I've long thought that if the ME 1-3 was primarily about uniting the Galaxy against an external, otherworldly threat then perhaps the most compelling story that could be told in the next Mass Effect would be one about the conflicts that emerge after the unity of wartime is over and the messy prospect of rebuilding, individually and galactically, is the main concern.

To that end I think a system based on reputation with factions in the galaxy would be very compelling. What do you think?

After Geronimo's surrender in 1887 the Apache wars continued into the 20th century but after Quanah Parker's surrender in 1875 the Comanche wars completely ended. Why is this? Were the Apache more numerous and/or less centralized? Was it because they could retreat into Mexico while the Comanche couldn't?

So, I feel like certain conversations have been circling around the "Breadtube" project since it's inception: Having an understanding of left-politics through theory vs. watching video essays for lefty talking points, focusing one's efforts on left-unity vs. making sure the "right" brand on leftism wins out in the end, embracing utopianism vs. focusing on "reformism", etc. and so on, I could go on all day.

But, I feel like today's topic intersects neatly with all of those conversations since it offers anyone who has an opinion on any of those topics an opportunity to think critically about the media they consume. And, hopefully, you guys will walk away with a more robust perspective on left analysis than you originally started out with.

Well, let's get into this shit already and stop stalling:

Okay... what's you pet issue for the day ?

One thing's really been bothering me about left-politics in recent years: since I'm a person who's more along the persuasion that "utopia" or "utopianism" is attainable through the means and technologies that exist today, I sorta get the feeling that most left projects have essentially given up on embracing big ideas.

I mean, this mood isn't exactly unfounded. Bernie's campaign has been absorbed back into the zeitgeist of America's unflinching and sclerotic political system. Jeremy Corybn over in the UK lead his party to an absolutely historic defeat through no fault of his own simply because the media slandered his positions and assassinated his character to the point where they public actually started believing the bullshit said about him. Tie all of that with the fact that we aren't moving nearly as fast as we should be to avoid climate breakdown, and, the covid pandemic turning into one clusterfuck of a protracted culture war that's predicated on making personal sacrifices for "the greater good", I can't help but to think that there's this aura of defeatism surrounding any type of "out-of-the box" political project.

Mainly due in part to the fact that fellow leftists aren't exactly making things easy on ourselves in an effort to have the "right" opinion.

Great, bravo, dude. Just get to the reason why you wanna #CANCELRenegadeCut already so you can go back to being irrelevant

A couple of months ago, on August 10th, of 2020, Anarchist youtuber Renegade Cut posted this video using the recent Star Wars trilogy as an allegory to "critique" the concept of [Fully A

In short, I'd like to learn how social groups of one country were so far apart on serious issues, but instead of ending up with violence, they eventually worked out a solution over time.

Special thanks to the mods for helping me tailor the topic so that it stays within the rules! Apologies for the previous post!

Just curious to listen.

Personally 1500-1700 would be incredible. Kind of like a proto-empire total war

I'm writing a fictionalized book about a historical figure from the Revolutionary War era (John Laurens, specifically) and he traveled from Charleston to Philadelphia to New York to England over a period of about a month and a half with his father, Henry, and younger brother James. This is documented, but what is not documented is whether or not Henry brought slaves with him. Because the three left their plantation in July of 1771 and took a boat trip to Philadelphia, then remained there until August, went up to New York and sailed to London, I would assume Henry would feel the need to bring at least one servant with him, being that slaveowners often relied on their slaves for a variety of things.

My first question is: is that a logical assumption? I have scoured Google for an answer and received none. Did people bring their slaves with them on voyages throughout the colonies and/or across the sea?

The second question: How? Henry had a lot of money and could certainly afford multiple slaves, and in the story I would have him take two, a teenage boy and his mother. Did the slaves sleep in a different part of the ship or ride in a different carriage? Were they chained? I'm sure a lot of this would be up to the owner, but if anyone has any clues on average means of travel, that would be fantastic.

Third: I can't remember if Henry continued on to London with his sons (I believe he did) but, if he did, would the slaves go with him or be sent back with a chaperone? Did London allow slaves owned by Americans to follow them to the colonies? I would appreciate sources and as much detail as you can provide. Thank you all so much for reading this far!

I was inspired by this quote from Ben Franklin,

"And where is the Prince who can afford to so cover his country with troops for its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might not in many places do an infinite deal of mischief, before a force could be brought together to repel them?"