In modern times, despite rapidly using up resources, there is constant improvement in technology. This means that new sources become available as older ones are depleted. However, before the industrial revolution, the pace of technological progress was very slow, and most civilizations did not have the ability to import large quantities of bulk goods from distant parts of the world. I know that in this period, individual mines were often exhausted. If that happened, it seems there would be no way to replace that lost source of resources, forever.

Is this something that's been studied? Were ancient and medieval societies concerned about running out of mines entirely at some point in the future? If industrial civilizations collapsed today, would we have no access to many types of ore because all of the stuff that was easily accessible has run out?

And which historical frameworks, theories or philosophies have replaced “Great Man” theory in academia?

I've been looking for atlases or maps of cities in the 30s, and I've noticed that there are many available scanned online from the 1880s to the early 1920s, but then they just don't exist (at least they don't exist in digitized form) from beyond that day going forward. Is it just a matter of them being extant but not being digitized? I can't find a map or atlas of Massachusetts in the 30s anywhere. Did the depression curtail map making?

Edit: Title should say digitized

In one of his "Change my View" videos (The one on Male Privilege) he mentions that most of the people that fought for Women Suffrage were white men. The reason is because back then most women didn't want the right to vote because the right to vote came with the obligation to enlist in the army which women obviously didn't want.

I cannot find a source of this at all. I cant even find a source that says that the right to vote came with the obligation to enlist in the military.

[deleted]

Most historical topics I love, and could see spending years working with, have of books written on them already. It's discouraging to think of just retreading what an earlier historian has already covered.

Or other major positive effects?

From my understanding, Brazil received a significant number of immigrants from places which, at the time, were part of the Ottoman Empire. For example, I heard that the town I live in received Turkish immigrants while a nearby town received Lebanese immigrants. What are the reasons for this immigration?

​

Secondly, Brazil has a largely Christian population, while these former Ottoman territories have a mostly Muslim population. However, the religious makeup of the descendants of these immigrants are (AFAIK) the same as the rest of Brazil. Now, I know Lebanon has many Christians and the nationality of these Turkish immigrants might not be actually Turkish, as they were all part of the same Empire. So my second question is: were a significant portion of these immigrants Muslim, or were they all Christian? If there was a significant Muslim portion, I assumed they mostly converted, as their descendants are not (AFAIK) Muslim. If so, were they pressured directly or indirectly to convert when they arrived?

Preferably free and available online.

I’m sitting here watching a period movie and I’m wondering why wide-hipped dressed were appealing. I know that fashion is culturally determined and not always explainable, but in the case of some old French clothing there are super widened dresses that extend way past the shoulder of the wearer. Is there a reason for this? Did preference at the time dictate something like “the wider the hips the closer to god” or something like along those lines?

[deleted]

I am kind of ashamed to ask this, since I am a Bosnian, but no one I've asked has been able to provide me with a defined and evidence based answer. I was recently at the Srebrenica memorial center, and the guide (who was in the ARBIH) told us that the citizens pretty much gave up hope after seeing the incompetence of the Dutchbat soldiers (drawing graffiti on buildings, crying during shelling and just a serious lack of discipline). I've also seen the film "No man's land", which is a satire of the "UN incompetence" thing, but it's never disclosed in the film, the museum or anywhere I've looked exactly why they couldn't pick a side or at least protect the civilians who've, through out the entire war, been brutally massacred. So why were the "Blue helmets" so ineffective, was it politics, interest or something else ?
I thank you in advance for your answer, since this is an important thing for me.

It seems that they were a major voice against slavery in a time when it was seen as a "no-duh" kind of societal practice. Was it an actual voice against racism or some other economic or societal trend that caused this to be the case?

There is something about how my office is set up such that I get zapped by every door knob I touch. What did people without a knowledge of electricity make of that?