[deleted]

The 1882 act specifically prohibited immigration of Chinese laborers, despite earlier open immigration policies.

How did a law targeting one specific nationality even pass? How did earlier state-level ordinances, like those in California, pave the way for larger national measures to restrict Chinese immigration/rights? Was this policy part of a larger pro-white/anti-minority social movement that included Jim Crow laws, and reservations/residential schools? Or was anti-Chinese sentiment different from other forms of discrimination?

Thanks in advance!

What were they? Fascist or National Socialist?

I was watching Netflix's series on the Medal of honor. And this came to me. After seeing some obscure divison patches from WWII that a recipient was in.

Id assume steamers, troop numbers and overall battle performance had some say in it. That and if that division was on the edge of advanced military combat(i.e 82nd, and 101st airborne or 10th mountain) then youd probably have a good chance of sticking around.

But what about the hundreds and hundreds of other divisions? Out of all the Infantry, Armored, Calvary, Mountain, and Airborne divisions how do you choice what stays and what goes?

How did they actually figure this all out?

Like no hard feelings or anything?

I don't see how it could have happened. Power and control shifting from one ruling group of Romans to others like Lombards and Burgundians is easy enough to understand.

Instead, when the Western Empire fell the population plummeted, the sophistication of trades like smithing and construction plummeted, and literacy declined to the point where records become so spotty that the next several centuries were called the Dark Ages.

Or, if it's more a matter of all the Muslims in the non-Albanian areas bordering Albania being moved to Turkey during the population exchanges, why were Muslim Greeks, Montenegrans, etc, moved, and not Albanians?

Would it not have been much easier to simply snare, trap, perhaps let them fall into a pit, or to capture them in cages and keep them as live stock instead of hunting them? It seems to me that when we see historic reenactments on TV they always portray ancient Native Americans and such with spears and bows and arrows, walking around hunting. Is this an accurate representation of how it was done?

Making wheat into an edible item takes a much greater amount of effort (threshing, chaffing, grinding, baking if for bread) than other crops do. What made early humans put all that effort into purposely cultivating a grass rather than focusing on vegetables?

How did grains go from tiny little low nutrition grasses to such a dominant part of humans diet?

It's an old profession listed on some family documents but cannot determine exactly what this job would be.

Genesis 16:12 has Ishmael described as 'a wild ass of a man' so I think that it would be unlikely that the Arabs would identify with the character. Is there any evidence of the ancient Arabs calling themselves Ishmaelites?

I am also skeptical of Islamic genealogies of the Arabs, because they were compiled retroactively in order to justify the legitimacy of Arabs as legitimate inheritors of the Abrahamic tradition. (In short, I think they are apologetic rather than historical.)

I would be grateful if anyone has any literature on this as well.

I hope that this isn't too meta for this forum, but I've heard about crowd sourced history and archaeology projects in the past. Like I've heard of groups that ask for help from people reading hand written manuscripts that computers can't automatically read to archive, and projects that involve helping scan satellite maps for features that could indicate archaeology sites, but I don't know much about this stuff because i'm not a professional academic. Can anyone recommend any groups that are working on things like this, that an educated layperson could volunteer with from their home computer?

I watched outlaw king on Netflix lately and it’s sparked an interest in my country’s history that I had lost a while ago. I’m working abroad in Versailles right now and so I’ve been thinking a lot about monarchies too. I’m not a fan of monarchies in general (something that isn’t at all uncommon in my generation) but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in them.

I know a modern claim to a monarchy (which is now defunct) is highly unlikely. However, are there any descendants to the throne of Scotland around today? Just to be clear, I’m not referring to descendants of the British throne. The Scottish throne alone is what I am interested in.

Like any war that has no obvious reason, I've always been so curious about Afghanistan. Not why it is so hard to conquer but rather why would you WANT to conquer it? It has a meaningless population compared to Pakistan or Iran, it no natural resources that could be hugely impactful- Opium is not that big. So why did the Soviets fight a decade there? for what? Why is the USA fighting there? for what? the single most costly war in US history is about making a landlocked country of 30 million with GDP slightly bigger than North Korea.

​

like seriously, is this of those "well they did it so we have to as well" or like am I missing something? Does Afghanistan give some credit that buffs the winner?

So as it's 100 years since the end of WW1 and armistice day I wondered how the soldier's (and others that survived) who wrote the famous poetry, viewed it and the way it shaped their experience in the generation(s) after the war.

I have a friend, who shall go unnamed, whose father is writing a book about the origin of the huns claiming that they came from north of the black sea and not from east Asia. He constantly brings this up, claiming that history textbooks which claim otherwise are wrong and that all evidence of the huns coming from east Asia is based on mistranslation.

I am no expert, and all that I know is that it seem to be commonly accepted that the huns had been raiding China prior to unification making it unfeasible which forced them westwards. If any of you have more info on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

I've just seen a post regarding the gunfire falling silent at 11am at the end of the war and another thing saying when the agreement was signed at 5am that day 11,000 people died leading up to 11am

Who got together to say ok, ok let's stop this at um, 11am

How did they communicate this out to the battlefield, obviously technology wasn't as good as it is now

At 11am did the people just stop shooting, get out of the trenches and walk off? How did it end?

With the failure of the Volcanic to point to, it's easy to see why revolvers stayed on top for as long as they did, but when Winchester repeaters started taking over the single load rifles it's a little confusing to wonder why a similar design didn't take off for handguns. Why didn't a repeater or "lever action" handgun design ever become prominent between the Winchester rifle's claim to fame and the auto loading handgun becoming popular?