[deleted]

All the ones I've seen are really badly drawn. Often child-like doodles. The animals never look realistic either. Is there a reason for this or was no one back then good at art?

What were the keymoments and events that prevented peaceful secession?

Was secession illegal under the constitution?

Were either side proposing concessions as terms for a peaceful secession?

Was the civil conflict long before secession set to be a civil war? What were the alternatives? The consequences of them?

Lets say I'm asking a question that simply cannot receive an answer aside from "We don't know". In this case, would this thread remain unaswered until it fades(thus possibly leading to reposts) or is it within the rules for flaired users to declare that there's no way to answer this question?

In the West, there was a period known as the Agricultural Revolution in which agriculture became more efficient. In particular the smallholder farmers of feudal times were thrown off their land and sent unto the cities to become the urban proletariat whilst those left behind worked as agricultural labourers on farms that had been enclosed into larger fields owned by an aristocratic landlord. This led to the decrease of agriculture as a share of the economy and the rapid increase of the industrial sector of the economy, leading to the Industrial Revolution.

Yet Africa, in spite of its history under European colonialism, remains agriculturally backward. Why is this? Why did the European powers not succeed in creating an agricultural revolution in Africa through the creation of large commercial farms in place of smallholder, subsistence farms? I have read of attempts to improve agriculture by the socialist regimes of Ethiopia and Tanzania during the Cold War which also involved Soviet-style collectivization, with the state playing the same role that the aristocratic landlords of the Agricultural Revolution did in merging small firms together into larger, more efficient ones that employed less workers, but these appear to have failed. Even so, there has been much urbanisation in Africa despite the lack of a wholesale transformation in agriculture as occurred in European countries. I find this to be particularly poignant in Zimbabwe, where, despite the implementation of land reform by the Mugabe government, the underlying problems of primitive agricultural techniques and the dominance of subsistence over commercial farming (the latter of which was carried out by the predominantly white farmers) remain.

I'm doing a history project on the topic and need a book for a source and was wondering if anyone knew of a good one. Thanks.

I'm watching his series on the Civil War and I find it really misleading based in the books I have read on the subject.

Abraham Lincolns views on slavery evolved over the course of the war, specifically after seeing how courageously the black volunteers fought etc. But Burns makes it appear as if Lincolns goal of emancipation was already formed before he became president... and even that the entire north agreed with this. He does this by starting the series with a look at the politics before the war, but adding quotes by Lincoln and other politicians from during the war.

He also paints the north as a utopia for freed blacks... but it wasnt... In many states they couldn't vote, testify against whites etc. Heck many ppl wanted "colonization" before the war and we're still clearly racist and didn't believe blacks were equal to whites.

He even starts the series by saying "2 out of every 10 Americans were slaves" but even freed blacks weren't considers being Americans.

Basically I'm asking am I completely wrong from what I got from reading books like 'the fiery trial' and 'battle cry of freedom'

Not saying one is better than the other, but why specifically use bolt action? I don’t imagine it’s faster to cycle than a lever-action.

I can't tell huge differences between the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, or the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, but it's easy to tell if something is from 1946-1962, 1963-1969, 1970-1979 or 1980-1990.

What's distinct about the Cold War period that made pop culture and style bloc into readily identifiable roughly 10-year periods? My pet theory is the prevalence of visual one-way electronic communication, more specifically television creating a monoculture in developed parts of the world. Before then it seems like it was harder to create a strong and uniform style that's readily recognizable, and trends changed more slowly. After then you had the Internet, cable and a more splintered music scene, meaning that there wasn't as much common culture between people and making it difficult to tell post-1990 decades apart from each other.

North Korea's creed is based on the Ten Principals, all ten of which are basic restatements of "you have to do what Kim Il-Sung says without question."

Why did people put up with such a transparent power grab in a "People's Republic"? It wasn't even subtle, it was obvious to the point of insulting.

I've just been reading the aforementioned documents and a ton of words are capitalized. Why exactly is this?

He knew the conquistadores had allied with his enemies the Tlaxcalans and had helped them revolt against his empire on their way to Tenochtitlan so why did he greet Cortes in such a friendly manner and allow him into the city as a guest along with his army? What was he really trying to achieve and why did he think it would work?

Follow up question: were there any Russian "There was a turtle by the name of Bert..." style cartoons?

I came across an article talking about whether Gilles de Rais was innocent or not and at seemed to conclude that he was innocent and was just framed by other nobles.

Is this just a fringe theory or do mainstream historians accept this as well?

"You're bananas" =

"You're nuts" =

"You're fucking insane."

Why/when/how?

[deleted]