When bars were closed down, many converted to Ice Cream Parlors. Beer companies diverted into making Ice Cream. There was a boom in the sale of ice cream.
The trouble is the federal government didn't have the constitutional authority to do that, they didn't have authority over the states either, and didn't have authority over the counties the sheriff is the chief law enforcer of his county.
Drugs are the black market where trillions are made, except here in the USA they decided marijuana is okay, I started smoking weed in 1972 as a 12 year old, I went in from there to hard drugs, I was stoned every morning on the way to school, and that weed was a fraction of the strength of today's weed, weed definitely effected me in a huge way, with today's weed I'd probably forget where the school is.
I'm sure you would have done your research before posting this video. However, I would like to suggest a different position regarding this, and that might seem defencive to you, however please compare 13th to 20th century India with Any nation of that time. Is it not equally easy to be robbed, looted and killed by mauruding group of black cowboys in America or bandits in Europe or tribes of Nomads any where in the world? The only thing about Bharat is it always believed in Humanity and gave betean, looted and deprived people a chance, some have responded with kindness and defended us, others just took us for fools, used us and then defamed us... As it turned out most of those who created savage literature, were some of the most powerful men in colonial world. However I am sure you will be more rational than that
This stupid video is grossly misrepresentative of what the phenomenon was all about. Such a superficial analysis, that too by taking things out of context will propagate more "evil" than what supposedly these people did.
The Thuggees, whilst popularly associated with goddess Kali, were mainly composed of Muslim criminal gangs working in league with local Zamindars/landowners who concealed and protected them in exchange for a share of the plunder. A criminal racket.
Mythology behind Goddess Kali - Goddess Kali while being fierce and scary isn't an evil goddess in mythology. She is the goddess of time, death and a fierce form of female divinity. Kali came into being when Parvati (Lord Shiva's wife) was fighting a demon named 'Raktbeej' - literally meaning blood seed. This demon was virtually impossible to kill because every time a drop of his blood touched the ground, a new clone version of the demon emerged. So finally, to kill this demon Goddess Parvati transformed into an extremely feirce form of female divinity - Goddess Kali. Kali went on a bloody rampage against the demon Raktbeej and thousands of his clones. In order to not let their blood touch the ground, Kali killed the thousand of clones and drank their blood. (This is probably why the Thugis strangled their victims, to avoid bloodshed) Finally, the demon was defeated. But after drinking so much blood during the fierce battle, Kali's bloodlust had grown to such heights that she could not be pacified and could not return to her original divine form -Goddes Parvati. Mad with rage and bloodlust, she went on a destructive rampage, killing all the demons in the world. Dancing on their corpses, devouring their blood and wearing their decapitated heads and limbs as a garland around her neck. Seeing this, the gods and demons alike were terrified. They saw that Kali was in no mood of stopping and would eventually end all life on earth in her mad frenzy. Scared, the remaining gods and demons approached Lord Shiva for help. Lord Shiva seeing this terrifying form his wife realised that the only way to calm her down and get her back to her senses was through love. The love and respect that she had for him - her husband, Lord Shiva. He saw Kali killing and dancing on corpses blind with rage. Lord Shiva then threw himself on the ground at Kali's feet. And in her rage dancing, she eventually stepped on Lord Shiva. Remember, Lord Shiva is the ultimate and supreme deity in Hinduism (along with Lord Vishnu) and is the God of Destruction responsible for destroying the entire universe at the end of each cycle of creation and destruction. He is worshipped by everyone in the universe - gods,demons and humans alike. So, when Goddes Kali realised that in her mad rage, she had stepped on Lord Shiva - the highest power in the universe and her beloved husband - she was jolted back into her senses and seeing her husband beneath her feet, she grew remorseful of her bloodlust and finally calmed down - transforming back into her original female divine form of Goddess Parvati and thus, the world was saved. Kali, today, is worshipped is a fierce deity who destroys the wicked to protect the innocent and pious. She symbolises the bold, strong, fearless and divine aspect of femininity. Despite her terrifying appearance, she is not an evil Goddess. Her wrath is directed only at the wicked.
Their main objective was robbery. They justified the murders during the robberies thanks to their cultish beliefs. But I don't think they killed people just for sacrifice. They mostly targeted caravans of traders and merchants for their loot. They didn't go around just randomly killing anyone they came across. Of course, I can be wrong but I think they were mainly robbers and dacoits who killed their victims and not serial killers. Hence the word 'thug' was introduced in English to mean robbers and criminals.
I would definitely do this but I believe there is already an excellent one called “The unmaking of India…” that I could be possibly create to the same level of quality
@@threekblack217 are you sure about that? Was this the only reason? Are you sure that imposing unfair tarrifs on exported Indian garments while waiving import duties had nothing to do with it? Are you sure that imposing unreasonable taxes had nothing to do with it? Are you sure that cutting of thumbs of the manufacturer has no effect also? Why do you think the country being colonized is always left devasted after the colonization ends? Read history with facts and figures first.
@@samb18_kite Millions of Indians improved their lot under British rule through hard work. It was the British spirit of enterprise & innovation that helped lay the foundations of every major business house that you see in India today. India relies on the UK to keep its borders safe our defence forces import every front line weapon from the UK.
@@threekblack217 this is really sad. You are trying to teach an indian the benefits of colonization? Its like teaching and African the benefits of slavery. I wouldn't be surprised if you do that. Its like, sure some African people got became rich by their arrival at usa. But that was not thanks to slavery, rather in spite of it. The things the few Indians who were able to increase their business were able to do so not because of British colonization rather in spite of it. If millions of people really had benefited from the colonization, how come the India's share of global GDP came down from 20+ % to 2-4%? In which universe's math do you follow? Have you heard of permanent settlement? Have you heard of bengal famine? There is not a single good thing that came out of British rule. You may have taught that Indians were savages, uncivilized wild animals before the almighty British came to make us human, but that has nothing to do with reality. When the British government was asked to build a bridge over the ganga between Howrah and Kolkata, they refused citing high cost. It was an Indian businessman, who provided all the steel of best quality at practically free of charge. Only then Howrah bridge was built. You might also think that people like "saint" Teresa helped Indians. But the reality is she only converted poor dying Indians to Christianity and did not treat them back to health. The truth is, she did not get the sainthood because of her good deeds, rather because of the millions of dollars she was able to send to Vatican. The railroads were built, not to help Indian passengers, but the transport the stolen goods quickly to England. And about the weapons, you don't give us weapons at free of charge. You do business with us. There is nothing great about that. Don't worry, we won't continue to purchase British weapons for too long in future. We will manufacture all the necessary weapons indigenously soon enough. If you are going in the direction of making Indians look pathetic, just for your information, it is an Indian company, that bought jaguar and saved thousands of jobs for British. Well in your logic though, I guess, that too was because of the great British people, (the only country who started calling themselves great🤣) By that logic every technological advancements happening in the world today is because some Indians discovering fundamental rules of basic mathematics some thousands of years ago.
Multiple human sacrifices per year seems like a good amount to me but I suppose in a nation with more than a billion people it really doesn't count, you're right. There are a lot more than I expected though , put it that way. I read something talking about it and I actually thought it was bullshit. It honesty surprised me. The sacrifices aren't all to Kali though. But yeah I guess in a country with that many people anything less than say 1000 child sacrifices a year wouldn't really qualify as a good amount, there's only a few dozens yeah its pretty insignificant.
@@FrithonaHrududu02127 I just checked. There were 103 human sacrifices from 2014 to 2021. That is like 14 a year on average. And I must admit these numbers are shocking to me too. Because I can't remember the last time I read about a human sacrifice in the news. Maybe years ago. I think the actual number of 'cases' or 'incidents' might be in single digits because one incident/case usually involves multiple victims. But like you mentioned, 14 deaths in a country with 1.5 billion people is an unavoidable statistical outcome. Can't fuck with mathematics of probability I guess. I still feel anything more than 1 case every 2-3 years is unacceptable. However, considering the fact that the Thugees killed around 1-2 million people over the centuries (Yes), with around 30,000 victims in the 1830s alone - I'll take the present numbers any day 💀 Thug Behram, a leader of the cult, had 931 victims! Making him the most prolific serial killer in history. So yeah, I can't complain too much about the present numbers.
@@rishikeshwagh murder if a defenseless person is gross no matter what but there is a particularly horrible thing about human sacrifices that is more than the sum of its parts. The numbers are thought to be a good deal higher too, a lot of missing people especially in say UTtaR pradesh are thought to be the result of sacrificial Killings. I'm not going to lie when I first looked into this I was expecting the total opposite. I was expecting it to just be some racist bulkshit with no actual deaths attributed to human sacrifices.... then I dug in and I was like WTF
Kali killed the demons and not humans, comparing her with Thanos is just absurd. Moreover you must understand the socio political environment of the state as during the 14th century a lot of Muslim rulers invaded the Indian subcontinent, in order to take the riches, forcefully covert people into Islam while plundering temples and cultures. The "stranglers" were defending their faith and had specific targets to loot.
learn history, temples are looted by every monarch who expand their territory, even cholas have looted and destroyed many north Indian (mostly bengali) temples
Of course you would defend your crazy religion and blame the Muslims for it. Too much drinking cow urine must have rotted your brain. O and I dont care for the muslims but your crazy death religion is even crazier
True fact THE INQUISITION has just changed its name but is still active in purescuting all non Roman Catholics, also the current pope Francis was the head of this evil group.
@@nofilterhistory Bien. Impresionante... ahora veamos los inimaginables métodos de tortura de las inquisiciones francesa o alemana. O hablemos de la persecución y masacre de los católicos en Inglaterra. O de las torturas y genocidio que los ingleses hicieron en el Nuevo Mundo.
The BBC did an indepth research of the Spanish inquisition, and said 99% of what you think you know about the inquisition is untrue , but who cares about true, and who were the teal victims and the tyrants, the sand ...religion were the tyrants
Such is the nature of human evil; and how politics can become corrupted into an instrument of oppression. A good example of how good intentions rapidly turn bad on the "slippery slope".....We see the parallels of this political monstrosity in our Democrat Party and the Jan 6 Inquisition.......
Nice video! It really puts together all the dramatic (and possibly exaggerated) actions of Nero. I feel as if Nero is the culmination of the degradation of the Julio-Claudian emperors over time (similar to Suetonius' view) . Emperor Augustus, the first Julio-Claudian, skillfully crafted his political world. He assumed significant and unprecedented power yet made the Senate feel as if they still had designated importance and relevance. Additionally he made himself viewed as a humble leader to the Roman people (e.g: Res Gestae) It was a wonderful creation, but Augustus' descendants could not perform the same balancing act as Augustus could. Overtime their desire for power shone through, and Nero was the worst (as Suetonius argues, the emperor with the most vices and fewest virtues). And once the Senate saw a powerful force opposing Nero (at the time led by Vindex and soon-to-be emperor Galba), they seized their chance to declare Nero a public enemy.
The South only had to give up slavery. Even a gradual emancipation would have brought british recognition. Also, thousands of slaves could have been used as soldiers and support personal
Ultimately the Confederates lost the war because they were outnumbered, and outproduced. This is proven by the fact that 25% of the white males of military age in 1861 in the south died in the war. The number is considered somewhere around 300 to 350 thousands. Union losses were approximately the same sizes and for the same causes. The difference was that while the southern manpower available kept shrinking that of the north kept growing. Ulysses Grant was not the butcher he is sometimes accused of being but he knew what he had and how to utilize it. So though a lot of the Lost Cause mythology may be fantasy the part about southern combat effectiveness is not. Incidentally, the last verifiable Confederate veteran died in 1951. His name was Pleasant Crump and he enlisted in the 10th Alabama in December of 1864 and fought in several battles before being surrendered at Appomattox. The last Union veteran was Albert Woolson who died in 1956...He enlisted in the 1st Minnesota Heavy Artillery in 1864 at the age of 14. That regiment never saw any combat and served only in garrison duty.
They lost because they attacked Ft. Sumter. The only hope for the South was to take a purely defensive posture defending their territory without provoking the Union by attacking Federal installations - this would allow time for negotiations and, failing that, would force the Union to make the first aggressive move - a move which would have faced considerable opposition in the North. A great many Northerners were indifferent to southern secession, but after the South's unprovoked attacked on Ft. Sumter, the outrage in the North insured that Lincoln would have the popular support needed to wage a war of conquest against the Confederacy. The South was doomed the moment the first cannons opened fire in Charleston Harbor.
The primary reason for secession was undoubtedly the maintenance of slavery, however secession is not war. Do States have a right to leave the Union, this was the question to be settled by war.
there is nothing in the US Constitution which denies the right of any state to secede - and this remains true today. After the war, Federal prosecutors tried for 2 years to put together a case for treason against Jefferson Davis but gave up when they could find no constitutional basis to support the charge.
US politics is now more polarized than at any time since the Civil War - so polarized it feels like the US is teetering on the brink of anarchy or absolute tyranny - that anything is possible. I think a second "Civil War" is a real possibility though I think this would take the form more of an insurrection or second "American Revolution" than a secession of states. As Federal prosecutors found out when they tried to make a case for treason against Jefferson Davis post-war, there is nothing in the US Constitution which denies the right of any state to secede, so this option does remain on the table and could be acted upon under certain conditions. A hypothetical scenario: A very dubious Democrat victory in November is not recognized by Florida or Texas who then vote to secede - federal troops are ordered in and the country erupts in chaos and civil disobedience. If another assassination attempt on President Trump is successful this could also potentially trigger a nation-wide insurrection and perhaps even a military coup d'etat.
@@bobsyoruncle4583 yes, definitely agree. I think this year could be one of the most important years when it comes to writing the history books in the future. Still a long way to go as well and definitely some more twists down the road.
The biggest problem which caused the CSA's downfall was an inconsistent approach to a general war strategy. There were two camps of thought. Strike and be aggressive to take out the Union capital of Washington D.C. vs Dig in and hold on to what we have. The 1st camp believed that unflinching aggression towards the Union capital to force a quick and swift peace to prevent a general conflict of prolonged nature. The 2nd camp believed that most Yankees really didn't want to throw away their sons and fathers to a war that didn't really affect them or their livelihoods. It was this continual indecision on the Confederate side that resulted in the war lasting as long as it did as well as Union general officers looking to strike towards Richmond being inconsistent themselves. Had the Confederacy attempted to be aggressive and followed through after 1st Manassas to drive into Washington D.C. then the war could've likely ended there. Lincoln would've been seen as a mini tyrant with his suspension of habeus corpus and the failure to calm down tension by being aggressive towards the Southern unrest and either would've been impeached or forced to resign. Consequently, had the Confederacy decided to dig in and hold their own, it is then just a matter of how Confederate generals respond to Union incursions. In our timeline unwarranted aggression towards Union forces in "opportunity strikes" saw many false victories as what was won tactically was severely lost strategically due to the Confederacy's lack of industry and supply/manpower base to be able to recover losses over the course of the war. There is no certainty about if the Confederacy could've won the war, but there is a likelihood of potential victory had certain strategic decisions been made in certainty rather than the variable nature that is seen throughout the war. As a southerner and someone born from Mississippi, it is easy to see why the Confederacy lost due to how the trend of the national government and actions of many of its general officers did over the course of the war and the subsequent casualty counts for major engagements.
@@nofilterhistory I appreciate the comment. I've always wanted to try to get into content creation, but with the place I live and no proper equipment the most I was ever able to do was either my phone or the free trail of I think it was bandicam way back when I first got my laptop and before my pc. Though now and again I do like to get some "deep" convos with one of my friends that tends to record some games we play. Makes for a nice dynamic from the goober moments lol. Best wishes to you and keep up the awesome work.
The north won because we were better led, had significantly higher industrial output and were able to put that output into play in an effective way. Who knew that slavery and cottage industry the south fought to maintain would be one of the reasons the CSA was destroyed. "OK google. Define irony".
Two historical quotes and one fictional: Confederate General Isaac Trimble, after the failure of Pickett's charge, he was wounded and captured. While in a field hospital, Trimble remarked, "If the men I had the honor to command that day could not take that position, all hell couldn't take it." Years after the war, former-General George Pickett was asked, why did his charge at Gettysburg fail? He replied, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." "We won not because we had more money, more guns, more ships, horses, or the like. We won because of one simple fact, our boys were better."~Captain Nedville Stevens.
