|
Question: What the hell is the deal with Lesotho? It's ruining my pretty borders by having a giant splotch in the middle of South Africa. Is it an independent, internationally recognized state or it is kind of like Palestine? Can someone smarter than me give me a brief run down?
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Lesotho is a sovereign, fully recognized state, just like South Africa. I think it's separate from South Africa due to some quirks in the way the British administered it (it was a British protectorate for a while after SA became independent).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:Posted this in the Pictures thread by mistake: Most of the mid west dots are Anhydrous Ammonia storage which is used as a liquid fertilizer. Good for two of the big crops that the government loves so much, Corn and Wheat. edit: And propane/ethanol storage. edit2: in my area there are about 20 dots in a 50 mile radius, all but 3 are fertilizer storage. Peanut President fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
XMNN posted:IIRC, some of those rural cantons are regressive as hell and didn't give women the vote till the late 80s. They couldn't vote in federal elections until 1971 AND the last canton only "allowed" (was ordered by the federal court to allow) women to vote in 1990! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Lesotho is a sovereign, fully recognized state, just like South Africa. I think it's separate from South Africa due to some quirks in the way the British administered it (it was a British protectorate for a while after SA became independent). After the Second Boer War, the British controlled the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and Orange River as colonies, plus Bechuanaland (Botswana), Basutoland (Lesotho) and Swaziland as protectorates (as well as Rhodesia under the British South Africa Company). In 1910 the four colonies were united as the Union of South Africa; the neighboring protectorates remained separate entities, with the intent of eventually incorporating them into the union. The British repeatedly delayed this incorporation, and by the time of the institution of apartheid it became obvious that it was basically never going to happen. In the late '60s, independence was granted to the former protectorates. In the cases of Lesotho and Swaziland in particular, both were monarchies before, during and after British rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:They couldn't vote in federal elections until 1971 AND the last canton only "allowed" (was ordered by the federal court to allow) women to vote in 1990! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
I'm trying to imagine what thought process could have led to choosing that color scheme but I'm coming up empty. I mean seriously, alternating colors? (among other issues)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
My favorite part is places without any democratic vote having women's suffrage when they last were democracies. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Basil Hayden posted:After the Second Boer War, the British controlled the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and Orange River as colonies, plus Bechuanaland (Botswana), Basutoland (Lesotho) and Swaziland as protectorates (as well as Rhodesia under the British South Africa Company). In 1910 the four colonies were united as the Union of South Africa; the neighboring protectorates remained separate entities, with the intent of eventually incorporating them into the union. The British repeatedly delayed this incorporation, and by the time of the institution of apartheid it became obvious that it was basically never going to happen. In the late '60s, independence was granted to the former protectorates. In the cases of Lesotho and Swaziland in particular, both were monarchies before, during and after British rule. The idea kind of got shelved after Southern Rhodesia rejected integration in 1922, then Hertzog and the National/Labour Pact unseated Smuts in the '24 election and kicked off the era of Afrikaner dominance which killed of any hope of integrating the remaining protectorates. The British where quite keen on Rhodesian integration as they believed it would weaken Afrikaner influence in South Africa but gradually the British began to fear any potential union would strengthen Afrikaner power, during Kenya's decolonization period there was some concern in diplomatic circles that the white settler population in the highlands would attempt to forge a political alliance with South Africa (a concern not really founded in reality). Here, have a map. Behold Portuguese Africa!  Well, what they claimed was Portuguese Africa anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Riso posted:They had constant troubles and used a large military force to repress any revolts. quote:You also admit they did not last. You disprove your own point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The Holy Roman Empire? Constant troubles? Name them. There was this thing called the reformation which provoked this thing called a clusterfuck. Besides, he was talking about the Austrian empire, which eventually went down with an ethnic revolt anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:There was this thing called the reformation which provoked this thing called a clusterfuck. Besides, he was talking about the Austrian empire, which eventually went down with an ethnic revolt anyway. What? He was talking about the Roman empire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What? He was talking about the Roman empire. Couldn't non-Roman citizens in Rome be flogged merely for wearing the clothes of a Roman at one point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Couldn't non-Roman citizens in Rome be flogged merely for wearing the clothes of a Roman at one point? I've never heard about that in my life. Not saying that it didn't happen, but I really doubt it. There certainly were typical "barbarian clothes" and you see that in roman depictions of barbarians, but I don't think they expected non-roman people within the empire to dress that way, let alone require it. Everywhere that rome conquered and settled you see roman fashions, hairstyles, and culture come into vogue and I highly doubt that would have happened if the only people from Rome itself could dress in Roman clothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
You also have to remember that there'd be a difference between "In Rome" and "In Roman territory."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:I've never heard about that in my life. Not saying that it didn't happen, but I really doubt it. There certainly were typical "barbarian clothes" and you see that in roman depictions of barbarians, but I don't think they expected non-roman people within the empire to dress that way, let alone require it. Everywhere that rome conquered and settled you see roman fashions, hairstyles, and culture come into vogue and I highly doubt that would have happened if the only people from Rome itself could dress in Roman clothing. Admittedly it's one of those things someone stated authoritatively once somewhere but that I can't remember where or how I could possibly look it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:You also have to remember that there'd be a difference between "In Rome" and "In Roman territory." The only clothing restrictions I know of, even in Rome itself, was that there were togas that senators and upper class duders could wear and that regular people could not. Regular people just wore different types of togas though, or like tunics and poo poo if they couldn't afford a toga. Not an entirely different wardrobe and it had nothing to do with ethnicity just social class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What? He was talking about the Roman empire. Modern Day Hercules posted:I've never heard about that in my life. Not saying that it didn't happen, but I really doubt it. There certainly were typical "barbarian clothes" and you see that in roman depictions of barbarians, but I don't think they expected non-roman people within the empire to dress that way, let alone require it. Everywhere that rome conquered and settled you see roman fashions, hairstyles, and culture come into vogue and I highly doubt that would have happened if the only people from Rome itself could dress in Roman clothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Isn't "Gallia togata" called that specifically because they dressed like Romans? Yeah, that was sort of unique in that they dressed that way before Romans even showed up, and as far as I know they were never made to stop. Because that would be insane as anything. Everybody else took on Roman custom after being brought into Rome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:On that note, have a map with a poorly chosen color scheme: America Inc. fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Not that Roman Empire, the other one. Ras Het is correct that the Reformation led to conflict, but I think it's notable, for instance, that after the Schmalkaldic War you had something like sixty years of peace until the Thirty Years' War started, which is an excellent run. Not to mention that after 1648 there was no other religious war within the Empire, which is also impressive. The Holy Roman Empire was strikingly stable. And this is a political complex with tons of ethnicities and at least four religions. As I see it, the problem isn't diversity, it's ethnic nationalism. Yeah but the HRE was decentralized as poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
On the subject of those WWI countries-as-people maps that were getting posted a couple pages back, here's a really cool one from 1899. Look how smug Britian is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Pig farming was essential to the Serbian economy at the time, hence the reason for the Serbian pig Loving Norway and Sweden here 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Why was Australia the first to allow women suffrage? Is it in any way related to the fact that, in the US, frontier Western states were the first to allow women suffrage because they saw femininity as a "civilizing factor" among mostly male frontier populations? New Zealand actually had us beat by a few years. I don't think female suffrage in Australia ever really had that sort of moralising element. There might have been a bit of it early on in South Australia, but in general Australia was just pretty good when it came to suffrage rights - there was no property requirement to vote in federal elections, and secret ballots were always used. In general, Australia was about twenty to thirty years ahead of the UK when it came to voting rights. If I were to guess, I'd say the main reasons were we didn't have an established aristocracy and, since a lot of Australians came from the bottom rungs of British society, there was a lot more support for universal rights and, more importantly, the opposition had a lot less power to slow reforms. The other main factor would be that, even after federation, the Australian parliment was still sort of seen as a local government within the British Empire, not an independant state, so it could get away with being a bit more radical since it wasn't seen as being as important. Foreign policy and other issues were still pretty much de-facto run from London. And, of course, if you were aboriginal, you were still poo poo out of luck...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Yeah but the HRE was decentralized as poo poo So?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 05:37
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Lord Hydronium posted:On that note, have a map with a poorly chosen color scheme: What is the definition of enfranchisement here? Belgium did not give women the right to vote at the national level until 1948, even though they were allowed to vote in local elections from 1921 on. Interestingly, quite a few socialists were actually wary of women's suffrage because they feared women would inevitably vote christian-democrat, and a lot of Catholics actively supported it for the same reason. They reasoned that women naturally preferred stability and a middle-of-the-road mentality over more extreme ideologies. Plus, at that point religion was seen almost as a 'women's affair', particularly in Wallonia which was quite similar to France in that regard. Men were supposed to be more secularized and cynical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Men were supposed to be more secularized and cynical. Well, looking at demographics of /r/atheism, that's not too far from the truth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:after the Schmalkaldic War you had something like sixty years of peace until the Thirty Years' War started, which is an excellent run. Technically the HRE was at war with the French until 1559 about Italy, but disregarding that, 60 years of peace is ridiculously generous even when we apply it only to internal religious wars. 1546-1547 Schmalkaldic War (Religious) 1568-1648 Dutch Revolts (Religious) 1583–1588 Cologne War (Religious) quote:Not to mention that after 1648 there was no other religious war within the Empire, which is also impressive. The Holy Roman Empire was strikingly stable. And this is a political complex with tons of ethnicities and at least four religions. The Peace of Westphalia created the concept of sovereignty and non-interference in internal matters. It is arguably one of the most important developments of history, enshrining national rule and allowing for self-determination later. That no further wars on that topic were fought is because of the huge devastation the 30YW brought with a third of the population dying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
It's pretty dubiously qualified to be considered alongside modern nation-states or even a fin de siècle "great power" like Austria-Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Riso's whole argument is that wide-ranging autonomy is one way to counter-act the destabilizing effect of a culturally diverse society, so the HRE being decentralized as poo poo is not really a counter-example. The other part of his argument is that an iron fist can hold things together, which I think can be expanded to a spectrum of sorts. I don't think it's coincidental that greater levels of democracy have gone hand in hand with the creation of the modern nation-state in Europe, as power was ceded from a small ruling class with an international perspective to the people's far more local view on things. Now, I don't think true diversity is something that can't be overcome, but I do think balancing various divisions in the population becomes harder when you add cultural diversity as well. The dismemberment of welfare states on the basis of them having to be shared by those people, like African-Americans after the Civil Rights Act, or immigrants in Europe in the last decades, seems to me to be a case of differences being leveraged to undo the democratization which was originally carried out as a national project. Where I think Riso and I differ is that I believe the in-group can be expanded in the future, so we can reverse the reversal. computer parts posted:Well, looking at demographics of /r/atheism, that's not too far from the truth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Especially the later Holy Roman Emperors had less power over their nominal vassals than the Articles of Confederation gave the federal government. It's not a good counterexample against Riso's theory that only very decentralized states can have religious pluralities. And the various German states were quite homogeneous, they were either Catholic or Protestant, until Protestant Prussia started to gobble up the various smaller states. And one of the first things Bismark did in the united German Empire was instigating the big Kulturkampf (the original culture war) against the Catholics. Which only stopped when the socialists began emerging as an even bigger problem and he needed the help of the conservative Catholics to stop them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
I'm liking that even a century ago people were still writing about DEBT in their political drawings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
I wasn't the one to start talking religion.quote:Where I think Riso and I differ is that I believe the in-group can be expanded in the future, so we can reverse the reversal. Why is it bad to have homogenous nation states? People have different languages, attitudes, mentalities, and there is no reason to put them all into one single country if you can have a reasonable split. Do you want to put the Czechs and Slovaks back together? Serbs and Croatians? How about telling the Scots to stop their referendum? If not, why? According to you there's no reason they should have or want to split in the first place. quote:I'm liking that even a century ago people were still writing about DEBT in their political drawings. More severe problem in those times because you used actual gold and silver and couldn't just print your way out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Bir Tawil is far, far poorer than the Hala'ib Triangle, which is why that deal is obviously one neither want to be on the wrong side of. So they sit there waiting for the other to make a move, so they can thumb their noses at them and grab the good part. Digging this back up - how can one area be richer than the other when (according to Google Maps), it looks like both areas are largely mountainous or desert, and look unoccupied? The Hala'ib Triangle looks like it has one highway running through it, but that's about it? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
Maybe the same as with Lichtenstein: Banks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
 States in which oral sex is illegal but necrophilia isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
I don't even..
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
The epitome of "Why? Because we can."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Slimchandi posted:Digging this back up - how can one area be richer than the other when (according to Google Maps), it looks like both areas are largely mountainous or desert, and look unoccupied? The Hala'ib Triangle looks like it has one highway running through it, but that's about it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
English is not my mother tongue, but I always thought that oral sex falls under sodomy, and anti-sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional? And I'm pretty sure that it is still illegal to have sex with the dead, disturbing the rest of the dead or something like that? Or are there no such laws in the USA?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 11:37
|
|