Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Was nat turner or hariet tubman mixed.?


Was nat turner or hariet tubman mixed.?
What exactly do you mean by mix?

Both people were against slavery.

Nat Turner was an abolitionist who wanted to settle to fight slavery by killing slaveowners to freed the enslaves. His goal was a bloody revenge to fight slavery.

Harriet Tubman was a abolitionist who settled the slavery dispute by going down South and using the Underground Railroad to secretly rescue the many slaves. Her goals wasn't to sought to do bloody revenges, it was meant to only freed slaves secretly so southerners didn't know who did it.

Hope this helps.

Was nat turner or hariet tubman mixed.?
Are you asking If they were racially mixed?

can you be more specific? Please.
Reply:Harriet Tubman was born to slave parents. Nat Turner lived his whole life in a predominately black area and he was a slave. Evidently, he had bright skin, but was not of mixed race.
Reply:Well, given that slaveowners had the freedom to sexually molest their slaves if they felt like it, I suppose there is a possibility of anyone born a slave having part white ancestry.

In what circumstance, the Halaku Khan died ?

Was it natural death?

Was assasinated?

Was any miracle in his death?

or any thing else.
In what circumstance, the Halaku Khan died ?
Halaku started sweating profusely, he never heard anyone talking to him like that - this man was feared by all for his ruthlessness. The lemon fell on the ground. He bend down while still seated on his horse to pick up the lemon from the ground. The horse took it as a signal to gallop at her maximum speed. This shook Halaku who fell on the ground on his back but his one foot got stuck in the saddle. The horse was running like wind while Halaku was mercilessly dragged all over the place. Then he started to bleed profusely and when the horse stopped, Halaku had died a miserable and painful death. The man who loved to inflict painful deaths on innocent people, himself died that way.

How far was Germany to blame for WWI?

Well, they got ALL the blame and was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty said that Germany took all the blame and they lost land, money, and resources. Germany was humiliated and angry because they were the only ones who were punished.
How far was Germany to blame for WWI?
As far as you can blame any nation for protecting is livelyhood against another nation trying to grab it away!
How far was Germany to blame for WWI?
They definitely got left w/ the 'war guilt' however much they were to blame. Actually, Germany was the one convincing Austria-Hungary to fight, and when Russia decided 2 join serbia, the marched to germany, not austria-hungary. Germany took that as a personal declaration of war, and went to go defeat France, Russia's ally. But on the way to france, german troops barreled through belgium, a neutral country. This really helped the allies, it got england, japan, and some others on their side. unrestricted submarine warfare and the zimmerman telegraph to mexico got the u.s. mad. so yeah, i think germany was to blame. but they had to pay reparations, diminish their army/nave and they were left out of a lot.
Reply:Germany provided unalloyed support to Austria-Hungary in the latter's dispute with Serbia over the assassination of the Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand.

This emboldened Austria to threaten Serbia with war. This threat alarmed Russia, which was an ally of Serbia. The Russians eventually got angry enough to begin mobilizing their army.

The Germans, with France on one side and Russia on the other, feared a two-front war. They decided if Russia mobilized for war, they would mobilize and attack France, hoping to knock them out of the war before the slower, less mechanized Russians really got going.

When Germany attacked France by going through neutral Belgium, the English declared war on them.

So, the Germans took the actions that turned a local spat between Austria and Serbia into a continent-wide conflict, but they were provoked by others who should have known better.
Reply:Germany deserves the Lion Share of the blame because Germany had the means to prevent the War. No matter how beligerant Austria-Hungary was, if the Kaiser had shouted loudly and clearly, "NEIN," then the Austrian-Hungarians would have either backed down or in a worst case scenario, there would have been a localized war against Serbia.

IF France and RUSSIA had intervened at this point then everyone would be blaming them and not Germany for World War One.

By violating Belgium neutrality, Germany insured Britain's involvement in the whole mess.

Final note - - - World War One was the fault of Diplomacy gone wrong. Entangled alliances, toothless treaties, a mish mash of egos and aims at cross purpose but still Germany was the biggest fish in the barrel and German armies poised on Austria's Border would have sent a clear message.

Reply:Certain sections of the German army were already talking about war with France as 'inevitable' as early as 1910. The Kaiser was a militarist adventurer, and the Germans were wholly to blame.
Reply:If you mean the German government, then they bear most of the blame. First, the kaiser gave Austria a 'blank cheque' to act as harshly as they liked against Serbia, and second, when he was starting to get cold feet at the prospect of a wider European war, the General Staff intervened and told him that if he didn't go to war with Russia, Russian railway-building in Poland would make German's Schlieffen Plan unworkable.

They were looking for a fight, wanted to destroy France's renewed power because France had allied with Russia, thus creating a threat on both side of the German Empire. There were talks of war against France as early as 1910. The Austrian Empire was looking for a fight because its power was waning and it thought it was now or lose power forever.

So when the Austrian Archduke was murdered by a Serb the Austrians took advantage of that to turn on the Serbs who had been making a lot of trouble in the Austrian-Hungarian empire. When the Austrians threatened the Serbs the Russians, allied to the Serbs, declared they would intervene, the Germans said they would help the Austrians, signed an alliance with the Ottoman Empire against Russia and declared war to the Russians, and the French caught by their alliance with Russia were dragged in the mess and said they would not stay neutral. Germany invaded Luxembourg, ordered Belgium to surrender and declared war to France. Great Britain declared they would protect Belgium's neutrality and when Germany invaded Belgium declared war, dragging in automatically the rest of the Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa). Then Austria declared war to Russia and Serbia, France declared war to Austria, then Great Britain declared war to Austria. And then Japan declared war to Germany.

You'll notice that Germany was the one who declared war and attacked the others first.

How Did Santa Anna Lose His Leg?

The famous commander of the Mexican army at the Alamo, how did he lose his leg?
How Did Santa Anna Lose His Leg?
Defending Veracruz against a French attack.

plants and flowers

What is your view of the Holocaust?

When do you think it started and why?

I think there was no long term planning. However in 1941 Goering gave Heydrich a order to find the "complete solution to the Jewish Question." So I think there was short-term planning, and the actual Holocaust started in the Autumn of 1941, due to the strucutral pressures of the war, Hitler's government, and the Mommsen's cumulative Radicalization.

Whats your view?
What is your view of the Holocaust?
I was born in the 80's so I don't really have any. I wasn't around to help them/ neither did I know the reason for Hitler doing what he did. It might have been justified. ???
What is your view of the Holocaust?
absoloutly disgusting makes you want to kill every nazi and send them to hell as well as every other racist.
Reply:"absoloutly disgusting makes you want to kill every nazi and send them to hell as well as every other racist"

I do not support the statment above.

I would like to announce before I continue on that I DO NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FOLLOW THE BELIEFS OF NAZISM. I am simply adding historical facts/ Information

It was proven that over 90 percent of the Germany ARMY did not want to be where they were. It was not that they wanted to be there, granted some of them did, but they had an obligation to serve their country just as US servicemen fight for theirs.

I currently live in PA, USA and I had a great Uncle in the German Army, i have pictures of him with his kids and his wife, did he survive the war??? Nope, he was killed by the Russians who had a one point view. Would I have stood up for Hitlers doings? HECK NO. Would I serve my country in a time of calling as stated in your oath? Yes.

I think that the only people you could really call Nazi's are the ones who are responsible for the actions or further more who supported the actions and undertook in gruesome slaying of millions of people. The ones fighting on the ground, fighting for their country, are soldiers. They had lives too, they had family to go home to. I collect pictures from World War II, currently over 300 original black and white photographs of both the American and German countries. They are both the same, just differant uniforms.

The point I am trying to get accross, with respect the the creator fo this question, is that more than 90% of the German ARMY did not want to be doing what they were doing, but they had to because it was their duty.
Reply:The Holocaust had as its beginnings the folklore of Scandinavia and the Germanic peoples that was prevalent for hundreds of years prior to Hitler. It was called the "Volkish" ideology and held up racial purity as an ideal. The other problem was the history of the Jewish culture as the money lenders - a profession that was considered "dirty" throughout history - and often as magicians and witches because they were also often the doctors and surgeons of any locality. They were widely hated and pushed out of towns so regularly that they carried their wealth in gems and gold so it would be readily portable.

When Germany was reeling from inflation and poverty after World War I, Hitler and his men took advantage of these ideas to further their cause. So my answer would be that it was a long time coming and Goering and Heydich just took advantage of the economic and social ideas of the time and used them to their own devices.
Reply:Web Resources


Yad Vashem

The State of Israel Holocaust Martyr's and Heroes' Remembrance Authority

The International School for Holocaust Studies

Pay special attention to the About The Holocaust section and its Chronology, Bibliography and Documents of the Holocaust units.


Please, N.B. :

The following links are provided as a study reference.

Drew University and Yad Vashem do not necessarily endorse all the contents and the views expressed on the sites linked here.

The Leo Baeck Institute - (New York) - (Jerusalem)

Calvin College: German Propaganda Archive

CDJC-Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine: The Research Center

A Cybrary of the Holocaust,

The Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Dinur Center: Holocaust Study Resources

The Holocaust History Project

The Jewish Virtual Library: The Holocaust

Meyer's Holocaust Links

The Nizkor Project - Ein Projekt zu Shoa, Holocaust und Antisemitismus

SICSA - The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation

A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust

TeacherNet: The Holocaust - Links page

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

The Wiener Library

Wiesenthal Center Multimedia Learning Center

Yale Law School: The Nuremberg Trials

YIVO Institute for Jewish Research - Holocaust Study Resources


 is the web site of the Yad Vashem History of the Holocaust-- a series of multimedia tools designed for undergraduate and advanced high-school students of the Holocaust.

The first in this series is the hybrid CD-ROM: Into That Dark Night: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1933-1939, whose extensive database is online at this website.

The YV History of the Holocaust is a collaboration between the Yad Vashem Holocaust Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem and Drew University, Madison New Jersey.

Has the murder count increased since the abolition of hanging?

i think its fair to say it has! i dont think its due to hanging bein abolished, i think capital punishment is wrong, but i think that prisons need to be less cushy!
Has the murder count increased since the abolition of hanging?
People think it has. But the reality is the opposite.

The Death penalty is a deterent until some one kills. Then it has the opposite effect.
Has the murder count increased since the abolition of hanging?
It seems to have done so, but obviously the figures need careful examination. What, exactly, counts as a murder?

Firstly, when I was a boy just after the 2WW, it was murder when someone assaulted another intending serious harm, and the victim died. Nowadays, unless there can be shown to have been an actual intention to kill, the charge will be manslaughter or, depending on the circumstances, perhaps even a lesser charge.

Clearly, to establish whether there has been a real or only an an apparent rise in murders, we must accept a common definition. It might not matter which one we use, but we must use the same definition for any two periods under comparison.

Next, we have to consider the probability of detection. If (say in 1950) a poisoner had a 50% chance of the death being accepted as natural, while improved analytical technique meant that in 2000 he had only a 1% chance, the rate of poisonings will seem to have doubled over 50 years if it actually remained constant in that period. The same applies to all other changes in police method, technology etc. Improved detection is of course not the same thing as increased criminality. For instance the number of speeding fines has gone through the roof since cameras were introduced, but I do not think that more people speed.

Numbers, then, can be misleading. On the basis of my own experience, I think that in fact our lives are more at risk than they were - but the abolition of hanging is a symptom, not a cause of a shift in society.

Society protects our lives by punishing those who take them. Now, if (as a nation) we value individual life less, the crimes and the punishments will be piecemeal and progressively downgraded. This has happened.

At one time, the deliberate killing of a newborn child by its mother was murder; a long time ago this crime was reduced to infanticide. At one time, you were protected while developing in your mother's womb; this protection has been withdrawn. At one time the life of the elderly was protected as much as that of the young; now the NHS progressively withdraws medical support after the age of 70, and euthanasia is under discussion.

The systematic reduction of the punishment for killing (there is a move away from the life sentence at this moment) is only a symptom of our increasing disregard of the wish of individuals to go on living.

With this as background, it is not surprising that our children are popping each other off with knives and guns. They are doing as children always do - absorbing and responding to the manners and opinions current among their elders.

Has Hitler left an after effect on planet earth?

I mean, are some still effected by him starting the WW2 ?

Take Israel for example, would they have existed if it wasn't for Hitler. Would it still be Palestine? So are Palestine suffering now because of what happened in WW2?
Has Hitler left an after effect on planet earth?
Yes, the example you used is certainly true. There would be more people in Europe, perhaps leading to overpopulation. Germany would be bigger. There are lots of effects.
Has Hitler left an after effect on planet earth?
I suspect that German nationalism would have come about anyway. I'm not sure that any other high ranking Nazi would have been any less cruel or less successful in leading the Germans into the war, with all its atrocities.
Reply:Yes , a butterfly flaps its wings .
Reply:i actually believe that because of all the wars and the nuclear bombs being built and built in the past that is has deprived and caused global warming
Reply:Yes. The jewish population massively declined. People are also more prejudice of jews aswell, despite hating what Hitler did in the holocaust and felling sorry for them. Geographically, Germany is different. Many today follow the nazi party and it won 9.7% of the vote in the previous american election. It put Eurpoe into massive debt which was only finished being payed off about 20 months ago.

However i beleive that israel has something more to do with the cold war then WWII, although it did have some influence.
Reply:Hi Adski,

The world will never rid itself of Hitler.

Every time his name is spoken we are reminded of who and what he was.

As for Palestine and it's people , their fate was sealed long before WW2.

The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant (Article 22) .

All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain turned the problem over to the United Nations.

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half of the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

The Palestinens are still waiting.

Adski, I hope this is what you were looking for.

Good luck my friend,

Reply:To some extent, you are correct. There might not have been an Israel - at least not so quickly - if not for the horrors of the holocaust.

But there are lots of other reasons the Palestinians can point to. There should have been a lot more attention paid at the time Israel was created to what would happen to the non-Jews already there. If it had been handled differently, perhaps things would have gone better.
Reply:No one can ever wear that mustache again...
Reply:Absolutely, without Hitler the Palestinians would not have been dispossessed by the jews


Allyn © 2008. Design by: Pocket Web Hosting