Hello, I am currently writing an essay on the influence of Domino Theory in Vietnam and to counter it I have been using Quagmire Theory as my example. However I am running low on secondary sources, I am wondering if anyone has a good way of finding legitimate opinions of professional historians on the topic that I could quote, such as A.Schlesinger or L.Gelb. Thank you for helping

This question was inspired by my love for Google Books. It's brilliant to go back and see the old typefaces and decorations from th 1800s, and to have access to a whole different world.

I imagined that what I saw on the screeen was essentially an image of the book that had been copied. But in downloading and playing around with the images, I discovered that there were multiple layers, some acting as a mask, some sharpening the letters and lines, and so on. Some layers seemed smeared, which I assume has something to do with the scanning process.

In short, what I'm looking at online is not a simple picture of the original page. So what is actually going on when an old book is made digital? And in what ways does that process obscure (or clarify!) our understanding of the historical text?

I'm writing a fiction book about a Spanish family who are one of many sent to settle a new uninhabited land in the 16th century. I've found lots of information about medieval villages, but this is too early a period. I've also found information about 16th century European villages, but these are too advanced for settlers who will be working with their immediate woodland surroundings (I think).

I'd particularly like to know how their homes were constructed, and how individuals (including children) spent their time.

Book suggestions would be welcome, particularly of first-hand accounts. Thank you

As I understand it, the popular “self destruction” story of the people of Rapa Nui doesn’t hold much water, at least on its own. Rather, later events such as abduction by slavers, infectious diseases and “cultural extermination” by missionaries lead to cultural decline/change and loss of knowledge. Of course, all cultures change and knowledge is lost over time but, as I understand it, no one can even decipher the written language (whether it is proto- or true writing) and it’s not that long ago that people presumably could.

While there are stories about children telling jokes and stories at the expense of their abusers, is there any evidence of them fighting back physically? There was undoubtedly an incredible degree of fear these children felt, but what about the older children? I can imagine that after years of abuse there was probably a significant amount of hate towards the staff and likely violent tendencies caused by said abuse, has there ever been any instances of students ganging up on staff and fighting back in that sense? Given that the staff were mostly preists and nuns, I find it hard to believe they were able to control dozens of teenagers who hated them enough to consider physical violence.

I am currently writing a paper about the experiences in residential schools and the affects caused by them (generational trauma, etc) and I'd like to touch on the possibility of "rebellion" in the schools and how that might have made things better/worse during their time there and afterwards once they left.

On a quick search I couldn't find any sources to back it up, but I also couldn't find any to refute it.
Considering around 24,000,000 Soviets died during the war, it doesn't seem implausible, so how true is my friend's claim?

I was listening to a podcast about the war in the pacific and the narrator would talk about MacArthur as if he was already some sort of military genius that was a household name before the onset of WW2. His defense of the Philippines doesn't strike me (the very definition of an armchair critic lol) as particularly brilliant. The success of the pacific campaign always seemed more down to the Admirals and the Navy than anything MacArthur did. Please forgive my ignorance, I am not American, just a fan of history.

So basically, apart from being born into a very distinguished military family, and coming top at west point, what was so special about MacArthur? What were his greatest triumphs, and why was he so famous?

I have always believed they left the red army with no leadership, and that the replacement of competent officers with politically convenient individuals did nothing but harm the soviet performance in the war. Pretty much everywhere I look that is the narrative, but I have seen stated more than once that the purges helped the soviets win the war. I didn't give it much credibility(as it is coming mainly from stalinists and communists), and I can't find much information about where this could come from. But I have seen it enough times, and from people who are minimally serious to consider it. So the question is: Is there any truth to this? If so, why is it so hard to find about it? If it isn't true, why is it claimed relatively often?

Based on what I've read, it seems chattel slavery was basically non-existent in West Africa prior to Portuguese contact. Some regions had no form of slavery at all, like Upper Guinea, and in other regions like the Ashanti Empire, most slaves were domestic servants who enjoyed considerable rights. That seems to be mainstream view here - that slavery was not endemic in West Africa but rather expanded by European demand. However, you also have regions like Benin which seem to be very well acquainted with slavery prior to European contact, engaging in slave raids as early as 1500 AD. So my question is, what really was the state of slavery in West Africa before European merchants arrived? Any links for further reading would be appreciated.

A very random question but can find no information on it, if anyone could help out it will be greatly appreciated.

I know the modern name comes from the name given by the ancient Greeks, "Aegyptus", but why did the Greeks call it that? The "ancient Egyptians" actually referred to their own land as Kemet, so why did they, and we today, not call it ancient Kemet, and its people Kemetians?

I always found it odd, from my understanding most other major ancient civilizations, and their people, have always been referred to by the names that they gave themselves. Why not them, though?

P.S - this is my third attempt at asking about this... I am honestly not sure what is so wrong with this question? I have already been called an idiot and told to get lost with this in two other subs.

edit: The rude messages about what a colossal moron I am can stop. Thanks.

What's the history behind stealing a base? It seems like an strange thing to allow? Was it a deliberate inclusion and if so what does it add to the game?

Or did it evolve from an oversight in the rules that they decided to make an official part of the game?

It just seems so random to me and I'm not sure what it contributes to the sport and I'm interested in how exactly it came to be

A question a little bit outside of the box, hopefully it won't be deleted. What is the current controversial discussion happening in academia, over your different fields of study. For example, in Linguistics, the recursion debate rages on, but the average Joe isn't particularly aware of it. Perhaps there was a recent archaeological finding? A new interpretation of primary sources? A breakthrough in deciphering an artifact?

If there was a period of general consensus, was a lot accomplished and was the an attempt to merge parties?

I know how Janus had significance to the Romans and January is the first month for this reason but it seems odd that there's no real difference between January and December from a weather standpoint so wouldn't it have made more sense to make March the first month of the year since that's when spring starts? I know Julius Caesar borrowed a lot from the Egyptian Calendar when designing his so was this just a holdover from the Egyptian calendar being better suited to their climate or was it just completely arbitrary?