Spin Doctors Claim Harris Won the Debate. Why, Then, Is She Asking for a Mulligan?

from SGT Report: On the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 false flag Jason Goodman from Crowdsource the Truth joins me for the first time ever to discuss his investigation into the shadow state’s Trump turkey shoot in Butler, PA on July 13th and the illegal migrant invasion of NYC and cities across America. Thanks for […]

by Frank Bergman, Slay News: Children who received Covid mRNA shots are 45 times more likely to die from any cause than unvaccinated kids, alarming official government statistics have revealed. The bombshell data shows that children who received Covid mRNA shots are at a massively elevated risk of dying. The shocking figures were revealed in […]

  The origin of the Etruscans is something that has fascinated researchers for many years. In fact, there was even some debate about it in antiquity, although the vast majority of ancient writers accepted that they came from Anatolia. Herodotus is the earliest source of this tradition.   With the benefit of modern science, we do not have to rely on ancient writings, nor even on archaeology, which is often difficult to interpret. What have genetic studies revealed about the origin of the Etruscans? Do they refute or support their legendary Anatolian origin?   Early Support for the Anatolian Origin of the Etruscans Map based on Herodotus’ description of the world in his time. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When genetic studies first started to be used to investigate the identity of the Etruscans, they appeared to reveal striking support for their Anatolian origin. Many news articles were written about how science had confirmed the veracity of Herodotus’ claim. This was particularly the case after a study in 2007. After analyzing modern DNA from Tuscany and from the Near East, researchers found what appeared to be an unusually close connection between the two.   However, this study (Achilli et al.) has been severely criticized. For one thing, it does not reveal when this supposedly close connection began. It could be a result of migrations during the Roman Imperial period, for example. It also only applied to one small area of Tuscany. Furthermore, additional research has revealed that the supposedly strong similarities with Near Eastern haplogroups are actually widespread all over Italy and other parts of Europe. Therefore, there is no good reason, on the basis of this study alone, to connect the Etruscans to Anatolia.   More Recent Studies Map of the Etruscan civilization, showing its extent at different periods. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In contrast, modern genetic studies have gone in the opposite direction. They have presented evidence that the Etruscans were actually the native inhabitants of Italy. For example, a study published in 2013 that used ancient DNA in their dataset estimated that the connection between the Etruscans and Anatolia goes back some 5,000 years. This is much further back than the supposed migration recorded by Herodotus. This study also concluded that ancient Etruscan DNA is more similar to modern European populations than it is to modern Anatolian populations.   Another study, from 2021, strongly supported this conclusion. This study examined 48 Iron Age individuals, from 800 BCE onwards. These researchers were able to clearly see how the genetic makeup of the Etruscans had changed over time. From this evidence, they found that the Etruscans displayed no particular similarities to the ancient Anatolians. Rather, they were most similar to ancient European populations. This appeared to strongly refute the legendary Anatolian origin.   The Complication of Chronology The Procession of the Trojan Horse into Troy, by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, c. 1760. Source: National Gallery, London   However, using genetic studies to assess the historicity of the supposed Anatolian origin of the Etruscans is complicated by one crucial factor: chronology. Traditionally, the migration in question is supposed to have occurred during the Bronze Age. This is based on the account of Herodotus and subsequent writers, who placed the migration of the Etruscans broadly at the time of the Trojan War. Since the Trojan War has traditionally been dated to c. 1200 BCE, this is the date that has almost always been used in discussions of the Etruscans.   In the Bronze Age, Anatolia was composed of nations such as the Hittites, the Luwians, and a variety of more minor nations. Therefore, if the Etruscans had migrated from Anatolia to Italy during the Bronze Age, they would logically display similarities to those nations. The genetic evidence is clear, however, that they do not. In view of this evidence, genetic research does appear to rule out a migration in the Bronze Age. Aeneas and his Family Fleeing Burning Troy, by Henry Gibbs, 1654. Source: The Tate Gallery, London   However, not all scholars agree with the traditional date of the Trojan War. The idea that it occurred in c. 1200 BCE comes directly from ancient Greek estimates of when it occurred. Greek archaeologist and historian Nikos Kokkinos argued that a re-examination of the actual data used by ancient Greek historians points to a more recent date. The evidence shows that the ancient historians had a tendency to use exaggerated generational lengths—up to 45 years in some cases—to extend their own antiquity as far back as possible. A more realistic average generational length would, of course, be closer to 25 years.   Of course, we cannot state definitively when the Trojan War really occurred, if at all. Furthermore, the exact chronological relationship between the Trojan War and the migration of the Etruscans is open to debate, since the ancient sources are not entirely consistent concerning this. Nevertheless, we are faced with the distinct possibility that Herodotus was actually attempting to describe far more recent events.   How This Relates to Archaeology Etruscan tombs from a variety of periods, Cerveteri, Italy. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This conclusion makes a lot of sense when we consider the archaeological evidence. In about 700 BCE, the Etruscans entered what is called the “Orientalizing Period.” At this time, they experienced an “Oriental inundation,” as the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it. As historian Jodi Magness explained, from this era onward:   “Near Eastern influence is evident on almost all aspects of Etruscan life, including art, clothing, chariots, military equipment and warfare, hairstyles, dining habits, religion or cult, and technology.”   In addition to this profound and sudden Oriental influence on Etruscan society in general, we also see this in tomb designs. In c. 700 BCE, the Etruscans began building monumental tombs which bear striking similarities to those found in contemporary Anatolia. They are particularly similar to Phrygian and Lydian tombs.   In view of this evidence, a number of scholars have concluded that there was a migration of a Near Eastern elite class at this time. This is clearly better supported than a Bronze Age migration, for which there is no evidence at all.   The Consequences of the Genetic Studies Painting of two dancers from the Tomb of the Triclinium, fifth century BCE. Source: Owlcation   How does this evidence for a migration from Anatolia in c. 700 BCE tie in with the results from genetic research? To examine this properly, we would do well to consider some of the specific details from the 2021 study. Note the following quotation from the results of the study:   “C.Italy_Etruscan can be modeled successfully as having derived its entire ancestry from other European populations such as the earlier Bell Beaker group from northern Italy and Iron Age populations from southern Europe (Iberia, Croatia, and Greece).”   As we see here, the Iron Age Etruscans display clear similarities to the European Bell Beaker people of the Bronze Age. However, they can also be successfully modeled as having descended in large part from Iron Age populations of southern Europe. The researchers point to Iberia, Croatia, and Greece in particular. This is very significant in view of the evidence that the Anatolian migration, if it occurred at all, would have occurred in c. 700 BCE rather than in the Bronze Age.   Iron Age Southern European Populations in Anatolia Ruins of Gordion, the capital of Phrygia overthrown by the Cimmerians, c. 700 BCE. Source: Daily Sabah   Significantly, we know that there were several Iron Age southern European populations who had recently migrated to western Anatolia by 700 BCE. For instance, the Greeks had been gradually settling the western coast of that region throughout the Iron Age. The Troad, for example, was settled by Greeks from about 900 BCE onward. Furthermore, the Phrygians were originally from the Balkans. They, too, migrated to Anatolia after the start of the Iron Age.   Also notable are the Pelasgians. We do not know when some or all of them migrated to Anatolia, but we do know that they were commonly presented as being the original, pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece. Yet, some records also place them in western Anatolia. Notably, there is specifically a tradition that Pelasgians traveled with the Etruscans from the western coast of Anatolia and settled with them in Italy. This is recorded by Strabo, referring to the writings of Anticleides, a 3rd-century BCE historian. In fact, the 5th-century BCE historian Hellanicus of Lesbos also recorded that the Pelasgians had founded Etruria.   What This Means for the Genetic Studies of the Etruscans Etruscan town at Lazio, Italy, photo by Etnoy. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This evidence has a significant impact on how we should interpret these genetic studies. If we compare the results with the idea of a Bronze Age migration from Anatolia to Italy, then we do indeed see that the evidence refutes the legend. On the other hand, there is good evidence to suggest that Herodotus’ account had its origin in much more recent events. Archaeology lends support to the idea of a migration from Anatolia around 700 BCE, at the start of the Orientalizing Period. At this time, western Anatolia was extensively populated by recent arrivals from southern European nations, particularly those of the Balkans.   The Greeks and the Phrygians are particularly notable. The Pelasgians, also from that same area, are specifically reported to have been part of the migration that led to the founding of Etruria. The Greeks, Phrygians, and Pelasgians are all consistent with the “Iron Age populations from southern Europe” mentioned in the 2021 genetic study on the Etruscans. Far from contradicting the legend of the Etruscan migration from Anatolia, the genetic results are consistent with it when we account for this chronological issue.

  Since 1796, the United States has had competitive presidential elections. While some have resulted in relatively little change in America, others have caused significant shifts in culture, economics, and infrastructure. These are often considered to begin new “eras” in American history. From Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, some presidential elections have transformed American political culture. These presidents have caused, either through their own efforts or those of associates, significant changes in how America sees itself and gets stuff done. Here is a look at the ten most noteworthy presidential elections in the United States.   1. 1800: Thomas Jefferson & The Peaceful Revolution Thomas Jefferson by George Peter Alexander Healy after Gilbert Stuart, 1848/1879. Source: National Gallery of Art, Washington DC   Everyone knows that George Washington was America’s first president, with John Adams chosen as his vice president. The new United States Constitution, ratified in 1789, was supposed to guide the fledgling republic through any problems that might arise. But, for better or worse, the Constitution made no mention of political factions or parties. Although Washington had cautioned Americans against forming political parties in his 1796 Farewell Address, the process of forming these parties had already begun. That November, John Adams won America’s first partisan presidential election, fending off Thomas Jefferson.   But what would happen when a challenger won? The presidency going from Washington to Adams meant no change in partisan leadership… but if Adams lost in 1800, the nation would hold its breath. Would Adams willingly relinquish power to someone of a different party? Such a scenario occurred, and Adams voluntarily relinquished power. In the Peaceful Revolution of 1800, Thomas Jefferson became president and guided a transition of power from the Federalists to the Anti-Federalists. The republic remained strong, thus beginning the tradition of such peaceful transfers of power.   2. 1828: Jacksonian Democracy Begins US President Andrew Jackson, elected in 1828 after being denied the presidency in 1824 by the US House of Representatives, opened an era of populism. Source: Voice of America (VOA)   Political power in the early American republic remained largely with elites, who owned property and paid taxes. White men without significant property or tax payments were often denied the right to vote by states, which retained the power of voting qualifications under the Constitution. As states began loosening the requirements to vote in the early 1800s, more political power went to non-elites. Populism emerged as a political philosophy as politicians in the 1820s courted the common man, often criticizing the elites as intentionally trying to limit the power of the average voter.   Andrew Jackson, a hero from the War of 1812, became America’s first populist hero after his loss in the election of 1824. When the US House of Representatives awarded the presidency to John Quincy Adams despite Jackson winning both the popular vote and the most electoral votes, Jackson became a populist martyr. Four years later, he ran again and won the presidency. Thus began the era of Jacksonian Democracy, where Jackson used his mass appeal with common voters to increase his executive power as part of a popular mandate.   3. 1860: Abraham Lincoln Signals End Days of Slavery Sixteenth US President Abraham Lincoln, shown here without his characteristic beard, guided the nation through the Civil War and ended slavery. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   In the 1840s and 1850s, the issue of slavery consumed national politics in America. As the republic expanded westward, supporters and opponents of slavery lobbied hard for each new territory to be named either slave or free, respectively. A new political party emerged that was opposed to slavery—the Republican Party—and its first presidential nominee was Illinois politician Abraham Lincoln. Outraged at Lincoln’s opposition to slavery, slave states in the South refused to put him on the ballot in 1860. Despite not being on the ballot in the South, Lincoln won the presidential election.   In response, eleven Southern states seceded from the republic and created the Confederate States of America. The American Civil War raged as Lincoln vowed to hold the nation together. During the war, after the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation that began the abolishment of slavery. Although Lincoln was assassinated shortly before the end of the war, his leadership is credited with both maintaining the union and ending slavery. Today, the end of the Civil War is considered a turning point in American history and the beginning of the modern era.   4. 1880: Garfield Leads to Civil Service Reform Twentieth US President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881, leading to the passage of federal civil service reform. Source: National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC   Relatively few Americans could name James Garfield as a president. Certainly, his name is not as well known as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, or Abraham Lincoln. Garfield became president in 1880 after not even seeking the Republican nomination; he was chosen at the National Convention after showing up to nominate a friend!   A scholarly man, Garfield was seen as a compromise candidate whose past as a young Union general during the Civil War was an asset. He won a very narrow victory over the Democratic nominee that November and became the twentieth president.   Tragically, Garfield was assassinated by an irate job-seeker less than one year into his term, which he began by fighting demands to name political allies of a powerful US senator to federal posts. This tragedy led to Congress finally taking up civil service reform. The Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883 reduced the amount of nepotism and corruption in the federal government by requiring competitive hiring and promotion for certain jobs. Over time, this has spread to most government jobs at the federal, state, and local levels, with applicants to various government jobs having to meet objective requirements for education, training, and skill.   5. 1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt & A New Deal A 1932 campaign poster for Democratic presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt, who famously promised a “new deal” for the American people. Source: Roosevelt House   The stock market crash of 1929 led to the infamous Great Depression. US President Herbert Hoover, a pro-business Republican, tried to aid corporations with government funds but did little to provide direct aid to the unemployed and homeless. By 1932, the situation was dire.   Democratic presidential nominee Franklin D. Roosevelt, governor of New York, promised a “new deal” for the American people and promised direct aid to the struggling. He won the 1932 presidential election in a landslide. Immediately upon taking office the following March, he began enacting his New Deal.   In a new development for American political culture, Roosevelt approved of Keynesian economic principles to stimulate spending. This deficit spending allowed for the development of infrastructure across the United States, which employed thousands of previously jobless citizens. The New Deal was extremely popular, and FDR won re-election in 1936 by another landslide. FDR’s swift actions in implementing his New Deal reforms are often credited with restoring the health and vitality of the United States, and many of those reforms (Social Security, FDIC, the SEC) remain law today to protect economic security.   6. 1940: FDR Secretly Plans to Confront Authoritarianism A 1940 campaign poster for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was running for an unprecedented third term as president and argued that he was keeping America out of war. Source: Roosevelt House   FDR was tremendously popular going into 1940. World War II had erupted in Europe the previous September, and Japan had been waging war against China since the late 1930s. Many Americans, still able to vividly recall the horrors of World War I, did not want to get involved in another overseas conflict. Breaking with the historic tradition of presidents serving only two terms, set by George Washington himself, FDR announced that he would be seeking a third term. Allegedly, FDR felt that he needed to win a third term to prepare America—largely in secret—to confront Germany and Japan in the growing wars.   At the time, many Republicans were isolationists who wanted to avoid international political entanglements. FDR, however, went in the opposite direction and began setting the stage for war preparation, including the institution of America’s first peacetime draft in 1940. Months later, the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 allowed the United States to give weapons and equipment to Allied nations. Therefore, when Japan did strike America at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States was not unprepared. FDR guided America through the war and set the stage for its robust international leadership in the post-war era. 7. 1960: Kennedy & Civil Rights A photograph of John F. Kennedy, who became president in 1960 after a very close election and began pushing a pro-civil rights agenda. Source: The American Presidency Project   In 1960, America was enjoying peace and prosperity after the Khrushchev Thaw in relations with the Soviet Union and the economic boom of the 1950s. Unfortunately, not all Americans shared equally in this prosperity. There was still rampant sexism, racism, and segregation, especially in the South. Although the Civil Rights Movement had begun in 1948 with President Harry S. Truman’s executive orders integrating the military and the federal government, progress in American society itself had been slow. What was needed were federal laws that applied to all states, including those in the South.   Young President John F. Kennedy pledged to make this legislation happen. During 1963, Kennedy worked to push civil rights legislation through Congress. Tragically, Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, prior to these bills being passed. In honor of Kennedy, supportive legislators worked hard to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was also championed by Kennedy’s former vice president, Lyndon B. Johnson. Thus, although Johnson is often associated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, much credit goes to JFK for starting the groundbreaking law.   8. 1980: The Reagan Revolution & Conservative Resurgence A photograph of former California governor Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential election, where he was the Republican nominee. Source: National Public Radio (NPR)   In 1980, America was in an economic and cultural funk following the Vietnam War, the OPEC oil embargo and resulting stagflation, and the Nixon Watergate scandal. Many voters felt that America had lost its vigor. In the past year, two foreign policy crises had made incumbent Democratic president Jimmy Carter appear weak: the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The 1980 presidential election saw a media-savvy challenger, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan, motivate and inspire voters by promising to renew America’s strength.   The Reagan Revolution saw the former California governor unite various conservative groups into a powerful coalition known as the New Right. Along with traditional pro-business Republicans, the New Right included Christian evangelicals, proponents of states’ rights, and pro-military defense hawks. Reagan won the 1980 election and successfully reinvigorated the US economy by simultaneously cutting taxes and boosting defense spending. Using his skills as a former Hollywood actor, Reagan also inspired millions of Americans with positive messaging.   9. 2008: Barack Obama & America’s First POC President US Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) became America’s first nonwhite president after winning the 2008 presidential election. Source: Rice University   The success of the Reagan era in improving the US economy heralded a lengthy period of moderacy in American politics. In 2008, however, a deep economic recession erupted following the housing market crash of 2007. Amid this fiscal turmoil, partisan divides began growing again. Many liberals wanted America to move forward in terms of liberal and progressive values, blaming conservative deregulation and low taxation for triggering the recession and increasing income inequality. The 2008 Democratic presidential primaries saw two historic firsts: a top-tier female candidate named Hillary Clinton and a top-tier Black candidate named Barack Obama.   Obama won the primaries after a lengthy competition and went on to win the 2008 presidential election, becoming the first POC president in American history. In his first year in office, Obama pushed hard for health care reform under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. This became law and revolutionized health insurance in the United States. It also set the stage for further political proposals over single-payer healthcare, such as the Medicare For All (M4A) proposal by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).   10. 2016: Populism Returns With Trumpism A photograph of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump (left) with his son and wife after winning the 2016 presidential election. Source: WBUR/National Public Radio   In 2016, a shocking upset saw a billionaire real estate mogul and former reality TV star defeat a poised political insider for the presidency. Although the US economy had recovered from the Great Recession during President Barack Obama’s two terms, many Americans were still frustrated with growing income inequality and struggling real wages (income compared to inflation).   Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump promised voters that he could improve the economy using his business acumen and negotiating skills with foreign trade partners. Pundits almost universally predicted that Trump would lose handily to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, but Trump won a surprise victory in the Electoral College instead.   As president, Trump cut taxes and enjoyed promised economic growth. Controversially, however, the tax cuts for middle-income earners were temporary and saw a massive increase in the national debt. This was very similar to the situation under the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s. In 2020, the Covid pandemic caused a brief but intense economic recession, helping Democratic challenger Joe Biden—vice president under Barack Obama—win the presidential election that November. Breaking with tradition set in 1800, Trump refused to acknowledge the results of the election and declared it fraudulent, allegedly provoking the January 6, 2021 protests that led to the storming of the US Capitol building.

  For almost two and a half centuries, the United States has been governed by a presidential system. Throughout that time, there have been 45 presidents, many of whom have been so popular that they served more than one term.   The Presidential System Numbers of Electoral College electors from each state for the presidential election in 2024. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The system for voting in the US head of state hasn’t always been the same. The president has always, however, not been elected by popular vote, but rather by a designated number of electors or “delegates” from each state. Early on in US history, the system of the popular vote determining the vote of the electors was adopted. As the United States has changed geographically, and politically, the number of electors from each state has changed. The first election had 69 electors, while today the number stands at a total of 538.    Detail of a portrait of George Washington by Rembrandt Peale, 1795. Source: Wikimedia Commons The first person to be elected president was, of course, George Washington, in 1789. He served until 1792 when he was re-elected. He was the first of 21 presidents who served a second term. Many of them, however, would not end up finishing their second term in office!   Two Full Terms Franklin D. Roosevelt, photographed by Leon Perskie in 1944. Source: Wikimedia Commons   A total of 14 presidents have served two full terms. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all served two terms and each spent a total of 2,922 days in office. George Washington also served two terms. After he was elected, however, there were issues which delayed the official start of his term in office, and so he only served 2,865 days in office—slightly fewer than other presidents who served two full terms.   Only one president has served more than two full terms in office. Franklin D. Roosevelt proved so popular that he was elected for a third and even a fourth term in office. Grover Cleveland’s two terms were not consecutive; thus, he is considered the 22nd and 24th president.    More Than One Term Colorized photograph of Abraham Lincoln. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Not all the presidents elected for a second term completed their term in office. Many of them had their presidency terminated due to unforeseen disasters and unfortunate events. Some of those who served out the remainder of these terms, went on to be elected afterwards.   Portrait of Harry Truman by Martha G. Kempton, 1947, via the White House Historical Association   Harry S. Truman took over as president after Roosevelt died in office, and was later elected. Likewise, Theodore Roosevelt was vice president when President William McKinley was assassinated. Roosevelt took the reins of the presidency and was subsequently elected to another term. Lyndon Johnson’s presidency was similar. He took over when John F. Kennedy was shot in 1963, and then was elected in 1964 after a landslide victory. Calvin Coolidge also became president after the sudden death of President Warren G. Harding in 1923. Coolidge was then elected to the position of president the following year.    Richard Nixon’s official White House portrait. Source: National Archives   Richard Nixon completed a term in office and was re-elected in 1972, only to have his second term cut short after he resigned following the Watergate Scandal. Meanwhile, William McKinley and Abraham Lincoln had their second terms cut short by being assassinated   Conclusion   Serving more than two terms is currently not possible after term limits were set following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fourth presidential election victory. Nevertheless, it’s almost certain that the future will bring more presidents that will prove so popular that they serve two terms.

  In the second half of the 19th century, European powers competed with each other in an effort to expand their control over the African continent. Known as the Scramble for Africa, this period of renewed colonial activity strained the relations between the Western countries. In November 1884, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck organized the so-called Berlin Conference to prevent the highly-charged contest from degenerating into armed conflicts. During four-month-long negotiations, the European countries and the United States agreed to a series of rules to regulate the colonization of Africa. The resulting General Act led to the partition of the continent among the Western powers.   The Scramble for Africa & The Berlin Conference Photo of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Berlin, 1877. Source: Lebendiges Museum Online, Deutsches Historisches Museum   In 1884, when German Chancellor Otto von Bismark gathered the representatives of thirteen European countries and the United States in Berlin, the so-called Scramble for Africa was already well underway. While the earlier European colonial efforts had focused on the Americas and Asia, in the second half of the 19th century, many European states began to look at the African continent with renewed interest. During the previous expansionist waves and the Atlantic Slave Trade, the Western powers had established a series of settlements and trading posts in the coastal areas of Africa. They rarely ventured into the hostile interior. Thus, in the 1870s, a large percentage of the continent was governed by indigenous chiefs and kings.   A decade later, in the 1880s, the Western countries, seeking to strengthen their international prestige and exploit the raw materials located in several African regions, began to exert their authority and control over the previously independent territories.   “In our time,” declared French Prime Minister Jules Ferry, “nations are great only through the activity they deploy; it is not by spreading the peaceable light of their institutions … that they are great, in the present day.”   Alongside the oldest colonialist powers, some new players, such as Belgium, Germany, and Italy, joined the mad rush to secure their hold over the most strategic areas. As a result, the Scramble for Africa led to suspicions and conflicts among the main rivals.   The opening of the Suez Canal (1869). Source: Deutsche Welle   In North Africa, for example, Great Britain and France competed over the control of Egypt, especially after the opening of the Suez Canal had turned the country into a crucial spot in the routes to the East. In 1875, taking advantage of the Egyptian government’s financial difficulties, the British managed to acquire its shares, thus becoming the largest shareholder in the Suez Canal Company. Then, in 1882, when the Egyptians protested the foreign involvement in their internal affairs, Great Britain occupied the country. This turn of events alarmed the French, who hoped to restore their national pride after losing Alsace-Lorraine to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.   As the tension among the Western powers also rose in other areas of the African continent, especially in the Congo Basin, where Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal, and Great Britain struggled for control, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck called an international conference in Berlin to regulate the volatile expansionist endeavors. In particular, Bismarck feared that the disorderly race over the control of the African territories would upset the balance of power he sought to achieve in Europe.   Colonization in the 19th Century Map showing the telegraph lines connecting the globe, c. 1869. Source: Princeton University   In the 19th century, a combination of economic, social, and political factors led the European powers to embark on aggressive colonialist campaigns in Africa. During the 1873 Panic and the ensuing Long Depression, for example, many industrialized Western countries saw overseas expansion as a means to secure new open markets and outlets for their investment.   Most importantly, the African continent was rich in sought-after raw materials. Besides diamonds and gold, rubber, copper, and ivory (all unavailable in Europe) were especially in demand. Rubber, for example, was employed for the insulation of the newly introduced electrical and telegraph wires.   The technological advances of the Second Industrial Revolution also played a crucial role in enabling the 19th-century expansionist rush. While the invention of the telegraph made the communication of news and information easier and faster, railways and steamboats (running on the new triple-expansion engine) revolutionized the world of transportation, making vast portions of previously hard-to-reach areas accessible to merchants, missionaries, and explorers. As steamboats, telegraph lines, and trains became increasingly common features of the African landscape, another invention, the automatic machine gun, contributed to the fast colonization of the continent. In particular, the new type of firearm widened the technological gap in armaments between the Europeans and the African people, thus accelerating the rate of territorial conquest.   Henry Morton Stanley. Source: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC   Before the 19th century, Africa was a largely unexplored area of the globe. The Western powers, busy with the Atlantic Slave Trade and the strengthening of the commercial routes with the East, had little interest in venturing into the hostile interior of the continent. The impenetrable forests separating the coastline from the hinterland, the unnavigable rivers, and the vast desertic regions discouraged traders and travelers from exploring most of Africa.   However, the new technology, alongside the improvement of quinine, a medicine now effective against malaria, led numerous Western geographers, naturalists, explorers, and missionaries to reach new regions. As a result, cartographers were gradually able to fill their previously blank maps of Africa with rivers and lakes.   European and American newspapers and journals regularly regaled their readers with stories of the most famous exploration missions, going as far as directly hiring reporters to travel to Africa. In 1871, the New York Herald sent journalist Henry Morton Stanley to Central Africa to locate David Livingstone, a Scottish missionary who had gone missing while searching for the source of the Nile.   In the second half of the 19th century, the explorers began to collaborate with the Western powers, signing treaties on their behalf with African chiefs. Often mistranslated, the treaties allowed the European countries to exploit the local resources and establish their control in the continent.   “Heart of Darkness”: The Struggle Over the Congo Basin King Leopold II of Belgium. Source: National Galleries Scotland   Stanley’s mission caught the attention of King Leopold II of Belgium, who had embarked on an ambitious expansionist policy. In particular, Leopold II aimed to establish his authority over the Congo Basin, seeking to exploit its resources to increase his wealth. To this end, in the 1870s, he founded the International Association of the Congo with the financial backing of a group of bankers. Then, at the beginning of the 1880s, the king sent Stanley on an expedition to the central African region.   From 1879 to 1882, the American reporter explored the areas surrounding the Congo River, negotiating treaties with the local chiefs and studying how to open up the basin to trade and colonization. Thus, in 1884, shortly before the Berlin Conference, Leopold II stated his claim over the entire Congo Basin, hoping to turn the territory into his personal colony.   As Stanley’s expedition unveiled the previously impenetrable African region to the Europeans, other Western countries became interested in the Congo Basin, turning it into perhaps the most sought-after overseas territory. France, for example, dispatched the Italian-born explorer Pierre de Brazza to Central Africa, where he founded the city of Brazzaville. As a result, Great Britain, attempting to thwart its colonial rivals’ expansionist designs on the area, opted to support Portugal’s claims on the Congo River. However, the bilateral negotiations between the two countries failed to reach an agreement.   Toward the end of 1884, in the face of the mounting tension, the Western powers finally agreed to meet in Berlin to introduce some rules in their frenetic Scramble for Africa.   The Berlin Conference Bismarck carves up Africa during the Berlin Conference. Source: Deutsche Welle   In Berlin, the participants of the conference focused on three main tasks: ensuring freedom of trade in the Congo Basin, establishing freedom of navigation on the Niger and Congo Rivers, and regulating the future colonization of African territories.   At the same time, the Berlin Conference recognized King Leopold II’s authority over the Congo region, where he formed the Congo Free State. On February 26, 1885, after four months of negotiations, the representatives of all nations signed the General Act of the Berlin Conference, thus agreeing to abide by the newly established rules in their future expansionist campaigns.   To avoid the outbreak of armed conflicts, Article 35 of the General Act stated that “any Power which henceforth takes possession of a tract of land on the coasts of the African continent outside of its present possessions … shall accompany the respective act with a notification thereof, addressed to the other Signatory Powers of the present Act, in order to enable them, if need be, to make good any claims of their own.”   Nine Congolese prisoners chained together. Source: Wellcome Collection   The following Article 36 introduced a further requirement to rein in the chaotic colonial rush. Commonly known as “effective occupation,” the new norm committed the “signatory powers” to “insure the establishment of authority in the regions occupied by them on the coasts of the African continent sufficient to protect existing rights, and, as the case may be, freedom of trade and of transit.”   As they normalized the ongoing partition of Africa, the Western powers depicted their imperialist policy as a civilizing mission consisting of “instructing the natives and bringing home to them the blessings of civilization.”   In 1899, British writer Rudyard Kipling famously referred to this mission as “the white’s man burden.” In 1885, while the participants of the Berlin Conference committed themselves to “watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being,” they neglected to invite the African leaders to take part at the meeting which would define the future of their countries.   New Imperialism & The Aftermath of the Berlin Conference The partition of Africa after the Berlin Conference. Source: Stanford News   Far from slowing down the Scramble of Africa, the Berlin Conference accelerated the Western powers’ rush to expand their spheres of influence. At the outbreak of World War I, around 90 percent of Africa had been colonized. Only Liberia and Ethiopia remained independent. In 1896, Ethiopia’s emperor had successfully thwarted Italy’s expansionist endeavor during the First Italo-Ethiopian War. The partition of the continent among European countries had disastrous effects on the indigenous African peoples. In the Congo Free State, for example, the local population was decimated and slaughtered under King Leopold II’s harsh rule.   In the years following the Berlin Conference, the rules established in the General Act were only partially followed. Indeed, the notification requirement and the principle of “effective occupation” were ultimately unsuccessful in ending the rivalry between the colonialist powers, which continued to pursue their expansionist endeavors.   Contrary to their alleged pledge to preserve and protect the “native tribes,” the European countries proceeded to carve out their spheres of influence without any consideration for the already existing ethnic, linguistic, and cultural groups. The political and social effects of the artificial boundaries established during the Scramble for Africa still endure today.   Photo of the Congo Basin. Source: The Ecologist   Regardless of the effectiveness of the normative framework established by the Berlin Conference, the meeting legally and ideologically legitimized the Scramble for Africa. Thus, the event is commonly held as the embodiment of 19th-century New Imperialism, a period of territorial expansion justified by the erroneous belief in the superiority of the white race.   “It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honorable race the world possesses,” claimed Cecil Rhodes in 1877.   Similarly, Jules Ferry, addressing France’s colonial policy, declared: “We must say openly that indeed the higher races have a right over the lower races … I repeat, that the superior races have a right because they have a duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races.”

How to Handle Disagreements Among the Body September 11 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. – >1 Peter 3:8 Veteran American League baseball umpire Bill Guthrie was working behind the plate one afternoon, and the catcher for the visiting team was repeatedly protesting his calls. Guthrie endured this for a number of innings, and then he spoke up. "Son," he said softly, "you've been a big help to me in calling balls and strikes today, and I appreciate it. But I think I've got the hang of it now, so I'm going to ask you to go to the clubhouse and show whoever's there how to take a shower." Among believers today, some of the most bitter arguments are those that don't have to be so divisive if only we'd address them in a loving way. When we think about nonessential issues such as worship style, what the pastor wears, and how our churches are arranged, we can disagree on these things without being disagreeable. The truth is, we simpy can't allow the all-important work of expanding God's Kingdom to be thwarted by arguments of little to no eternal value. So don't be divided by arguments that are ultimately insignificant. Push through your minor disagreements with one another and work together for the Kingdom of God! Prayer Challenge Pray that God would give you the patience and understanding you need to stay unified with other believers – even when you disagree. Questions for Thought What's one issue you have a strong opinion about that other Christians may disagree with you? When it comes to being unified in faith and reaching the world for Christ, what can you do to put aside petty differences and move forward together with other believers? Visit the Senior Living Ministries website The post How to Handle Disagreements Among the Body – Senior Living – September 12 appeared first on GodUpdates.