Good evening, I was curious about a lecture I had yesterday. He's a great history teacher but I was confused at how perhaps not so prepared the Qing were against the British. I only ask this because the news about what was going on in the Indian Subcontinent and the British Empire(And its East India company) should have went to the Qing Empires knowledge and helped them better prepare themselves and now repeat what happened to the Mughals, to happened to them. So, what was it that made the Qing so unprepared against the British? why weren't they prepared since the Mughals were very close to the Qing Dynasty geographically.

If you're confused about what I am asking, feel free to ask for clarity. Thanks for your time:)

(not trying to be political just want to give this question some context)

I worked as a studio cameraman and a very right leaning US TV station in the late 90s. One semi frequent topic was how Bill Clinton wasn't doing enough to find these missing suitcase sized nuclear devices after the fall of the USSR. The frequent narrative always being communist hardliners using them or them being sold to Iran/Palestine/other Boogeyman of the week.

Were these small nukes ever proven to be real, and if so found?

I am curious about the origin of the terms "blacklist" and "whitelist", and couldn't readily find a useful etymology of these words.

• in what context were these terms originally used? Do these terms predate the blacklisting of Hollywood actors by McCarthy?
• did these terms originally have racial connotations, or is there something else to it?

Did scientists know about harmonic oscillation? Looking back from the present, are there any theories about how timekeeping could have been made more efficient (not even necessarily at sea) with technology that existed in the fifteenth century?

Heathens as in what the Norse I believe called themselves (or rather those who believed in non-Christian gods), not as a pejorative.

I teach university-level courses that include one on genocides and politicides, so I've done plenty of academic reading on the topic of mass killing in general and the Holocaust in particular. Usually, I can "explain" a genocide or politicide as part of a larger plan that is expected to benefit the leaders of a country (or colony) -- perhaps to dispossess people of their land, perhaps to get rid of a politically-threatening group, etc. Whatever the plan is, the leader(s) responsible for it use it to reinforce their political authority and capabilities. This is adequate to explain the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, Burundi's Genocide (1972), and politicides in various Communist countries. It does a passable job at explaining why Leopold behaved so differently in Belgium (where he was politically constrained) and Congo (where he ruled unchecked and demanded profit at any Congolese price). It can even explain the genocidal German campaign against the Herero.

But I'm always stymied by the Holocaust itself. Why did the Nazi leadership (the only people whose opinions on the issue really mattered) find exterminating Jews to be so important that it trumped even military (diversion of scarce resources such as transportation, alienation of local populations who might have been recruited against Stalin, etc) and economic (e.g. slave labor or at least cheap highly-skilled labor) considerations? Put simply, why did top Nazis think that they would be better off in a world in which they had eliminated (rather than merely dispossessed and enslaved) Jews? Was this related to their drive to consolidate, retain, and expand their political authority -- and if so, how?

I checked the FAQ and didn't see the question put this way, and I'm hoping professional historians (I'm a political scientist) can help me out here.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to further any political point or make a comparison between socialists and fascists

I was just genuinely surprised by the fact that that so many orginal fascists were former socialists (to my knowledge)

And if so, did anyone enter because of this?

I know both Da Vinci and Raphael died shortly after Luther posted his 95 Theses (Da Vinci on 1519, Raphael on 1520) on 1517. But Michelangelo lived till 1564, and worked on many art pieces during the Protestant and Catholic-Counter Reformation; did he ever reveal his true opinion on the Catholic Church?

I don't understand how people consider Soviet Union to be Communist, not only did they use money but they bought consumer goods. It seems like it was more 'state capitalist' than socialist or communist. Why do people consider it to be communist?

Studying on nuclear reactors, I see that they are quite dangerous to contain in such a way that they don't melt down. Back in the early days of the Manhattan Project, how did they go about making the first reactors, and what problems/incidents did they encounter?

Same question can apply to the Soviet program shortly afterwards as well, if relevant.

In multiple portraits of Shakespeare he is wearing a gold hoop earring. A few places I read said that earrings were somehow associated with poets in Shakespearean times, and one place even suggested that the artists might have added it in as a joke.

I know it's a bit of a stretch considering how little we know about Shakespeare, but is there any information on this?

I remember a teacher I had in Middle School talking about all the math Lewis Carrol did and topical references made in his writing. One of the examples she gave what that the line "Who are you?" from the caterpillar was referencing a joke at the time of writing. (I'd call it a meme now, but I heard this story in like 2007 before that word gained popularity).

Basically during a trial some judge told a defendant "And who are you?" and the courtroom found it hilarious, and the story got really popular so people would say "Who are you?" as a joke response to things. I assume in a similar way to "That's what she said". Or made it was a popular joke at the time so when the judge said it, that's why it was so funny? I don't really remember.

I have tried a couple times to find a source or reference for this but never have, and don't know how I'd go about searching it.

Was the call explicitly for the war effort? How far in advance of the United States joining the war were people returning to Europe?

I've seen these old timey pictures and heard these stories of Finnish people domesticating deer. Everything from riding deer to milking deer to hurding deer.

The answer I often hear ask to why the native North Americans didn't domesticate as many animals as South/Central America or the Old World was because there existed fewer domesticatable animals (animals that would be docile enough to domesticate). They generally will list Bison and Deer as examples of animals that people think could be used as beasts of burden but are just not domesticatable.

Even then I've seen videos of ranchers riding Buffalos no problem, but then people will say it's because those Buffalos have been bred with cows to be more docile.

Why didn't the native North Americans domesticate reindeer? I don't really that much of a geographic or life style difference between much of the people like the inuit and the finns.

Is it down to the deer being too different a type of deer or something?

I just keep asking myself why native North Americans didn't advance enough to a pasturalist life style despite sharing very much in common with steppe nomads.

Anyways, hope you can answer my question(s).

Oftentimes in histories you find figures who were famously good at certain games, like chess or cards. Would their skills have been comparable to modern day expert players, or is it more like Olympic events, where modern athletes could best their predecessors handily?