I will occasionally see a question here where I'd like to ask for clarification, expand on the OP's question, or recommend a book or topic for their research. E.g., if someone seems to be grasping for a term, a short answer like "do you mean 'matrilinear societies?'" may point them in the right direction. Are these considered constructive and acceptable, or will they generally be deleted?

Bonus question, on the topic of good responses: if a question has been raised elsewhere (say, on Quora or Stack Exchange), is it helpful to link that discussion here? On the one hand, it seems like that may be better than nothing, but on the other this community does seem to built on the principle "no, 'something' is not automatically better than nothing."

I've seen some books like World at Arms but I cannot make up my mind.

[deleted]

What exactly did the Japanese think would happen at the end of WWII if the Axis had won? With the world population of blonde haired people currently being about 16%, with less than that having blue eyes. What was the plan for the continuation of racial cleansing? And if they were successful, where would that put the Japanese? Did the Japanese also plan on racial cleansing? If they won, did the two plan on going after each other?

[deleted]

I asked my APUSH (AP United States History) teacher and he was not sure. Were African American Albinos able to pass as white? Were they ridiculed and harassed just as much as “normal” African Americans?

While i learn Russian, i noticed that Russians (and some other Slavic nations) use same word for right(direction), right(in law) and right(as good). Same thing is present in English. Word in Russian is "право". Is there any historical explanation for this connection?

After watching Fantastic Beasts, I've grown curious about the education of the kids that lived under Mary Lou Barebone's roof. Although the films are fiction, I would still like to have an idea of how the education system worked and was approached during that time, especially for the state of New York. While I know that there wasn't a high attendance rate during this time due to various reasons based on my findings, I thought it would be fun to know and get a better understanding for education during this period.

In addition to knowing the year education became compulsory in the state, I'd also like to know the ages in which students were mandated to go. I've found a lot of history regarding Massachusettes becoming a compulsory education state, and its roots in how it already had that when it was a colony, in addition to ages to attend school and requirements for the education. I also learned that education became mandatory countrywide in 1918

tl;dr:

• When was compulsory education implemented in New York?
• What ages did the children have to attend school?

Thank you in advance!

I read that real cowboys were usually black because it was a hard and dangerous work and poorly paid, and whites didn't want to do it. But I guess there were a lot of white poor people that needed money. I wonder if they were always black then, or if it was normal to find white cowboys too. Do we know about their ethnicity with certainty?

It looks like there’s a bit of controversy over this song as of late and was wondering if someone with a mid-twentieth century background could place the lyrics and phrasing in context. Historians, what does it all mean? :D

I know he bought guns from Europeans that helped him, but I was hoping someone could go a little more in depth on how he conquered each island.

[deleted]

I just wanted to clarify something about the first and second Schleswig-Holstein war. From my understanding the first war was between Germany and Denmark over the duchies Schleswig and Holstein. What I don’t understand is how the second war came to be. I understand that the king at the time died without delegating land but wasn’t that already determined during the first war? Thanks!

I constantly come across people fainting or even dying from watching scary plays during Victorian times and people dying from ‘heartbreak’ days after their loved one dies.

This rarely seems to happen today, so was it simply because people weren’t used to being exposed to such intense emotions and so they died of over exertion? Or was it simply other ailments that couldn’t be explained?

Thanks!

Obviously the expedition broadly is both A) a really interesting story and B) is kind of problematic from a historical perspective as I understand it, but is the actual raft that Heyerdahl and his colleagues used a reasonably good reconstruction of the kind of raft they were trying to recreate?