So this is obviously based on a recent rewatching of Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, especially the notorious banquet scene.

Clearly a Maharajah and his notables having "Snake Surprise", eyeball soup and chilled monkey brains is pure gross-out fantasy (to the point of being insulting to actual Indian cuisine).

But it did get me thinking. What would get served at a banquet in an Indian Princely state in Northern India in the early 20th century. Would it differ from "regular" local cuisine in the amount of food and/or the quality of ingredients? Or would it be very different from what other castes ate? Would there be an attempt to incorporate British or European cuisine trends or tastes?

From what I understand, slavery was common all over the world since the dawn of time, but until the transatlantic slave trade, it wasn't strongly connected to race and dependent on the dehumanization of the slaves.

I also understand that in the USA, a moral justification for the economic reliance on slavery was that Africans were sub-human, or even animals.

I was wondering if that is connected to the declaration that "all men are created equal", since that belief is contradictory to owning slaves, unless you believe that your slaves are not really men.

I am sure that racist beliefs were common throughout history, but it seems to me that they did not have such economic consequences until slavery became dependent on them, and therefore had less of a driving force behind them.

Tuberculosis killed one out of every seven people up to the dawn of the 19th century. That's a staggering toll that must have had a huge presence in every major city in the world. I imagine huge swaths of the population wandering around, hacking up blood.

Doctors told their many patients that, "dry air," could help. In the United States, huge sanitariums opened up in Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and other dry places (but also, conversely, some humid areas like Florida as well). Tens of thousands flocked to these.

We know how Tuberculosis is spread and what causes it now. Dry air, or any kind of air, didn't kill the bacteria, but that didn't stop doctors from endorsing it.

These sanitariums must have been dangerous for the noninfected. I imagine many nurses and doctors would have caught the disease.

But did people heal there? Was there a large contingent of people that emerged from them and endorsed their treatment as effective?

How did they end up becoming the phenomenon that they did if they were just places people went to die?

Hello everyone,

I am a historian and basically I recently ran into an old article from the 1950s that covers a topic similar to what I cover in one of my thesis chapters. Our arguments differ though and the article is generally rather short and superficial. Now I normally always make sure to try and read every piece of secondary literature on a topic before I write a chapter. However, I simply must have missed this one.

The question is: What do I do know? I am thinking of simply including this article in the literature review of that chapter and point out how I differ from it (different argument, more detail etc.). But do I have to do even more and go through my chapter page by page and add a footnote (X also makes a similar point...) for every minor point that is similar? In most cases we make similar minor points simply because we discuss some of the same historical events and, I feel, are bound to do so.

More generally, I am wondering whether it would be seen as ethically wrong if after finishing a piece of work one comes across an argument that is similar to one's own but doesn't acknowledge it. In a sense, it seems to me that this should be ethically fine (even though it might not be considered ideal behaviour), because that person would have come to a certain conclusion without the help of the other scholar, even though the argument might be similar.

My fear is not that I would do this, but rather what happens if you publish something and then after the fact someone else points out that part of your argument is similar to that of another publication and accuses you of having taken someone else's idea, even though you simply missed that particularly publication during the writing of your article. I have certainly seen quite often that two historians make similar arguments without acknowledging each other and this seems to be fine, but I am still wondering how this is viewed ethically.

​

This is a crosspost from /askacademia

Edit: There is a widespread cultural association between blood and kinship, as is evident from common sayings such as “blood relative” and “blood is thicker than water”. This association could be easily explained by DNA blood testing, but apparently such sayings date back to at least the 1800s and probably all as far as the 1100s — obviously meaning they’re way older than DNA testing.

So, then, how did people come to associate blood with kinship? Is it simply an old superstition that is reinforced by DNA testing by mere coincidence?

Canada was officially an independent nation by the time of the Second World War, while still maintaining a very strong relationship with the United Kingdom, even making a point to declare war on Germany 9 days after the UK had. But how militarily independent were they? Was their military functionally or officially 'integrated' into the UK's? And if they were 'integrated' when the United States joined the war, would Canadians serve 'under' the Americans or would they continue to serve with the British, or a mix of both? Equipment wise, how different would the uniform and weaponry of a Canadian soldier differ from that of a United Kingdom or later in the war, an American's?

We know what did happen to Hitler and the worst of the Nazis, mostly ended up dead or in prison. But was there any sort of special plan to deal with the Nazi leadership? At this point were members of the Allied Leadership planning anything close to the Nuremberg Trials or were they planning to shoot Hitler before that ever happened?

Perkin Warbeck appears to have been openly accepted as being Richard, Duke of York by the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian I as well as the kings of both France and Scotland (and possibly by Ireland). I understand that it might amuse them to tweak Henry VII's nose with a pretender but from what I've read they offered this gent every courtesy, spent a lot of money on him and even married him off to a noble Scottish bride. Henry even had to invade France to force Charles to send Warbeck away. These kings seem to have risked and spent a lot (including their time) if they didn't really believe they were talking to King Richard IV of England.

Was there any symbolic meaning behind its representation - maybe a link between the aggressive nature of both the USSR and bears?

Was this link used in self-representation by the Soviet Union?

Was this link already established in representations of Tsarist Russia?

What bear is it? Was reading a Chinese source on the Sino-Vietnamese War which amusingly referred to the USSR as a 'paper polar bear'.

I have heard about the city being a better place to live than the countryside in medieval Europe, and would attract some peasants.

How would such newcomers assimilate to the city life? Would they make arrangements prior to coming, or could some go there with some savings and hope for the best?

How difficult was it to find a job, and shelter?

What would be required to build one's own shelter inside a city?

Would you need to go through local authorities to try and settle there?

​

Thank you

For example, going on vacation, buying a home, car or television, advance in career etc. How different was life between the two?

As much as I appreciate the flaws of this book from an educational standpoint, I still rather enjoyed it. As much as I didn't sign up for the whole 'Christianity assisted with the downfall of Rome' point, it scratched my 'sweeping summary' itch, which I use to find new topics to investigate further. I have never really delved into this topic before as my interests lie elsewhere. Could somebody point me in the direction towards some more scholarly work surrounding this topic?

I have heard from several people that the First World War in 1918 was a wastly different war then its previous years. What changed during the last year?

I'd say this obsession started during the enlightenment and ended somewhere around the 1930s. It wasn't just your average respect and politeness, It was full of bowing, Speaking formally, Kissing people's hands and adhering to various protocols. There were even entire books dedicated to "the Gentleman's etiquette". But then this habit just faded away. Even the richest among us have pretty much the same behavior and manner of speaking as us. What changed along the way?

Some time ago i watched a documentary about the battle of Stalingrad in WWII. And in the Documentary the explained how the red army kept flooding troops into the city, to keep the German Army occupied in house to house fightings. While they were preparing there mass assault to encircel the german army in Stalingrad. So my question is why didnt the German Army do the same way earlier? It would have made sense since the casualties in house to house fighting were extremely high. Why didnt the germans cut the city off so the soviets wouldn't be able to keep pouring troops into the city.

The only event that seems to be mentioned about them is the Bloody Island Massacre in 1850. But other conflicts like the Mendocino War and the Bald Hills War happened very close to them and they aren't mentioned at all. Were they just neutral during those times?

Hi I want to study/read historical psychology. I know it's a weird question! But I'm very curious how was the people mental healt in time were religion was everything and they were very poor, living little village. How they lived everyday, how they behaved, who the patients were. How could i look for this? Where?

It just boggles me to this day that they already have their southern accent from the early 19th century. Or is it earlier than that?

But how did they get that accent? Americans have a really hard “R” sound to their english. Does that mean they got it from the irish somehow?

I'd pretty much be interested in anything you happened to know: were there any? If so were there many? Did they face discrimination (I believe black sailors in the Royal Navy at that time mostly had to work as cooks, and other lesser paid work)? Were any slaves? Are there any notable examples? Also, in honour of the black history theme, how about black sailors in general (African? Carribean?) on American ships?

When I say 'early 19th century', I'd be more interested the closer the information is to the 1810s, but I'm not too fussed if it's a long time later or earlier.

I just don't understand, was it luck by a few people?

If so were there people who sailed in other directions and never made it anywhere?

Did those people die at sea or end up bumping into other countries? Are there any records of the Mauri wakas, for instance, landing in the Americas or East Asia at the same time they discovered New Zealand?

If it wasn't a lucky guess then how did these people know about New Zealand, assuming it wasn't already populated?

I have seen conflicting information but I was wondering what the consensus is about drug use in nazi Germany is, particularly their use of amphetamines. Was there widespread drug use amongst regular German troops? Was Hitler using powerful stimulant drugs? Any info or sources to point me in the right direction would be great.

My brother told me abput his history teacher when he was in university telling him that he believed in a theory saying that the middle age should be reconsidered as not ending with the fall of Constantinople or the discovery of America, but rather with the industrial revolution/French revolution. Is this a real thing considered by some historians, or is it some obscure theory from dark places?

The main arguments for this theory are:

-the "renaissance" was mainly in arts and affected a very little part of the population. The peasant would still be a peasant and doing the same things as people did 200, 300 years prior. The fact that upper classes and nobility had statues and well made portraits doesn't change anything to 97% of the population

-untill the industrial Revolution, land organisation (at least in France) was organized around the same systems where lords possess the land and peasants live on It, working for the Lord. The IR changed that and peasants and farmers started having way more rights than they had before