I'm familiar with hand pulled English and Scottish ales that have some slight bubbles that come from them being pulled. And I know that bottle fermenting can add carbonation, but I figured bottled beer is probably a post-industrial revolution phenomena.

I would like to know the reasons behind why some cultures are subsumed whilst others survive. Cornwall from what I can read was made a client kingdom under Wessex in the 9th or 10th centuries and was fully integrated into the Kingdom of England late in the tenth century yet (admittedly after a lot of work to rebuild it) there is still a distince Cornish language and some amount of culture on display.

The last Cumbrian kingdom seems to be conquered and then ceded to the Pictish king in the early 10th century. Then the Britons are still made provision for at least in a 12th century Scottish legal document. After that the Cumbrians seem to disappear. What happened to them: were they bred out, forced to Scotify by the new Scottish kings or was there an exodus? When is the last concrete evidence of a distinct Brittonic minority in south-west Scotland/northwest England?

Why did the Cornish not meet the same fate?

Obviously Nazi has been a term recently used to describe people on the far right of the political spectrum. This seems to be correct as people such as Neo-Nazi's are most definitely very far right. But looking back to the 1930's it seems that the Nazi party aligns more on the left of the political spectrum at that time. They were a socialist policy and it seems that the state took over many aspects of life. Not based on how they are viewed now, how would they be considered then? Where did their ideology fall? (Clearly this isn't meant to be supportive of the Nazis in anyway i'm merely wondering how the politics at the time would have viewed them if that makes sense.)

Europe India and native America, All get tornados, but I've never seen art that depicts them. I imagine it was absolutely astonishing to people off those eras. But I've never seen them in classic art.

Was it always so, or did it develop gradually? I found it strange when I learnt of it. In my country, judges aren't supposed to express/exhibit their political views.

Edit: To add context, it came to my attention during the Kavanaugh issue. Also, in relation to it Bernie Sanders spoke about how, many rulings detrimental to working classes' interests were passed by a 5-4 vote etc. Were there any landmark cases etc. from where the SCOTUS took a more political color?

Edit 2: Clarification I am trying to know the origins of the phenomenon in US that appointment of judges is an issue of contention between political parties (like the Kavanaugh hearings). And why there are republican leaning and democrat leaning judges(if there are..)

I saw people discussing his changes over time on FB:

" Here exist assorted Jews in the absolutely unassimilated state, with their ancestral beards, skull-caps, and general costumes—which make them very pictureseque, and not nearly so offensive as the strident, pushing Jews who affect clean shaves and American dress. In this particular section, where Hebrew books are vended from pushcarts, and patriarchal rabbis totter in high hats and frock coats, there are far less offensive faces than in the general subways of the town—probably because most of the pushing commercial Jews are from another colony where the blood is less pure. It is now definitely known that many allegedly Semitic types of today are not in reality Semitic or even white at all, but derived from Asiatic Tatar-Mongoloids who were Judaised by missionaries before their entrance into Central Europe from the Thibetan plateaux in the 8th or 9th century A.D. Of these are the queer-eyed, yellow-red, thick-lipped flat-nosed types seen in Providence’s North End and in many parts of New York. These Rivington-Streeters are altogether different, and when they depart from the Semitic type, the variation is toward the Aryan rather than toward the Asiatic."

H. P. Lovecraft to Lillian Clark, 29 Sep 1924 (Letters from New York 74)

But during his marriage:

" But on the other hand, the Jewish radius contains many elements biologically equal—& perhaps superior to anything we can boast. Spinoza—Einstein—Disraeli—Mendelssohn—Maimonides, & so on. Now any biologist knows that innate racial identity plays a damn small part in the moulding of cultural details. The culture a man has is now what is blood has determined, but what the massed impressions & traditions he has received have given him. Jewish culture is not a product of blood, but of historic accident. So is ours. Bring a Jew up in Aryan culture, & he will in the main be a real Aryan unless Jewish ancestral influences get at him…& a good or bad Aryan according to his intrinsic biological status. Conversely, any of us could be a Jew if brought up among Jews & severed wholly from our own inheritance. It is, therefore, not at all important to maintain rigid barriers against every trace of Jewish blood when our real & legitimate object is merely to exclude Jewish cultural influences (which are hostile & unassimilable) from our national life. So long as a man has been brought up in our tradition & no other, & retains no vestiges of alien perspective & thought-habits, it does not make a particle of difference whether or not his ancestry contains a race of blood from any of the other superior races—be it Jewish, Chinese, Polynesian, Japanese, Hindu or American Indian. [The negro & australoid, of course, are another story.] That is, provided his blood-alienage does not involve any marked physiognomical aberrancy of such a sort as to set him apart & drive him back upon his lost alien heritage. It is easy to establish a practical, common-sense classification of persons as to culture-affiliation, even when their blood is not precisely homogenous. Einstein is Jewish—in heritage & loyalties—but what sensible standard would also class as “Jewish” (as outside the Aryan pole) such well-assimilated persons as, for instance, Walter Damrosch, or the publicist Walter Lippmann? These latter two men undeniably think as Aryans—& therefore any sensible committee on classification (to which, under a rational regime of Aryan fascism, all debatable cases would of course be carried) would group them as Aryans. It is amusing to think of the thoroughly Aryan people who would be placed outside as aliens if the strict Nazi test were made worldwide."

H. P. Lovecraft to Alfred Galpin, 25 Jul 1934 (Letters to Alfred Galpin 210-211

Yet after:

" With the high-grade alien races we can adopt a policy of flexible common-sense—discouraging mixture whenever we can, but not clamping down the bars so ruthlessly against every individual of slightly mixed ancestry. As a matter of fact, most of the psychological race-differences which strike us so prominently are cultural rather than biological. If one could take a Japanese infant, alter his features to the Anglo-Saxon type through plastic surgery, & place him with an American family in Boston for rearing—without stemming him that he is not an American—the chances are that in 20 years the result would be a typical American youth with very few instincts to distinguish him from his pure Nordic college-mates. The same is true of other superior alien races including the Jew—although the Nazis persist in acting on a false biological conception. If they were wise in their campaign to get rid of Jewish cultural influences (& a great deal can be said for such a campaign, when the dominance of the Aryan tradition is threatened as in Germany & New York City), they would not emphasize the separatism of the Jew but would strive to make him give up his separate culture & lose himself in the German people. It wouldn't hurt Germany—or alter its essential physical type—to take in all the Jews it now has. (However, that wouldn't work in Poland or New York City, where the Jews are of an inferior strain, & so numerous that they would essentially modify the physical type.)

H. P. Lovecraft to Natalie H. Wooley, 22 Nov 1934, Letters to Robert Bloch and Others 200-201"

I remember reading before that he softened his racist views in general, even regarding African(-American)s and not just Jews. But I couldn't find evidence of this and he did seem to change his mind a lot.

Seems like it would be more sense to just produce Katanas the whole time, especially since they're better designs than European sabers. Instead of putting a Katana blade onto a Saber's handguard.

According to my history teacher... Prior to its ratification, government was highly funded by donations from private corporations. If so, did the national graduated income tax provide a reliable source of income for government and make accepting private donations less appealing? Thus, did the graduated income tax hinder corruption? Can someone confirm if this was true?

While there is a (relative) abundance of secondary sources on Burgundy, I am stumped and puzzled as to where to search for primary sources. If anyone here could direct me towards a place to find primary sources, that would be wonderful. Thank you!

From where did the ideas of dwarves, elves, wizards, etc. come?

I've been interested in this legend for a while because it leaves me with a lot of questions and has a tantalising feel of historicity. The detail in the title comes from these two paragraphs:

The earliest mention of the story seems to have been on a stained-glass window placed in the Church of Hamelin c. 1300. The window was described in several accounts between the 14th and 17th centuries.[8] It was destroyed in 1660. Based on the surviving descriptions, a modern reconstruction of the window has been created by historian Hans Dobbertin. It features the colorful figure of the Pied Piper and several figures of children dressed in white.[3]

This window is generally considered to have been created in memory of a tragic historical event for the town. Also, Hamelin town records start with this event. The earliest written record is from the town chronicles in an entry from 1384 which states: "It is 100 years since our children left."[9]

The sentence isn't contextualised any further so I don't really know how to interpret that. So how would historians approach that sentence? What kind of context should someone consider? Is a writer in those days saying "100 years ago..." more like saying "an indeterminate amount of time ago..." or more like saying "on the 2nd of August, 51 years ago...", ie. more suggestive than literal?

In other words, how accurate does the writer think they're being, and how do we conclude that?

Every once in a while I see people discussing Viking braids on the Internet. Some people even recreate the styles on their own hair, but I haven’t found much evidence that they actually braided their hair. Did they?

I'd like to learn more about Britain's role in Hong Kong and not the sanitized pro-British version I learned vaguely in school. What books or authors are considered authoritative? I do have access to a university library and academic databases, so journals/articles work too.

Hello! I am writing a book set in Finland in WWII. My protagonist wants to join the Lotta Svärd, which is integral for the plot, but she is too young than the 17 years minimum I've read (that may even be wrong). I'd like to know how the pikku Lotta (junior members) contributed and how their work differed from the senior members. Did they ever work close to the front or did they stay in the cities? Thank you!

I asked this question about a week ago. It gained some traction, but unfortunately didn't attract any responses.

So, my knowledge of history isn't so good, but I was reading up on the Holocaust. I always knew about the gas chambers and slave labor. What I didn't know about was all of the other torture. I was reading up on stories about mothers being forced to watch their daughters get raped, stories about a woman's legs being forced together as she gave birth, ice baths, etc.

Why did these things happen? Wasn't the point of the Holocaust for them to be killed? Why all of the horrific and cruel torture? And were all of these torture methods given as orders from Hitler, or was it just a result of the Nazi soldiers going rogue to amuse themselves?