I was reading a random post on AskHistorians about the Apostles, and an answer mentioned that Thomas went on a mission to India. For whatever reason that line stood out to me, and made me realize how little I knew about India, both its history and honestly even the India of today.
Today, India is a huge country, with a huge population consisting of (I'm assuming) a wide variety of different groups of people, and I'm assuming that it's changed a bunch in its history going back to 50AD and earlier.
So, back when Thomas went to preach there, what WAS India? Would the people at the time have known of a region that was specifically called "India?" Was it much smaller back then? Did Thomas only go to a specific part of India and preach to a specific group of people, or did he travel all over the subcontinent?
2 Answers 2020-06-03
1 Answers 2020-06-03
By the fifth century, when a criminal was caught he was asked to what people he belonged to. The fact was that Goths, Franks and other Germanic people all had a different laws--and we're happy enough to have safeguarded some of them. Franks could only be sentenced according to Frankish laws, etc.
Now, was that a novelty at that point? Or were people of the Roman Empire used to such judiciary practices? I would love, if possible, receive an answer that shows how the very same crime was being dealt with in various regions of the Roman Empire at different points in time, starting from the Republic era.
1 Answers 2020-06-03
Please Be Aware: We expect everyone to read the rules and guidelines of this thread. Mods will remove questions which we deem to be too involved for the theme in place here. We will remove answers which don't include a source. These removals will be without notice. Please follow the rules.
Some questions people have just don't require depth. This thread is a recurring feature intended to provide a space for those simple, straight forward questions that are otherwise unsuited for the format of the subreddit.
Here are the ground rules:
Top Level Posts should be questions in their own right.
Questions should be clear and specific in the information that they are asking for.
Questions which ask about broader concepts may be removed at the discretion of the Mod Team and redirected to post as a standalone question.
We realize that in some cases, users may pose questions that they don't realize are more complicated than they think. In these cases, we will suggest reposting as a stand-alone question.
Answers MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. Unlike regular questions in the sub where sources are only required upon request, the lack of a source will result in removal of the answer.
Academic secondary sources are prefered. Tertiary sources are acceptable if they are of academic rigor (such as a book from the 'Oxford Companion' series, or a reference work from an academic press).
The only rule being relaxed here is with regard to depth, insofar as the anticipated questions are ones which do not require it. All other rules of the subreddit are in force.
35 Answers 2020-06-03
From the /r/AskHistorians mod team:
Multiple histories of US police violence against the Black community are being written this week. They’ve taken the form of tweet threads, news articles, blog posts, and conversations among friends, loved ones, and even strangers on the internet. Amidst these waves of information, we as historians want our readers to remember the following:
Police brutality against Black people is woven into the fabric of the history of policing in the US—and reflects the historical reality that white America benefits from police and state violence against the Black community. George Floyd’s murder and the brutal suppression of the ensuing protests are the latest in a long history of police brutality and excessive, extraordinary violence.
As historians like Edward Ayers and Sam Mitrani have established, the construct of American policing was formed between roughly 1840-1880 on the crest of two trends. First, rising population density in cities brought middle-class and wealthy white Americans into close contact with people they considered disruptive to their orderly world: sex workers, impoverished drunk people, Black residents, immigrants. Second, a spiralling urban trend towards wage labor for larger corporations that was itself a disruption in some of the institutions that had previously guarded local order, like families and close-knit neighborhoods.
From their establishment in the mid- to late-19th century, American police forces have depended on their mandate to keep or restore the white, wealthy ideal of order and the active support or tacit acceptance of this ongoing role by the majority of white Americans.
The history of lynching demonstrates this point with sickening clarity and is one we all should know. To highlight just one incident from the thousands that occured: a mob of white people dragged prosperous Black farmer Anthony Crawford from the Abbeville, South Carolina jail in full sight of the jailer and local sheriff on October 21, 1916. Crawford had been beaten and stabbed earlier that day; he was beaten again, possibly to death, hanged, and shot multiple times. His heinous crime? He accused a white man of trying to cheat him financially, and defended himself when a group of white men attacked him in response.
John Hammond Moore has offered that one motivation for the lynching was a rumor the sheriff was going to help Crawford escape and the white murderers believed the police presence was not doing its job of keeping order according to their definition of “order.” However, when the sheriff and jailer looked the other way, they delegated their role of keeping order to the mob, empowering them to act on their behalf.
In Crawford’s case, it is easy to connect the dots between white people affording police the responsibility to keep order, white people benefiting from white supremacy, and state participation in unjust violence, not least because of the direct involvement of white civilians. We can easily see Crawford’s lynching as part of an broader phenomenon, not just an individual, extraordinary event. In effect, the police did - and kept doing - what white people wanted. A decade later, the Illinois Crime Survey highlighted:
By the 1920s, research pioneered by women scholars at the University of Chicago was already highlighting how stereotypes around “slum environment” turned residents into perceived criminals. They observed that the Black neighborhoods defined as "slums" exhibited precisely the same "disorderly" characteristics that had spurred the creation of official police departments in the previous century. And they observed how these conditions were the result of pervasive, systemic white supremacy.
Additionally, social workers documented how school segregation and the massive underfunding of Black schools by city politicians contributed to those same conditions, creating a feedback loop; The disorder the police were approved to combat was created by the lack of funding and resources. The ideal of order that the majority of white Chicagoans found attractive, in other words, both justified and resulted from police violence against their Black neighbors.
The nature of a survey, like the Illinois Crime Survey, demonstrates the same thing we recognize in lynching: individual cases of state violence against Black Americans, whatever the specific circumstances, are part of a pattern. But while the specter of lynching haunts the fringes of American crime, the pattern of police brutality against the Black community has not let up. In 2015, Jamil Smith showed how the final moments of some many of those killed by police across the decades echoed each other, again and again.
From the Fugitive Slave Act to George Floyd, examples of police violence against Black Americans are endless, gruesome, and there for everyone to see and behold. In 1942, Private Thomas Foster was beaten and shot four times by Little Rock police officers after intervening to stop the assault of a fellow soldier. In 1967, a cab driver named John William Smith was savagely beaten by the Newark police. In 1984, New York City police officers shot Eleanor Bumpurs multiple times as they tried to evict her, making the call that getting her out of her apartment was more important than accommodating her mental health struggles. We could list hundreds, if not thousands, further such examples that illustrate this pattern.
But it’s not enough to say, “here are a bunch of examples of police officers brutalizing Black people.” The ability of individual officers to assault and kill Black Americans year after year, decade after decade, murder after murder, stems from the unwillingness of the white majority to step beyond protesting individual cases or do to more than stroke our chins and say, “Yes, I see a pattern.”
That pattern exists because despite every act of police brutality, and even despite protests following individual acts, white America’s preference for an "orderly" society has been a higher priority. From the inception of official police forces in the mid-19th century, to school truancy officers and border patrol, the American police have existed at the will of the white majority to keep and restore order, as defined by the white majority, using the "necessary" force, as defined by the mostly white police force and legal system.
When we come to write the history of the last few days, we need to remember this wider context and that it goes beyond any single member of the police. It is not that every officer is evil, but they do operate in a system which was designed to build and maintain white supremacy. Justice for the individual Black Americans killed by individual members of the police is necessary, but so is a long, hard look at - and action against - our understanding of societal order and how it must be upheld.
Exposing these structures has taken years of untold work and sacrifice on the part of Black communities, activists and historians. It is far past time that white Americans help rather than hinder this work.
~~
Further Reading:
Recommended listening:
~~
Please--save any money from awards you might give this post. The AskHistorians community asks you to donate it to a charity of your choice that fights for justice for people of color, in your country or around the world.
114 Answers 2020-06-03
AskHistorians is not accepting new posts or responses, in protest against Reddit’s lack of action against racism and hate on the site.
Reddit has announced its alignment with antiracist protesters. We demand to know: where are the actions to back up the words? The Reddit administrators’ policies have made their site downright hospitable to exactly the kinds of racists and fascists against whom it claims to be protesting.
Every day our sub, which has zero tolerance for such speech, has to remove the kinds of intensely problematic and hateful rhetoric that Reddit has become a safe haven for. For example, questions and answers supporting Holocaust denial forced us to establish a clear policy of immediate deletion, as moderator /u/commiespaceinvader describes here.
Reddit has few such qualms. Most recently, the admins' recent attempt to force unmoderated chatrooms on every community would have circumvented our rules and allowed our sub to become just the platform for allowing hate speech that we work every day to prevent—reflecting the admins’ concern for their bottom line above all else. It was subreddits, including AskHistorians, whose protests of that decision made Reddit rescind this particular move towards allowing hate speech.
The /r/AskHistorians mod team has also issued a statement on state violence and white supremacy: George Floyd was murdered by America: a historian's perspective on the history of U.S. police brutality against Black people
Reddit’s stance is hypocritical. It leaves us no choice but to protest.
~~
Please--save any money from awards you might give this post. The AskHistorians community asks you to donate it to a charity of your choice that fights for justice for people of color, in your country or around the world.
2 Answers 2020-06-03
1 Answers 2020-06-03
Okay, so I know that ships during the 18th century (and before and after) used cats to control the rodents on board. Sure. But here's my question - how did sailors feed the cat? Because most rations that we associate with being eaten by cats - milk and meat - spoil easily and couldn't be kept for prolonged period of time. Were they given small portion of fresh fish? Were they given cheese? Or was it just assumed that if cat didn't hunt rodents, it didn't eat? Could a cat hunt too well and starve itself as a result?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
I exclude ottoman europe and iberia. I cannot anything on the internet about muslims in french or holy roman empires or italian city states. Were muslims allowed to practice their religion in european countries until 18th century?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
My Grampa was a Artillery man for Canada in WW2 he was station in Sicily but he died before I was born so I have no idea what Sicily was like?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
1 Answers 2020-06-02
1 Answers 2020-06-02
1 Answers 2020-06-02
16 Answers 2020-06-02
I just learned about the Codex Manesse, and its beautiful artwork has really made an impression on me. I've found the free digitized version, and have found I can view the artwork, but I couldn't find any transcriptions of the written parts of the book in either German or English on the website. I've noticed there is a German version on Amazon, but not an English one. Is there a place where I could either read a German digital transcription of the text I could put into Google Translate, or an English translation?
Thanks!
1 Answers 2020-06-02
Like if a plantation owner killed his slave for something trivial, would anything happen legally?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
1 Answers 2020-06-02
So according to Wikipedia, only 12% of China's land is arable, which has led to many famines throughout China's history. However, ancient China was also very wealthy and populated compared to other regions of the world. How did China get its wealth and large population if it had so little arable land?
2 Answers 2020-06-02
I've seen some comparisons of current events to the Boston Tea Party.
How was the Boston Tea Party viewed by contemporaries? Was it a protest, an act of vandalism, destruction of private property, rebellion, etc?
Did many people in England or the colonies even know about the Tea Party?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
I know that initially it was taboo to wear crowns in the Roman republic and then the emperors begining with Augustus didn't wear crowns in the principate but then Constantine is clearly depicted with a crown as did future Roman emperors in the east. So when did his habit of not wearing royal symbols shift?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
Peter was born in Valencia, to the house of Barcelona, crowned in Zaragoza (King of Aragon) and again in Palermo (King of Sicily). He corresponded with peers across Europe and the Mediterranean world, enjoyed the work of troubadours, and may even have composed a sirventes or two himself. His wife Constance was born in the Kingdom of Sicily, a veritable melting pot where Arab, Greek, Lombard, Norman, Swabian and many other languages and dialects were spoken, and raised during the days when the Scuola poetica Siciliana was still one of the dominant cultural forces in Europe.
What would their native languages have been? What would their common languages have been? Did Peter and his court speak Valencian, Aragonese, Catalan? What about Sicilian? Occitan? What language did he compose (or have ghost written) his sirventesos in? When Charles I of Anjou wrote him to suggest they settle their dispute over Sicily by personal combat, what language would it have been in?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
I'm looking for any advice as my WIP seems indefinitely shelved now... I'm not sure if my university's interlibrary loan system will cover microfilm from the Kew archives. Does anyone have any tips?
1 Answers 2020-06-02
I.e. would an educated Athenian believe they could climb Mt. Olympus and find gods? What about what slaves believed—if there is any information on that?
I know “Ancient Greece” covers a long history, but I’m leaving it wide open so any portion of it can be included.
2 Answers 2020-06-02
Was discussing the Annexation of Texas today and what truly led to the US getting involved and it becoming a state.
Was it do to the fact that US citizens were living in Mexico Texas, but after awhile started to view themselves independent of Mexico and it's laws. This in turn caused Santa Ana to take the military north and occupy the area. Once the Mexican Military showed up to enforce rules the US people in Texas started asking for the US to get involved. I know the Alamo played a huge role, but was the US citizens living in Mexico Texas and the US wanting to expand it's territory more the leading factor into why it was annexed?
I'm under the impression that the US citizens living in Mexico Texas got all upset about having to follow Mexico laws that they through a huge fit and helped push the USA over the edge on taking the land.
Any books on the subject that can be recommended I would greatly appreciate.
Thank you for your insight.
2 Answers 2020-06-02