[deleted]

[deleted]

What I mean by this is that it's seems pretty easy to do it with arabic numbers. You put one of top of each other and you can add each digit etc. Same goes for multiplication, division, subtraction. However with the way roman numbers are written, it looks like you can not apply the same logic. I hope that one of you can elighten me on the subject :). PS: sorry for my poor English

We all know that history is not pretty and depending on what kind of history you study you are likely to come across certain words that are highly offensive in today's world. I was just wondering how historians who write academic papers or give lectures on their research handle the use of slurs in the medium they are presenting their data.

I am asking this because I've met some fellow history students, when I was an undergraduate, who felt that because of how offensive the word is it should not be used, even sparingly, when discussing a historical topic. For example, in a course history of lgbt activism in the united states there was an individual in my class that did not like my use of the word dyke, even though the activists herself used the word to describe herself, because of the animus often attached to the word. Of course the most obvious example would be a discussion of jim crow and saying n-word instead of the actual slur.

I personally think that we shouldn't try to hide the ugliness of the past and that if used in the historical context, and not just to create shock value, it is acceptable to use such words. I'll add that it's also obviously easier to use the words in a paper vs speaking them before others.

I do apologize if the question is too broad, but I just was curious what the historians here think.

ok so some background to the question. being Irish living in England I notice that history taught here majorly glosses over bad bits and focuses on the good bits. that's pretty standard in countries but it got me thinking. how bad was Napoleon really and was the French revolution a good thing for French people in terms of quality of life?

so I know things were rough for normal people in countries like England France and Spain despite them being colonial superpowers. the ragged trouser philanthropists paints a grim tale of life then and capital in the 21st century paints a massively unequal society so we know common people had it tough. this was the basis for the revolution and deposition for king Louis.

then eventually along comes Napoleon. admittedly we weren't taught too much in school about motives etc. AFAIK the war was about reinstating the monarchy. for what I remember of von klaushvitz in his book "on war" he respected Napoleon a lot and said his greatest ability was to mobilise the French people and get them on side in a way not seen before. but in Britain he's painted as a bad guy we defeated.

so yeah. was he a bad guy or is it that the empires at the time didn't like the idea of an equal society that was powerful and could inspire others? and did he and the revolution before him improve life for the average Frenchman?

sorry if the formatting is bad and rambly. I'm on my mobile.

I was always struck by the specificity of this little list of languages at the beginning of the Communist Manifesto. My assumption was always that these were the languages in which Marx and Engels expected to find an audience, but was there anything more to it than that? Were any of their choices seen as interesting or controversial to contemporaries?

Just how fast was one of these things? I've heard Sherlock Holmes used one because of how fast they were.

In 1942 the allied bombers started to attack civilian and culturally rich areas with no real military significance. I siriously want to know why they came up with this.

So I've been reading literature on how despite modernization, America has managed to stay on a whole more religious than supposedly "secular Europe." But I've been thinking, Europe as a whole isn't always very secular. For example, I would say that Poland is extremely religious while the UK isn't. I was wondering if anyone had any insight on what causes the variation on religion in Europe? Is it geography? Different religious denominations? Also, despite Europe being more "secular," I would argue that most of it is based on Christian ideals (since Europe is historically Christian). However, there's been a lot of news on the influx of Muslim immigrants that seem to challenge traditional lacite (e.g., protests against the headscarf ban). What are your thoughts on the rise of Islam in Europe pertaining to secularism?

Also, it's the night before my econ final, so I can't believe my procrastination has deepened to the point where I'm asking questions about European secularization.

As long as I’ve been alive (1991) we’ve always used the BC/AD model of Jesus Christ. Did civilizations start acknowledging the year 5, 5 years after JC was bailed to the cross? Or did someone later go through history and decide, “I think now we’re in about year 1000. Ya it’s been 1000 years since Jesus walked the earth let’s go with that”

Thanks,

My question applies to the entire Western Classical Age, Roman dogs as well.

Note that I'm not a breed connoisseur; I'm curious about characteristics that would stand out to everyone from modern times.