On the night of December 7, 1941, Adolf Hitler was at his secret military headquarters in East Prussia, known as the Wolf’s Lair, when he received the first reports of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He was pleased with the news. For Hitler, the heavy damage inflicted on United States battleships like the USS Arizona and the USS Oklahoma signaled victory for the Axis powers, whose main members were Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Why Hitler Welcomed the Attack on Pearl Harbor

To understand why Hitler was elated, it helps to look at a map of Europe in early December 1941. For the previous six months, German armies commanded by the Oberkommando des Heeres fought through the massive landmass of the Soviet Union during the invasion codenamed Operation Barbarossa, which began on June 22, 1941. By early December, German forces had reached the outskirts of Moscow before their advance stalled due to the harsh winter. On the morning of December 5, 1941, Soviet forces led by General Georgy Zhukov launched one of the largest counterattacks in history, successfully pushing German troops back 50 to 100 miles.

If Soviet forces could break through German defenses, they would have an opportunity to split the stalled German army in the Soviet Union in half. Hitler feared this outcome more than anything else. What he hoped for was an event that would draw American attention away from Europe, as growing United States supply shipments to Great Britain and the Soviet Union were severely undermining German strategic plans.

When news reached Hitler of the Japanese attack against the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, he welcomed the development. He believed that Japan would tie down the United States Navy and force America to divert major military resources to the Pacific for the duration of the war. What he didn’t know was that the primary United States aircraft carriers, including the USS Enterprise and USS Lexington, had escaped destruction at Pearl Harbor because they were at sea at the time of the attack.

Why Hitler Wasn’t Obligated to Declare War on the US

While many analysts believe that Hitler was forced into the war with America because he was bound by a treaty with Japan and Italy, this claim is only partially accurate. While the Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940 stipulated in Article 3 that if any of the signatories were attacked, they would come to one another’s defense, it did not obligate them if a signatory struck the first blow. Because Japan struck the first blow at Pearl Harbor, Hitler was under no treaty obligation to enter the war to defend Japan.

However, he personally ordered Germany to enter the war on Japan’s side as soon as he learned of the attack. He rushed Germany’s formal declaration of war because he wanted Japan to remain a committed ally. Seeking the political initiative, Hitler announced the formal declaration of war on the United States in a speech to the Reichstag at the Kroll Opera House on December 11, 1941.

The Miscalculation That Made Hitler Underestimate America

Another factor behind Hitler’s happy reaction was his miscalculation of the American national character and drive. Through his racial lens, he viewed America as a nation made up of weak individuals who had surrendered control to corporate leaders. He believed that Americans were too soft and undisciplined to handle a long, protracted war, despite understanding the nation’s industrial strength.

For perspective, the United States had a population of roughly 132 million people and produced far more than Germany in overall economic output by 1941. Thinking that Japan would knock America out of the fight or keep it distracted, he believed that the Axis powers would buy enough time to defeat the Soviet Union in 1942.

How Pearl Harbor Unleashed German U-Boats on the US Coast

Pearl Harbor was exactly what the German submarine command, known as the Befehlshaber der U-Boote, was waiting for. Until December 1941, German Admiral Karl Dönitz, serving as Commander of Submarines, operated under orders from Hitler to avoid conflicts with American ships so as to keep the United States out of the war. Now, Hitler looked forward to Operation Drumbeat, the code name given to attacks that German Type IX U-boats would launch off the East Coast of the United States.

With America officially in the war, he could send his submarines to target ships along the American shoreline and cut off supplies to Great Britain. German U-boats would go on to sink hundreds of Allied ships in American waters shortly after he declared war on December 11, 1941. German U-boat crews nicknamed these easy victories the Second Happy Time.

John Laurens was an officer who served in the American Revolution. Although he is largely forgotten today, he was known in his time as one of the war’s bravest soldiers and an advocate for freedom for all.

Wealthy South Carolina Beginnings and European Education

John Laurens was born in Charleston, South Carolina, in the year 1754. As the son of Henry and Eleanor Laurens, he was born into a wealthy, slaveholding family. Laurens received a good education in Europe, where he learned to speak perfect French. By his early twenties, Laurens had married Martha Manning and was in London studying to be a lawyer. However, the outbreak of the American Revolution interrupted his plans.

Battlefield Bravery and Service Under George Washington

John and his father Henry returned to the Thirteen Colonies in 1777, and both of their lives would be linked to the Continental cause. Henry served in the Continental Congress, while John insisted on joining the army. John Laurens strongly supported the Revolution and was ready to give his life for the colonies’ rights. The army was glad to add an educated patriot to their ranks. Laurens was given the rank of lieutenant colonel and assigned as an aide-de-camp to George Washington. He would serve alongside Alexander Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette, rounding out a trio of young but brilliant revolutionaries.

Laurens wasted no time in joining the action, as displayed in his first combat at the Battle of Brandywine. The Marquis De Lafayette, who was wounded at the battle, was amazed by Laurens’ lack of fear on the battlefield. He observed that ‘‘It was not his fault that he was not killed or wounded.’’  

Laurens’ incredible courage continued throughout the rest of his military career. He was wounded at the Battle of Germantown, and had his horse bolt from under him at the Battle of Monmouth. None of these incidents did anything to deter him in the slightest. Despite the Continental Army’s lack of success in the early days of the war, Laurens was devoted to its cause and fiercely loyal to his commander, George Washington.

Such loyalty would even see Laurens fight a duel to defend Washington’s name. After the Battle of Monmouth, Washington was at odds with one of his generals, Charles Lee. With both generals accusing the other of incompetence on the battlefield, Lee was soon court-martialed. Though he was given a very light sentence, Lee was enraged by the charges Washington had brought against him, and began to publicly criticize his leadership. Such an action did not sit well with Laurens, who challenged Lee to a duel. Both men agreed, and in December of 1778, Laurens connected with a shot to Lee’s side. Despite both men wanting to continue, Laurens’ second, Alexander Hamilton, insisted that the duel end immediately.

Advocating for Black Regiments and Securing French Aid 

Besides his bravery on the battlefield, Laurens was also known for his strong abolitionist views. In 1778, he began pushing the idea of creating a Black brigade in the American army. Laurens was not simply looking to gain manpower for the Continental Army, but sincerely believed that African-Americans deserved freedom. His vision for the colonies after the war was one of equal rights for all. Despite his efforts, Laurens was unable to create Black military units because of fierce opposition from the slaveholding members of the government.

In 1780, Laurens was briefly captured by the British before being released in a prisoner exchange. After his release, Congress reassigned him to petition the French for arms and finances. Although he did not want to leave the battlefield, he used his excellent French to secure much-needed French support.

Final Battle at Combahee River and Lasting Impact

Returning to the colonies in 1781, Laurens was able to rejoin Washington for the Siege of Yorktown. He personally helped to negotiate the terms of surrender in the decisive battle of the Revolution. Shortly after the victory at Yorktown, Laurens returned to South Carolina to battle the remaining British soldiers in his home colony. On August 27, 1782, Laurens was shot and killed in the Battle of Combahee River. The skirmish included only several hundred soldiers combined on both sides, and was one of the final engagements of the war.

Despite being killed before he could see his country gain its independence, the 29-year-old Laurens left an undeniable mark on history. His belief in liberty for all and determination to fight for it immortalized him in the history of the United States.

In the years after Amin’s downfall, a power struggle broke out for control of the nation. The 1980s would see Uganda’s President Milton Obote battle the rebel forces of Yoweri Museveni. This conflict is known as the Ugandan Bush War.

The Rise and Fall of Idi Amin: How Decades of Turmoil Shattered Uganda

From independence in 1962, Uganda’s political landscape was far from secure. Four years into its independence, a coup was launched by Prime Minister Milton Obote that deposed Uganda’s first president. Obote’s autocratic rule ended in 1971, when an officer by the name of Idi Amin deposed him.

Amin’s time as President of Uganda is infamous. Corruption, ethnic deportations, and forced disappearances all occurred during his time in power. It was only in 1979, after losing a war to Tanzania and Ugandan rebels, that Amin was forced to flee the country. After his defeat, Amin ended up in Saudi Arabia, where he lived out the rest of his days.

Milton Obote’s Comeback: The Disputed Election That Triggered Civil War

While Amin was no longer in power, Uganda’s problems were by no means over. The country had been devastated by the years of tyranny. The Ugandan economy was in ruins, numerous rebel groups were still active, and the country needed serious work to recover. Ethnic tensions were high, and a power vacuum was present with Amin out of the picture. While a presidential commission governed the country until national elections could be held, Uganda’s fortunes heavily depended on a successful head of state taking office.

It was in this situation that Milton Obote returned to retake power. While he had a reputation as one of the nation’s elder statesmen, many Ugandans opposed his return. They viewed him as a corrupt and autocratic leader, whose rule had indirectly led to Amin taking power.

Despite this, Obote continued on undaunted and campaigned aggressively to regain his old position. On December 11, 1980, Obote’s Uganda People’s Congress won the majority of votes in the country’s national elections, and he reclaimed the presidency. Despite his apparent comeback, Obote’s enemies were not going to accept the results of the election. Numerous rebel groups labeled the election as fraudulent, and war soon broke out between the government and the rebels.

How Yoweri Museveni’s Guerrilla Army Took Down the Government

Obote’s main opponent was Yoweri Museveni, the leader of the National Resistance Movement. Museveni was a revolutionary who had spent years fighting Amin. As a youth, he had been educated by the pan-Africanist scholar Walter Rodney, who had stressed the importance of revolutionary struggle. He and his forces were completely opposed to Obote’s presidency, and would fight as long as they had to until he was overthrown.

Initially, the NRM lacked the strength to take on the Ugandan army directly (their first raid in 1981 had been to secure badly needed weapons). Despite this, the skilled guerrilla leader Museveni was more than happy to continue an insurgency in the country’s rural areas. 

With his brother Salim Saleh by his side, his rebel soldiers moved by night, their stealth making up for their lack of weaponry. A significant portion of Museveni’s fighters were Rwandan refugees, the most notable of them being the famous soldier Fred Rwigyema and Rwanda’s future president Paul Kagame. These Rwandans had joined the NRM because of Obote’s past attempts at deporting them, and were known to fight with incredible zeal.

How a Fatal Crash and Atrocities Shifted the Ugandan Bush War

Such resolve was greatly needed by the rebel cause. Obote was determined to defeat his enemies and remain in power. In June of 1983, the Ugandan army launched Operation Bonanza, an aggressive campaign to root out the rebels. While Museveni’s forces were able to evade their enemies for the most part, their operations were contained. With Obote securing aid from Tanzania and North Korea, he looked to be on his way to victory.

However, by December of 1983, the tide of the war was changing. David Oyite-Ojok, the Ugandan army’s chief of staff, died in a helicopter crash. He had been a competent commander whose strategies had contained the rebels, and whose leadership had kept the army harmonious. His death massively increased disunity in the Ugandan army.

Additionally, the Ugandan army’s counterinsurgency operations had turned much of the population against it. In their attempts to force civilians to give up the whereabouts of the rebels, they had treated the populace with shocking brutality, particularly in the part of the country dubbed the “Luwero Triangle,” where civilians were subjected to mass arrests and torture at the hands of the army. This, in turn, pushed them to support the NRM, which had largely shown discipline in dealing with civilians.

With the Ugandan army facing mistrust from civilians and increasing infighting, the NRM seized the opportunity. They went on the offensive against disheartened government troops, epitomized by their surprising victory at the Battle of Kembogo in 1985. With the Ugandan army falling apart at the seams, Obote’s commanders launched a coup against him. Tito Okello emerged as Uganda’s new president, and Obote was forced into lifelong exile. The NRM refused to compromise with Okello’s government and continued fighting. By January of 1986, they had captured Kampala, ending a war that had claimed as many as 500,000 lives.

From Rebel Hero to 40-Year President: Yoweri Museveni’s Unbroken Power

‘‘The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but the leaders who want to stay in power.’’

Such a statement from Museveni is particularly surprising, given that he has been in power for 40 years. Since his inauguration in January 1986, Museveni has served as President of Uganda, and despite turning 82 later this year, he shows no hurry to step down.

Throughout the major events of Uganda’s history – the RPF’s invasion of Rwanda from Uganda, the Congo Wars, the pursuit of Joseph Kony – Ugandans have only known one leader and one ruling party: that of Yoweri Museveni and the National Resistance Movement.

His hands were clammy like those of a corpse, and his fingers ended in sharp claws. His eyes glowed like bright red orbs, and from his mouth he breathed blue and white flames. Beneath a black cloak, this thin figure was that of Spring Heeled Jack, a terrifying and devilish man who terrified the people of England and Scotland during the Victorian era.

The Violent London Encounters That Sparked a National Panic

The first encounter with the monstrous Spring Heeled Jack occurred in October 1837 in Clapham Common in south London. A servant girl, Mary Stevens, was walking home when a man jumped out and accosted her. He grabbed her with cold, corpselike hands and forced his kisses upon her. Her screams alerted others who ran to her aid, and the mysterious figure took off.

The next day, the cloaked figure appeared again as he jumped in front of a carriage before fleeing by easily springing over a 9-foot wall while cackling maniacally. Such an impossible feat earned him the nickname of “Spring Heeled Jack.”

Over the next few months, reports poured in as women were attacked by this mysterious cloaked figure, and panic began to spread through London. 

The Lord Mayor of London, Sir John Cowan, received many letters of complaint, detailing terrifying encounters with the assailant in and around the city. These “wicked pranks” were rampant.

Reports of the Violent Assailant Sparked National Concern

On February 19, 1838, Jane Alsop answered the door of her father’s house in Bearbinder Lane in East London to find a man asking for assistance, claiming to have caught Spring Heeled Jack. When she handed him a candle, however, the man threw off his cloak to reveal his hideous visage and grabbed Jane with metallic claws.

He wore a helmet and vomited forth blue flame, while his eyes burned like fire, and upon his form he wore a white tight-fitting suit like oilskin. Jane struggled and escaped, running towards the house with her assailant in pursuit. When Jane’s sister arrived, Spring Heeled Jack fled the scene. 

Mere days later, Jack struck again in Green Dragon Alley, Limehouse, where sisters Lucy and Margaret Scales were returning from visiting their brother. A cloaked figure had been waiting in the shadows and jumped out at them, spurting blue flame in Lucy’s face before exiting the scene. Lucy fell to the ground, deprived of her sight. Help arrived quickly, but Lucy suffered fits for hours after the incident. 

A man, Thomas Millbank, claimed to be Spring Heeled Jack and was arrested. Jane Alsop, however, insisted that her assailant could breathe fire, and so Millbank was not convicted. 

These were just a few of the many attacks that happened, and they certainly wouldn’t be the last. The legend of Spring Heeled Jack continued for decades, living long past the real attacks and into the realm of myth, fueled by the media and penny dreadfuls which turned him into a recurring fictional villain. 

The Marquess of Waterford and the Hunt for a Real Perpetrator

While the myth of Spring Heeled Jack as a supernatural being persisted, there were many skeptics who challenged the idea, and fingers were pointed at various suspects. In the 1840s, the Marquess of Waterford, Henry de la Poer Beresford, was a prime suspect. The “Mad Marquess” was an Irish nobleman who had a history of crude pranks, disdain for women and social norms, and a problematic relationship with the law. 

Waterford married and settled down in 1842, and calmed his behavior, eventually dying in a riding accident in 1859. Encounters with Spring Heeled Jack, however, continued beyond the turn of the century. It’s quite believable the phenomenon was not just one person, but a series of copycat pranksters. 

In the 1850s and 1860s, Spring Heeled Jack made appearances all over England, but mostly in the Midlands. In 1877, a soldier in the Aldershot Garrison peered into the darkness at a gentleman approaching him. The man promptly slapped the soldier and bounded away in great leaps, shrugging off gunfire. 

In the same year, in Newport Arch, Lincoln, he was seen and chased by a mob of people who shot at him, but the villain was unhurt and evaded his pursuers, vaulting away to safety. 

By the end of the century, most reports were coming from the northwest of England, and the last sighting was in 1904 in the Everton district of Liverpool.

Who or what Spring Heeled Jack was will likely never be known. Until then, theories abound, with some even claiming he was a demon or an alien. Perhaps he was the result of collective panic fuelling folklore. Either way, Spring Heeled Jack remains firmly entrenched in England’s lengthy catalog of urban legends.

The Nephilim are one of the most mysterious topics featured in Genesis – and that’s saying a lot, as it’s competing with a total global flood. Many theories about the Nephilim range from fallen angels to giants. Apocryphal traditions, the original Hebrew text, and Greek translations can help demystify it all and uncover the truth about the Nephilim.

Where Do the Nephilim First Appear in Genesis?

When reading the first book of the Bible, Genesis, one can easily miss details if you’re going too quickly. Tucked away in obscure verses found in Genesis chapter 6, right before Noah’s Flood, we read something astounding:

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” vv.1-2;4, ESV

It’s important to consider how the Bible correlates with and differs from other texts of the day, because it strengthens rather than threatens our growing understanding of Scripture.

Beyond the Bible: Enoch’s Watchers and Secret Giant Lore

The Bible was not created in a vacuum. So, we have what we call “apocryphal literature” – later Jewish writings, often about the Bible, accepted by some traditions, yet not included in the Bible.

In this broader collection, books and legends shed light on the mysterious Nephilim. Consider the book attributed to Biblical Enoch (Genesis 5:21):

Enoch’s book of the Watchers details and expands on the story of how the Nephilim brought wickedness and violence to the earth, Section I: Chapter 7 –

“4…the giants turned against 5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6 fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.”

Mesopotamian Connections and Ancient Heroic Myths

A strangely similar idea to the Nephilim is present in Mesopotamian folklore (the Mesopotamian cultures included the Babylonian enemies of God’s people in the Bible).

They had the Apkallu as divine sages teaching humans magic and crafts. They praised this as a good thing, contrasting the Genesis version.

Many modern readers of the Bible might pull up their nose at comparative ancient literature studies. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls prove this worth in the Book of Giants, found alongside the ancient Biblical fragments. In the Book of Giants, Gilgamesh, an ancient Mesopotamian heroic king, is described as one of these Nephilim.

But what does the Bible actually say about the sons of God and the Nephilim?

Who Were the ‘Sons of God’? The 3 Major Theories

There are three main Biblical interpretations about the “sons of God” (Bnei HaElohim) mentioned in this passage:

1. The Sethite view: The sons of God were sons of Seth (Adam’s godly son), while the ‘daughters of man’ refer to the sons of Cain.
2. The angelic view: A second theory sees the sons of God as rebellious fallen angels who fathered demigods on earth (supernatural/human hybrids).
3. The ancient rulers view: Kings and tyrant leaders throughout history have claimed to be divine descendants of God – so they were just mighty, powerful men.

Then follows the verse about the Nephilim.

Fallen Angels or Mighty Warriors of Renown

The Hebrew term for Nephilim, nāp̄îl, is from the primitive root word, nāp̄al, which means to fall down. This led to interpretations ranging from “fallen ones” (i.e., wicked angels) to “those who fall upon others” (i.e., giants). It is also translated as a bully or tyrant. So the Nephilim were large – in the literal or the figurative sense.

Contextually, this Scripture finds itself right before Noah’s flood. It is therefore believed that the Nephilim were part of the wickedness on the earth that God was displeased with.

The Hebrew Scriptures use this Nephilim word once more (Numbers 13:33), describing the inhabitants of Canaan:

“We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” 

How Ancient Translations Shaped the Concept of Giants

Many scholars agree that Genesis was originally relayed orally, which explains the phrasing and repetition in this passage. Unfortunately, much of the original rhythm and rhyme was lost as the words were translated into new languages. In many cases, original meaning was lost too.

Genesis is one of the five books that make up the Jewish Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Septuagint (3rd century BC) is the earliest Greek translation of the Torah from the original Hebrew text. Translation is not an easy task, as you essentially have to build cultural bridges. When the Jewish scholars reached Genesis 6, they faced a challenge: How do you translate nāp̄îl into Greek?

The translators chose the closest Greek word: ‘gigantes’ (like the Titans of Greek mythology), and subsequent translations followed suit. Genesis leaves the question of the Nephilim unanswered, and it is a much-debated topic among Bible scholars today.

The Treaty of Tordesillas was an agreement made between Portugal and Spain, the two biggest seafaring nations at the time. It mapped out territories that each country could claim as its own, so they could establish their spheres of influence. The deal, which the Pope mediated, was meant to avert a clash between the two countries.

According to the treaty, Spain would control all lands on the west side of a line drawn across the Atlantic Ocean. Portugal, on the other hand, could claim all lands on the east side of the line. The effects of the treaty are well-known today because of the lasting effects that it had.

Why Blocked Trade Routes Forced Spain and Portugal to Negotiate

In 1453, Constantinople fell to Ottoman forces, which led to the control of ancient trade routes by the Ottomans. Many routes were blocked, and others had high taxes. The situation forced many European countries to look for alternative routes to reach Asia.

Spain and Portugal, guided by older agreements like the Treaty of Alcacovas, set out to find new routes. Portugal aimed to go around Africa’s southern tip and then onwards to India, while Spain headed westward. As Portuguese explorers got closer to their goal, Spain funded Christopher Columbus in 1492 to find a westward route. At the time, Columbus did not find the Asian route. However, he stumbled upon the Americas. After returning, he stopped in Portugal and told the king about his discoveries. He then continued with his journey to Spain.

After hearing the news, Portugal’s King John II argued that older treaties gave Portugal the right to the newly found lands. Spain was careful enough to avoid an altercation with Portugal because Portugal had a stronger navy. Spain asked Pope Alexander VI to mediate the crisis. The Pope pronounced that Spain and Portugal could claim areas not ruled by Christian leaders.

How Spain and Portugal Claimed Uncharted Lands

In a Spanish town called Tordesillas, Portugal and Spain made a deal on June 7, 1494. The deal divided the Americas into two zones. A line was drawn across the Atlantic Ocean, about 345 miles west of the Cape Verde Islands (which belonged to Portugal). Portugal got the land to the east of this line, while Spain got the land to the west. For a while, things were mostly peaceful between the two countries. 

However, in 1506, they moved the line 932 miles further west. This gave Portugal the eastern part of what is now Brazil. Because the treaty spelled out that both Spain and Portugal could take lands that were not already ruled by Christians, a lot of territory was open for conquest since not many places practiced Christianity at the time. 

The Lasting Human Cost of European Colonial Expansion

The treaty’s effects can be seen everywhere today. For example, most Latin American nations mainly speak Spanish, apart from Brazil, where Portuguese is the primary language. The language difference can be traced back to Brazil’s location within Portuguese territory after the Tordesillas treaty, which led to Portuguese colonization. Other places taken by the Portuguese following the treaty, like Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, and Guinea-Bissau, also speak Portuguese.

The treaty also ignored indigenous populations and made the takeover of areas with no Christian presence acceptable. The treaty essentially split the globe into Spanish and Portuguese zones of power and influence. Future claims by major powers such as Britain and Germany in areas held by Spain and Portugal were also limited by the deal.

The treaty marked a significant moment that shaped European relations with the rest of the world by making colonialism acceptable. The colonial takeovers that followed led to a lot of human pain and suffering, especially following the rise of the Transatlantic slave trade.

How Rival Powers Shattered the Spanish and Portuguese Monopoly

By the 17th century, major powers such as Britain joined Spain and Portugal in global conquest missions, and slowly, the treaty faltered as new players emerged. With limited resources, Portugal and Spain’s powers waned, and the terms of the agreement could no longer be upheld.

Following the New Testament period, various Christian writings by authors claiming to be original disciples of Jesus Christ appeared. Among these was a book that contains some of the material of the four Gospels, known as the Gospel of Peter.

The 1886 Egyptian Discovery That Unearthed a Lost Gospel

The Gospel of Peter was discovered near Nag Hammadi in 1886, though it was not part of the Nag Hammadi library discovered over 50 years later. It was probably written in the 2nd century AD, and its author shows a reasonable knowledge of what was in the Gospels, which is why some early churches appear to have used it. Other small fragments from later years also exist, containing portions considered part of the Gospel of Peter.

The Gospel of Peter is a “Passion narrative,” which relates the story of the Passion of Jesus, the story of His death, burial, and resurrection. It was known to exist due to references by some church Fathers and historians like Eusebius of Caesarea, but until its rediscovery, the contents of the Gospel of Peter were largely unknown.

How the Text Rewrites Jesus’ Final Words and the Passion Narrative

The first few known verses of the Gospel of Peter deviate from the standard Gospel narrative of the Passion story. Herod is the one who condemns Jesus, and Pilate is somewhat absolved of his responsibility after the ceremonial washing of his hands.

The Gospel of Peter adds to and alters parts of the crucifixion narrative, including a significant revision of some of Jesus’ final words. Where the Gospels of Matthew and Mark state that Jesus cries out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (a reference to Psalm 22), the Gospel of Peter changes the statement to “My Power, O Power, you have forsaken me!” Such a statement points to the theological opinions of the author, possibly regarding the nature of Jesus, as well as a possible misunderstanding of how Jewish people referred to parts of the Old Testament.

The Gospel of Peter also adds to the narrative of Jesus’ burial, detailing the soldiers’ actions and the sealing and miraculous opening of Jesus’ tomb. It concludes with Mary Magdalene’s visit to the tomb and the disciples returning to fishing.

While being crucified, Jesus is described as being “taken up,” not dying. He also “felt no pain”—both phrases are contradictory to what the Gospels describe. While what we have of the Gospel of Peter is incomplete, the absence of any description of the denial of Jesus by Peter is significant. Of the portion we do have, Peter’s denial of Jesus tends to fall within the part of the Passion timeline during the Crucifixion of Christ. The Gospel of Peter describes the Crucifixion part of the story, yet Peter’s denial is not there.

Why Early Church Leaders Labeled the Text a Heretical ‘Ghost Story’

The Gospel of Peter was considered non-canonical by early church leaders, such as Bishop Serapion of Antioch. Eusebius, in compiling his historical works, wrote that Serapion initially approved the usage of the Gospel of Peter, while denying that Peter was the author. Serapion later condemned the work after further study, claiming that it contained heresies related to Marcionism or Docetism, which believe that Jesus Christ did not come in a physical form, but was a sort of ghost or phantasm. Also, the Gospel of Peter has some distinct differences in the Passion narrative from the canonical Gospels and is not considered canon due to these differences.

During its colonization, Burundians were pitted against each other on the basis of whether they were Hutu or Tutsi. The result of the subsequent power struggle between the two was a genocide known as the Ikiza.

How Belgian Colonial Policy Created Burundi’s Ethnic Divide

Prior to its colonization by Belgium, Burundi existed as a kingdom. Founded in the 17th century, the Kingdom of Burundi was a tiny, highly regulated East African state. It was ruled by a king (Mwami) and had defeated East African slave traders several times on the battlefield, preventing them from penetrating the kingdom. In the 1890s, the first Europeans arrived in Burundi, and by the turn of the century it was colonized by Germany. After World War I, Belgium took control.

The colonial era was devastating for the people of Burundi. The colonial apparatus disregarded traditional methods of government and imposed forced labor on Burundian peasants. To make matters worse, the Hamitic Hypothesis was introduced to Burundi in the 20th century. Similar to Rwanda, Burundi is composed of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa. The Hamitic Hypothesis asserts that the Tutsi had conquered the Hutu and Twa and were therefore the superior race. This theory is not true, of course, as historians believe that both the Hutu and Tutsi migrated to Burundi in waves and gradually came together over time to form the kingdom. All three groups speak the Kirundi language and share the same culture. The ruling class of the kingdom (the Ganwa) did not consider themselves to be Hutu or Tutsi, dispelling colonial beliefs about Burundi.

The implementation of the Hamitic Hypothesis made the Tutsi the overlords in Rwanda. As the Belgians indirectly ruled, the Tutsi were made the masters, while the Hutu were made serfs. This arrangement created much resentment and set the stage for future conflict.

Political Turmoil and the Fall of Prince Rwagasore 

As the 1950s came to a close, Burundi (and the rest of Africa) was approaching independence. Prior to gaining independence, they elected Louis Rwagasore as Prime Minister. Rwagasore, a prince and anti-colonial activist, was widely popular among both Hutus and Tutsis. His election was a positive sign for the country, as he had the ability to unify it. However, less than two weeks into his term, Rwagasore was assassinated. 

Rwagasore’s death set the stage for political violence and ethnic warfare to engulf the country. He was the first of six Burundian heads of state who would be assassinated over a 30-year period. While Rwagasore had been acceptable to both Hutus and Tutsis, his death led to ethnic tensions rising. Both sides competed for political power in the country, with disastrous results to follow.

The 1972 Ikiza: Targeted Violence and the 200,000 Casualties

With Hutu and Tutsi politicians in conflict for power in the newly independent Burundi, it would not be long before conflict spiraled. In 1965, a Hutu uprising broke out, which attempted to overthrow the monarchy and take control of the government. Their coup attempt was defeated by a Tutsi army officer named Michel Micombero.

With his stock rising after putting down the coup, the ambitious colonel Micombero was not content. In 1966, he launched a coup that deposed the monarchy and made himself president of the republic. Micombero made sure that the government and army were dominated only by Tutsis loyal to him.

Micombero’s rule was met with resistance from Hutus as well as Tutsis. Tutsis with connections to the monarchy plotted against him during his time in office, while Hutus opposed his stranglehold on power. All of this served to make Micombero increasingly paranoid and use more severe methods of repression to keep his position intact.

On April 29, 1972, another major Hutu uprising broke out. This one was more serious than the prior one in 1965, as the Hutu militants’ quick attacks allowed them to capture territory in the South of the country. After executing as many as 2,000 Tutsi civilians (and Hutu civilians who did not cooperate), the militants declared the territory that they captured as the Republic of Martyzao.

Micombero had the Burundian army respond rapidly to the situation. The better-equipped national army quickly recaptured territory, then pursued retreating rebels. From there, things grew completely out of control.

Anyone suspected of having supported the rebels was immediately executed. Taking things a step further, the Tutsi-dominated army began to retaliate against Hutu civilians. All educated Hutu were rounded up and executed en masse. Children as young as ten who could read were rounded up as well. The army was convinced that educated Hutus had orchestrated the rebellion, and desired to wipe them out to keep control of the country. The nationwide killing continued until August. It is estimated that up to 200,000 Hutu were killed in the Summer of 1972.

The Devastating Aftermath and Burundi’s Long Road to Peace

Burundi emerged from the genocide as a destroyed country. Up to 200,000 people out of a population of five million had been killed, and the surviving educated Hutu had fled the country. The event has come to be known as ‘The Ikiza,’ Kirundi for the disaster.

Micombero’s rule continued until 1976, when his cousin Jean-Baptiste Bagaza overthrew him. He lived out the rest of his days in Somalia before dying in 1983. Bagaza governed in a similar manner to Micombero, and Burundi’s ethnic conflict returned in the 1990s. It was not until the mid-2000s that the country’s warring factions finally made peace. The memory of the Ikiza is still fresh in the minds of Burundians, as they will never forget the horrific genocide that once engulfed their country.

In just five days in 1967, a Palo Alto high school transformed from a progressive, liberal society into a hotbed of fascism. It seemed an experiment by 25-year-old teacher Ron Jones had gone horribly wrong, but it had, in fact, gone horribly right.

How did the Third Wave unfold and what shocking lessons did it leave in its wake?

The Spark at Cubberley High School

On a spring day in 1967, a young teacher, Ron Jones, at Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, was teaching a 10th-grade class about the Holocaust. While discussing the appeal of Nazism and how the German people could have accepted it so easily, Ron decided to enact an experiment to teach the lesson in a way that would never be forgotten. Instead of using textbooks, the students themselves would become the lesson.

And so in the first week of April, the experiment began, but what Ron had intended to be a single-day experiment turned into almost the whole school week. 

The First Days of Totalitarian Transformation

The students came into class on Monday, and Ron began by enforcing strict authoritarian control. He wrote “Strength Through Discipline” on the board and had the students sit at attention, observing correct posture. He ordered that the students address him as “Mr. Jones” at all times and to stand up when they asked questions in class. 

The students followed the rules eagerly, and on the second day, Ron decided to continue the experiment. He wrote “Strength Through Community” on the board and created a salute which involved a cupped right hand held close to the shoulder. Students in the class were commanded to salute each other inside and outside of the classroom. 

They were also given tasks such as creating logos and banners, while others were assigned gatekeeping duties, preventing non-members from entering the classroom. The idea of exclusivity became very apparent, and students from outside the class began asking if they could join. 

The Movement Spirals out of Control

On the third day, students from other classes began cutting class to join the Third Wave— a name derived from surfing culture, which observed that the third wave in a series was often the strongest. As a representation of this, the logo of the movement was that of a wave.

Wednesday was the day of “Strength Through Action” and saw the issuing of membership cards, and membership rose rapidly to 200 students. Ron encouraged students to report on other members who failed to observe the rules, and noted how eagerly students took up this duty. One student even became Ron’s bodyguard. 

By the fourth day, it had become apparent that the movement was blossoming out of Ron’s immediate control, and he felt himself becoming unable to enforce his own agency, not simply playing the part of a dictator, but actually becoming one. The experiment had to end for everyone’s safety. One student’s father, who had fought in World War II and spent time in a German prisoner of war camp, heard about what was happening, lost control, and broke into the classroom on Wednesday evening, ransacking it.

Ron spoke about “Strength Through Pride” on Thursday and announced that the Third Wave was not localized, but part of a national movement to steer the country’s politics. At noon on Friday, there would be a rally at which a presidential candidate would be announced via a televised service. 

The Climactic Reveal and Immediate Aftermath

The day of the rally was the climactic finale of the Third Wave, but the students did not know it yet. Ron had convinced some of his friends to pose as reporters and photographers to make the situation look authentic. Banners hung across the auditorium, and every seat was filled. Students from all persuasions were there, from loners to the pseudo-hip to the bikers. Everyone wanted to be part of it. 

Chants of “Strength Through Discipline” filled the air as the rally started. Then Ron switched on a television tuned to dead air. Anxious silence filled the space for several minutes before one student stood up, unable to take the wait, and shouted, “There isn’t any leader, is there?”

Ron broke the silence and explained the experiment, stating that the students were no better or worse than the Germans who had accepted Nazism. He then played a film on the Third Reich, which he introduced with the words, “How far would you have gone? Let me show you your future.”

Ron Jones explained what had happened and apologized to his students, sharing in the remorse that they felt for becoming what they thought couldn’t happen to them. Students openly wept and embraced each other, while others, who had assumed it was an experiment, breathed sighs of relief.

The Legacy of the Third Wave Experiment in Media

The Events of the Third Wave Experiment at Cubberley High went on to inspire literature and other media adaptations. Among these were the 1981 made-for-TV movie “The Wave,” a German adaptation in 2008 called “Die Welle” (The Wave), and a 2010 documentary entitled “Lesson Plan.” Ron Jones even turned the story into a musical stage production. The most modern interpretation is the German Netflix miniseries “Wir sind die Welle,” (We Are the Wave), which aired in 2019. 

As a study of human psychology, the Third Wave stands alongside other terrifying examples such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Shock Experiment, each showcasing the dangerous elements of human beings and our susceptibility to compliance. 

Fun fact: Scientist Michio Kaku attended Cubberley High School, where he graduated in 1964 (three years before the Third Wave experiment). During his time there, he built a particle accelerator for the school science fair!

Human survival has always depended on water. Important ancient waterways were the Nile, the Tigris, Euphrates, Ganges, and the Yellow River that determined whether civilizations survived or thrived. To better understand these rivers, ancient people deified them and worshiped them to control and pacify the mighty bodies of water. These sacred waters influenced religious pantheons, political authority, and shaped the civilizations that created them.

The Hydrological Foundations of Early Human Faith

During the Neolithic Revolution, humans went from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian societies that required them to settle near large rivers. These rivers were the life-giving sources for these cultures, so they came to regard them as gods. Humans have a natural tendency to want to explain life, and that can be done by creating gods that control the world around them. These life-giving rivers were personified and were viewed as living entities that had to be worshipped. Most ancient civilizations also had creation myths in which the first instance of life came from primordial waters.

How Flood Dynamics Shaped Perceptions of the Divine

The Nile is arguably the most famous ancient river, and it had a predictable schedule where it flooded, then receded. Hapi was the ancient Egyptian god of the annual flooding, when rich silt was deposited on the river’s banks. His arrival was a celebration, but other rivers like the Yellow, Tigris, and Euphrates were more chaotic. 

Tiamat is an ocean goddess from Mesopotamia who mated with Abzû t to create the Babylonian pantheon. She was regarded as a monster despite being the mother of all things. 

Hebo (the Yellow River) was also a scary god to behold because the river caused many unfortunate drownings and was known to alter course on a whim. In order to appease the gods, ancient rituals were needed, and they could be serious, with sacrificial offerings.

Sacred Waters and the Architecture of Spiritual Purification

In ancient civilizations, water played an important spiritual and practical role in people’s lives. Water represented life, but it was also viewed as a physical and spiritual cleansing tool. The Ganges is the most sacred river in Hinduism. It is believed to be the source of life, and Hindus make sacred pilgrimages or tirtha to bathe in its waters. It’s similar to how Egyptians priests would cleanse themselves or offer libations to the dead to symbolize rebirth. 

In ancient Mesopotamia, lustral water was used to bathe feet and hands before entering temples, to anoint kings, and for its medicinal properties believed to be found in the ceremonies. Rivers, like the Ganges, still draw millions of people to their banks for spiritual purifications

Hydraulic Control and the Divine Legitimacy of Ancient Monarchs

Kings, priests, and other ruling classes monopolized access to rivers and used them to maintain their dominance over people. To bring water to civilizations and demonstrate their power, rulers undertook massive engineering projects as instructions from divine mandates. Huge projects like canals, dykes, and aqueducts were constructed, showing how rulers controlled rivers to bring water to their people. However, if projects failed or rivers flooded and caused catastrophe, the ruling classes were blamed and lost their dominance.

The Enduring Legacy of Ancient River Deities

Throughout the ancient world, rivers were viewed as sacred sites that brought either life or death. Over time, worship of the actual river changed to ceremonies tied to later religions, such as cleansing/purification. The symbolism remained, but it was incorporated as cultures and religions shifted. 

Dependence on water is a factor that is as old as humanity and one that will never change. Rivers are still viewed as important resources in the modern world; they may not be worshipped, but they are still regarded as sacred in that they must be preserved and protected.