- Why should we care about landing on the moon…50 years ago? Jill Lepore, New York Times
- U.S. escalates cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid Perlroth & Sanger, New York Times
- Stupid humans (is there hope?) Caleb Scharf, Scientific American
- The decline and rise of poverty in America Bryan Caplan, EconLog
- The stoic grief of the Gold Star Mothers John McKay, American Conservative
- “My body, my choice” Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy
- “Frontier” history has gotten much better, no thanks to David McCullough Rebecca Onion, Slate
- The loss of a symbol of civilization Nick Nielsen, The View from Oregon
There is, however, a second group of anthropologists, WW Newcomb, Oscar Lewis, Frank Secoy, and more recently Symmes Oliver, who have found this explanation of intertribal warfare unconvincing. These scholars, making much more thorough use of historical sources than is common among anthropologists, have examined warfare in light of economic and technological change. They have presented intertribal warfare as dynamic, changing over time; wars were not interminable contests with traditional enemies, but real struggles in which defeat was often catastrophic. Tribes fought largely for the potential economic and social benefits to be derived from furs, slaves, better hunting grounds, and horses. According to these scholars, plains tribes went to war because their survival as a people depended on securing and defending essential resources.
This is from Richard White, a historian at Stanford University. Here is a link.
- Why did shamanism evolve in societies throughout the world? Thomas Hills, Aeon
- To each, their own God Matthew Leigh, History Today
- ‘I don’t know what will happen to us in Brazil’ Anna Jean Kaiser, Roads & Kingdoms
- A war without civilian deaths? Samuel Moyn, New Republic