Maybe not immediately, but all the Jews who were forced out of Spain, and had to go looking for another place to live often died on the road from starvation or injury, or were killed by highway men.
Sure, Jews died during the expulsions but all of them didn’t die. Even if half of them died, we’re talking at most twenty thousand. And I highly doubt half of them died.
With the colonization of the Americas, we’re talking tens of millions.
I’m not dismissing the evil that was the Inquisition and the Expulsion, but when it comes to the actual question of death counts, it’s a statistical blip.
I think there are several good reasons to dislike Nancy Reagan, but the one that stands out for me is that she ruins Donovan’s Brain (1953). I haven’t seen this movie since the 1970s – I recall it being pretty good – but both times I have tried to watch it since then I have had to abandon the effort after about 10 minutes because the sight of Mrs. Reagan fills me with such disgust that further watching becomes unpalatable. While many of the candidates mentioned in this thread were indisputably more bloodthirsty, heartless and/or spread their e-ville over a wider population and longer time, none of them ruin Donovan’s Brain as much as Nancy Reagan.
Thinking of the situation in terms of collaborators comes from the point-of-view of someone living in a fairly modern state. Most rulers back then thought in terms of what was best for their family’s wealth, status, and power rather than demonstrate loyalty to something so abstract as nation or state. In truth, Boudica’s own people, or at least her husband the king, were more than happy to work with the Romans. They were so cozy that upon his death, Prasutagus, her husband (and yes I had to look that up), willed his kingdom to both Rome and to his daughters. I’m sure there were some complex political machinations behind him naming Rome as one of the inheritors of his kingdom rather than outright love or sentimentality.
At the time of Columbus’ voyage, she had no idea he’d encounter a whole new continent and new civilizations. And with her death in 1504, I don’t think we can blame her for what happened in the Americas post contact.
She is my choice as well. The first interview question I’d ask any politician would be “What’s your favorite book?” If it’s Atlas Shrugged, there’s no need for any further questions.
Irrelevant. Unintended consequences are still consequences.
Of course we can. She made it possible.
Of course, if not her (and Ferdinand), it would have been someone else. Doesn’t change the fact that it was her, though.
That had nothing to do with them being “cozy”. It was basically protection money.
salome for killing John the Baptist
Back to the quoted number of people killed. There were probably never that many Romans in Britain, so most of the dead would almost certainly have been native Britons. What was her beef against them?
There’s an alternate reality out there where Nancy Reagan asking her personal astrologer to do a mystic reading about Jimmy Carter yields a negative result (“the planetary movements indicate he’s going to have a great year!”). And as a result she persuades Ronald not to run for president again.
Or maybe not. You didn’t need to be a fortune teller to predict Carter had a lot of trouble going into re-election but Nancy was obsessed with that kind of things.
So did Columbus’s mom. Why isn’t she equally responsible?
You republicans are slipping. Ninety-two posts in and no mention of Hillary?
We went this far without someone bringing up partisan bullshit. Why did you decide to ruin it?
Not for sending him to search for the East Indies. But Isabella was more than happy to restore Columbus’ freedom and wealth even after learning of his brutality to both the Indians and even other Spaniards. So I’d say she’s earned your righteous ire.
I really don’t know. A lot of times, estimations found in historical accounts aren’t trustworthy. Not necessarily because someone is lying but because it isn’t always easy to keep track of demographic information.
Nancy Reagan got mentioned a couple times upthread, albeit perhaps too peripherally for some to consider it partisan bullshit.
She didn’t sponsor him, or profit from the proceeds of colonization. She’s responsible for Columbus, but not for what Columbus did. Whereas Isabella was.
Yup. worth mentioning that her ministers were involoved in provatising pubic services - such as power generation and distribution and then took senior posts withing the newly privatised companies -
of special note is Lord Marsall who headed the CEGB and went on to lead Powergen
Lets also add in loads of former British Rail directors who went on to head divisions of the various rail franchises especially railtrack, and this led directly to serious loss of life in huge railway accidents - which had then to be taken back into public ownership and the whole network having to be repaired at a cost of at least £1.5 billion. Noteworthy too is that the UK has the highest rail trainsports costs in Europe - and yet Thatchers privatisation lies were supposed to bring in investment, and the competition would reduce prices - all lies and her ministers and those of her class all made incredible weath.
There’s a lot more that could be added, however my position on the root causes of the Falklands war is well known here, and my analysis of how it came about is somewhere in the archives - lets just say I genuinely believe that she benefitted from that event and had more than a little hand in ensuring that it took place - Thatcher - mother of 1000 dead - as the song goes.
I concur. It was, to say the least, a very convenient war.
j
Based on a recommendation from someone here (thanks!), I’ve started reading Adrian McKinty’s Sean Duffy books set in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. In the second book, McKinty has Duffy definitely thinking the Falklands War was to boost Thatcher’s image.