Were the “five races” on the flag already well established as the “canonical” Chinese races at some point during the Qing dynasty (or even earlier)? Or was there debate early in the republic about who would have a stripe on the flag and who wouldn’t? Were there any other major proposals?

Was it simply that the five “stripe” races had been organized non-Chinese polities fairly recently before the Chinese conquered them (or they conquered China, in the case of the Manchus), whereas other ethnic groups generally had been part of China for a much longer, and their polities had been conquered a long time ago (like back in the Han dynasty or the like) if they were ever organized as such in the first place?

Hi all,

I am new to reddit but heard some great things about the communities and people in it, so I hope you are able to help me. I am very interested and curious about the native American tribes and want to learn more. At this point, my knowledge is basically non existing. So I am wondering if you can recommend books, websites, blogs etc that I should start with. I understand there are more than 500 recognized tribes, so if anyone knows the main (most common, biggest) tribes and could list them, I would be so grateful. I want to start at the beginning, understand the history and background and then dive deeper into each tribe (will not be able to dive deep into all 500 plus something, but the atleast the biggest) to learn about their traditions etc.

I would appreciate pointers to where to turn to. I'm living in Sweden so my main learning will be reading/watching etc in hopes of being able to visit sometime in future when our world is in health wise safer.

Sending you all love and hope you stay safe and healthy!

All the best, Neela

I'm reading History of the Conquest of Peru by Willian H. Prescott, and it exposes how they had hours of work that didn't worn out the people, and such thing. Wasn't there any kind of enslavement, even of conquered peoples?

(Yes I have googled it and nothing came up dear mods)

So I'm doing this project/paper on this subject. If the kind people of the Internet could help me with resources, I'd be really grateful. I have zero knowledge on this topic and want to learn as much as I can about it.

Currently I'm reading "America's War For The Greater Middle East" by Andrew Bacevich, and it's very informative but sometimes his narrative jumps around from place to place and time to time, and it gets kind of confusing. Your thoughts on this book?

Also, what else is worth checking out on this subject? I'm looking for anything from post-WWII to present day. TIA!

disclaimer: sorry for my english,I'm french.

Hello, I often see people talking about the bengal famine as if churchill was the sole cause of it ,but when I do some research on the subject ,it's sometime a mixed bag with other thing associated as the cause of the famine (like ww2 context or the mismanagement in the RAJ if I remember correctly), so right now I'm kinda unsure regarding what caused the famine because I'm somewhat leaning more toward the multiple factor rather than just churchill.

How serious was "giving your word as a gentleman" in the early 1800s? I was just reading a book where the main character lied to the bad guy but gave his word that it was the truth. He believes he did the right thing but is wracked with guilt and is convinced he'll have to give up his naval commission and will be ostracized from polite society. What would really be the ramifications of going back on your word?

​

For more specifics. The book is Admiral Hornblower in the West Indies -- spoilers ahead if you care. This is set shortly after the Napoleonic wars and Horatio Hornblower (Admiral in His Britannic Majesty's Royal Navy) uncovers a plot to rescue Napoleon from his exile in St, Helena. He caught the enemy ship off of Tobago but didn't have the manpower to take her. Instead he goes to parley with the Napoleon sympathizers and convinces them that Napoleon has died on St. Helena by giving his word. He convinces them that if they continue, they'll start an international incident over nothing and would certainly be hanged once either England or Bourbon France catches up with them. The sympathizers destroy their weapons and sail off to France. Hornblower believes once they get back to France his ruse will be discovered, England and France may be able to stop the sympathizers from sailing again to rescue Napoleon but Hornblower's honor is destroyed. At the end he finds out that Napoleon did in fact die, retroactively making his lie a truth and he exhales a huge sigh of relief.

The soviet union was seemingly sub dived into different republics based on ethnic/linguistic groups. The Russian SFSR was by far the biggest and the eastern portion of it contained numerous different ethnic groups. Why did they remain as part of the Russian SSR and not made into separate SSRs themselves?

There seems to be an enduring image of the Italian city-states as riven by endemic factional violence, with gangs of well armed young aristocrats wandering the streets looking for other gangs to have good brawl with. The obvious image is Romeo and Juliet but I recall Machiavelli in Florentine Histories also discusses it as having formerly been a major problem. But both of these are somewhat imperfect sources, so I am curious whether these were simply stereotypes or reflected a reality in which the streets of Italy were crawling with Montagues and Capulets?

It seems pretty ubiquitous that whenever Greenland or Iceland are brought up people will mention that they swapped the names between the two islands as some sort of defense and tourism strategy to encourage people to go to Greenland and stay away from Iceland? How true is this? Do we have any primary source documents from the naming of the countries that would say otherwise? Do we know of any names the islands would have been called previously? Is the story even backed up by the Vikings language calling them the same thing?

Hey! I am very new to this so please do bare with me. I am working on a paper on women in in the military during world war 2 on themes related to the subsequent understanding of nationality that was attached to them (eg women were either seen as mothers protecting the land, or as mothers that gave birth to a pure race and so on), class standing of these women who joined these armies, and on the idea of feminity within these armies. Thought I am at a very initial stage, and i need to fine tune my idea and the general structure, I would really love some advice/pointers/help on things I should look into/ other historically relevant things that are relevant but ignored.

I am also planning on doing it by looking into case studies of the RoJ and Women German army and so on.

I have to write about WWII for my history class and we were required to use primary sources. I found a film used as propaganda back in the 1940s and would want to know if it can be considered a primary source? None of it was edited, it had no commentary at all. Just the film posted on YouTube. The user who posted it is I guess a professor but not one of those official accounts on YT.

From what I've looked at, the NATO countries figured the USSR would get atomic weapons eventually, but it did occur faster than they thought it would. So did NATO feel a certain pressure to act while they were sure they had a nuclear advantage? I know Churchill floated around Operation Unthinkable but they figured the Americans wouldn't go for it, but if they thought they had the nuclear advantage and figured the USSR was an existential threat, then why not press while their country was still war torn and their grasp on Eastern Europe still weak? Before the threat of nuclear holocaust, was the deterrent of the Cold War simply the fear of a huge conventional war?

I used to live in Nottingham, and sometimes had a pint or 5 in a pub called “Ye Old Trip To Jerusalem” which claims it dates back to 1189.

It also claims to be the oldest pub in England, a claim it shares with (I think) about 100 other pubs in England.

Does anyone know for real, which the oldest pub in England actually is?

If it makes it easier to answer, extend it out to the rest of the UK, but its England I am interested in specifically.

Hello, I recently grew interested in the period of the spanish civil war and I wanted to deepen my knowledge on the subject by reading some books. I know there have already been other posts asking for the same thing, but the main answers were books such as "for whom the bell tolls" or "Homage to catalonia",same goes for the main results while searching on google , I however am not looking for direct accounts or works of fiction but more for a monographic work which narrates the events of the war from an "external" point of view and with a global perspective. I'm sorry if this has already been answered but I still have not been able to find anything that fits my requirements.

Was there a common reason behind most of the persecutions on the jews across different countries and eras? Any relation to abrahamic religious motives (jesus tortured by jews) or financial stereotype (money borrowing with high taxes)?

As a student of religious history I am currently reading about early Christian history. At some point in the 4th century Rome is in decline as a centre of power and politics and 402 the capital of the Western Roman Empire is moved to Ravenna. Constantinople had already ben a major power centre and arguably the most important Roman city for about a century. But what exactly caused all of this? It never fully became clear to me how Rome's decline as a city really started, and it seems in odd contrasts with its religious prestige under popes such as Damasus and Leo I.