I just wanna know like, are there any other populations in the world that have a similar deal as China where they’re mostly descendants of GK?

I know that at the time Asian populations were incredibly small there, but I'm sure it must've come up at least a few times. So how were they regarded in society? What schools were their children put into? Did segregation laws apply to them in the same way they did to African Americans or were they given their own separate category?

Edit: Apologize for "Group"! I avoided the word tribes on purpose because I thought it had more mixed history, and totally blanked on any other term.

I asked this a couple weeks ago with no responses; here's hoping for better luck this time!

American combat aircraft of the era are known at least as well, and in some cases better, by names like Mustang, Lightning, and Liberator than designations like P-51, P-38, or B-24. British planes like the Spitfire and Hurricane go almost exclusively by those names rather than a letter/number.

In contrast, other powers at the time seem to be referred to by model designations (Bf 109, Fw 190) or Allied reporting names (Val, Kate). The only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are the Ju 87 Stuka (which appears to be just a shortened form of the German word for "dive bomber,") the A6M Zero (which seems to have overtaken the reporting name of "Zeke" in usage), and the IL-2 Sturmovik (which Google translate says is just Russian for "attack plane").

Is this discrepancy due to non-English names being unknown or not gaining traction in English-speaking countries during the war, or were the Americans and British just particularly insistent upon giving their planes catchy names?

I’ve heard briefly about the Zunghar Genocide, had never heard of it before and wanted to know more. Who were the Zunghar? What kind of affect did the genocide have on Central Asia? When I started looking into it, it seems like it has something to do with them being Mongolian. Did it have any repercussions for other Mongolians or the Mongolian identity within China during the 18th/19th century?

In research for a story I'm looking to write I've been trying to gather an understanding of what roles a teenage boy could play in a church or monastic setting in the later Middle Ages (particularly in the late 1340s - Bubonic Plague time, babey.)

Originally I had spent a lot of time looking into oblation as an explanation, though in some writings I've come across it is said this had fallen out of practice in the later years of the Middle Ages? I have also done some looking into the position of acolytes but to little avail. Any information about either, but particularly whether oblation was still a thing and what either role exactly entailed would be greatly appreciated :)

The Wikipedia page for the HRE states " The empire never achieved the extent of political unification as was formed to the west in France, evolving instead into a decentralized, limited elective monarchy."

Why exactly did this happen? If the HRE originated from the split of the Frankish Empire why did it become a disunited mess while France would become a more united Kingdom. Were there attempts to centralize or unify the HRE and why weren't these able to work?

Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenian-controlled, in Azerbaijan) and the Nakhicheven Autonomous Republic (part of Azerbaijan, but on the other side of Armenia).

Like the kind of statues that the Vesuvius made with the people...

We know that the ancient Greeks colonized the coasts all around the Mediterannean and Black Sea. And the Macedonians established many new cities as part of Alexander's conquests. But do we have any detailed descriptions of HOW exactly they did this? Was it fairly organic, like traders or an army establishing a camp or post and a trickle of support personnel and families gradually settling there as it proved a fruitful location and Hellenizing locals? Or was it more organized, like the government recruiting a few thousand citizens and dropping them there all at once to build a complete city all at once? If so how were they chosen or what motivated the volunteers? Did they receive state financial aid and supplies from their mother city to build the new colony?

The continent had been inhabited by humans for tens of thousands of years by 1849, which, I'd assume, means tons of different societies used that land over the years.

It seems like one group or another would have found it was worth collecting for some reason. It's bright, pure, yellow, and insanely heavy. It seems like one of those properties would have been useful. Even if they didn't use it as a store of value or an object of religious significance, its density would make it a useful ballistic projectile, or a doorstop, or cookware, or something.

There were Central and South American peoples who used pretty expert looking craftsmanship to make things from gold that had some clear significance. From what I understand there were trading networks where, even if you never came in contact with the people who eventually wound up owning the goods you traded, you still would have known that someone somewhere was looking for it because a trader would tell you.

But then there's stories of '49ers scooping up fist sized lumps just sitting in a stream. Did the trade networks just not extend far enough South? Do we have written records or oral histories about how any groups viewed it, if they cared at all?

How were systems such as serfdom and feudalism formed where European peasants were essentially enslaved and was there any way to get out of this. Were there any major rebellions by serfs and laso how were their everyday lives like

What was the organization for transporting African slaves across the Atlantic? Was it carried out by private shipowners/individuals or large companies, specifically by the British? The only group that it seams easy to find about online is the Royal African Company but if there were others are there manifests with their company/owners’ names that are available? Thanks for your help

I know more about the conflict they started than their early days. Apparently the war was beyond savage, with much of it being fought with melee weapons. Perhaps tens of millions lost their lives to both violence and famine. I'm probably off, factually.

How did the THK manage to gain so much social, political, and religious power in the first place? How did they get so many "Christian fanatics" into their ranks?

I guess I'm more or less looking for a history lesson on their origins.

Is it true that the reason that the founding fathers didn't abolish slavery was because they had to make a compromise with the south or is this a myth? If so does the mean that they actually had the power to abolish slavery whenever they wanted and they just didn't? Where should I look for the truth? Also is it true that George Washingtons views on slavery changed as he got older?

During his time in office, Kissinger extended detente with the Soviets, opened relations with China, ended the Yom Kippur War, negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, and engaged in multiple coups and power grabs across Latin America. Whatever one things of the man, no one can deny his impact on 20th century geopolitics. Why then, as the Republican party's preeminent statesman, did Reagan and Bush 41 refuse to give him an official role in government during their collective 12 years in power?

In terms of the Peasantry were the kingdoms of Castille and Aragon (c.1300-1450) more pleasant places to live due to the warmer climate and isolated towns which I presume halted a large amount of the plague and disease that caused much strife to the rest of Medieval Europe. Were they healthier and more calm places to live?

I'm currently reading Alexander Watson's Ring of Steel which covers the struggle of the peoples of the Central Powers during WW1. While discussing pre-war influences of high-level clergy in Austria-Hungary, he quotes the Polish Bishop of Przemysl as saying "the future of Poland and Catholic interests [are] threatened by the Orthodox Church and Freemasonry."

As this chapter is discussing the propaganda efforts of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1914-15, he makes no effort to elaborate on this statement. My impression is that Galicians (especially Poles) felt threatened by Russia and the idea of the Russian government and Orthodox church dashing their hopes for a more autonomous regional government, but what does freemasonry have to do with Eastern Orthodoxy or the threat that the Russian Empire represented to Catholic Poles in 1914?

I did some cursory google searching and discovered some claims that Freemasons seek to dismantle the Catholic church. Can anyone elaborate on this and why I might not have heard about this before, despite the freemasons being relatively well known in popular culture?

Thanks!

I’m a Christian who is looking for a book that discusses the historical aspects of the Bible and the current interpretations of the Bible.

Hopefully that makes sense as I’m extremely sleepy.