the 16th century Europeans started to call Rzeczpospolita "Jewish paradise" and that three quarters of the entire Jewish population of the world lived here. This peaceful coexistence started to suffer in the middle of the 17th century, mainly because of Cossack uprisings, during which thousands of Jews were massacred for being alleged allies of the nobility, while in the 18th century the country experienced general decline in religious tolerance. However, as part of the attempt to save the Republic during the so-called Great Sejm [2] of 1788-1792, a special commission was created to designate the position of Jews within Rzeczpospolita. And when the famous Kościusko uprising defending the independence of Rzeczpospolita and the legacy of the Constitution of 3 May 1791 against the Russian invasion broke out, many Jews didn't hesitate to join the first Jewish regiment and fight in battle for the Republic.

8.) WALLS OF CHRISTIAN EUROPE Noble citizens didn't perceive their Republic as just an embodiment of ancient community, but also a military power. That's why the nobility placed so much value on military virtues and in emulation of ancient Sarmatians, whose descendants they considered themselves to be, they also relied heavily on elite cavalry - the winged hussars, whose exotic appearance and military prowess gained them respect on the battlefield. Polish-Lithuanian nobility, convinced of the exceptional nature of their own Republic, started to perceive their polity as "antemurale christianitatis" - the bastion of Christendom, which protects the eastern borders of Europe from the outside threat. In the 1621 battle of Khotyn the united Polish-Lithuanian army, boosted by thousands of Cossacks led by the hetman of Zaporizhzhia Sahaidachny, a great promoter of cooperation between the Cossacks and Poland-Lithuania, managed to hold back the Ottoman army several times its size. The Polish society connected several such victories to the Divine providence and a faith that the Republic is fulfilling its holy mission in history. This is also the reason why the hussars of king Jan III. Sobieski are to this day considered the saviours of Vienna from the Ottoman siege of 1683 and the madona of Czenstochowa is perceived as the one responsible for the Polish-Lithuanian victory over the Swedes. Though the military glory of the former empire had declined in the 18th century, the enlightenment era reformers didn't forget the valor of their ancestors - the School of Chivalry was established on the prompting of king Stanislaw August Poniatowsky, and among its absolvents was Tadeusz Kościuszko, born in the Duchy of Lithuania, leader of the last stand of the Republic against Russia in 1794.

9.) NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US While the king od France could've said "I am the state", in the Polish-Lithuanian Union the state were its citizens, that being the nobility. Nobility's agitation for their privileges gradually bore fruit - particularly important were the neminem captivabimus privilege, ensuring untouchability of a person, and the nihil novi rule, forbidding the king from issuing laws without the approval of a diet of nobles. Power of the nobility was among other things ensured by the size of this estate, since it made up 8-10% of the population (for comparison, in Great Britain, even in the mid-19th century only 6% of the population had a right to vote). In comparison with other countries, all members of the nobility were absolute equals in the eyes of the law. All of these rules were supported by the specific ideology of sarmatism, according to which were all noblemen, as the alleged descendants of the ancient ethnic group, required to protect the so-called "golden liberties" - set of rights and values which made the Polish-Lithuanian nobility consider themselves the most free nation under the the sun. Besides the exotic clothing [5], sarmatism was also expressed in numerous acts of rebellion against their own king - for example, in the 18th century nobility founded the Bar Confederation, which was supposed to rid the Commonwealth of the Russian influence, but ended up leading to the first division of Rzeczpospolita lands among the imperial powers.

10.) SPLENDOR AND MISERY OF THE MAGNATE FAMILIES Though in the Commonwealth, any use of titles that would distinguish between lower and higher nobility was strictly forbidden, the issue was nonetheless made more complicated by the high economic inequality even among the nobles. Some noble houses were able to create estates so large even the royal holdings paled in comparison. Their dominance rested on their large wealth, high positions in state offices and background influence on politics. This informal class of magnates was most prominent in the eastern part of the country, where a handful of houses amassed giant private armies and sophisticated webs of noble clients, since many of the impoverished nobles voluntarily worked for the magnates, and some even voted in the parliament according to the wishes of their benefactors. These most powerful magnates were thus also titled "little kings", and some of them actually did become elected kings of Poland. The fact that many magnates, especially in Ukraine, were out of the reach of central state power and treated their subjects especially badly led to the outbreak of antimagnate rebellions, the most successful of which was the Bohdan Khmelnytsky Cossack uprising of 1648. However, the magnate activity cannot be seen as black-and-white, because their role also involved foundation and patronage on a grand scale - it was thanks to them that many treasures of Polish-Lithuanian architecture were created.

11.) LEGACY OF THE REPUBLIC OF MANY NATIONS The Republic of Poland-Lithuania was erased from the map in 1795. However, its tradition remained in the ethos of fight "for freedom yours and ours", which was echoed by the participants of many antirussian uprisings in the 19th and 20th century. This ethos called back to the tradition of free republic, which, unlike the Russian Empire - that forced subjugated polities to adopt the samoderzhavie [6], orthodoxy and russification triad - supposedly enabled different nations to keep their freedom and "unity in diversity". Although the ethnonationalism of the 20th century has dimmed the memories of their common legacy and caused plenty of bad blood among the different nations of former Rzeczpospolita, the idea of confederation or close cooperation against Russian imperialism was returning in their consciousness, whether during the 1863 uprising or shortly after World War I. In the communist era, the writer in exile Jerzy Giedroyc famously prophesized that Poland can be truly free only when so are Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. For Ukrainians and Belarussians, who have been threatened by the imperial idea of Greater Russia and the vision of a unified "Russian world" even after 1991, are heroes (like prince Konstanty Ostrogski or hetman Sahaidachny) and famous moments in the history of the Republic fundamental symbols of their national sovereignty and belonging to the European civilizational space. They will never cease to remind everyone that the Republic is not dead while we are alive and believe that the ties of mutual civic loyalty are stronger than differences in language, faith or ethnic origin, stronger than any enemy that would attempt to tear these ties of our values.

***

[1] - Russia. They are talking about Russia. Y'see, the etymology of "Russian" in Eastern Slavic languages is kinda confusing; originally, it meant all Eastern Slavs, but later on it came to be associated with the largest and most culturally dominant group - which is to say the predecessors of modern Russians under the rule of Princedom of Muscovy. Eventually, Ivan IV., the Grand Prince of Muscovy got himself crown the Tsar of All Russians, which was a bit presumptuous considering a whole lot of people who very much weren't under his rule also identified as the Rus'/Russians. Still, it stuck, and when Ukrainians and Belarussians wanted to define themselves against their Russian overlords, they abandoned the label "Russians" altogether. Calling post-Ivan the Terrible Russians "Muscovites" is a bit of antiquated terminology that would be common in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

[2] - Literal translation, because I don't know what it's called in English-speaking historical literature.

[3] - Used here in the older sense of the word, i.e. Eastern Slavic in general (see [1]). In this case, the Eastern Slavs in question are clearly mostly Ukrainians despite being called Rus'/Russians (YES I KNOW)

[4] - Okay, so have you seen the first episode? The whole "One of us was against. End of story. We have a democracy." thing was... Barely an exaggeration to be honest.

[5] - Compare the shit Jan Paweł and his friends wear to normal 17th century male clothing (to which Ciesław and especially magnate's son come pretty close to) and you'll get the gist.

[6] - rus. autocracy, or rather the name for specific absolutist tradition of Russian tzars

***

Notes on the pictures:

1.) Map of Rzeczpospolita from the first half of the 18th century (most likely around 1739), made by the cartographer Johann Baptist Homann.

2.) Tapestry with the coats-of-arms of Poland and Lithuania - The Union of Lublin led among other things to the joining of Polish and Lithuanian coats-of-arms, so the new state coats-of-arms combined the polish royal eagle on red field with the traditional symbol of Lithuania, the Pogoń (Vytis in Lithuanian), or the armored knight on a horse, which to this day is part of the legacy of the Grandduchy in modern Lithuanian and parts of Belarussian society.

3.) Battle of Orsha (1514) in which the orthodox prince Konstanty Ostrogski, claiming to carry on the legacy of the Kievan Rus', led the united Polish-Lithuanian forces and destroyed the Muscovite invasion army despite being outnumbered, saving the independence of the Grandduchy. After 1991 the day of the anniversary of this battle was celebrated as a holiday of the Belarussian army. The holiday was later abolished by the Lukashenko regime, one can currently end up in jail for celebrating it. In 2017, a common Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian brigade was named hetman Ostrogski.

4.) Royal Castle in Warsaw - Since the late 16th century, Warsaw became the new center of power in the Republic. The Royal Castle, originally the medieval seat of the dukes of Massovia, was rebuilt in the new baroque style. During World War II, the castle was completely destroyed. For a long time, the communist regime was refusing to greenlight its reconstruction, and its restoration based on old engravings and pre-war photographs was only made possible trough the massive public pressure.

5.) Painting of the French artist Jean-Pierre Norblin portrays a traditional part of the political life in Rzeczpospolita - a session of the so-called sejmik (Polish diminutive of sejm, a.k.a. diet). On these local assemblies of nobles of the given region, deputies for the meetings of the central sejm were elected and instructions for these deputies were agreed upon.

6.) Kruszyniany - Presence of the muslim Tartar community is part of the legacy of Rzeczpospolita. Tartars live on the territories of today's Lithuania, Belarus and Poland continuously since the 14th century. They have proven their worth as warriors in service of the Republic. Original Tartar mosques can be found especially in Podlesie in today's northeastern Poland and in Trakai in today's Lithuania.

7.) Ceiling of a synagogue reconstructed for the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, which in 2015 was awarded the title of Best Museum in Europe. It is in this modern museum that you can learn the most about the Jews of Rzeczpospolita, the largest Jewish diaspora at the time.

8.) Sobieski at Vienna - Painting of Jan Matejko depicts the Polish king Jan III. Sobieski, who after his famous triumph over the Ottoman Turks in 1683 sent a letter to pope Innocent IX., in which he writes that the Christian Vienna was saved.

9.) Casimir Pulaski, later national hero of the United States, escaped Poland after the failure of the Bar Confederation in 1769-1772. The confederation was one of the last attempts to free the country from the increasing dependency on Russia.

10.) Zamoćś - Renessaince city founded by an exceptional person. Jan Zamoyski came from a not very wealthy noble family, but trough his own merits eventually became the richest and most powerful man in the Republic. The town hall of Zamość on the photo.

11.) Adam Mickiewicz could be the symbol of the common legacy of Rzeczpospolita. The greatest poet in the Polish language literature was born in today's Belarus (1798) and always felt like a citizen of Rzeczpospolita. His most important work begins with a line "Lithuania, my fatherland!" It was Mickiewicz who was remembered by the pope John Paul II., when he proclaimed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the predecessor of cooperation of the entire continent within the European Union ("from the Union of Lublin to the European Union").

[tmarshconnors]

French Revolution Constitution

The French Revolution resulted in several significant constitutional changes, marking the transition from the Ancien Régime to a series of revolutionary governments. Here is a brief overview of the constitutions developed during the French Revolution:

1. The Constitution of 1791

The first constitution of France, adopted on September 3, 1791, established a constitutional monarchy.

Key Features:

Limited Monarchy: King Louis XVI retained the throne but his powers were considerably reduced.

Separation of Powers: The government was divided into three branches: the executive (the King), the legislative (the Legislative Assembly), and the judiciary.

Legislative Assembly: A single-chamber assembly with 745 members elected for two-year terms.

Voting Rights: Limited to "active citizens" who paid a certain amount of taxes, thus excluding a significant portion of the population.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: Incorporated into the preamble, asserting fundamental rights and freedoms.

2. The Constitution of 1793 (Year I)

Adopted on June 24, 1793, but never implemented due to the ongoing war and internal strife, this constitution was more radical and democratic.

Key Features:

Republican Government: Abolished the monarchy and established a French Republic.

Universal Male Suffrage: All male citizens aged 21 and over could vote.

Direct Democracy: Frequent referendums and primary assemblies where citizens could propose and vote on laws.

Rights and Welfare: Strong emphasis on social and economic rights, including the right to work and education.

3. The Constitution of 1795 (Year III)

Implemented on August 22, 1795, this constitution established the Directory, marking a shift to more conservative governance.

Key Features:

Bicameral Legislature: Consisting of the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Ancients.

Directory: A five-member executive body chosen by the legislature.

Limited Suffrage: Voting rights were restricted to property-owning men, reversing the universal male suffrage of 1793.

Stability Measures: Designed to prevent the rise of another dictatorial power and address the chaos of the previous years.

The Constitution of 1791 (Excerpt Translation)

Here is an excerpt translation from the Constitution of 1791, focusing on key articles that outline the new political structure:

Preamble: The National Assembly, wishing to establish the French Constitution on the principles it has just recognized and declared, abolishes irrevocably the institutions which were harmful to liberty and the equality of rights.

Title III - Public Powers:

Article 1: The sovereignty is one, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible. It belongs to the nation; no section of the people nor any individual may attribute to themselves the exercise thereof.

Article 2: The nation, from which alone emanates all powers, can exercise these powers only by delegation. The French Constitution is representative; the representatives are the Legislative Body and the King.

Article 3: The legislative power is delegated to a National Assembly composed of temporary representatives freely elected by the people to serve for a given period.

Article 4: The government is monarchical; the executive power is delegated to the King, to be exercised under his authority by ministers and other responsible agents, in the manner and to the extent determined by the legislative power.

These documents reflect the evolving political philosophies and tumultuous changes during the French Revolution, capturing the struggle between democratic ideals and practical governance.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil election: how the political violence of the country’s history has re-emerged

Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro delivered a message to his nation this year on the anniversary of its independence day, September 7. He recalled what he saw as the nation’s good times, and bad, and declared: “Now, 2022, history may repeat itself. Good has always triumphed over evil. We are here because we believe in our people and our people believe in God.”

It was a moment that’s typical of how this president seeks to challenge the democratic rules. Bolsonaro has been seen as part of a new populist global wave.

However, Brazil has a tradition of political violence. There is a national myth that the political elite prefer negotiation and avoid armed conflicts. Facts do not support the myth. If it did all major political change would have been peaceful: there would have been no independence war in 1822, no civil war in 1889 (when the republic replaced the monarchy) and, even the military coup, in 1964, would have been bloodless.

In recent decades, scholars have dug up extensive evidence of political violence throughout Brazilian history. Dispute among political elites was fierce during the monarchy, and the republic began with a civil-military coup.

Between this coup and the 1964 military one, the country faced 20 major violent political conflicts. The national state and the army took a central part in those conflicts and in all of them lethal violence was employed. Political violence also characterised the dictatorship, which ran from 1964 to 1985.

When democracy returned, the 1988 constitution guaranteed civil, political, and social rights, as well as institutions to manage political conflicts. Many then assumed the age of lethal conflict was over and Brazil had begun an irreversible peaceful age. However, political violence was just under control. It had not gone away.

Continue reading.

[kaiverschuren]

Politics

Hello and welcome to my blog, today we’ll be discussing the Netherlands' political system and what the students had to do in class.

The history of the Netherlands and what events have made us what we are today. A big part of what made the Netherlands what it is today, is that the Dutch history had some outstanding development. Such as times like The early farmers, The Roman conquest, Conversion to Christianity and The Hanseatic League. All of them had a huge impact on what the Dutch are today.

Other history of the Netherlands, that has shaped the Dutch quite a bit but not as substantial are The Republic of seven provinces, An Independent Kingdom, Women’s Rights, Two World Wars, and The Flood of 1953. The flood of 1953 was a more controversial moment in my opinion, because the Netherlands is known for its way of working with water, and this was an important moment, because the Netherlands started having more problems with water.

An introduction to Dutch Politics for dummies:

The Dutch political system, in short, has the following institutions. They’re listed from most to least important:

Constitution

Parliament

Monarchy

Cabinet

Judiciary

Council of State

Other Political Institutions

Next, I will talk about all of these in a quick, short manner.

1. Constitution: This is a set of rules that everyone in the country follows. It talks about rights and how the government works. Changes to these rules need approval from the parliament (which we'll talk about next).

2. Parliament: This is where laws are discussed and made. There are two parts: the Senate and the House of Representatives. They work together to decide on laws and watch over the government.

3. Monarchy: The king or queen is the head of the country. They have some important roles like signing laws to make them official, but they mostly stay out of day to day politics.

4. Cabinet: This is a group of people chosen by the king or queen to run the country. The Prime Minister leads this group, and they make decisions about laws and policies.

5. Judiciary: These are the courts that make sure laws are followed and settle disputes. There are different courts for different cases, like criminal cases or cases about government actions.

6. Council of State: This is a group that makes recommendations to the government on laws and policies. They're not part of the government, but their recommendations are important.

7. Other Political Institutions: This includes things like political parties, local governments, and groups that represent workers and businesses. They all have a say in how the country is run.

Now compare and contrast the United States' political system to the Netherlands’

The Netherlands operates as a parliamentary representative democracy within a constitutional monarchy, emphasizing consensus-building and broad agreement on important issues. Key institutions include the monarchy, cabinet, state general (parliament), and judiciary. It has a decentralized unitary state structure, with lower levels of government such as municipalities, water boards, and provinces.

In contrast, the United States functions as a constitutional federal republic, with a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It operates under a federal system where powers are shared between the federal government and state governments. The political landscape in the United States is dominated by two major parties (Democratic and Republican), with a more adversarial approach to governance. Additionally, while the Netherlands has a constitutional monarchy with the monarch serving as the head of state, the United States has a presidential system with an elected president serving as both head of state and head of government.

Now we’ll explain 5 Dutch political parties and what they stand for

People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie - VVD)

The VVD stands for freedom and democracy. They say that their party encourages freedom for entrepreneurs, a free labor market, and making requirements for social assistance recipients.

Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid - PVV)

The PVV is known for its strict rules against immigration, which means they “want to make the Netherlands ours again”.

Christian Democratic Appeal (Christen-Democratisch Appèl - CDA)

The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) party believes in "Dispersed Responsibility." This means they think that everyone should share the responsibility for how society works, instead of just one group or organization having all the power.

Democrats 66 (Democraten 66 - D66) D66 stands for improving democracy and creating an open society in the Netherlands. They prioritize social responsibility, equality, and inclusivity to build a fair and thriving community.

Socialist Party (Socialistische Partij - SP)

Now the political Behavior of the Dutch (Voting behavior, interest in politics – research as well as personal experience in family, amongst friends, etc.)

In the Netherlands, voting could be influenced by many factors such as social media, and advertisements but also, and maybe the biggest factor, is what your family thinks. When you’re at a family gathering, the usual is that my dad, uncle, and grandpa are always discussing political topics. They could be discussing one single topic for more than 2 hours, without needing to switch topics.

My review of politics in The Hague

Introduction:

On Friday 15 December, we had a half-day trip to The Hague, on this day we discussed politics and were shown around The Hague and its historical/political buildings.

Overview:

In The Hague, we visited ProDemos for a brief tour and a fun quiz about politics. Our guide grouped us into threes and gave us experiments to discover our political beliefs. Afterward, we took a short, quiz-filled tour of The Hague, learning more about politics.

Detailed analysis:

The first thing we got doing in The Hague was visit one of the ProDemos buildings. We got shown around a little bit and after that, our “guide” divided the group into groups of 3. She tested our knowledge of politics with a quick quiz. Then she gave us a paper, which had quick (experiments?) on it for us to do. The main thing about the (experiments?) was to find out what our beliefs on politics were and what statements are important to us. After that, we stepped outside the building to go on a tour through a part of The Hague. The tour was fun and concise, but filled with small quiz-like questions that helped me understand politics.

Pros:

I, learned more about politics than I thought I'd learn.

The course was easy to follow along with, and it kept you intrigued to learn more about politics.

Cons:

For me, The Hague is pretty far away. (about a 2-4 hour train ride) so if I were to make it a full day trip, I would’ve been home pretty late.

For the course itself, if the day would’ve been rainy, about 50% of the activities would’ve been unable to continue through with it.

Personal experience:

My personal experience. Overall, I liked the trip, the host was welcoming, the course was well put together and as I said before, it was easy to follow along. Plus going into buildings of importance was pretty cool.

Conclusion:

The course ProDemos provided was solid. If I were to rate it on a scale out of ten, I would rate it an eight. I would recommend students to go, especially if you’re close to being able to vote soon.

Dutch culture and what one should be prepared for when visiting the Dutch.

Positives:

Tolerance and Diversity (Accepting Others): Dutch society values accepting others and having different kinds of people, especially in cities like Randstad.

Patriotism (Proud of Country): Dutch people are proud of their country and how it's involved internationally.

Monarchy (Royal Family Unity): The Dutch royal family has been important in bringing the country together and is widely supported.

Welfare System (Helping People): There's a system that helps people with healthcare and benefits.

Negatives:

Pillarization (Past Divisions): In the past, people were divided based on their religion and culture, which can still affect how much money people have.

Social Stratification (Wealth Differences): There are differences in wealth that can make it harder for some people to get help.

Privacy (Personal Space): People like having their own space, but it can make them seem distant or like they're keeping things private.

Allochtoon-Autochtoon Distinction (Group Separation): Sometimes, people are separated into groups based on where they or their families are from.

Frugality (Careful Spending): Being careful with money is seen as sensible, but it might seem like people are being too cheap or basic.

Now, my own opinion on why the Netherlands could be considered a good country to live in.

Reason number one, if you want to, you can live in a small town or even village, where you can go about your life pretty much without having disturbtions. Reason number two, on the other hand, you can choose to live in a city where you have easier access to your usual services, but, you might suffer a bit with the disturbance.

Summary

Certainly, here's the summary using the same grammar as your previous text:

In summary, we discussed the Netherlands' political system, its history, and key events shaping its identity. We explored the structure of Dutch politics, including its institutions like the Constitution, Parliament, Monarchy, Cabinet, Judiciary, Council of State, and other political entities. Comparing it with the United States' political system, we noted differences in governance, structure, and party dominance.

We got into five Dutch political parties, outlining their beliefs and stances. Additionally, we examined Dutch political behavior, emphasizing familial influence on voting decisions.

Dutch culture was discussed, highlighting both positive and negative ways like tolerance and diversity, patriotism, and a supportive welfare system, as well as challenges including historical divisions, social stratification, privacy concerns, group separation, and frugality.

Lastly, we provided reasons why the Netherlands is considered a desirable place to live, citing options for peaceful village life or lively city living.

[bobmccullochny]

History

December 6, 1492 - The island of Hispaniola was discovered by Christopher Columbus. Today the island is divided between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

December 6, 1865 - The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified abolishing slavery, stating, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, save as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

December 6, 1877 - At his laboratory in West Orange, New Jersey, Thomas Edison spoke the children's verse "Mary had a Little Lamb…" while demonstrating his newly invented phonograph which utilized a revolving cylinder wrapped in tinfoil to record sounds.

December 6, 1917 - Two ships collided at Halifax, Nova Scotia, resulting in an explosion that killed more than 1,500 persons and injured 8,000. The Norwegian ship Imo collided with the French munitions ship Mont Blanc which was loaded with supplies for the war in Europe, including 5,000 tons of TNT. A tidal wave caused by the explosion destroyed much of the city.

December 6, 1921 - The Irish Free State became an independent member of the British Commonwealth.

December 6, 1971 - The Democratic Republic of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan, was recognized by India. Pakistan then broke off diplomatic relations with India.

December 6, 1973 - Gerald Ford was sworn in as vice president under Richard Nixon following the resignation of Spiro Agnew who pleaded no contest to charges of income tax evasion.

December 6, 1978 - In Spain, a new constitution was approved by referendum, providing for a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary form of government.

Birthday - American poet Alfred Joyce Kilmer (1886-1918) was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Best known for his poem Trees, published in 1913. He was killed in action during World War I near Ourcy, France. The U.S. Army's Camp Kilmer was named in his honor.

Birthday - American lyricist Ira Gershwin (1896-1983) was born in New York City. He collaborated with his brother George to create many Broadway successes including; Lady Be Good, Funny Face, Strike Up the Band, and songs such as The Man I Love, Someone to Watch Over Me, and I Got Rhythm.

Birthday - Photojournalist Alfred Eisenstaedt (1898-1995) was born in Dirschau, Prussia. Best known for his Life magazine cover photos, including the sailor kissing a nurse in Time's Square, celebrating the end of World War II.

[zhuolan]

1. Industrialization:

The Industrial Revolution marked a shift from agrarian economies to industrialized ones. Factories and mechanized production became central, leading to the rise of urbanization as people moved from rural areas to cities in search of work.

2. Urbanization:

Cities grew rapidly as industries expanded. This led to the development of urban centers with large populations, new infrastructure, and significant social changes.

Living conditions in early industrial cities were often challenging, with crowded and unsanitary conditions.

3. Technological Advancements:

Technological innovations, such as the steam engine and new manufacturing processes, revolutionized production, transportation, and communication.

The development of the railway and steamship facilitated the movement of goods and people over long distances.

4. Social Classes and Inequality:

While industrialization brought about economic growth, it also led to social inequalities. The gap between the wealthy industrialists and the working class widened, giving rise to socio-economic disparities.

5. Rise of the Middle Class:

The Industrial Revolution saw the emergence and growth of the middle class, comprised of entrepreneurs, professionals, and skilled workers. This group played a crucial role in the economic and social changes of the time.

6. Political Changes:

The French Revolution had a profound impact on the political landscape. Monarchies were overthrown, and new political ideologies, including nationalism and liberalism, gained prominence.

Constitutional monarchies, republics, and democratic systems began to replace absolute monarchies.

7. Nationalism and Nation-States:

Nationalism became a powerful force, leading to the formation of nation-states based on shared language, culture, and history.

The political map of Europe underwent significant changes as new nations emerged and borders were redrawn.

8. Secularization:

The influence of religious institutions began to decline, and secular values gained prominence. The separation of church and state became a key principle in many societies.

9. Advances in Education:

Education underwent reform, with the establishment of public education systems. Increased access to education became a driving force for social mobility.

10. Democratic Ideals:

The concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which emerged during the French Revolution, influenced political thought. Democratic ideals gained traction, leading to the establishment of democratic forms of government in various parts of the world.

These transformative periods set the stage for the modern era, shaping the socio-economic, political, and cultural landscape in ways that continue to influence contemporary society. The effects of these revolutions reverberate in the systems and institutions that characterize the 21st century.

[meta-with-anne]

World Building Project

Welcome to The Alpha Cluster, a group of the 30 closest galaxies surrounding Earth-Alpha, and their respective planetary systems and member planets.

Religion: “The One” - The creator of the universe is all seeing, all knowing, and controls everything that has ever and will ever happen, he is both spiteful and tempestuous as well as empathetic and loving towards those who give him their reverence. “Light of the Word” - Worshippers who view knowledge both as a deity and a goal, knowledge molds us, guides us, and must be the ultimate pursuit of all we do. “Utilitarian Humanism” - The sentient beings of the universe are the msot important and all we do must be to benefit ourselves and each other, easing suffering, the pursuit of pleasure, and our sentience and "spirit"/soul is of paramount importance. “Omniscientism” - The ultimate goal is to have total awareness of everything that is happening at any given point in time and place, the creator of the universe had this power, and one day it will return and allow the most faithful of its followers to become omniscient as it is. The “Galactic Priesthood - Worshippers of the galaxy itself, they believe that the energy and unexplainable forces (such as dark matter) are the paramount forces, they are to be respected, cherished, and admired rather than understood.

Government:

The main governing body is an intergalactic organization known solely as “The Sanctum”. Each planetary system has a senate which takes between two and ten representatives from each planet proportional to population, never exceeding more than 1000 members, and each system has between two and eight representatives in The Sanctum. Constitutional monarchies and other parliamentary systems are allowed but authoritarian or dictatorial rule is punished harshly by The Sanctum, which values cooperative governing (pure democratic, democratic republic, parlimentary republic, etc.) above all else. The Intergalactic Peace Keeping Force “IGPKF” are the men behind the curtain, they take orders from the Sanctum, however because they protect and promote the sanctum’s agenda they’re also beholden to the IGPKF’s agenda (mainly exponential growth/always acquiring more recruits)

Economics: Interplanetary Credit System "ICS" ,each galaxy maintains a type of credit, credit exchange and rates work the way international currency exchange does on earth, there is an intergalactic stock market, but also strict limitations on individual wealth, no person may have personal combined assets that exceed one billion of their planetary system's credits, all else is either distributed to charitable causes of the individual's choice, but at least half must be paid back to the system's overseeing government. Homelessness, hunger, poverty, and several types of disease (like cancer) have been eradicated, to receive these benefits, however, you must either be actively in some sort of schooling, employed, or given temporary or permanent special dispensation for the government (i.e. Cases of parents raising young children or permanently disabled individuals) 

Geography: Each planetary and galactic system is diverse, all occupants are descended from proto-homosapiens spread across the galaxies, the humanoids shaped their environments which in turn shaped them, there are space rails owned by the Sanctum, as well as ships owned by various organizations, governments, and (very powerful) individuals, owning your own ship would be the equivalent of owning both a private jet and a super yacht all in one, many people get very rich just by renting theirs out. 

Social Structure: Richer worlds are more powerful + respected, the most humanoid species are treated the best, ones that look less human but are considered pretty or interesting looking are devalued/discriminated against but also exotisized, the "Halo Effect" has isolated several entire subspecies on various worlds to the point they have no representation in the larger government. “Terran” humans (humans from earth with little to no non-earth DNA) do best with gene hacking and other “modifications” so are valued as soldiers, pets/oddities, and other specialized roles but viewed as weak and unintelligent in their unaltered form 

Magic/Science: Planets with several different types of new elements have been discovered, allowing for tech that allows “powers” such as telepathy, nanites, biological restructuring, intergalactic travel, and super strength, speed, invisibility, and flight. Certain types of genetic modification is allowed but diseases cannot be eradicated unless they are guaranteed to be fatal (like some birth defects), phenotypical traits may be altered but only within existing the species existing and it’s very expensive.

[cuproprime]

The superpowers of the CuproVerse:

(Copied from my comment about this on Reddit.)

I find that a lot of people have trouble with the difference between a superpower and a great power, so I'd like to preface this by saying that my world has three actual superpowers. A country has to align itself with one of these three if it doesn't want to get curbstomped for its resources, strategic location, or simply having a form of government that one of these three mildly dislikes, with only a few major exceptions, those being the only great power that isn't a superpower [Arspirus] and the two states it's allied to [Pitharia and Torasgany].

If you can point to your country on a map, Ekanon has probably invaded it at some point in its history. Ekanon was once an absolute monarchy with colonies all around the globe, but underwent a revolution triggered by the king's apathy towards the plummeting standard of living in the country (which was caused by the loss of those colonies in the first Great War) to become a parliamentary republic, which was then immediately couped by the old head of the army. The new dictatorship proceeded to repress its citizens more and more until it became a totalitarian state running on a command economy, purging anybody deemed to not useful to the state, whether that be people too old to work, disabled people, the religious, political dissidents, or those who have a slightly different skin color than the people native to the continent. After a period of reconsolidation, Ekanon now spans nearly the entire continent of Akora, a continent once home to all major scientific and societal innovation in the world and with a long, interesting history, but under the new regime, that romantic view of the continent is dead now.

The founder of modern democracy, Iscerna is often granted the title of the strongest country in the world, even though its military is significantly smaller than Ekanon's, due to the fact that Iscerna has the highest GDP of any country and Ekanon is prone to political instability. Iscerna is a former colony of Ekanon and won its independence during a period when Ekanon was at war with another great power on Akora. A parliamentary republic with large social welfare programs, Iscerna is pointed to as the pinnacle of equality, though that sounds quite ironic once you even scratch the surface of the world's geopolitics and learn that it outsources all of the lower-paying jobs to poorer countries in its sphere of influence and will often install and maintain friendly autocratic governments in other countries if democratic governments wouldn't be/aren't friendly.

Viria is a collection of former colonies of a country that no longer exists, forcefully unified by a general that declared himself emperor. He nearly singlehandedly fixed the economy by abolishing slavery in the country, uprooting old aristocrats in areas he conquered and installing local governors, and distributing conquered land to peasants, former slaves, and merchants. This shaped Viria's culture from the very beginning to include loyalty to the government and respect for the military. In the modern day, Viria is a semi-constitutional monarchy, with the government in a twenty-four-year deadlock ever since the newest empress ascended to the throne and started trying to wrestle power from the parliament. Once the most powerful country in the world, Viria is in a period of worrying stagnation, made worse by the fact that the Virian citizens, due to a long tradition of trusting the government, aren't planning on doing anything about it.

[backinthejurassic]

Back in the Jurassic LORE FACTS #4 - Where on Earth??

Contrary to much of the public's belief, pangea actually started breaking up at the VERY start of the triassic and only got more broken up as the mesozoic went on.

So if not pangea, where did these terrestrial archosaurs reside?

Continents & Countries

That depends on what time you're in, of course!

If you lived in the Pliensbachian age like Saura (190.8-182.7 million years ago), you lived in either Laurasia (North America/Europe/North & East Asia) or Gondwana (Africa/South America/India/Arabia/Australia/Zealandia/Antarctica)

These two continents were also home to the only two countries in that age: The Democratic Republic of Laurasia and The Gondwanian Republic (though most refer to them simply by their continent's name). Laurasia was ran by a democratic oligarchy while Gondwana was ran by a constitutional monarchy.

If you lived in the Maastrichtian age like Russell (72.1-66 mya), the continents moreso resembled how they do today, just closer together and with a lot more shallow seas. North America was split into two land masses: Laramidia in the west and Appalacia in the east.

By the Maastrichtian, the Democratic Republic of Laurasia and the Gonwanian Republic had long since broken up into many smaller countries (albeit with some major power balance issues between them).

Villages, Hamlets, Towns, & Cities

In Back in the Jurassic, every character's hometown (at least for their species) is named after the formation they were found in. For instance, Saura is from Kota, Gondwana because barapasaurus fossils came from the Kota Formation.

Russell is a unique case in comparison (then again when is he not?). Russell's ancestors are all from the desert city of Flaming Cliffs (located where the Mongolial Gobi Desert is today). However, Russell himself was born a third generation immigrant and raised in the outskirts of Hell Creek (where Montana is today).

As for the locations and cultures before the Pliensbachian and between the two eras I described? Perhaps those will be revealed another day!

[sublimeobservationarcade]

Tunnel Vision On The Presidential Aspect

The midterm elections in America shine a light on the political system there and the focus of the media upon it. The tunnel vision on the presidential aspect in the US by the press and, therefore, the voting public, distorts any understanding of democracy in the nation as a whole. The narrative perpetuated by the media is always in tight focus on the president because it is an easier story to tell. This is relevant for us in Australia, as we chew the fat about becoming a republic in the wake of Queen Elizabeth II’s death. The truth is that we have not been governed by a ruling monarch for a very long time. Similarly, America is not ruled by one man (or woman) but by a Congress of elected representatives. The media, however, bangs on about Biden this and Trump that because they love to tell a simplified story to their viewers.

Photo by Carlos Herrero on Pexels.com

Sole Leader Story Bears No Substance In Fact

The danger within this stratagem is that it turns a complex situation into a Punch and Judy show. The American presidential system places all the attention on a contest between two candidates and then, upon the sole leader who wins the vote. In reality, if Joe Biden loses the midterm elections, as is usual, he will become a lame duck president. This means he will be unable to get legislation passed into law and most likely will be bogged down by Republican Party enquiries designed to stall any progress. Thus, the supreme power of the president is shown to be a furphy and without any meat on the bone. All political systems contain checks and balances to prevent unrestrained dictatorial activity. The house of representatives and the senate house of review are in place to prevent abuses of power by an autocratic leader.

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com Electing The Top Dog & All Its Perils The failure of the Australian republican movement constitutional vote in 1999 was in part because many people wanted a popular vote for an Australian president like that in the US. Whereas the politicians wanted the nation’s titular leader to be appointed, like the current position of governor general. This did not inspire the necessary numbers to make a change from the existing constitutional monarchy, despite the figure head remaining in another country – Britain. Australians are traditionally conservative by nature – if it aint broke don’t fix it! I suspect this desire for a popular vote to elect a president will rear its head once more when we come to consider an Australian republic in the near future. Heaven help us if we end up with a similar system to the yanks. We got rid of kings and queens with real power a long time ago but, it seems, that ordinary folk cannot get enough of simplified stories about the top job. Americans love the hoopla of POTUS and their tunnel vision on the presidential aspect. The Donald Trump saga, which continues to this day, reveals the many holes in the American democratic system. Trump tried to cause a coup by refusing to accept his electoral defeat and inciting a riot in the capital. Despite plenty of evidence of this Trump remains out of gaol and his status as a former POTUS seems to inoculate him from prosecution. No wonder so many Americans want to become rich and famous because they see how it affords the wealthy a different kind of justice. The impotence revealed at the heart of the American political system is a disgrace. No Hollywood movie is going to be able to turn this story into a sentimental tour de force. The fact that an elected politician can go to the polls threatening not to abide by the will of the people is an outrage in itself. If you are not going to play by the rules you should not be able to play in the first place.

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com It is very easy to just say that Americans are very stupid people. Indeed, it is not much of a stretch to include the whole human race in that judgement. People talk about the stupidity of whales beaching themselves but we exhibit similarly dumb behaviours all the time. Leadership and how we view and engage with our leaders says a lot about us. Those of us at the bottom of the food chain, often, ignore those at the top as much as we can for as long as we can. The whole idea of their power over us is unpalatable and best not thought about too often. In Australia, we are forced to vote for our political leaders at every level of government. For many this is the only time they bother thinking about their leaders and the whole political system. These elections become popularity contests rather than policy contests. Uneducated voters cast their minds upon a small group of strangers who are vying to represent their interests within the parliamentary system. Hip pocket concerns marry with superficial engagement of various narratives espoused by candidates on behalf of their political parties. Faces flash up on screens and signs across the nation for some 6 weeks or thereabouts. The most cynical among us tell us that the whole thing is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful and crude though that assessment might be – it is probably right.

Photo by Nothing Ahead on Pexels.com Still, it is a contest which is sometimes hard fought, as we see at the midterms in America right at the moment. Will Americans remember the lies and unnecessary deaths from Covid at the hands of the MAGA Republicans or will they focus their razor sharp short term attention span on their economic woes and look for someone to blame? Voting in America is optional and not mandatory; therefore, engagement is less than universal. Will the US Supreme Court’s reversal of federal abortion rights via Roe vs Wade bear fruit for the Democrats in public outrage by women at the ballot box in these midterms? Will the nearly 80 year old Biden and his gaff prone public performance undo the positive effect of these issues? High inflation and rising interest rates. Gas prices pushing up costs across the board. A recession looming over the United States. The democratic system offers a process for voters to blame and punish the party holding office by electing the other mob. The fact that many of their representatives are much worse than the one’s currently carrying the can is neither here nor there for the marginally engaged looking for someone to blame. The media is the Greek chorus amplifying every trend and endlessly repeating the news which is mostly dire. The press sell newspapers on the back of drama like foul murders and wars. The public are informed by media barons like Murdoch who see themselves as king makers. The reach of these titans of the fourth estate wraps around nations in the digital age. Their minions churn out opinion pieces like ripe turds on a summer’s day. Beating drums of war or inciting domestic furore via racism or some other socially divisive agenda. The wave of public opinion is easily manipulated around polling time. Nobody is interested in things as boring as policy but crave salacious conspiracy. America used to be a land of puritans who would turn on anyone caught in the act doing improper stuff. Lately, however, Trump has ‘tefloned’ himself from public condemnation by accusing the media of fake news. Casting aspersions over the very instruments that seek to fillet him and his ambitions. Nobody believes what the other side has to say anymore. Will this be the thing that brings down the American empire. Will civil war soon tear this superpower apart? Trump may not be making America great again but consigning it to the dustbin of history. ©House Therapy Read the full article

[panglossesanddiadorims]

Flaws in the Pattern and Guilt

Up to the circumstances, behaving as a flaw in the pattern can be dangerous, but also rewarding. Definitely the stance does not encompass psychopaths, terrorists, rapists, or anyone who harms and manipulates remorselessly, for they are already amorally crooked. Morality may be construed not only as the concern with the distinction between right and wrong, but also the ability to meet the moral standards. These standards are based on fundamentally transparent principles of integrity and ethics, not inflicted as religious dogmas or ideological speeches and enforced by arbitrary patrols. In fact, it does enable narcissistic and self-proclaimed flawless groups to seek validation of their own moral principles through character tribunals, cancel cultures and internet lynching of those they label flaws in the pattern. When groups feel entitled to determine who to blame and how to suppress language, the concept of a free society is undermined. Whenever these tactics were applied in history, they ended up in genocides, injustice, tyranny and mayhem. For instance, it happened when opponents to McCarthyism, Nazism and Communism became anathemas and were banned, tortured or executed on tyrannical values; when ethnicities like gypsies, Indians, Armenians, Koreans, Jews, Tutsis, Slavs and Kurds faced the brink of extinction on superiority race fallacies; when minorities such as homosexuals were castrated and incarcerated on puritan values, and when women were impeded to vote and burned at the stake.

Moral codes are supposed to secure basic norms of civilized coexistence and to preclude us from becoming a “Lord of Flies” community. Due to our primeval ancestry, without laws and moral codes, civilizations plunge into anarchy, tyranny and oblivion. For instance, after the hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, tens of thousands became homeless and were accommodated in improvised shelters, but when social assistance lingered and compliance with constituted laws waned, chaos erupted with people adhering to raw instincts of survival and savagery of rampant cases of robbery and rape. During the war in Vietnam, the collapse of the constitutional monarchy laws following the secretive US air raids over Cambodia expedited the small-scale Khmer rouge insurgency to strengthen and eventually overtake the country, unleashing a homicidal regime that murdered an estimate of two million. However, legality has not always walked hand in hand with morality. For instance, the Russian Revolution of March 1917 started with the abdication of Czar Nicholas II, ending a 300-year of autocratic regime, and treated towards the promulgation of a democratic and liberal Constitution. This process was abruptly discontinued by the Bolshevik coup d’état in October, leading to the slaughter of the Romanov Imperial family, a Civil War and a 70-year dictatorship whose laws reaped tens of millions of lives. Military coup d’états in Latin America  toppled left-wing governments surmised as communist threats during the Cold War, legitimating right-wing dictatorships that curtailed individual rights and instituted State censorship, torture and murder as in any communist country. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis took advantage of the democratic laws and institutions of the Weimar Republic to participate in elections and be appointed Chancellor of Germany and eventually eradicate all traces of humanity and tolerance.  

Nevertheless, society started to elicit these events as amorally repulsive as well as others such as slavery, the apartheid, the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, the Yellow Star mandatory use, the chemical castration of homosexuals, the Mortgage CDOs, child labor, and the forced relocation of indigenous tribes once collective imaginary evolved under diverse economic, political and historic changes. The fact they were legally regulated, and endorsed by major segments of the society, resides on the aspect of the historical and social context in which communities were inserted. It seems convenient and shallow for current generations to condemn habits and traditions of past generations under the lens of our modern context as modern ideological patrols operate. Slavery, for instance, existed for thousands of years as well as slave rebellions; in addition abolition movements had to squander an extensive amount of time to finally surmount the obstacles and banish it definitely. The ancient Roman Republic had to smash several insurgencies, with the Spartacus War in 77 BC as the most famous one. Slave traffic from Africa to the American continent prospered enormously in part due to African tribes embedded slavery practice and alliance with the European colonizers to eliminate enemy tribes to overtake their riches. Slavery was eventually banished on political, humane and economic aspects that enabled the abolition movements to propel their ideals and allow other civil right movement to achieve achievements new generations take for granted.

Moreover, historical events do not occur out of the blue, they are the result of a combination of factors. It deems egotistical to blame the German people for Nazism and the Holocaust without understanding the history of hundreds of years of Anti-Semitism in Europe or the devastation at the end of WWI. If there is one country that has not denied its past evil and faced its demons on a daily basis, that country is Germany. If all countries erected museums and monuments and published books to honor the victims of the atrocities and reveal their dark side and disclosed to their new generations the perversity and evil they cradled, mankind would probably become aware of the monster within and eventually tame our most obscure demons. It is cliché, but History can repeat itself. However, history also provides the means for us to be a better society. The reason why slavery, the apartheid, the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, the Yellow Star mandatory use, the chemical castration of homosexuals, the Mortgage CDOs, and the relocation of indigenous tribes used to be legally regulated, and endorsed by major segments of the society, lies basically on the aspect of the historical and social context in which communities were inserted. Perhaps two decades from now, the generations will be both horrified and intrigued at how social media, in less than fifteen years, both managed to cripple us from basic cognitive reasoning and critical thinking and create ideological upheaval and political animosity and why we indulged in narcissistic and idiotic segments of the society to impose speech codes and cultural cancelation through arbitrary tactics over the majority, as a serpent hatching its eggs; just like nowadays we question the Germans with Nazism.

The establishment of moral codes, laws and directives are essential for any community to thrive. The Ten Commandments were instituted as an initial Table of Laws, a moral code for the Jewish people as a newborn nation. To expedite its compliance by the Chosen Ones in exodus, what could have sounded more enticing than saying God Himself had conceived it? After all, that is the identical reason why ancient currency featured deities and nobility onto coins to convey the combined message of divinity and value. If in the XXI century multitudes do not falter to live by interpretations of the sacred scriptures, imagine 5,000 years ago. It was ingenious to say that God disguised as a flaming bush carved ten elementary sentences on stoned boards and gave them to the only witness, Moses, rather than being a mortal creation. Not that we mortals are not capable of conceiving laws and moral codes as good as old Jehovah’s, or even better. For example, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Nuremberg Principles, le Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789 and the Paris Climate Agreement and even vehicle and traffic regulations are concrete evidence that humans can elaborate reasonable proposals to address moral and legal issues. In fact, compositions and drawings from children can expose moral beauty beyond compare. After all, whoever has a speck of decency and moral values would never condone amoral absurdities such as misogyny, police violence - or any violence -, environment destruction, forced labor, hate crimes- or any crime-, rape or racism. Those who blame women for being raped due to their attitudes and clothes are not only obtuse but also medievally unable to accept women’s identity and desires. Besides, rape is associated with power domination, never sexual pleasure. People who use their fanatical interpretation of religious books to attack homosexuals or feel annoyed because same-sex people can love has internal issues of his own to handle; families whose moral values are based on love, respect, integrity, honesty and endearment are not concerned about others’ lives. As a friend once said, happy people never bother. Finally, anyone who thinks to be racially superior due to his lower amount of melamine should be worried about the low level of oxygen delivered to his brain.

[weedle-testaburger]

the funniest subset of people in british politics are ‘people who are indifferent to republicanism so long as the queen is alive but as soon as charles takes the throne will become ardent republicans’

[useless-englandfacts]

Oh god I always thought I was a republican but then I look at USA and wonder whether a republic is a good idea for us - it seems so polarising.

yeah i understand where you're coming from, and certainly i think the last thing the uk needs is a system like the US which would further entrench what is basically a two-party system (ik there are other parties in the commons but i'm talking about parties who form governments here).

(putting this under a cut because as per i talk too much)

on the other hand, the USA is a wildly different country to the uk, in its geography and its culture and its politics and its history - all of which feed into each other. so even if the uk did move to a more american style of government, i don't think it would necessarily reproduce the exact same political problems that the USA has had/currently has.

and the US doesn't hold the monopoly on republicanism. i mean the it's such a broad term it's almost meaningless - you would have to qualify it with another descriptor because nowadays most countries in the world could be considered republics. so with the US as an example, it's a republic but you would say it's a constitutional republic (the uk doesn't have a fully codified constitution) or a federal republic (the uk isn't a federation) and they use a presidential system (the uk doesn't have a president).

to take some other examples france, algeria and portugal are also republics with presidents, but their presidential systems are again very different to the US because of the nature of their respective parliaments/assemblies, and they all have prime ministers too. so it's not like there's a binary choice between uk style government with a monarchy, and US style government with a de facto two-party legislature and a directly elected president.

i think culture and context matter in terms of how you understand the word republicanism too. obviously one of the US's two main parties is the Republican party, but they're not the only (small r) republicans in the US. most Democrats are (small r) republicans in that they support republicanism, just as most Republicans are (small d) democrats because they support democracy (i kno this could be contested lmao but this is just for the sake of argument okay).

in the uk however, i would say that republicanism is almost solely talked about in reference to the monarchy and so that's a whole other context. i'm happy to be corrected of course, but in my experience the word republicanism here is basically synonymous with abolishing the monarchy. but then if we're talking more technically, most political theorists would categorise the uk as a republic because citizens participate in electing our government - even if we do have a constitutional monarchy alongside that. the political reality is probably more fuzzy, but on paper anyway we do fit the definition, as do countries like denmark, norway, spain, etc. who also have monarchies.

tldr i don't think you need to be put off republicanism as a whole just because of the USA! that's just one version of republicanism, and one that came about through a very specific set of circumstances that are very very unlikely to be emulated in the uk any time soon!