Antarctica is one of the few places left on earth that remains virtually untouched by humans. There’s no native population and it’s not controlled by any particular country. It’s difficult to get to, and even if you manage to get there, you‘re limited in where you can go.
There are 16 restricted areas in Antarctica, and these restrictions are enforced by the Antarctic Treaty. This treaty includes 12 countries. I find it odd that our world’s leaders cannot agree on anything, but they can agree on this?
The Nazis, who were known for their outlandish and otherworldly beliefs, also had an interest in the supposedly barren continent. They explored the arctic region and even claimed a large plot of land there, which they named New Swabia. It was named after a place in Germany.
After WWII, Admiral E. Byrd led 4,000 military troops from the U.S., Britain and Australia in what was basically an invasion of Antarctica. This was known as Operation Highjump. It resulted in several casualties and a missing catapult ship, the USS Pine Island.
Conspiracy theorists say this was because of a battle with a fleet of UFOs. While this is obviously unconfirmed, I find it odd that right after the failed mission, Admiral Byrd declared it was imperative that we take immediate defense measures against this hostile region.

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x