​EDIT: Oh my god guys thank you so much this is so much more than I had ever hoped for.

For example the saxophone and trumpets were popular in jazz, but didn't really go on to rock, whereas the double bass became the electric bass and the drums remained

For instance, the Greeks established colonies on islands in the Aegean, Ionia, and Sicily, while the Carthaginians later established colonies in Spain and other various regions. Were these colonies State or City-State sponsored ventures with a clear economic or political purpose? Additionally, what was the actual process of colonization like, given that there would presumably be native populations in the colonized areas hostile to foreign colonies. Were these colonization efforts aided by large military forces or did they consist largely of militia's?

If, as it has been said, William Shakespeare invented hundreds of new words for use in his plays, how did his contemporary audience know what he meant

Recently I was reading some posts online (in spanish) that explained how Romans left unwanted babies at trash places or at the doors of the rich families. It also specified that early christians collected the babies to save them, however there was no source for the info. Which is why I’m here. Is this true? How was this viewed by society at the time? Is there anything important to know about it?

I was thinking today about Native American tribes that lived in Florida (and the southeast US in general) and wondered how they dealt with alligators in their daily life. Did they hunt them? Avoid them? Were alligators of any religious significance? Was there any Native American mythology/legend surrounding their existence? Thank you!

[deleted]

As in my understanding the southern states dependence on slavery created a long term ineffecient reliance on manual labor in contrast to the Norths growing industrial capacity.

Did southern intelligenta try to defend slavery on economic terms?

I.e where there pro and anti slavery economist camps?

How did these exchanges/debates look like?

Where there prominent economic scholars that a modern reader could read about?

How did political bodies/parties/groups use or meet economic theories on slavery?

In the podcast, he basically says that the education at most black schools was fine, and that the intent of the civil rights movement wasn't about getting kids into the 'good' schools, but rather breaking down racial barriers. He makes the accusation that, while the Supreme Court ruling to desegregate was correct, the stated reason that it irreparably damaged black children was not in line with the stated reasons by the civil rights movement and itself represented racist sentiment among the justices.

It's an interesting idea, and one I've never heard before. I was taught in school that black schools were almost always underfunded and understaffed; is Gladwell's perspective accurate?

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure I'm in the right place here but I wanted to create a post to know if you have some indications about books dealing with Borgia's and Medicis' families.

​

I'm interested by these families and the Renaissance and I would like to visit Italy with a kind of background about them.

​

Thank you for tips and sorry for my english!

​

Tak

I have recently come across many arguments, mostly among socialists, that 1932 was simply an unfortunate accident, and that deaths from starvation were simply caused due to a great shortage of grain supply that was prioritized over urban areas as opposed rural areas.

In addition, they argue that collectivization is not to blame for the famine - according to their sources, notably Mark Touger's 'The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933', the 1932 quanta was reduced from 22.4 million tons to 18.1 million tons, alleviating the difference by increasing the quota from sovkhozes, and that overall grain procurement was reduced 30%. And that furthermore, exports were halved in response.

How much truth or falsehood is there to these arguments?

EDIT: I'm talking about the language, just to clarify.

From the very ancient civilizations, to the Persians, to the muslim conquests: the Near East has been the center of the world for much of World History. Given it's rather barren geography compared to for instance Europe, this seems odd.

Is my conception of the Near East distorted, and is it actually more fertile and resource-rich than I imagine it to be? Or is there another reason that civilizations were able to thrive there?

I am currently writing a paper on how Stalin's assumption of power influenced Soviet foreign policy during the 20's. Any suggestions on good sources (Specifically about 'Socialism in one country') or in general about the topic?
Thank you

​

Obviously the defense of the capital, and it’s being a constant objective for the Confederate Army’s dictated where many of the great battles were fought. Would the Union have been less aggressive if defense of Washington was not paramount. How deeply would into the North would the war extend? Would the psychology of the Citizens of the North been less protective of maintaining the Union, if it did not mean the capital would sit so close to the border?

​

I've been reading about Hwaseong Fortress in Suwon and how it was built as a result of filial piety King Jeongjo had towards his father, Prince Sado. However, from the memoirs of Sado's wife, Lady Hyegyeong, it seems obvious that Sado was a terrible person (he raped, murdered, and tortured people on the regular), as well as had severe mental health issues that made him afraid/anxious (to the point of harming others) about things as simple as getting dressed in the morning.

​

My question is, why would Jeongjo want to build something to honor such a monster? I'm assuming it has to do something to do with Korea's deep sense of Confucianism at the time. I also guess Jeongjo probably had a bit of trauma from his father's execution when he was eleven (Sado was forced into a rice chest by King Yeongjo, Sado's father and Jeongjo's grandfather, until he died seven days later). If anyone has a fuller answer, please let me know.

I was wondering if anyone had any illuminating primary sources that captured the essence or details of how Bolshevik power was consolidated between 1917-1924 (before Stalin came to power). For me it was easy to find information on Stalinist Russia but I'm finding it difficult to picture Russia under Lenin.

One thing I’ve noticed is that in today’s world the pop stars are generally the ones in the spotlight as composers mostly lurk in the background.

It made me wonder if the currently well-known composers of the past were in a similar situation, or if their popularity exceeded that of the famous singers during their time.