“The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

I've highlighted the relevant examples in bold; is Steinbeck describing a relatively common phenomenon? How much of this is poetic license?

I am currently looking for some websites that can provide useful historical information, digitilised newspapers, articles, treaties. Academia.edu is the only source I know and its limited to some vague articles, and I am not really familiar with its Search engine. Any proposals?

I am already looking into libraries for books familiar to my subject (the reasons that led to the rise of the 1936 dictatorship in greece) but I need more.

Is there any mention of women taller than average in ancient Greek history? I am asking because I wonder if this would be a hinder or a gain in term of marriage and cultural life of tall women.

Would it have been the opposite way, where the husband would be mocked for having a taller wife?

Are there any mention of the stature of female gods and characters in Hellenistic mythology? Like a tall woman could be considered a distant descendant of a revered or known female mythological character?

The Vietnam War had (or perhaps has) been a major trauma for the American people. Some lament the ill treatment of the veterans (e.g. First Blood), some blame the government for throwing away American lives; some believe that Vietnam was totally irrelevant to American interest, and some appal at how Vietnam people and land was devastated.

Here comes the problem: Did anyone believe that the Vietnam war was a just cause, that communism must be stopped at any place lest America be destroyed, and that the only error in the war was that US didn't fight hard (or cruel) enough?

Did such mentality (if it existed) contribute to later developments in right-wing or nationalist ideology?

I've been reading asoiaf lately and I noticed that everyone beneath the king is a lord. To my understanding no other titles seem to exist in Westeros and people are just higher or lesser lords in comparison to their lieges and vassals. In contrast, to my knowledge, medieval Europe had dukes, counts, barons and all sorts of titles for people (and land, county vs duchy etc). Why wasn't everyone just a "lord"? Why did the differentiation between different types of lords/lands exist and where did they originate from? What made someone a duke and not a count or king?

Additional question, was the land named after a title or the other way around? If a count becomes a duke for reason or another, does his county become a duchy or is he just a duke who owns a county?

Every old picture I’ve ever seen no one seems to be smiling in it. So when did it become a widespread thing?

Everybody has played the game of telephone where successive attempts to pass a statement between person to person become muddled and increasingly more inaccurate until the final answer has little if any resemblance to what was initially said.

I can only imagine that because all of history until very recently aside from archeological remains could only have been passed down by either the spoken or written word, it being extremely likely that everything we "know" past a certain point must be mostly if not entirely completely wrong.

How can we be certain of Alexander's conquests or Caesars triumph in Gaul actually ever happened as it says it did, just as an example?

And even if we have first hand accounts, such as Caesars memoirs, which are likely filled with biases, fabrications, and embellishments to begin with. How do we know these are accurate if what remains of it today has been written, re-written, translated, and re-translated so many times over?

Can we ever be "certain" of our history past a certain point?

Like, Cronus is kinda implied to be directly responsible for making men "better" in that time. Wouldn't that mean, then, that Zeus made men worse? And was therefore worse than his father?

Were European medieval doctors/healers more likely to help their patients than do harm?

Were there subsets of medical practitioners that were more qualified and effective than others?

I know specific time and geography are a big factor but is there an ELI5 that captures the major points of these questions.

Especially in regards to wives who outlived their husbands for several decades.

Like chron(us)logically? Because the myths act like a story right? Because they’re all connected by the Greek gods and should have a timeline? So my question is in what known order do the Greek myths go?

What are some early mentions in history when people commonly referred to current year? For example, are there diaries or records saying “on this day of 879 year,” or “on this day of 56th year?” What are some early examples of general agreement among common people on what year it is?

I know some people blame the Plaza Accord which made the yen stronger (and exports more expensive), but Germany wasn't as affected by it, and their economy didn't fall into a decades-long stagnation. Why is that?

Could the bubble, its collapse, and the stagnation that continues to this day have been prevented if there was more sensible monetary policy by the Bank of Japan or other institutions? What was stopping them from making structural reforms?

Where there romans saying "I got one minted by Emperor Hadrian!", "oh yeah?, I have this one minted by Zenobia!", "that's nothing, I have one minted by Severus... with a spelling mistake!"

I was looking at a newspaper from wwi and it had several drawings of pictures alongside the photos. it seems that drawings would be extraordinarily easy to fake.

Question is self explanatory. How come fancy, bright uniforms were preferred over hard to spot, darker colored ones more alike modern camouflage? I feel like having the ability to more easily hide from the enemy would be relatively important and facilitate easier ambushes and traps. Even as far as WW1 some soldiers were regularly equipped with distinct uniforms that made them stand out against the ground and foliage. Why?