I know that in the past it was homosexuality was more suppressed and more against when it came to men being gay like it used to be considered a mental illness in the past and people were attacking people who are homosexual but there was never any talk about women being lesbians like was it more common back then for them to be more acceptable.

I hope I phrase this question OK

Was recently looking at How to spot a Jap a propaganda piece by the US. Quite shocking to see something like that, it was parts comical since so absurd yet mainly horrifying. Especially when in popular culture we will point out how Germany had their anti Jewish propaganda which dehumanized them and point at it as one of the evils that the Nazis did.

Was reminded hearing a story about the bomber crews recieving pamphlets that dehumanized the Japanese population in anticipation of dropping a nuclear weapon. Which also leads to question did they do any psychological preparation for the pilots of Enola Gay or similar? Wondering how they felt with the aftermath.

Have tried searching for it, yet have not been able to find any sources about it.

Wondering if such a thing did happen or if that is just a tall tale.

Thanks in advance

Edit: if there was, was that just for the Pacific theatre or did they issue pamphlets like that to crews before they did something like the bombing of Dresden or civilian areas?

I know there are contemporary accounts about that and modern scholars can dismiss a lot of exaggerated claims as propaganda, but we still know about Tiberius' and Elagabalus' sexual exploits in a fairly detailed way, for instance. That strikes me as weird because we seem to know far less about today's politicians' sex lives, and a lot of what we learn is dismissed as rumors. So, how come we know so many more details about ancient roman politicians' sex life than we do about modern ones'?

I took a Public History course last year and it was one of the best classes that I have ever taken, especially coming from an anthropology background. I felt like public history hit the topics I wanted to learn about more than anthropology considering most of my interest has been in museums, historical houses, and interpretation.

I was wondering if anyone on here could recommend me some public history books (double points if it deals with California) because my current thesis could use a historical aspect. Thank you!

If someone had noble blood could they be an heir to the throne?

Are there any good examples of this? I imagine it would be a tough mistake to fix especially if it were in like a manuscript or a carving, where you couldn't just erase it

Hello Reddit, I was recently looking at some videos about the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic and randomly the question popped up of how was the Ottoman Empire affected amidst the 1918 pandemic? I know Sultan Mehmed V was in power throughout that time and knowing that what was their position towards it and how were they affected?

Nowadays most people, especially in the West, have Christian names with no obvious meaning. For example, words like "John" and "Marta" are just a set of syllabes that we use to name people, but they have old meanings like "Graced by Yah" and "lady", it's not the same if, nowadays, we named our children with names like "Cloud" or "Star".

.

But in the distant past, did people named each other with words of known things? Here a dialogue as an example:

.

Oh, hello, Graced by Yah, how are your family?

I am fine, my wife Lotus Flower just gave birth to our third son, we named him Morning Star.

Great! Oh, I have a message from your brother

Which one?

Your older brother, Mountain, he...

.

I focused in the cultures from the Europe and Middle East, but you can cite peoples of any part of the world.

By "very ancient" I didn't mean any specific period of time, I just wanna avoid very recent times when many peoples got "corrupted" by the "cultural conquest" of other cultures. I know that many cultures influenced each other since the beggining of the human race, but until when most people had obvious names? Did until the end of the Bronze Age? Until the Roman Empire (before its christianization)?

Today, even Congresspeople with the strongest anti-establishment image are decidedly conventional in how they dress, and I am inclined to believe not only that standards of appropriate congressional attire were even more rigid in the 19th century than in the 21st century, but also that Crockett would have obeyed them.

I realize that the Christian groups in Palestine were a diverse lot, so I'm wondering how the Crusaders treated the native Christians upon their first encounter and afterwards.

I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but I did not see it. Thanks.

It is fairly common on reddit, and elsewhere to see the assertion that with the Southern Strategy, the Democrat and Republican parties switched their ideological stances. While I consider this to be true to a large extent when it comes to race relations, race relations are not the only aspect of a party.

The Republican Party used race relations to gain and grow power in the south, not as an end, but as a means to an end. What were those ends? What policies that the Democrats opposed the the Republicans court the racist vote to achieve?

I have recently stumbled across a mini-documentary from an amateur historian called "The Turkish Century" going over a brief history of Turkey starting from the Bronze Age to the late 20th century.

The part that really interested me was he started going over the life of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the father of the modern nation of Turkey. Specifically his affiliation but also disagreements with the Young Turks, who tried to reform the late Ottoman Empire before and during WWI.

In the video, he discusses the complete ineptitude of the Young Turks and their "pro-German/Prussian" leanings of government and politics. The blunders of the Pasha brothers, and failed campaigns into Russia during WWI. He also discussed Ataturks incredibly progressive writings, political views, liberal legislation, and what most people would now today read as incredibly "pro-western" and "euro-centric" viewpoints. Including giving women the right to vote before the United States, separating religion from the state, working to have an industry mimicking western civilizations, and anti-imperialist viewpoints.

Here are my questions:

• Was Ataturk truly that much of a visionary?
• Was he really that pro-western?
• Were the Young Turks and the Pasha brother truly that incompetent as leaders?
• It also talked about the Young Turk's desire to create a new imperialist Turkish empire based on the idea of Pan-Turanism, was this the actual plan for the Pashas and the Young Turks?

Wouldn't you rather have a bow & arrow that fires every few seconds rather than a musket that can take up to a minute to reload? Are muskets that much more effective?