I know that both of these ideologies are extreme and that fascism is typically done by extreme discrimination of a minority group and the Karl Marx definition of communism is collective ownership of the means of production with not authority. However what would an economic system look under a fascist regime? Would it be similar to US economic system while let’s says Russia with the example of Germany?

I have recently been watching some stuff on TikTok, and in comment sections and in some videos there are people claiming that there was widespread cannibalism of black people who were lunched by white people during Jim Crow. I did a Google search but I never found any sources directly stating this, though I admit I didn't buy or download any of the books that came up in the Google search.

Can anyone cite any text that shows that cannibalism was at all widespread?

Now correct if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of Ancient Greek wars were between Greeks city-states themselves. By the rules of war during that time, it was the victors' right to possess losers as property, whether they were combatants or not.

Greeks generally had no problem enslaving other Greeks, as was the case with Phaedo of Elis, who was enslaved in Athens and forced to work as a prostitute in a brothel. So did the Greeks make up the majority of the slave population or at least a significant potion of it?

Now I want to start this by saying I am not a believer in any of the lost cause, Gods and Generals style historical myths. The war was caused for mostly economic reasons by a wealthy plantation owning elite, and poor people fighting for the wealthy elite has happened throughout history. However, it generally comes with some motive shifting propaganda attached to it. With the Philippines and Cuba it was nationalism and a growing pride in the country and a desire to make the country known. In Vietnam it was the paranoia surrounding communism. In Afganistan it was 9/11 and Iraq WMDs.

What was the south’s propaganda excuse for the common farmer? Because to me from the common Southern farmer’s perspective it would be like if Jeff Bezos asked us to fight a war to defend the use of AI instead of manual labor because the government was about to make it illegal. Like slavery was not only a moral sin of the highest caliber, but also allowed these rich plantation owners to buy up a bunch of smaller farmer’s land and became monopolies in their own right. Its the same thing Romans would argue over in the senate. So why fight a war defending the people that are economically bullying you?

Today, perhaps due to the incredible interconnectedness of the world, we are seeing many countries actively decrying Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as a choice few who seem to approve of Russia’s invasion. During the Vietnam War, what were the political stances that other countries not directly connected to the conflict had on the war?

Historically I would have expected the king to be the OP piece, and possibly the queen to the weak but capable damsel he must protect. The entire plot of chess would make more historical sense if it was about a mighty king protecting his people and, most importantly, his queen. But even if the heroic king dies the queen is still alive so the war isn't over.

Anyway, the plot we do have is mysterious. The queen, who historically never went into battle, is the most OP piece. She protects her weak-ass husband. The way it is, the plot seems to present a loser king who needs his powerful wife's protection and leadership.

So how did it get that way?

The Mamluk Sultanate controlled Hejaz (Mecca and Medina) wouldn't that make their sultan a legitimate Caliph? Is it because they were a slave controlled empire and not arab? But wouldn't that disqualify the Ottomans from being caliphs since they are not Arabs either? Been reading a bit into Middle Eastern history recently, so I'm a beginner.

I get that he was an incredible businessman who revolutionized product marketing but Secretary of Defense? What did they assume he could bring to the role over someone with actual gov or security experience?

I recently became quite fascinated with this time period and was wondering if anyone had any book recommendations as I did not see any in the booklist. Thanks in advance!

I understand that Plato himself may have had nuanced views regarding divinity (the whole discussion of the One/the Good and the Many etc. which the Neoplatonists take up is arguably monotheistic.) This is not my question. My question is not about Plato's views himself, but the way he seems to mention "the god" (as if there is only one?) in casual settings as if this was understood by all Greeks of his time period.

Here are some examples: in the very beginning of the Ion, Socrates asks, "Do the Epidaurians hold a contest of reciters of poetry in honour of the god?"

Who is "the god" here? Socrates is talking to Ion here, who is supposed to be a polytheist, right?

Again, in the Apology (which is supposed to be more historically representative of the actual Socrates than the other dialogues) we find copious mention of "the god" while he is addressing a court of 500 Athenian jurors. Who is "the god" here?

I distinctly remember in the 90s that on mainstream news and movies and tv anytime someone mentions Ukraine they call it The Ukraine. Recently saw an old episode of law and order where they said it unironically and in American Crime Story: Impeachment they seem to ironically show White House staffers in the mid-90s talking about The Ukraine.

But what caused this perception? Why did everyone think that Ukraine needed a “the” in front of it in the 90s?

I'm interested in studying history but I only have a rough idea of what I'm interested in. Can you help me find good sources and starting points?

The regions I'm the most interested in are Eurasia, Northern Africa, and Southern Africa. I'm also interested in the first agricultural revolution and any pre-human history in general (I don't mind if there's a large focus on science)

EDIT: "interested" counter: 6

For example, historians will often quote or paragraph what a Greek philosopher said. But the citation is usually to another text book or a translation (often in a compilation of translations).

How does one determine if these sources are accurate and reliable?

I came across a review of James Daschuk's Clearing the Plains by historian Andrew Woolford, a genocide scholar. In it he briefly describes the destructive effects of the fur trade on First Nations:

"A more evocative term might be the one used by historical anthropologist and archeologist Robbie Ethridge to describe the dangerous mix of unstable chiefdoms, an emergent capitalist system defined by the slave and fur trades, disease and inter-tribal warfare that was exacerbated by the introduction of deadly new technologies in the late 16th- to early 18th-century American South: the shatter zone. A shatter zone emerges when multiple destructive forces combine to form a toxic admixture, and this is certainly an apt description of the situation on the plains prior to increased European settlement."

I was wondering if anyone familiar with this topic could elaborate on Woolford's comment, regarding the fur trade's consequences on Indigenous people.

So I was saw a video about how nobody knows where Genghis Khan's grave site is, it was likely intentionally kept a secret by his close confidants. And nobody really knows where he died, or the details of his death, all we have is a bunch of old "legends" which obviously detail completely different circumstances to where his corpse was really sent.

This got me wondering, of course old legends told generation after generation a bunch of times over are going to change. It would be pretty crazy if Genghis Khan's body was discovered, which led to giving legitimate credence to what was previously nothing more than an old legend. The thought of a legend being passed down and told to 10's or dozens of generations later proving to have a semblance of retained accuracy sounds interesting. Has this ever happened?

I'm reading through 'The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine' by Serhii Plokhy, and found it odd that he cites Herodotus as describing Scythian plowmen on the Right Bank of the Dnieper as 'produc[ing] corn for sale'.

Similarly, when I read 'When China Ruled the Seas' by Louise Levathes I found mention of 'corn' being a common staple in parts of China in the early 1400s.

This begs a series of questions: Am I wrong in assuming that it was impossible for anyone to grow corn in Eurasia prior to 1492? Is there a grain that gets commonly mistranslated to English as 'corn'? What were those Scythian plowmen growing, anyway?

I don't know exactly what the understanding of allergies would have been at the time. Were doctors aware of allergies and their cause to any extent? If not, what would Lord Bridgerton's death have been attributed to?