[deleted]

Hi all, I was reading up on some Ancient Egyptian history (as I’m quite fond of it), however something that I haven’t wrapped around my head (nor could find out) was why Ancient Egypt lasted so long. Any thoughts as to why?

Asking because of the phrase WASP (white Anglo saxxon Protestant). Is the "white" redundant or were there non-white Anglo saxxon Protestants?

I promise I'm just curious out the acronym, not any shady racism stuff. Would ASP be as accurate as WASP?

[deleted]

I'm mixed, half black half Italian (mostly) and am a teenager. Growing up I've always referred to the Italian side as my "white side" when discussing it. People have asked me what's on my white side, or what I'm mixed with, and I've never thought twice about it.

It makes me wonder if there are historical reasons as to why this is the case, or if they have been perused in a way like other ethnicities.

I don't have contact with my father (black side) and hs family, so I was raised with an all Italian family. There's no part of Italian culture embedded in our lives aside from the fact that most of my extended family is catholic. Other than that, nothing. No language, no food, no nothing. They all receive white privilege and have even bed occasionally racist toward me/ other POC.

Despite this, I've always heard Italian people considered not white. Kind of like how Russian people are received. Just now I was listening to The Dollop podcast discussing how the president's father didn't want ethnic people living in the neighborhood, and was upset when an Italian family moved in. He himself spoke German.

Why are Italians considered ethnic? They're European and don't have a huge legacy in another continent like Spain does with South America. What makes them special, and why aren't Germans considered nonwhite, or the British for living on a different landmass, or say people in Iceland?

I was watching a history channel on YouTube when I noticed a highly upvoted comment that said that the German command didn't actually use the term Blitzkrieg or think of their offensive approach to WW2 as a unique war doctrine. Rather, to them, they were using the same old German tactics but had integrated tanks and airplanes.

Is there any truth to this?

Our current beloved president has never been a clean figure, and it made me wonder what Nixon was going through as the watergate scandal rose

My basic knowledge surrounding Nixon is that he generally liked and was considered a good president. Saying that, how did public opinion shift as his scandal began. Was skepticism prevalent, did opinions shift quickly, etc.

I've read a number of contridicting sources about if they did or did not have female warriors, and I'm curious if anyone here is more familier.

Specifically I'm most interested in knowing if they actually went on campaign with men, rather than simply fought to defend their homes.

Thanks in advance!

My boyfriend told me (and I don’t know if it’s true) that there’s a lake in Arizona where people have been dumping dead bodies for hundreds of years because, apparently, due to the water’s qualities the bodies will sink easily. He said that indigenous tribes have been doing that for ages, as well as mobs. Apparently a famous scuba diver went down there and he cancelled the investigation because he said something along the lines of “the world isn’t ready to see what’s down there” Is there any truth to this?

I was rewatching game of thrones and in one scene a guy says something like the fighting pits are the only chance of these people being remembered. So I was wondering if there’s any record of particularly famous gladiators? I’m not looking for those remembered for uprisings or rebellions, but those who were just famous for how well they did in the arenas.

From my understanding, the most common battle tactic in ancient times was to ram the opposing ship (and then board if possible). However, by medieval times, it seems that ships equipped with rams were phased out. Was there any reason for this?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I have an assignment for a history course I'm taking (it's about mythology) and the paper I'm writing requires a primary source, a secondary source, and a pop culture reference. The topic I'm covering is the genesis flood narrative and it's cultural significance. Would citing the bible be considered a primary source?