While looking through an educational journal from the City of New York, I came across an article promoting tolerance. The author suggested that in "an age that has produced Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, G.K. Chesterton and John Strachey, not to mention Stalin, Hitler and Fiorello LaGuardia, is not one in which we can rejoice in each other's ideas." his idea of tolerance was to simply insist that ones "creed, no matter how far it diverges from our own, is his affair and that he has as much right as anybody to air it."

This made me wonder how La Guardia got lumped into the bin with Stalin and Hitler. What made him, at least in the eyes of this particular New York City educator, part of the bad group of ideas?

Constantinople fell to the Ottoman in 1453. Then, the European Christians became stronger and went about colonizing the rest of the world. In the meantime, the Ottoman Empire grew weaker. Yet, despite the Europeans' territorial ambitions as colonists, why didn't they try taking back Constantinople? The Ottomans have weakened, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

Is there a good book focused on the disaster and it’s ramifications for English history? I looked but am unable to find one.

I ran across a local story that said the material used to make the WWII bombs came from mines near Durango Colorado. But I thought at the time most uranium was coming from the Belgian Congo. Do we know the breakdown of where the Manhattan projected sourced its uranium from?

I read some articles about the M16. They said that the first M16s were really bad and that they jammed a lot. I also read that lots of soldiers replaced their M16s with any weapon even with AKs from the NVA and Vietcong. I want to know how often did the M16 jamm, how often did the American soldier replace their M16s for other guns and lastly when did the M16 become good and reliable, how long did it take to remove the issues it had in the first years of the Vietnam war

I am going to be upfront: despite being from this side of the pond, I have never been particularly good with Latin American history. I know general things and I can more than defend myself with things related to Colombian history (mainly related with 'The Violence' and Colombia's internal conflict), but when dealing with areas such as the independence or Spanish colonies I am completely lost.

With all this in mind, here comes a sort of stupid question: who is 'The Libertador'? The reason I ask is because in Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, Simon Bolivar is seen as the 'Libertador' of the Americas and there is a whole national myth surrounding the character and his exploits during the independence wars in all three countries. However, when you look at places such as Argentina, Peru or Chile, the tittle of Libertador is given to Jose de San Martin because of his exploits against the Spanish and his role in freeing that portion of the continent.

So... who is it?

[deleted]

From Yale's translation: "Women shall not tear their cheeks or shall not make a sorrowful outcry on account of a funeral."

If I recall, professional mourners would wail and literally rip hair out at funerals. Why was this performative grief accepted but personal grief banned? Was it about control over public emotion? A religious tradition? A means of controlling women?

Furthermore, no punishment is listed. Is there any historical record of the consequences for violating this specific law? Or the consequences of a man or child crying at a funeral? I'm wary of projecting modern norms onto the ancient past, but it seems only human that this law would be broken regularly

I'm curious how first rank soldiers protected themselves during phalanx shovings. Did they use any sort of protection?

I got this question myself in class and need help answering. Looking through my textbooks and such and through googling it, I only seem to find vague or indirect answers.

Reading up on suburbanization in later part of 20th century, the general gist I get is that it happened because it provided a nicer home environment and the advent of cheap cars+highway infrastructure made it both desirable and practical.

Given the time period during the cold war, I'm wondering if there were any government policies partially driving this that had the goal of lessening the effects of any nuclear attack.

I’m mainly wondering was there any nazis during world war 2 that during the holocaust that simply refused to carry out the orders to kill the Jewish people? Like was there any stories of nazis just being like this is actually messed up I’m not doing this and refused to do it? And if so what was the punishment and also this may be a dumb question and worded poorly but I just had the thought come to my head and I figured you all might know something. I just figure there had to be atlesst some of them That were not okay with what was going on and I just wondered if there was any events or stories of nazi soldiers refusing or even revolting against it while being there

So I was watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull the other day and there was a scene where Indy remarked how the people of this civilization were archaeologists. And that got me thinking: were there people in the ancient world who preserved and displayed artifacts from previous cultures for educational purposes like today, or is this a fairly recent thing to do?

I'm especially interested in transitional period from small settlements to city-states.

Can anyone tell me about the 18th Century Military Structure and ranks of Western Nations? Did they have different systems if so, is there a source where I can learn more about them.