Actually the opposite. Queen Liliʻuokalani unilaterally abrogated the Constitution. She took all rights away from everyone but her Royal family (all Property would come from the Crown), made herself a absolute Monarch, and completely disenfranchised all White people on the islands- even those who had been born there (Lorrin A Thurston had not only been born on the Islands, his parents had too.). A very racist move. The Queen had virtually no support from even the natives. No-one fought to support her.
That seems inconsistent for Texas.
WWII was won by three things- Soviet manpower, American manufacturing and British pigheadedness. If the Brits had rolled over, the Soviets would have been alone, and would likely have collapsed- in fact Stalin reportedly almost did so.
The Russian contributed the most men, the Yanks the most money and the Brits were in it the longest.
This is the one that really pisses me off. If not this, it’s drugs - they must have done X under the influence of drugs.
Listen bub. Just because YOU (general you) can’t conceive of something amazing without being high as all fuck doesn’t mean no one can.
He didn’t. Henry Tudor did. RIII had no motive, Tudor did- since he had no claim to the throne if they were alive. Not to mention Henry was well known for killing off claimants, and RIII wasn’t. Finally there’s the fact the Tudor didnt claim RIII killed the Princes until years had passed, after he had time to get rid of the evidence and witnesses.
Myth: that the Christians burned the Library of Alexandria.
Obviously people whose livelihood depended on the Negro Leagues didn’t want them to cease operation, that’s hardly surprising.
But I think you’re selling Jackie Robinson short. No one claims that he was the absolute greatest baseball player ever, or that he was somehow the driving force behind integration. What he did do was bear up with grace and dignity and charisma, very much in the public eye, under truly massive amounts of hatred.
WHich should SUPPORT the contention that Dan White was mentally ill, shouldn’t it?
Robinson was also a very good baseball player. Rookie of the Year, MVP, six World Series, and six All-Star games.
“Debunkings” like “Reagan had NOTHING to do with it”* or “Lincoln was gay” or “Obama is an atheist” are at least as irritating as myths.
Regards,
Shodan
*Where “it” = “anything good”.
But at the Alamo in particular, it’s notable that the two commanders, Travis and Bowie, were both slave owners, and the only people who gained freedom as a direct result of the battle was their two slaves. One result of the Texas War of Independence was that blacks in Texas remained enslaved for 29 more years than if Mexico had won the war.
For me, what always made me think that RIII probably didn’t kill the princes was that if he did, he kept it a secret. As far as he knew, he was going to reign for 30 years, and someone was going to ask about them at some point. I don’t know RIII, and can’t argue that he would never murder anyone, but I think if he did murder the princes in order to secure his claim to the throne, he would have told people they were dead, and given them a big royal funeral. It’s not like Dr. Rodgers would be doing an autopsy, and telling Logan and Briscoe that she found linen fibers in their nasal passages.
I never said I had an opinion one way or another, but there is a form of psychosis that can arise from untreated depression, and there is also a psychotic form of bipolar disorder. I did not live in California in the 70s, nor was I old enough then to have any opinion of Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone; I am not in a position to say that Dan White was properly adjudicated, but I do think he would have been better off serving time in a psychiatric institution rather than prison. That doesn’t seem to be how California worked at the time, though. “Diminished Capacity” was a new name for “Temporary Insanity,” an essentially meant that it was a mitigating factor, but not an exculpating one, because supposedly someone convicted under it was “better now.” There was also pretty heavy public opinion against White, and I think sentencing him to a psychiatric facility rather than prison, even for a longer time, would have been very, very unpopular.
I don’t know how much leeway the judge had in sentencing. Maybe White needed prison time under statute.
As far as his suicide, though, his life was very difficult after prison. He lived outside of San Francisco for his own safety, because it was thought he was likely a target of revenge. His wife left him, and he was Catholic, so that was a blow, and they had children. I think his wife was returned to where her family was, and that would have made seeing his children very difficult. It was a burden for an emotionally healthy person, and White was not emotionally healthy.
…spurious claims that he banged their sister on the other hand… oh!!!
HVIIR agreed to marry Elizabeth of York a year before he invaded England and before he had any way of doing so. The Dowager Queen and her party would have never agreed to the alliance unless she had reason to believe that her sons were dead.
While Henry was not fully secure for many years and had to deal with pretenders, the line of succession as generally acknowledged meant that the two best realistic claimant were mommy dearest on the Lancastrian side and his wife on the other.
“I found wounds on the back of the neck consistent with a large axe. Based on lividity and liver temperature, I put the time of death about 550 years ago.”
The whole Ricardian thing strikes me as bizzare.
It was absolutely characteristic of princes at the time to off rivals with potential claims to the throne - certainly the Tudors did it all the time (while of course painting Richard as a monster), and so had many of the contenders during the Wars of the Roses - so whether Richard III did it or not is hardly an issue in evaluating his character - such murders were simply part and parcel of monarchy in that era.
Did the Tudors go out of their way to propagandize Richard as a villian, when he was a perfectly acceptable king? Certainly. Did Richard off the princes? Most probably. Both can be true at the same time …
Sure. If RIII saw them as rivals, he might have. But they werent- not to his claim. They were only rivals to Tudors claim.
And, there no evidence whatsoever that RIII had anything to do with their deaths.
Huh? How could they not be rivals? They had a better claim to the throne than he did (assuming they were not illigitimate - declaring kids illigitimate was another thing, after murder, that was common in this era! Particularly common among the Tudors as well … both Mary 1 and Elizabeth 1 were, famously, declared illigitimate at one point or another).
As for “proof”, there is none that they were killed by anyone - they simply “dissapeared” … but that “disappearance” followed several steps taken by Richard to secure the throne from them (putting them in the Tower, having them declared illigitimate, having nobles who supported their rights excecuted, etc.).
Point is that all of this was absolutely guarden-variety normal for English monarchs at the time. Sure the Tudors painted him as a bad guy, but then again they did the same, and worse.
Let’s not forget China! Also, in per capita terms, consider Poland and Yugoslavia, among other places! Let’s not forget India either, source of the largest all-volunteer military the world has ever seen. Sure, they were fighting to repel the Japanese, but they were also fighting elsewhere, in the midst of a famine at home, doing the bidding of a government led by a Prime Minister with, in his staff’s words, “Hitler-like attitudes” towards them:
Also that they were built by slave labor. Nope, contractors. At least this is true of the Great Pyramid, and I think all the rest in Egypt. It also originally covered in a gleaming white shell.
“The UnSub is a white male, aged 25-40, probably employed in a profession that requires heavy labor, because he has to have a lot of upper body strength, and this isn’t his first kill, because there are no hesitation marks. The axe was not a weapon of opportunity. It’s his personal possession, and meaningful to him.”
Do you have a cite that is not from that goofy Egyptian archaeologist?