I understand this may be controversial. The rebel flag or dixie flag was never an official flag of the Confederacy and some states have lowkey made their state flags resemble ones that were. My question is why do so many southerners and even northerners fly one and never the other? From my experience those I ask can't even identify the actual Confederate flag and yet their reasons are always heritage? Saying they are racist or confused seems like too easy an answer so why do they this?

It says so on the Wikipedia page for "Macrobiotic Diet," but it also says [citation needed.]

Asked on r/isitbullshit and was told to ask here as well.

In the historical novel The Pillars of the Earth the character Prior Philip is put onto a cross on top of a spire of wood to be burned. The bishop says something along the lines of "if this man is innocent let god save him from the flames". The trick is that since spectators can not see over the spire of wood they don't see the water that would put the flames out when the spire started burning. I am asking if the church really did stage fake punishments to make people appear innocent or "saved by god". As for time frame or place I am just asking if they church ever did this so any time frame or place would work. I saw there was already a thread fact checking The Pillars of the Earth but this question was not asked there. Thank you for any help, this is a topic really interesting to me so I appreciate any help given.

The info I can find online (for free) is extremely sparse. It seems like the Empire of Kitara was a political entity of the Bunyoro people that held influence over the African Great Lakes, but a lot of the info is apparently based on contradictory folk tales. What's the truth here?

"Men wanted for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honour and recognition in case of success." - London Times, December 29th, 1913

I've always been fascinated by this reverse-of-the-expected strategy of gathering volunteers. Usually, one plays up the upsides while downplaying the discomforts and hazards if you want to attract people for a difficult cause. Honour has often not been enough - the Royal Navy often press-ganged sailors because it was so hard to entice them, for instance, and drafts have been an element in armies for centuries.

But Ernest Shackleton seems to have embraced a different strategy for his antarctic expedition, and it appears it worked. I've read that 5,000 men responded to the ad.

So I've got three questions:

1. Is the above-posted wording the actual text that appeared in the London Times?
2. Who wrote the ad? Do we know if they went with a bleak outlook because they felt it was only fair to leave off the sugar coating, or was it a stratagem to entice starry-eyed young men with dreams of adventure stories in their heads?
3. Were there really 5,000 respondents? Do we know much about them or what drove them to volunteer? Were they untried young men? Hard-beaten ones with nothing to lose? Army veterans? Destitute men from the slums or well educated wealthy men from Oxford? Did any comment on their choice later on and how they felt about the mission?

hey guys i'm looking for some sources for a personal research paper that i want to write and am having trouble finding good sources on the question. Any help would be much appreciated.

Yes, I did leave my ego at the door, so if you're willing to tell me that all my knowledge of WWII is wrong, do it without hesitation. Am ready to accept the humiliation.

"Popular knowledge" says WWII was caused by Hitler's hate against racial minorities and German will of revenge after the humiliation of the Versailles treaty, while WWI was caused by the Kaiser's willingness to conquer territory and the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary.

But in 1950, Schumann said literally:

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority [...]

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.

His vision differs so much from the popularly known version that it really spiked my curiosity.

Edit: I realize my question can be easily misunderstood so I'd like to clarify that I believe the Holocaust was real and this post is not an attempt to deny it. Could it be that Schumann had it wrong? Or could it be that there were multiple contemporary causes?

Edit: Typo in title, should have said "How" now "Who".

Today, many universities include in their curriculum for students of natural and social sciences a course about the philosophy of science, that usually deals with issues like realism vs. anti-realism, perception of reality, deductive vs. inductive inference, post-modernism etc. I found the discussion presented on these topics to be extremely European-centric.

What main schools of thought regarding questions such as "what is reality", "what is knowledge", or "how to conduct systematic investigation of nature" exists outside of European circles?

I'm interested in the rural life in England during the Middle Ages, especially High Middle Ages. I'm interested in Manorialism, serfs, Courts etc., how it wotked legally. Do you have any good books on this which do not presuppose a ton of knowledge but are a good basic introduction? I'm from Germany and I'm not very familiar with all the Englisch terms.

I study History and I have to make a task about "Why white people can't make blues?". I got an article that talks about this, but I have to say what further use this source has. I was thinking about the influence of diversity on music (or music on diversity). I found already a few sources that can help me with this subject, but I need a few more. So my question is: have you guys any examples (+ good sources) about this subject?

Thanks a lot!!!!!

There are at least 5 valid reasons given; to avoid a land invasion of Japan, to justify the cost of the Manhattan Project, to send a message to the USSR, to get revenge for Pearl Harbour and to end the war quickly. Most people say it was some sort of combination. So did any first hand source that was involved in the decision making ever give reasons for it? Whether it be from politics, the military or science.

The Roman Empire extended well into desert areas. Did they ever make use of camels in those arid climates? If so, what battles or wars did camels play a major part in?

Why is that amendment placed second and not third,fourth, etc. in the bill of rights?

Almost a philosophical question, but is what's available in english "good enough" to compare to native Chinese historians, or will you be better off learning to read chinese first?

Some cultures throughout history had written sources of history like Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, China, etc. But other cultures didn't have written traditions until much later(Native American cultures come to mind). Are those sources considered valid by modern historians given the fact that in many cases they are the only source of information we have when it comes to those histories?

Sorry if this has already been asked but I keep seeing mainstream debate about whether or not if the dropping of atomic bombs was necessary, with the argument that the firebombing happening already put Japan on the brink of offering surrender. The topic always generates a lively debate and what is odd is that this never seems to be settled because, oddly enough too, I never saw any first hand sources given to explain the underlying motivations of the Japanese government to surrender which would either refute or support either side of the debate.