I've heard people talk about how the original members of the KKK were more-or-less just a security detail for ex-slaveowners who were being threatened by their freed slaves following the ratifying of the 13th amendment. Is there any truth to this or were they, even at their inception, an organization aimed at persecuting african-americans? Can someone give a bit more light to their origins?

[deleted]

I may be incorrect in thinking so but the common idea with Christian moneylenders in the high middle ages is that it was considered unchristian or even heretical to charge interest on loans. Even without factoring in inflation, lending out money and getting the same amount back at a later date would yield no profit. So it just doesn't make sense. Were there then no christian moneylenders?

With my very limited knowledge of medieval history, I don't know of any other example of historical events being recorded in fabric form.

I have a series of questions, any of which I'd be grateful for an answer to:

I know that (probably) Bishop Odo ordered the tapestry to be made to celebrate William's success - and stress his own role - by displaying it for a fortnight each year in Bayeux Cathedral. This was especially useful for a mainly illiterate population, but why was a series of stained glass windows or similar method not chosen? Is it linked to the Tapestry being described (somewhat confusingly) as a secular piece of artwork, or is that putting the cart before the horse?

Was an embroidery at least an unsurprising form of recording achievements in the 11th Century? Is the Bayeux Tapestry simply well known for its significance for England, its length, or its durability?

As a bonus question, are there any records that reveal William's reaction to the tapestry?

[deleted]

They key objective of this question is to identify the Pharaoh of the exodus. A popular candidate is Thutmose II who ruled briefly before Akhenaten. Is it possible that Akhenaten got the idea to synthesise the pantheon with monotheism from the events that occured to one of the Pharaohs that ruled before him? And if not Thutmose II, then who?

Today's Democrat and Republican parties seem quite simple in understanding them. With Democrats ranging from progressives like Bernie to moderate-right (like 90s Clinton and establishment Dems) and Republicans ranging from moderate-right to far-right and clustered really around cultural and social-welfare/business as deciding factors.

We all know how the Civil Rights movement/Goldwater/Southern Strategy reorganized the parties around modern "conservative/liberal" ideologies, but I am having a hard time understanding (despite falling in to a wiki hole) how the two-party system operated between the time of post-Lincoln Republicans to the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon era (1890-1950)?

How did people even pick their parties? There seems to be some ethnography to it with Catholics going to Democrats and Protestants going to Democrats? But the parties had a WIDE range within each party when it comes to progressive vs conservative, pro-corporation vs pro-worker, isolationist vs interventionist.

There were progressive Republicans (like Teddy Roosevelt) and Democrats (FDR) at the same time. I see a lot of discussion about Democrats protecting the Southern Jim Crow era (the Solid South), but how does Truman become the nominee and Civil Rights end up on his platform with all the Dems in the South?

Republicans were often progressive, but they were also puritanical with the prohibition on drinking.

The New Deal got Blacks to support Dems.

Trying to understand what actually defined these parties if anything at all.

Was it cultural (Catholics vs epiestical Protestants vs Evangelicals?)?

Was it purely economic (pro-tariffs vs anti tariffs, farmer vs industrial business, Unions/Anti-Trust vs Corporate Business)?

Was it isolationist vs internationalists?

Is there a politcal theory component I am missing? (Central vs Decentralized governance)

Maybe this is why bipartisan politics was much more active back then since both parties had the full spectrum.

Elizabethan England

I know there is a huge difference between the two, but I want to know the political details. I'm genuinely curious how much power Führers (Like Hitler) had in comparison to US presidents.

I’m reading Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”, and Brutus and his fellow conspirators keep mentioning how Caesar has become a tyrant, and for that reason he must be killed. I was wondering what his specific actions were that led to him becoming a tyrant.

If there were any Muslims or Arabs in Europe how did the Nazis treat them? Where they put in camps or left alone?

The Hallstein Doctrine was a key part of the foreign policy from its inspection in the mid-1950s, and towards the end of the 1960s. Even though the Soviet Union recognize and maintained diplomatic relations with East Germany, the West German continued to maintained diplomatic relations with the USSR, on account of its spesial situation concerning the German question after WWII. How was the West German government able to reconcile this breach of its foreign policy doctrine with its population?

I read in a recent news article that the Allies during WWI sent troops to different ports to secure munitions and supplies. Particularly, the United States sent troops to Vladivostok the article pointed out. The article even contained a photo of an American soldiers grave-site that is still in Vladivostok.

I find this incredible as I've studied US History most of my life. Where can I read more about this? And can anyone shed any light on this for me?

Thanks!