3 tablespoons garam masala

1 tablespoon paprika

Vegetable oil, for cooking and drizzling

4 skinless, boneless chicken breasts

8 3/4 ounces basmati rice

1 teaspoon ground turmeric, curry powder or pinch of saffron strands, optional

1 bunch spring onions

One 3/4-inch piece fresh ginger 2 cloves garlic

1 1/2 cups light cream or yogurt (cream tastes much better but yogurt is healthier), optional

7 ounces tomato paste

2 teaspoon English mustard powder

Salt and freshly ground black pepper

Fresh cilantro or parsley leaves, for serving

[deleted]

p.217, October 1686, Certificate of Edmd Mashall & Hen: Voden for takeing up three Runaway Indians, Vizt. Harry a boy belonging to Mr. Ro: Burton & Kate & Sarah to wenches belonging to Mr. Will: Glover. p.220, 12 October 1686, Certificate granted to Edmd. Marshall & Hen: Voden for Arthur an Indian belonging to Jno. Wilson his takeing up a Runaway Irish boy servt. to Robert Burton.

Trying to see if we could say that British and French rivalry started from 1066 and is thus a millennium old.

I’ve always wondered why so many of the lessons about history (especially US history) taught during the early years of my education (late ‘90s and early ‘00s) were based on myths or tall tales that all my later teachers would have to completely negate. Stuff along the lines of “Columbus proved the Earth was round” or “Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity” or portraying the Founding Fathers as saintly heroes with no room for complexity/flaws.

I’m not suggesting that 5-10 year olds should be exposed to the ugliest/most disturbing parts of our history for the sake of total accuracy, or that such young minds should be expected to grasp all the complexities of real history. But why are so many of these demonstrably false stories taught to young students as fact?

EDIT: Some of the early replies have called into question whether I am misremembering that these stories were really TAUGHT as fact rather than merely told as stories. I won’t reject that possibility with regard to some of the specific examples I provided, but I certainly have many memories of history teachers (from around 6th grade on) having to dispel similar generalizations and falsehoods when reintroducing familiar topics. If the dissemination of bad history like this isn’t due to early education, it would still be interesting to know why/how it became so widespread as to require dispelling at all.

I read the wikipedia article, but didn't quite get it, not being familiar enough with the background.

Spain was allied with France (why?), and they invaded Portugal together? And... maybe Napoleon's brother was king of Spain for some reason? Or it was some guy called Godoy? And the Spanish revolted against their King (why?)? Or maybe in support of a new King? It seemed like Spain was controlled by France, and so the Spanish revolted, but I don't really get why it was controlled by France. Had they previously conquered it?

I remember a story about Cao Cao that he was with his army marching, and said that anyone that stops will be executed, but later on he himself stopped to drink some water. He orders his soldiers to execute him, but they refuse so they just cut his hair. Is that thing true? I have been trying to find it on the Internet, but nothing seems to pop up. I would appreciate the help, thanks!

I need a source for a piece of course work on uprisings in america in the 19th century. I already have a source from Harpers weekly about the raid on harpers ferry, but I would like to have one with a contrasting view point to compare it with. Thanks for any help.

I am using states here as an all encompassing term to include Venice to Naples. How did the different states react? Why where they swayed to join up in the Italy project? How did resistance to it look like?

The books tend to point to these reasons and I wanted to see how accurate they were:

• policy of the French to steal from the local populace, as opposed to paying for food, which pitted the locals against them and created guerrillas that harassed French supply lines constantly.

• British fighting formations vs. French. The books describe the French attacking in deep columns to act as battering rams on the enemy lines whereas the British used long thin lines that allowed many more muskets to be used in a firing line. It seems whenever a British army faced a French army using these tactics, the British won.

• British domination of the seas prevented French reinforcements and supplies coming anyway but overland which were effected by my first point.

Were there other reasons not mentioned? I never knew much about the Napoleonic wars growing up and they are fascinating to me now.

While reading about the cosmonaut and first human to enter outer space, Yuri Gagarin, I noticed that in a section on his early life Wikipedia says he " entered into an apprenticeship at age 16 as a foundryman at the Lyubertsy Steel Plant near Moscow, and also enrolled at a local "young workers" school for seventh grade evening classes." As an American I find this confusing being that 7th grade in this country is typically much younger (I assume the system must just be different rather than him having been held back 3 or 4 grades) and wanted to know more about the education system of the Soviet Union and how it compared to Western education during the same timeframe (1922-1991)

I'm currently writing a fiction novel that involves a tribe of people who live in the Mojave dessert. However, I am not aware of how people survived or can survive in the dessert with relatively primitive technology.

Wanting to not BS my readers, I tried researching online on how real natives lived in the area traditionally; (Paiute, Washoe, Shoshone, etc.) However I have found very little information on what tools they used to survive, how they made shelter, or how they gathered food and water.

(I'm not entirely sure this is the right subreddit for this, but seeing as my high school had no problems discussing native people in history I assume this counts. If I AM in the wrong place, direction to a better subreddit would be appreciated.)

If I understand population growth in the first world in recent centuries correctly, it grew sharply from the 18th to early 20th centuries because of increasing advances in medicine lowering the death rate, causing cities to stop being population sinks. Then during the 20th century, the birth rate dropped as well, leading to the more or less stable populations first world countries have nowadays. What I am curious about is what people thought of these declining birth rates when they first noticed them. Was there any effort to keep the population growing?

I've got the unfortunate case of being really interested in the social and spiritual landscape of early medieval Europe before and during Christianization, while also not being a student at all and only really having amazon reviews, covers, names, and sparse pages to tell if something is well researched and academically minded or nationalist, racist, wildly speculative drivel about The Heart of the West and Our Warrior Spirit or whatever nonsense.

Was wondering if there was anywhere you can get public access to something that would make the distinction easier to make. Even just like a list of a course's books and a little bit on the course, professor, college etc. would be super helpful. Also the dimensions of the sacred, ritual, that sorta thing.