Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
RocknRollaAyatollah
Nov 26, 2008

Lipstick Apathy

computer parts posted:

That's not really true today because outside of the "officially recognized minorities" or whatever China has never pretended to be anything but a single empire. They have agitators but those live off in the hinterlands.

It also helps that China hasn't really grown from this point 200 years ago (it's shrank with Mongolia et all leaving) whereas the Soviets had the addition of Eastern Europe to their empire.

Soviet nationalism only applies to the USSR. It does not include Eastern Europe. Most of the Soviet Union, except Armenia and some small places like Tanu Tuva, were already part of the Russian Empire before the rise of communism. Those areas were also considered the hinterlands as well.

Xinjiang and Xizang, though the "hinterland", are pretty important and separatism and greater autonomy are big issues there. They're honestly the Ukraine, Georgia, or "-stans" of the PRC and are very important to the PRC for a myriad of reasons.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ekuNNN
Nov 27, 2004

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Kamrat
Nov 27, 2012

Thanks for playing Alone in the dark 2.

Now please fuck off

So they included Bornholm but not Öland

Also, why is Syria and the Asian part of Turkey colorized but not the East Thrace

This map lost all respect I had for it :colbert:

Kamrat fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Aug 1, 2014

Pakled
Aug 6, 2011

WE ARE SMART


Heh, everyone laugh at Maine, Delaware, North Dakota, and Alaska, they don't even have any billionaires. :smug:

This is a pretty lovely color scale, though.

No Safe Word
Feb 26, 2005

Pakled posted:



Heh, everyone laugh at Maine, Delaware, North Dakota, and Alaska, they don't even have any billionaires. :smug:

This is a pretty lovely color scale, though.

and North Dakota

fake edit: oh you ninja edited it

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.
How can Delaware not have any billionaires when so many corporations are incorporated there :confused:

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

How can Delaware not have any billionaires when so many corporations are incorporated there :confused:

Because the CEOs and other executives don't actually live in Delaware.

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.
I was making a really bad crack at the whole "Corporations are people, my friend!" thing.

Honj Steak
May 31, 2013

Hi there.

System Metternich posted:

To add to my post in the pictures thread: where do the last uncontacted people on earth live?



This map appears to be a bit out of date, though. As far as I can see, the estimated number of uncontacted peoples has risen throughout the last couple of years. For Papua-New Guinea, the number of 40 tribrs ist most often mentioned, for example. Also: "uncontacted" mostly mustn't be taken literally. Many of these tribes know very well that civilisation exists, and intermittently have contact with it via forest workers, missionaries and ethnologists. "Uncontacted" in this context only means that the contacts never became more than sporadic. Many tribes even actively refuse to engage outsiders, as previous experiences left some bad memories.

Some of those people are even citizens of the EU, as one tribe (estimated at ~100 people) lives in the very south of French Guiana. Keep in mind that most of these groups are very small, ranging from maybe 20 (in some cases even less) members to the the outlier of the Hi-Merima tribe in Brazil, which numbered over 1,000 in 1943.

This is extremely fascinating but equally depressing. Why can't we leave these people in peace? :(

Ms Adequate
Oct 30, 2011

Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling



Honj Steak posted:

This is extremely fascinating but equally depressing. Why can't we leave these people in peace? :(

We uh... mostly do, these days?

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->
Usually if we intervene its because they're all dying of a treatable illness or starving or something. Aside from that yeah we generally don't bug them.

fade5
May 31, 2012

by exmarx

Honj Steak posted:

This is extremely fascinating but equally depressing. Why can't we leave these people in peace? :(
That one uncontacted tribe in Andaman Islands would be the Sentinelese people, who have lived on North Sentinel Island for about 60,000 years.

Since this is the map thread, a map:

Note that all the other tribes have lost shitloads of land and population, as usual with colonialism. Given what's happened to the Jarawa, Onge, and Great Andamanese (who now number 43 at last census), no contact with the Sentinelese is a really, really good idea. Even with the best intentions, diseases like measles still kill a shitload of uncontacted people since they have no immunity.

Also, a big part of the reason the Sentinelese people remain uncontacted is not because the world/India has respected their wishes, it's because they shoot loving arrows at anyone who tries to come near them, including some helicopters who came to check on them after the 2004 Tsunami.

They also killed two fisherman back in 2006 who were illegally poaching inside the protected waters around the island. Ironically, the father of one poacher was more concerned about the Sentinelese people:

quote:

From his balcony the corrugated iron slums of the provincial capital can be seen stretching down the harbour where the smell of dried fish and raw sewage keeps tourists away. 'My son Pandit got his own justice. He was breaking the law, poaching and trespassing on land that wasn't his own and he was murdered. What more is there to say?'

The 74-year-old father of seven continues: 'As far as I am concerned the Sentinelese are the victims in this, not my son. They live in constant terror of heavily armed poachers from Myanmar [Burma] and Port Blair. They were only defending themselves with bows and arrows and rocks in the only way they know how. What I do want is my son's body back so my wife and I can bury him; we don't want retribution. It is an impossible case to prosecute anyway.'
The point of this is that Sentinelese people are awesome, and should continue treating outsiders exactly like they have been.:black101:

icantfindaname
Jul 1, 2008


Jerry Manderbilt posted:

How can Delaware not have any billionaires when so many corporations are incorporated there :confused:

States don't really 'have' billionaires, it's more the other way around

catfry
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth

fade5 posted:

Sentinelese

Those people live in a dystopian zombie flick. Any other human on earth is potentially deadly to them, and they only have their tiny little group holding out desperately against any attempt to get to them, with no hope of survival in the long run.

catfry fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Aug 2, 2014

Phlegmish
Jul 2, 2011



They sound kind of like assholes. Don't knock civilization until you've tried it.

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles

Phlegmish posted:

They sound kind of like assholes. Don't knock civilization until you've tried it.

Well, the neighbouring islands have a population of about 350,000 of which only 1000 are natives, so I think they can be forgiven for thinking that "civilization" means "colonists taking your land and killing you".

System Metternich
Feb 28, 2010

But what did he mean by that?

They probably don't even know about that, as it appears that the Sentinelese have been living in splendid isolation (:v:) even from the other Andaman tribes for a long time.

Phlegmish
Jul 2, 2011



The right move is to take the parts of modernity that you like, and them use them to keep that from happening to you. Kind of like Japan. Right now they're screwed if the Indian government ever finds out about valuable natural resources on their island. Honestly though, considering their numbers they're vulnerable regardless.

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles

Phlegmish posted:

The right move is to take the parts of modernity that you like, and them use them to keep that from happening to you. Kind of like Japan. Right now they're screwed if the Indian government ever finds out about valuable natural resources on their island. Honestly though, considering their numbers they're vulnerable regardless.

I'm not sure an island with about 250 people on it can do what Japan did.

ulvir
Jan 2, 2005

fade5 posted:

Since this is the map thread, a map:


Seeing a group of humans marked as "extinct" is easily the most depressing thing I've read today.

System Metternich
Feb 28, 2010

But what did he mean by that?

The Jangil were last seen in 1907; expeditions into the jungle in the 20s and early 30s only encountered long abandoned villages. This had to be some horror movie poo poo for the researchers.

MeinPanzer
Dec 20, 2004
anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts
Just one other point on Ashkenazichat...

Shbobdb posted:

If you put people next to each other, they're gonna bone. That's human nature. I imagine that is how the Ashkenazim came to be. Especially during that wild period from 70-~600AD. When you've got migrations all over the place, you grab what you can get.

It's not just this. People often seem to miss the fact that during the 1st c. BC and the first few centuries AD (note that the idea of a Roman "exile" of the Jews after the first revolt of AD 66-73 is a myth - there were large numbers of Jews living in the diaspora before the first revolt in AD 66-73 and the Bar Kochba revolt in AD 132-6, and the Romans never had a policy of exiling entire peoples), many Jewish communities in Europe, and especially in Italy, were heavily proselytizing. There is good reason to think that many whole gentile families converted to Judaism.

Numerical Anxiety
Sep 2, 2011

Hello.

MeinPanzer posted:

Just one other point on Ashkenazichat...


It's not just this. People often seem to miss the fact that during the 1st c. BC and the first few centuries AD (note that the idea of a Roman "exile" of the Jews after the first revolt of AD 66-73 is a myth - there were large numbers of Jews living in the diaspora before the first revolt in AD 66-73 and the Bar Kochba revolt in AD 132-6, and the Romans never had a policy of exiling entire peoples), many Jewish communities in Europe, and especially in Italy, were heavily proselytizing. There is good reason to think that many whole gentile families converted to Judaism.

Who knows how effectively it was enforced, but Hadrian did at least forbid Jews from residing in the city of Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina, no? The rest of Syria Palestina, yeah, they were almost certainly still around. And even if there was never an official policy of exiling entire peoples, one does have to acknowledge that the Jews disappear from the historical record in Egypt after the revolts in the second century - whether they were killed, exiled, sold into slavery or something else is an open question, but they do effectively vanish from the territory until new Jewish communities settle there in subsequent years.

Mu Cow
Oct 26, 2003

Mister Adequate posted:

We uh... mostly do, these days?

While governments typically leave them alone, tribes often get hassled by poachers and illegal loggers and miners.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Numerical Anxiety posted:

Who knows how effectively it was enforced, but Hadrian did at least forbid Jews from residing in the city of Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina, no? The rest of Syria Palestina, yeah, they were almost certainly still around. And even if there was never an official policy of exiling entire peoples, one does have to acknowledge that the Jews disappear from the historical record in Egypt after the revolts in the second century - whether they were killed, exiled, sold into slavery or something else is an open question, but they do effectively vanish from the territory until new Jewish communities settle there in subsequent years.

They were at least active in the area until Muhammad's time, after which several of them probably converted to Islam.

Gleri
Mar 10, 2009
There's a bunch of references to Jews in late republican/early imperial literature. Enough, that is, to make it clear that there was a large Jewish population in Rome itself. Ovid's Ars Amatoria is the only thing I can think of off the top of my head. He advises young men to take girls on dates on the Sabbath because the markets will be quieter and there won't be as many pushy merchants around.

DuckHuntDog
May 13, 2004


Phlegmish posted:

They sound kind of like assholes. Don't knock civilization until you've tried it.

Aren't a number of the uncontacted tribes in Brazil remnants of collapsed civilizations?

System Metternich
Feb 28, 2010

But what did he mean by that?

DuckHuntDog posted:

Aren't a number of the uncontacted tribes in Brazil remnants of collapsed civilizations?

You're probably thinking of the Lacandon people in southern Mexico, who are the descendants of Mayans from a diverse background fleeing into the jungles to get away from the conquistadores.

"This site posted:

At first, it was believed that the Lacandón were an undiscovered Maya tribe, living in the lush, dense Lacandona jungle, away from the influence of the Spanish conquistadors. This was true, as far as it went, but it transpired that the Lacandón knew all about the Mexicans. Some especially selected people had even traded with Mexican ranchers, over the centuries, though none had suspected how many lived out there nor even that those individuals were part of an unknown tribe.

The Lacandón began as a composite people, made up originally of survivors from Maya villages. Their ancestors might have been women and children, hidden away, as the Spanish appeared on the horizon; or men limping away from the horrors of an uneven battle. Or there could have been other reasons for their personal tragedies.

As the conquistadors brought foreign diseases, like smallpox, huge numbers of Maya died. In some cases, this left just handfuls or even sole individuals, out of once populous settlements. The remnants of these clashes and communities congregated at the ruined Maya towns and cities. They were rescued by other survivors and taken into the jungle.

The original people were all Maya, all speaking a similar language, but with various cultural and linguistic differences. Imagine taking a couple of Americans, a few Canadians, a lone Australian, two Afrikaners, a family of New Zealanders, two British children and an Irish elder. Throw in a German and a dozen Dutch people for good measure. Now isolate them and return a generation later to see what that did to the English language and cultural norms.

Would water enter a sink through a faucet or a tap? Would we wrap a baby's bottom in diapers or a nappy? Would the traditional turkey meal happen at the end of November or the end of December or both? These were the sort of issues that confronted the traumatized survivors of various Maya cultures; and it resulted in a new, patchwork Mayan language.

By the 18th century, the fusion of all these different Maya influences had resulted in distinct Lacandón traditions and language. It was firmly rooted in Maya, but had become something different. They still practiced the Maya religions, including pilgrimages to the Maya holy places, dotted around Mexico. These sites were only given up when there was evidence that the conquistadors had discovered them. The Lacandón wrote those pyramids, cenotes and other spots off as desecrated. In short, they avoided all Mexicans, in order to remain undiscovered. Their own history told them that contact with the outside world was too dangerous to contemplate.

They "made contact" in 1923, I believe, and have diverged into a northern and a southern group since then. The southern one was hit hard by yellow fever in the 40s and is pretty thoroughly christianised by now. The north remained somewhat true to their traditions, as for the longest time they had a leader who advised his people to remain cautious and mostly stay away from the "outsiders". He died at 104 years old in 1996, though, so we'll have to see how that develops.

MeinPanzer
Dec 20, 2004
anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

Numerical Anxiety posted:

Who knows how effectively it was enforced, but Hadrian did at least forbid Jews from residing in the city of Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina, no? The rest of Syria Palestina, yeah, they were almost certainly still around.

Hadrian's banning the Jews from Jerusalem is doubted historically, primarily because there is no evidence for it in the detailed Roman accounts of the punishments meted out agains the Judaeans post-Bar Kochba revolt, and also because Rabbinic writings and historical evidence continues to attest to Jews living and worshiping in Jerusalem after the suppression of that rebellion.

quote:

And even if there was never an official policy of exiling entire peoples, one does have to acknowledge that the Jews disappear from the historical record in Egypt after the revolts in the second century - whether they were killed, exiled, sold into slavery or something else is an open question, but they do effectively vanish from the territory until new Jewish communities settle there in subsequent years.

I've not heard this before, and it sounds highly unlikely. The Jewish community in Egypt was huge, and remained so still after the Bar Kochba revolt. I think it's probably an issue of sources.

It's just too bad that "the Romans exiled the Jews after they revolted, and the Jews have lived ever since as a wandering people" is touted so often even by those generally well informed about Jewish history and the modern issues in the region - it makes it easy to argue that the Judaeans were forced out of Palestine, and that the Palestinians aren't the descendants of the huge Judaean population that continued to live in the region and practice Judaism until the Arab conquerors coerced most of them into converting to Islam.

quote:

There's a bunch of references to Jews in late republican/early imperial literature. Enough, that is, to make it clear that there was a large Jewish population in Rome itself. Ovid's Ars Amatoria is the only thing I can think of off the top of my head. He advises young men to take girls on dates on the Sabbath because the markets will be quieter and there won't be as many pushy merchants around.

There are lots of references. Horace is one of the earliest authors to mention them, and he makes several references to proselytizing Jews trying to convert Romans in Rome itself, for instance.

Deep State of Mind
Jul 30, 2006

"It was a busy day. I do not remember it all. In the morning, I thought I had lost my wallet. Then we went swimming and either overthrew a government or started a pro-American radio station. I can't really remember."
Fun Shoe

MeinPanzer posted:

that the Palestinians aren't the descendants of the huge Judaean population that continued to live in the region and practice Judaism until the Arab conquerors coerced most of them into converting to Islam.

This may be a politically incorrect question, but I've always wondered, why don't Palestinians convert to Judaism? If they did, couldn't they just walk out of their ghettoes and join Israeli society? Or does this happen already on a small scale?

I mean, the conquered converting to the religion of their conqueror is a pretty common historical thing.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Bloodnose posted:

This may be a politically incorrect question, but I've always wondered, why don't Palestinians convert to Judaism? If they did, couldn't they just walk out of their ghettoes and join Israeli society? Or does this happen already on a small scale?

I mean, the conquered converting to the religion of their conqueror is a pretty common historical thing.
Not so much in Abrahamic religions I don't think? Also that Israel has proven itself nearly as hateful towards the wrong kind of Jews as towards Muslims, so it might not even get them out of second-class status.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

Bloodnose posted:

This may be a politically incorrect question, but I've always wondered, why don't Palestinians convert to Judaism? If they did, couldn't they just walk out of their ghettoes and join Israeli society? Or does this happen already on a small scale?

I mean, the conquered converting to the religion of their conqueror is a pretty common historical thing.

Judaism is one of the least proselytizing religions and there are issues that stem beyond just religion.

Hogge Wild
Aug 21, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Pillbug
Also, if an Israeli Jew converted to Islam, what would happen?

Zohar
Jul 14, 2013

Good kitty
As far as I know conversion to Judaism is a very tricky subject in Israel and it's only very recently -- like in the past year I think -- that official moves have been made to open up the process a little, and even then a whole swathe of the Rabbinate don't recognise them. So I'm not sure how feasible it is for an Arab to be recognised as a Jew even if they tried to convert.

Numerical Anxiety
Sep 2, 2011

Hello.

MeinPanzer posted:

I've not heard this before, and it sounds highly unlikely. The Jewish community in Egypt was huge, and remained so still after the Bar Kochba revolt. I think it's probably an issue of sources.

There are lots of references. Horace is one of the earliest authors to mention them, and he makes several references to proselytizing Jews trying to convert Romans in Rome itself, for instance.

Oh, the revolt at stake isn't Bar Kochba, it's this one. The article isn't all that great on the situation in Egypt, but from what documents we have, it seemed like the army was off dealing with the persians and the local government resorted to whipping up angry mobs of native Egyptians to help put it down (given relations between the two communities, it likely didn't require much effort). So not government policy per se, but there is a lapsus in documentation after the revolt. Whereas before one has the Greek-speaking Hellenized Jewish communities that we recognize from Philo, Aristeas and the like, after one has Aramaic speaking Jewish communities in Egypt. Whatever happened to the Greek-speaking community, they were decimated enough that they're not producing written documents anymore (at least none that have survived), while those that replace them probably settled from elsewhere.

MeinPanzer posted:

It's just too bad that "the Romans exiled the Jews after they revolted, and the Jews have lived ever since as a wandering people" is touted so often even by those generally well informed about Jewish history and the modern issues in the region - it makes it easy to argue that the Judaeans were forced out of Palestine, and that the Palestinians aren't the descendants of the huge Judaean population that continued to live in the region and practice Judaism until the Arab conquerors coerced most of them into converting to Islam.

I agree with this more or less entirely, but that doesn't mean that the demographic upheavals, while not catastrophic in the way that the narrative you gesture to would have them, weren't important in their own right.

MeinPanzer
Dec 20, 2004
anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

Numerical Anxiety posted:

Oh, the revolt at stake isn't Bar Kochba, it's this one. The article isn't all that great on the situation in Egypt, but from what documents we have, it seemed like the army was off dealing with the persians and the local government resorted to whipping up angry mobs of native Egyptians to help put it down (given relations between the two communities, it likely didn't require much effort). So not government policy per se, but there is a lapsus in documentation after the revolt. Whereas before one has the Greek-speaking Hellenized Jewish communities that we recognize from Philo, Aristeas and the like, after one has Aramaic speaking Jewish communities in Egypt. Whatever happened to the Greek-speaking community, they were decimated enough that they're not producing written documents anymore (at least none that have survived), while those that replace them probably settled from elsewhere.

My mistake - I usually lump them together because they are so closely linked together (and really because we know so little about the Kitos revolt that it's often just presented as a prelude to the Bar Kochva revolt). As far as I'm aware from the literature on it, the extent of casualties during this and the Bar Kochva revolt are thought to have been exaggerated (as is so often the case with all ancient sources), and arguments for the disappearance of the community are made from silence. I'm also pretty certain that Greek persisted as an important language for Jewish communities insofar as we have evidence for them from papyri documents.

quote:

I agree with this more or less entirely, but that doesn't mean that the demographic upheavals, while not catastrophic in the way that the narrative you gesture to would have them, weren't important in their own right.

There were absolutely demographic upheavals, and the references in the Rabbinic literature to depopulation in some areas make clear that religious practice was altered because of them. But again, as you state, the standard narrative doesn't acknowledge the survival of these communities.

oldswitcheroo
Apr 27, 2008

The bombers opened their bomb bay doors, exerted a miraculous magnetism which shrunk the fires, gathered them into cylindrical steel containers, and lifted the containers into the bellies of the planes.

Pakled posted:



Heh, everyone laugh at Maine, Delaware, North Dakota, and Alaska, they don't even have any billionaires. :smug:

This is a pretty lovely color scale, though.

Aaaaand I went to high school with Mississippi's richest jerk's kids. Rich jerks, the whole lot of them.

Ms Adequate
Oct 30, 2011

Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling



oldswitcheroo posted:

Aaaaand I went to high school with Mississippi's richest jerk's kids. Rich jerks, the whole lot of them.

I hope you stuffed those rich jerks in lockers and gave them swirlies and whatever it is the rambunctious kids do these days.

Lord Hydronium
Sep 25, 2007

Non, je ne regrette rien


Pakled posted:

This is a pretty lovely color scale, though.
Bad color scales, you say?

I was looking up a map of Gini coefficients worldwide, and if you want go-to examples of all the different ways color scales can go wrong, well, look no further.

What should a color scale do? Well, it should convey the information you're trying to show with it, obviously. So it should be easy to associate particular colors with the differences in data that you're trying to distinguish, it should have colors that convey information in a way relevant to the data, and it should have colors that you can distinguish from each other, if that's important.

What scale do you use for Gini coefficient? Well, you could just let a colorblind dog select for you:





Those colors convey next to no useful information. In the first, orange is worse than magenta but better than red? In the second, cyan is the worst color of them all? You basically need to bounce back and forth between the map and legend to figure out where each country stands relative to others.

So how about a two-color scale? Have one end of the gradient be green, one be red, and then either have a neutral color in between:





Or not:



Now here's the politically loaded part. Generally, we associate green with good and red with bad in maps like these. Which can make for an interesting way of inherently biasing the tone of maps; imagine a map of reproductive rights or gay rights, and how much difference it makes whether you color "most female/gay-friendly" green or red.

But then there's also the issue of where to put the dividing line between red and green (or whatever two colors we use). In some maps, this makes sense, like when we have data that can be negative or positive (like growth rates). Green is positive, red is negative, neutral is zero. With Gini coefficient, it biases the map in other ways.

Like, a green country should, as we instinctively interpret it, have a "good" Gini coefficient, or low income inequality. Compare the difference you get in the first two maps just from moving the midpoint of the scale (well, and they seem to be using slightly different data, but ignoring that). In the first map, there's lot of green: Canada, Europe, throughout Africa and Asia. In the second one, except for a couple assorted countries here and there, all the green is concentrated into Europe. It may subconsciously convey the idea that income equality is only a European thing, with all other countries being varying degrees of bad (or it may not; I might be just doing the color equivalent of complaining about Mercator). When we get rid of the neutral color, the visual difference becomes even more extreme; now a good chunk of the world is in the green, and the entire rest of the world is a bad red. Also as a result, a lot of countries like India have moved from "meh" yellow to "not bad" green. It says something different, whether good or bad.

None of these are inherently better or worse than the other (except the first two, they're just poo poo), but it really depends on what you're trying to say with each map. If you want to be neutral, you're probably pretty safe just going with a linear scale:



Or if you still want to convey the idea of "better" and "worse" in the colors, this isn't bad:



In this case, all the countries are ranked relative to each other, so yellow truly is an average color, and green is the "better half" of countries, at least in regards to Gini coefficient. Of course, that's still potentially politically loaded; this is the only two-color map where the US isn't red, for example.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Patter Song
Mar 26, 2010

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.
Fun Shoe

MeinPanzer posted:


It's just too bad that "the Romans exiled the Jews after they revolted, and the Jews have lived ever since as a wandering people" is touted so often even by those generally well informed about Jewish history and the modern issues in the region - it makes it easy to argue that the Judaeans were forced out of Palestine, and that the Palestinians aren't the descendants of the huge Judaean population that continued to live in the region and practice Judaism until the Arab conquerors coerced most of them into converting to Islam.




Palestine turned into a heavily Christianized region after Constantine and Helena had their way with it and Jerusalem became one of the biggest centers of Christianity in the 5th-6th centuries, and after the massacre of the Jews of Palestine in the early 7th century for siding with the Sassanids against the Eastern Roman Empire the Jewish community in Palestine was pretty small by the time of the Arab conquests. Most of the early converts to Islam after the Arab conquests were various heretical Christians (Monophysites, Nestorians, etc.) who had no real loyalty to their former authorities in Constantinople, not Jews.

There was a huge influx of Hellenized Christians into Jerusalem etc. in the 4th-6th centuries that, even if it wasn't de-Judaized in the 1st-2nd, they were a minority in the area by the time of the Arab conquests.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply