I also am interested into how this shaped the set up of the typical recording session. How did this affect the way in which sound engineers would rig up the equipment and if so, what were the knock on effects of this?

Thanks :)

I'm currently teaching a unit on the Civil War and slavery in my junior high class (it's an advanced program, and they can handle high school level material).

I'm a big fan of using original sources, and I'd like to use a few of the FWP narratives. However, I know that these are problematic in certain ways (specifically the way they were mostly conducted by white interviewers).

I'm frankly overwhelmed trying to sort through all the narratives. Are there any of the FWP narratives that your would recommend for this level (excerpting them is fine)?

Note: My students will also be reading excerpts of Frederick Douglas, Soujourner Truth, Harriet Jacobs, Solomon Northrop, and O. Equiano.

Thank you!

Sincerely, Grateful Middle School Teacher

Some Turkish historians says we had nearly 300 k army is that true?

Note: Sorry for word choosing

Senators were not directly elected by the people until the 17th Amendment. Have Representatives always been elected directly since the United States' founding?

Were there brutal, high casualty musket massacres in one room school houses in the olden days?

I'm not sure if I'm just paying more attention, but I have the impression that there are a lot more questions (and especially popular questions, getting attention on /r/all) with the following format:

Is it true that "assertion put into quotation marks here"?

I have a hard time with these questions because I feel like without attribution or context for the quote, it's sometimes difficult to properly evaluate and provide an actual in-depth response.

If we required attribution or context for these quotes, the answers would get much better. If the quote is from a secondary source, attribution is both academically necessary and makes it far easier to research the quote in question, and would help students of history understand the merits or challenges with secondary sources. If it is an assertion found in popular media, we could trace the historiography of the assertion (whether or not it is accurate). If it's something more in the lines of an urban legend, we can trace or discuss the origin and spread of that myth and the historical context that surrounds it.

What are people's thoughts on this? I feel like it would be a pretty minimal ask to just require posters to put context in the text portion of their post, and it could provide benefits to the answers.

I propose we make a rule change requiring posters who are asking about the truth of a specific historical assertion or quote to contextualize it by at least providing where they discovered the assertion

[deleted]

I adopted a little girl from Vietnam a couple of years ago, and she's now 9.... it's only a matter of time until she hears about the Vietnam war, and I'd like to be prepared to discuss the topic with her whenever that is. I can easily find books written from a Western perspective, however I am looking for recommendations for books written from the Vietnamese perspective. Thank you in advance.

The differences between Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are much closer than the major Romance languages today are to each other. The Nordic countries never really fell under a single crown, but I could say the same about Germany, Austria, and Switzerland--and the unification of Germany in the 1800s came about long after High German got established as a written standard. Why didn't Low German establish its own written standard that took root in Northern Europe, despite its historical prominence?

My daughter came home yesterday eager to tell me the 'true story of valentine's day' that she learned in grade 2. She explained that saint valentine was a real person who was martyred by the Roman emperor for marrying Christians, which was against the law. That didn't sound right at all so I went hunting on the internet, but all the sources that described this story that I could find were explicitly Christian, and referred to emperor Claudius - which doesn't make any sense to me.

Is this simply a myth, or is there something to this story, perhaps garbled?

Follow-up question that you're probably sick of hearing by now: how did saint valentine come to be associated with courtly love?

I'm aware the Chavin culture was a thing but i'm a bit unclear if they were an urban society or not and am having a hard time findiing information about them.

For that matter, i'm not that informed on any of the cultures I mentioned (I'm more of a Mesoamerica guy), and while i'm decently sure that the Moche, Wari, and Tiwanku were urban, I don't know how urban, and i'm unsure if they were actual state soceities or not (I'm sort of just assumiing they are, given the complexity of sites like Huaca de la luna); and i've seen Caral compared to Göbekli Tepe or Pueblo bonito, so i'm not even certan if it was an urban site/city or not.

I just finished reading "Ten days that shook the world" and I'm fascinated by the Russian revolution, in particular the civil war that followed. What would be some reputed and thoroughly researched works to start with? I'm particularly interested in those that look at it from a subaltern viewpoint (if that makes any sense in this context). However, other viewpoints, milhist analyses, etc are all welcome.