Can someone try to explain this to me, I’m having a hard time understanding.

...bowmen could be trained at once?

I know the monetary system of the time is like: in pounds (£), shillings (s) and pence (d)

Directors can create incredible variation between shows in both genres but when I think of a film, I think of its director, while for a play or musical I think of its writer. I can't think of the director for Hamilton for instance, but everyone knows its writer.

Is there a historical reason for this? I would figure that early movie-goers would have treated films like they would have plays, which makes the split strange in my mind. Was there a period where people would have talked about, say, The Irishman as a Zaillian film? When would this have stopped?

It seems, as probably a biased observer (I'm a white Southerner), that America in modern history has used often rural and/or Southern whites as a cultural whipping boy as a way to absolve itself from accountability about its collective history of racism.

Cultural depictions of racists as poor, uneducated, rednecks, and such predominate the media. An exaggerated drawl, living in poverty and morally degenerate (trailer trash), potbelly sherriffs, sinister "Old Money", and sweat dabbing populist politicians have long been a staple of American pop culture.

Volumes have been written about the KKK and the South and much of American discussion about the history of racism and slavery while it seems that many "Northern"/urban states and cities have historically made efforts to whitewash or whattabout their own history. There just doesn't seem to be as many popular works about things such as redlining, forced busing, white flight, etc. There are few monuments and memorials that are dedicated to racism relanted events. Race riots are often portrayed as "unfortunate" or the result of "bad apples", and bigots in cultural works are depicted as corrup authorities protecting the status quo or cultural outsiders such as "Goomba" type Italians.

I know that current events and cultural discussions would argue otherwise, but thats not what I'm asking about, and PLEASE RESPECT THE 20 YEAR RULE.

I want to know if there is credibility to this argument that America, intentionally or not, set about trying to create a cultural narrative that racism in America was a "peculiar institution" unique to these people.

As I understand his death took place in Sarajevo which is the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The murderer, Gavrilo Princip, was a Bosnian nationalist. I guess my question is, what does Bosnia and Herzegovina have to do with Serbia? I’m sorry if this is a stupid question.

edit: why was

I realize there are some exceptions to this, Eyemouth is in the north for example. But the vast majority of "mouth" suffixes are in the south. Is there a linguistic reason for this? Thanks

Hello

Did the polynesians have a written language? Are there texts, or etchings proving this? Or were they a completely oral tradition based culture?

Okay I have learned about various kingdoms that developed in Africa. My question is why did they leave so little behind? For example the Sahelian Kingdoms of Mali, Songhai, and Ghana, we know from history that they were great, however, unlike the Egyptians ,they didn’t leave much behind. Yes, I know there is a beautiful mud mosque in Mali, but Why didn’t they built greater monuments like pyramids and temples, stuff like that. Could stone not be found in the Sahel? Were there no other resources they could use?

2nd question concerning the great Zimbabwe, it is good that the ancient Zimbabweans, who are supposedly the ancestors of the modern day Shona people (who are the majority in Zimbabwe) built the city However, why didn’t they built all of their cities like that of Zimbabwe, instead of only two (the great Zimbabwe and Khami, another city though smaller than Zimbabwe)?

For instance would they joke about how big your penis is and stuff like that.

edit:*greeting

I'm assuming this custom was more universal than simply Russia, but I haven't come across mentions from other countries. And yes, this is very specifically in reference to western culture.

I was digging around and discovered one of my ancestors was a reasonably well off miller living in Woburn, MA in the 1630s to 1750s. The family arrived in time for the Pequot War, and was involved in King Philip's War. Both ended with many Pequots, Narragansetts, and Wampanoags sold into slavery. How likely is it that my ancestors would have owned slaves, and that these people were from a local group vs. people brought in from the Caribbean?