The argument goes like this:

When agriculture and sedentarism started many men acquired fortunes, they wanted to leave their plantations or the leadership of their settlements to their children, but how could they be sure the children of any given woman were his?

In the other hand, women could have children from several men and probably wanted help rising them, specially if that men was wealthy

Thus marriages were invented. The woman promised not to have sex with other men, while the man promised to take care of the children and not have children with other women that would take resources away from the "primary children", if such children were to be born then they would be considered illegitimate and not be entitled to the same level of resources

Thus in one fell swoop we had marriages as a social contract and the concept of bastards

This is why many societies accepted LGBT people while not allowing them to get married, because the sole purpose of marriage was to have children. For that reason the romans, greeks, sumerians and many more were happy to go around having gay sex and being open about it, but never wanted to get married with people of their same gender

Only recently that political power is mostly not inherited, that poverty has decreased considerably, allowing for most children to grow up healthy and educated (in many countries) that marriage became related to love, thus sparking the desire for gay marriage

Is this assessment accurate?

I'd read somewhere a long time ago that apparently there were Indian prostitutes hired specifically to serve British soldiers during colonial India.

Is that true? How long was this practice going on?

I've tried looking up details of this online but wasn't sure how legitimate or accurate the information was.

[deleted]

Why did Quintus Pompeius Senecio Roscius Murena Coelius Sextus Iulius Frontinus Silius Decianus Gaius Iulius Eurycles Herculaneus Lucius Vibullius Pius Augustanus Alpinus Bellicius Sollers Iulius Aper Ducenius Proculus Rutilianus Rufinus Silius Valens Valerius Niger Claudius Fuscus Saxa Amyntianus Sosius Priscus (Consul A.D.169) have such a long name?

Edit: I really should have put following the Vietnamese invasion not during

While looking into information on the debate of Irish slavery in America, I spied a "No Irish Need Apply" sign, and remembered seeing one in a video game set in a steampunk Victorian-esque city (Bioshock Infinite). While information is clear that anti-Irish sentiment was rampant in the United Kingdom, to what degree was job-discrimination against Irish a factor in the United States?

As an aside, I remember hearing somewhere that the stereotype of Irish police officers and firemen was simply because no one wanted those jobs, and that the Irish would go on to earn the respect of the people of America by undertaking these dangerous jobs no one wanted, that also happened to be some of the few jobs that weren't discriminating against them. A second question I suppose, but it ties in to the main question enough I think, to be posted alongside it.

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church/Mormon Church) frequently argues against LGBTQ+ issues by claiming that permitting changes in the law to end practices targeting LGBTQ+ people (e.g.: ending conversion therapy) undermines religious freedom. In the 1960's, the Church had a policy in place restricting ordinations and leadership roles to only white men, and this policy wasn't reversed until 1978. Did the Church ever argue against the Civil Rights movement as a whole, or parts of it, by similarly claiming that it would undermine religious freedom?

More specifically I was wondering about any lesser known contributions to the war effort. Haiti is just an example, but I'd like to know more about any countries efforts that may have been lesser known ( on either side).

A feature of the post-Roman period in Western Europe and North Africa is the religious difference between the native Trinitarian Christians and the Germanic Arian rulers. Generally this didn't lead to much conflict with the notable exception of North Africa.

I understand the basic theological distinction, but did this lead to any differences in lifestyle, religious practice, or views about what Christianity required of its adherents within these religiously divided societies?

Hello!

I am writing a research essay for a undergraduate history course in university. This is my first humanities paper I've ever had to write at the university level (double majoring in sciences) so I'm struggling a bit with the unfamiliarity of everything.

When developing my research topic (Lobotomy), I landed on the working thesis question of examining how the ongoing crisis of mental health played a role in Freeman eventually performing this radical procedure. However, this essay is to be based primarily off of secondary sources, not primary sources. In our assignment outline, it asks us to write an essay based on the critical analysis of a historical problem based on our reading the work of other scholars

I have a few fantastic sources already for my essay (including Freeman, Valenstein, El-Hai and Whitaker), but I'm not quite sure how I need to rework my prospective thesis question given my sources are secondary sources.

Any pointers or advice would be greatly appreciated, as well as any related feedback to my proposed thesis question!

If so, why? At the end, a majority of people where in favor of impeachment, yet there were those who weren’t. What were their reasons?

[deleted]

Recently finished Dame Anne Salmond's Trial of the Cannibal Dog, which offers an excellent insight into the complex cross-cultural relations between Cook's crews and Polynesians that probably fewer other books offer. There is a lot of detail concerning his friendships with chiefs in the Society Islands and Tonga, as well as the Polynesians that traveled aboard his ships around Polynesia and onto New Zealand, Australia, Batavia and England. To a certain extent, it subverts the whole 'Great Man' archetype of Cook and the rather problematic and simplistic idea that he was a 'Columbus of the Pacific'. Although its undeniable his voyages did open the floodgates for trade and colonization - there were historical forces greater than one man, there is a lot of detail showing Cook's positive impressions of indigenous peoples that were less racist compared to other European explorers. I think its rather refreshing to read a take on the so-called 'Age of Discovery' that decentralizes explorers and focuses on how both cultures perceived the other, giving more thought and consideration for the indigenous perspective. The most interesting take for the book is that concerning his death, in which Salmond explains how complex web of European and Polynesian cultural factors led his death and there was one singular cause for his death (i.e. he was an 'evil imperialist villain').

Joan Druett's biography on the Ra'iatean navigator, diplomat and high priest Tupaia is an excellent biography which also frames James Cook's first voyage from the perspective of Tupaia and highlights the complex relationship between the two expert navigators and his friendships with New Zealand's Maori and Australia's Guugu-Ymittir first nation.

I've been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast, which covers a lot of ground through the tumultuous 19th Century in Europe. It has led me to realize that there is so much fascinating and complex history that I dont know from that period. I know it's a huge topic, but is there a good book, accessible to the layperson, that reviews European history, especially social and political, during this time period?

If an overview is too much, I'm particularly interested in the Napoleonic wars, the revolutions of 1848, and the Franco Prussian war.

the novel was set from 74 to 71BC

Why are so many History books at major booksellers written by non historians? What is their motivation for deciding to write something outside their field? Amateur/armchair military historians don’t bother me too much but I see tons of biographies and political histories by people who don’t seem to have the credentials or any reason to venture into proper history writing.