Frankly I assume a lot of history is altered to suit those in power, but it struck me as unlikely that China had some kind of particularly bad history.

For context, he was basically saying that nothing of what we know of chinese history can be taken as accurate outside of direct archeological evidence, because writings where all changed with every dynasty that came to power.

Is there some truth to this or is he just being racist?

We are currently studying the Yom Kippur/Ramadan/October 1973 war in History class but the teacher and textbook are a bit vague about the goals of the Arab nations in starting the war. Could anyone provide me with some context?

The Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals are often called "gunpowder empires". However, gunpowders and firearms were also widespread in Europe and East Asia, so why do we particularly associate these 3 islamic empires to gunpowder?

Did Japanese have some other word that meant "kitchen" that the English word somehow displaced? Did Japanese people not have any use for a word that referred to a kitchen prior to contact with English speakers? What's going on here?

Hello, this is my first post in this subreddit, although I've been a member for quite some time. I've been doing deep dive research on my family lineage.

I've traced my paternal grandmother male line directly to Harold the Dane. I've tried doing my own research but haven't uncovered much.

I've learned he was a kinsman of Rollo and given control of present day Saye, Normandy when Rollo joined King Charles II of France.

I would greatly appreciate just any resources or knowledge of your own concerning him.

Thank you in advance.

Quote from a family relative's account:

Sophia Magdalena Genz Lippert was born on 17 February 1831 and died 26 December 1908. This information comes directly off of her death certificate, volume 9 page 543, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

In addition, I have a copy of her traveling papers from her pastor in Germany, which clearly give the birth date as 17 February 1831, along with her baptismal and confirmation information. Sophia was born in Strietfeld, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, according to this paperwork.

I also have a copy of paperwork showing she was adopted by Arietfelo Helmuth and Maria Ernestine Catherine (Schwarz) Genz on 4 March, 1833.

Family stories that have been passed down relate that she was known to tell people that she was the daughter of royalty, and even had a basket of food packed for her by the castle (?) when she left for America. I have not been able to [neither] prove nor disprove this.

However, the guardianship/adoption papers do allow for some inkling that she may have been the by-blow of some royalty. She was adopted out of a German convent at Malchow (Malchow Abbey?).

Additional account:

[Sophia was] adopted by Arietfelo Helmuth Genz at the age of 2 1/4 years, in 1833 at Striefela, according to the Convent records signed by Father Podesta, District Warzen.

Sophia Genz later married Johann Joachim David Lippert, a farmer / workman, in Mecklenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany, on August 28, 1853, when she was 22 years old. On 19 October 1853, barely two months later, she and her new husband arrived in New York City on the ship "North America". They settled in in Liberty, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

Garfield was selected as a compromise candidate at the 1880 Republican National Convention, when delegates deadlocked between John Sherman (who Garfield supported), Ulysses S. Grant and James G. Blaine. According to Candace Millard's Destiny of the Republic, Garfield was shocked when delegates started voting for him, and although it's been awhile since I read the book, I believe Millard writes that he even tried to convince some of them not to do so. This story is of a piece with the general theme of the book, which portrays Garfield as an honorable man who was running for President not because he personally wanted to be President, but out of loyalty to his party and a desire to do right by the country.

I don't exactly disbelieve this, but I do kind of doubt it, because it seems like the kind of thing that might grow up around someone like Garfield who met a tragic end. It just seems to fit very neatly with what people at the time believed a leader should be like. Millard also describes how Garfield didn't personally campaign for his own election, but left it to surrogates to speak on his behalf, because the cultural norm at the time was for aspirants to higher office to appear disinterested in it - to cultivate the idea that they were like a Cincinnatus or a George Washington, someone who was acting out of duty rather than personal ambition. Garfield's story as recounted in Millard is almost too good to be true, when it comes to fitting into that idea or political norm - he didn't want to do it, he just did it out of loyalty, and in fact was initially horrified that delegates were voting for him because he didn't want to betray Sherman. So my question is this: is that narrative correct? As best we can determine today, was Garfield really just acting out of a sense of honor and duty, or did he have a personal ambition to be President as well?

Cults of Isis and Mithra were said to be popular among the ancient Hellenic people, despite being foreign deities. Even in Bactria Buddhist cult influenced many Greek people. Were the Hebrews or early Christians received similar treatment? Were there obscure cults of Yahweh practiced by Greek without actually converting to Judaism/Christianity?

Sorry if this is a bad question, I am not American.

Both sides seem to have had pretty solid contiguous territories, and some fairly incompatible ideologies, so it seems like there would have been some grounds for proposing that the two go their separate ways as distinct countries. So I wonder whether there was ever any serious thought given to such an idea during that period?

I don't have a lot of detail to add really. I've definitely seen people refer to 19th-century and early-20th century "social democrats" as pursuing legitimate political parties, standing in elections, seeking reform, etc. -- fairly moderate stuff. Which tells me this isn't an issue of the term "social democrat" evolving over time such that my understanding would be completely different to theirs. On the other hand, Lenin and the RSDLP boycotted the First Duma, agitated for revolution, talked openly about revolutionary theory and practice, and variously eshewed and criticised more moderate and (especially) liberal parties.

So why did they call themselves social democrats? Is it an issue with translation? Were they being coy about their true intentions? Did they have a different understanding of the term than we do to day and/or than European socialists? Basically, what's up with that?

From what I've heard on this sub and elsewhere, agriculture was more work for a worse diet. Obviously if you keep it up long enough you get massive benefits (e.g. specialization of labor), but I have to imagine those benefits would've taken many generations to appear, and people don't do things because it might work out well in many generations. So am I wrong in my understanding of the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture? If not, why did people do it?

Hello all,

I’ve been musing over the ideologies of authoritarian/strongman leaders. Obviously, Hitler and his violent purge of the Jews stands as one of history’s greatest crimes, but this got me wondering- did Hitler actually believe his anti-Semitic rhetoric? Or was he “playing the part” and using his rhetoric to create an “out” group and consolidate his power? (I.e., did he actually, personally believe Jews were the root of problems in Germany? Or was he just using them as a scapegoat for Germany’s problems to turn Germans against one another and consolidate his power?)

Thanks!