I remember hearing that Jews were not considered white in the same way that Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian people were until after the Second World War. Is this true? What did this process look like?
1 Answers 2018-09-21
I study theology and at the moment I am working on the Bible book of Esther. I have read the book many times, but just now I discovered that in Esther 6:8 it is said that the horse on which Mordecai was driven around had a crown on his head. Was that the custom in Persia, or is this a humorous aspect of the story?
2 Answers 2018-09-21
I originally posted this to /r/badhistory but /u/heftybaby suggested I might learn more by posting it here, so here it goes...
http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700819.html
I was inspired to post the following in /r/Australia to try to give some level of dispassionate foundation for the crazy fights that occur in a factual vacuum in this country over, not only James Cook's legacy but even who he was or what he did. Common claims by the right such as: "The left is rewriting history by saying Cook didn't discover Australia" or the left wing claim that Cook, assisted by eugenics enthusiast Joseph Banks, slaughtered indigenous tribes and conquered the continent, for example. He's somehow become a controversial figure for millions of people but almost no one's rhetoric seems to align with reality.
It's not just the controversial repercussions of settlement at issue. Politicians and media will claim he discovered the continent (he didn't). That a house in Melbourne is where he was born (it isn't) or that he used the doctrine of terra nullius to claim possession for George III (he didn't).
My question for the historiography fans here at /r/badhistory is what the hell has happened here?
We seem to have found a particular niche in the history/culture war in Australia where neither side has any regard whatsoever for the basic facts of what happened. It's progressed so far that Cook appears, in the eyes of many Australians at least, to have become some bizarre Arthur Philip/Christopher Columbus hybrid.
Is there precedent for an individual as well understood as Cook to become victim to such widespread misinformation, simultaneously, from opposing sides of the spectrum?
The /r/Australia post: Apparently conflicting forces have joined in a confluence of extremely bad history over the events of the 12 to 16 weeks beyond this diary entry.
I think, given some of the outright lies told by both history/culture warring parties, there might be some benefit in simply showing people where they can find the original words of Cook, Banks and senior officers on the Endeavour without anyone's political or philosophical agenda trying to colour them.
There's a lot of really strongly held thoughts on this time period but it can absolutely never hurt to have a look at the primary sources we have easy to hand and Australia's National Library site is a real Aladdin's Cave. So I hope some of you find this interesting reading no matter where you sit on the spectrum (there's some pretty interesting episodes in the voyage before this too, such as Cook's falling out with the Viceroy of Rio De Janeiro who seems to suspect the little Bark Endeavour could never really be on the mission Cook describes).
Cook's own words also put the lie to the claim he never lashed a sailor... and they seem to support the no scurvy claims. There's even a run in with the Great Barrier Reef and an Aboriginal warrior with a remarkable and unexplained bow and quiver full of arrows.
More: Joseph Banks diary: http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/banks/17700819.html Hawkesbury's account: http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/banks/17700819.html Parkinson's account: http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/parkinson/198.html Of particular note are the days following these as well as the August 22 entry from Cook in which he takes possession of the east coast in keeping with his orders to do so from the King.
Possession Island: http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700822.html
This one is particular important in the culture wars because, despite the left's claim otherwise Cook does not use the words "terra nullius". This concept becomes important about 18 years later with the landing of Arthur Philip.
The August 22 entry also cripples the right wing culture warrior whinge of "re-writing history" by claiming Cook did not discover Australia as Cook himself says as much in his own words here too.
And, although this isn't a primary source, it is quite contemporaneous and sober. Here's a really handy explanation of where Mabo enters history and how Cook does (or completely doesn't as it it may more accurately be characterised) have anything at all to do with the doctrine if terra nullius and how it all fits together.
Rewriting History 1: The Mabo Decision, by Mark Gregory: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/1992/73.pdf
1 Answers 2018-09-21
It seems like somewhere around the 50s Americans became much more casual in their lifestyle (according to pop culture at least). What spurred this?
1 Answers 2018-09-21
And how was this connected to the rise of the Ummayeds?
I've tried reading it on Wikipedia (which may not be reliable on such a religiously charged topic), but honestly, it's a bit confusing.
So, from what Wikipedia tells me, I think what happened is something like: Some people murdered Uthman. I'm not sure why. Ali was chosen as the fourth Caliph. He didn't punish Uthman's murderers (again, I don't know why). Muawiyah, Governor of Syria (and a relative of Uthman?), refused to accept Ali as Caliph because he hadn't punished Uthman's murderers (but maybe it was really because Ali's capital was in Iraq, not Syria?). They had a big battle, and after three days decided to solve it peacefully. Ali chose people who were involved in Uthman's death (why?), but others didn't accept his choice. The arbitrators decided that Muslims should elect a Caliph. Ali didn't accept this. Some extremists on Ali's side were fed up with negotiations, saying Ali wasn't pious enough to fight properly, and went off and made their own faction. Wikipedia seems to say these guys are the same ones that murdered Uthman? The war continued, but the extremists decided to assassinate both Ali and Muawiyah. They killed Ali, but I assume failed to kill Muawiyah? And then Muawiyah made peace with Ali's son Hassan and became Caliph.
How accurate is that? What's the deal with Ali failing to punish Uthman's killers, did he just not know who they were?
1 Answers 2018-09-21
If Muslim then how come they weren't exterminated for leaving Islam? In Islam if you convert to an another religion you will get killed according to the Islamic law. How come these people weren't just exterminated? And how did those Turkmens convert to Christianity? Were there Byzantine missionaries in Seljuk Anatolia?
edit: Meant to say "Were Karamanlides' Turk ancestors ex-muslim or ex-pagan?. Sorry I forgot to add.
1 Answers 2018-09-21
Today:
You know the drill: this is the thread for all your history-related outpourings that are not necessarily questions. Minor questions that you feel don't need or merit their own threads are welcome too. Discovered a great new book, documentary, article or blog? Has your Ph.D. application been successful? Have you made an archaeological discovery in your back yard? Did you find an anecdote about the Doge of Venice telling a joke to Michel Foucault? Tell us all about it.
As usual, moderation in this thread will be relatively non-existent -- jokes, anecdotes and light-hearted banter are welcome.
9 Answers 2018-09-21
In high school history, we learned about how during the Moslem conquest of the 7th century, Christians who came under Arab rule were allowed to keep their religion as long as they “paid a tax”, as the Arab Caliphate was a tolerant and benevolent society. However, later on, I read a different story about the Moslem conquest where the Arabs forced conquered Christians to convert to Islam, and those who wouldn’t were brutally persecuted, giving the Arabs a bad image in Europe that justified the Crusades. Which story is the correct one? I’m leaning more towards the second story considering history class tends to gloss over a lot of things.
2 Answers 2018-09-21
1 Answers 2018-09-21
3 Answers 2018-09-21
So I got into a heated debate about whether hitler was socialist I think he definitely was using his own version of socialism but I coild be wrong. At the time was he considered to be using a version of socialism or is it considered now to be based in that. My logic is Stalin is considered communist even though he was mainly a dictator so why not hitler?
1 Answers 2018-09-21
Was this something that happened Immediately like with the British colonies or was it much more gradual due to the heavy military presence in their colonies? It just seems like colonial women are left out of much of what I've read which seems odd.
2 Answers 2018-09-21
2 Answers 2018-09-21
I’m in Dhaka at the moment and have taken the opportunity to learn a bit about the creation of Bangladesh and the preceding war. I’m curious what US attitudes were like at that time. Did the US ever consider involving itself? Was there any push to do so among US citizens or were people too focused (and tired of) involvement in Vietnam?
2 Answers 2018-09-21
Do we know any reason behind that?
1 Answers 2018-09-21
To the best my knowledge a man of his position and influence could have easily made it there. Is it that he didn't want to run or did he try and wasn't elected? If the former, what are the reasons?
1 Answers 2018-09-21
1 Answers 2018-09-21
1 Answers 2018-09-21
1 Answers 2018-09-21
2 Answers 2018-09-21
And did his death cause a significant downturn for the movement in terms of membership and support?
2 Answers 2018-09-21
Also slight of hand did current magicians and past magicians learn that from card cheaters?
1 Answers 2018-09-21
There's this idea of Sparta as this military juggernaut, in which everything revolves around the army from the day you're born to the day you die. Would this be true for the average citizen of Sparta?
1 Answers 2018-09-21