I know this has been asked before but as far as I know this has not been answered. What is the current academic stance on this issue? How do Norwegians feel about this?

Maybe this is just how I perceive it, but it seems Hamilton portrays Aaron Burr as a not so great guy. Was he really that sneaky?

Basically, as the title says. I was wondering what Wilhelm II's thought about the Weimar Republic and its failures, and the rise of the Nazi party and its establishment as the main dominant political party of Germany after his abdication. Did he agree with the Nazis' ideology? What did he think of the economic turmoil brewing in the Weimar republic?

Much appreciated to anyone who can answer this question.

Is there any primary evidence of what happened? Would the soldier relieve himself and then catch up with his comrades?

In case of a battle, would they be able to sit it out due to illness or they'd be accused of cowardice?

Thank you.

Former French colonies like Louisiana lack the French culture and language laws (and active separatist movements) of Quebec. I know people speak Louisiana Creole but my understanding is that is a small part of the overall population and it isn't as formal of a version of the French language as spoken in Quebec. And people in Louisiana aren't trying to secede from the US to preserve their French heritage. This is despite Louisiana transferring from France to the US more recently than Quebec transferred from France to the British Crown. So what caused this divergence? How did the US do a better job of integrating former French territories than Canada did?

I am curious how a provocative dance form like belly dancing came out of the conservative Middle East, where many women are forbidden from dancing in public. Is this dance form pre-Islamic?

If so, how has it managed to survive so long?

It seems to be commonly explained that modern attitudes towards premarital sex and sexual liberation are development of recent decades. Is this actually true? Were teenagers and young adults having sexual relationships like we see today?

I feel like this is an obvious one that can just be googled but I am curious about why people don’t like him. Now, admittedly, I don’t know a ton about him but I do know he forced out the monarchy and ruled as something of a proto-democrat for a number of years which should make him a folk hero among republicans but I’ve noticed, especially in Ireland and Scotland, he’s seen as somewhere between loathed and disdained

So, I watched "Fiddler on the Roof" recently.

I was not aware of the Pogroms.

I ended up on a deep dive relating to the very interesting history of the Jews.

Of course, everyone knows Hitler/Nazi Germany despised the Jews, but I don't think I had a full fathom of the level of hatred the the entire world had for them for a insanely long time. I don't think I found very many countries at all, outside of Israel, before like 1950, that was even remotely okay with Jews.

There have been tons of persecuted groups in world history, but for some reason it seems to me that Jews have had a remarkably horrible and consistent history of being absolutely hated... and what seem to be for essentially completely different reasons. Some groups invoked religious ideology, some on historical relationship with them and a million other weird ideas and theories.

I seriously don't understand how they have even survived up to this point to be honest.

The level of contempt for them, It's insane. Even in world history metrics.

So I was recently reading an article about the British in India, and someone had a really interesting opinion basically saying "The British were not good for India and colonialism is bad, but if colonialism was inevitable the British were the best", now this has me a bit confused mainly by the vagueness of the word "Best", I know that colonialism had many pros and many many cons, but how did the British compare to other nations colonialism?

I am in an Honors World History class, and we are learning about the Middle Ages. Specifically right now, the crusades. However it seems like we’re only getting the European perspective. Anyone care to provide Arabian, Muslim, or Turkish accounts? It would go a long way in helping me understand the conflicts.

Given that already before the 15th century in Europe:

• Greenland (and even Newfoundland) were known
• It was known that Earth was round, and even the approximate size
• The existence of the rest of America was unknown to them
• They wanted a faster way to trade spice with East Asia

Why did Europeans not consider to explore the possibility of a route to East Asia passing by Greenland? At least to see whether there was some in-between lands with enough frequency to establish ports and stock up on food and water before reaching the destination.

The resulting route could of course be only open during summer, but it would be possibly faster than around Africa or through land.

I live in Portland, where many anti-fascists believe that the lesson from 1930s Germany is that Fascism needs to be fought in the streets. My vague recollection of history class is that the street brawling ended up helping the Nazis. What is the academic consensus? Was confronting fascism on the streets a heroic last stand that happened to fail, or an integral ingredient in the success of the Nazis.

I have recently been looking at old newspapers at the Library of Congress website. Chiefly Canon City, CO and Miles City, MT. One thing I was wondering about was cities like these (rather than the smaller places) and the prices of goods in the 1870s-1890s and how those changed when railroads came and such. I think these both got railroads in the early 1880s?

And besides prices, of course, how did wages change? Doesn't have to be for these places, specifically -other cities in the then-west in the time frame would be good, too.

I’m currently a college student taking a history course on mesoamerican history primarily starting it’s focus on the Olmecs. My professor has said two things with which confused me.

First that the Olmecs had pre-Columbus contact with East Africans with which amazed me yet confused me because I’d never heard anything like this ever before, upon question he simply stated that “many civilizations made contact with the Americas before Columbus.” That still didn’t really clear things up for me.

The second odd thing being that he taught us that the Olmecs believed in a complex system of 13 heavens and 9 underworlds, but I thought that was the Aztecs? I’m aware the Olmecs influenced the proceeding mesoamerican cultures but I thought there wasn’t much specific knowledge on their religion. When I tried to clear it up all he said was that they believed that.

Am I confused, did I misunderstand something that my professor has right, or am I correct?

(Ps- I ask this respectfully I would never suggest I know more then my professor I’m just confused)

I heard about this since I was a kid and always wondered if it was true.when I ask people they just say that without further explanation...is it true?