I remember reading in high school history an excerpt from a book or newspaper article by a Southerner criticizing slavery for holding back the economic development of the South, kind of anticipating the regional boosterism of the New South era. I've searched google, this sub, and even an old textbook I had lying around but haven't been able to find the text or the author. Does anybody know what or who I could be remembering?

Specifically in 1939, would it be possible for citizens of either country to visit/live in the other?

(writing a story, can't find answer anywhere)

Hey guys! As I read about history I've always wondered, why, until around the ~1700s were people so "dumb" to put it bluntly. For example, blood letting. It was used for hundreds of years in Europe despite being harmful in the overwheming majority of cases.

How come it took so long for anyone to, idk run a study, a test, an experiment to see if their practices actually worked and held up. And these are doctors, some of the most educated, well qualified people around. And there are many other example of people doing things in a way that was at best bad and at worst actively harmful for hundreds of years until somewhat recently. Why is this? Why was change so slow and resistent for the vast majority of human history?

I don’t know much about history, but I know that Okinawa was a terrible and bloody battle and many lives were lost. I know that they bombed it for days and not many Japanese men died. So why wasn’t it not nuked? I am curious as to why they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki when Okinawa would have made more sense. I know there were other locations on the list. Thank you for your time.

As the title reads. I’m curious in learning more about the history of early Judaism and how it evolved out of Canaanite polytheism/henotheism, as well as the origins of the Yahwist movement in Samaria/Israel.

So, for the sake of simplicity let's assume XII century southern Europe as the scenario, how much land would you need to satisfy the nutritional needs of one person with that level of technology in that particular climate?

I see that many times a side in Roman politics wanted to grant a group citizenship, they had to fight tooth and nail for it against an opposition. Who was this opposition and what did they have to lose?

Answers relating to the same subject, but for other ‘nations’ are also appreciated. Romans were just an example I know about.

So, Loving v. Virginia is in the news again, and it caused me to notice that Loving overturned a late 19th Century precedent, Pace v. Alabama. Pace was unanimous, and is basically the same deal as Plessey: Anti-miscegenation laws don't violate the Fourteenth Amendment because all races are equally subject to those laws.

And, in thinking on this, I came upon the grim thought that, if SCOTUS had struck down segregation, or had struck down anti-miscegenation laws, it really could have produced some terrible results. I fear that the backlash would have been so harsh that we would have ended up constitutional amendments permitting miscegenation bans and segregation. Who knows how long it would have taken to get rid of those?

So, with that in mind, what were the aims of the civil rights attorneys in these cases? With the composition of the court at that time, they presumably knew that these were hopeless appeals. Pace was unanimous and Plessey was almost unanimous. And I could imagine that many other civil-rights attorneys thought they were playing with fire, because victory was probably the worst possible outcome. It seems like there's some sort of interesting context that I'm unaware of.

My dad and i were debating over the war in Ukraine and he told me that Russia has never attacked, only defend. This seemed highly unreasonable to me but I can’t remember any instance of Russia invading/colonizing another country. (Expect Poland) I know this is a silly question, but as a STEM student i have already forgotten most of my history class from HS.

What I've read so far about the Anglo-Saxon migrations into England is that they were a warrior culture who became the dominant ethnic class in England, whose language completely supplanted the native Brittonic language prior to the Anglo-Saxon arrival, forming the nucleus of what would become the English language. But is this 100% the case?

As I'm more acquainted with Mainland Southeast Asian history, I'll use the example of the Thai language, which has been massively influenced by Cambodia and the Khmer language. Past historiography of the region was completely devoted to warfare and bloody conquests by various polities in the region (Ayutthaya conquering Sukhothai and Angkor, Burmese Pegu conquering Siamese Lan Na), raiding each other's people, bringing their cultures and traditions back to their kingdoms. Recent scholarship, however, is beginning to point out that the transfer of cultures and languages between the various peoples in the region was as much friendly and consensual, through trade and diplomatic marriages, as it was through violence and warfare. What I find is that there is almost never an instance where a culture has been 100% supplanted by an invading culture in an instant or clean-cut way.

My point is that it's been implied for a long time that the Anglo-Saxons completely and instantly wiped out the ruling class of Post-Roman Britain and supplanted the native culture and language with their own, through warfare and subjugation, which doesn't help things as the past "nation-state" historiography of Britain, and in popular/mainstream history up to this day, glorifies the Anglo-Saxons as the founders of English culture, in essence. So what is there remaining of pre-Anglo-Saxon culture and language in Britain today (or what had initially survived the Anglo-Saxon migrations for longer before altogether disappearing)?

It's difficult to disintegrate this particular topic from the greater concepts of modern politics, given racial tensions when it was released, and the overall trajectory of the opposition to it through the past few years. But as a historical perspective, how different is The 1619 Project compared to, say, what was taught to college undergraduates a decade ago, and is there legitimately nuanced debate and dissent to it within the historian community, or is this a case of finding the one dentist out of ten who doesn't believe in toothpaste?

Senator Ted Cruz is obviously not a historian, and when he invokes the names of historians, I have no context for those people, either, so my first thought went to this subreddit, because news articles seem disinterested in the facts of history, compared to the conflict of modern political discourse surrounding it.

Apologies in advance if this breaks the 20 year old rule, but my interpretation is that the 1619 project was a re-examination of the context of events which happened hundreds of years ago. So, for my questions:

• How is the context presented by the 1619 project different from the US history that I'm more familiar with in a broad-scope concept of US undergraduate historical education?

• Was the 1619 Project 'roundly refuted' by collective historical academia, or if it's more of a wedge issue where some adopt it and others don't, or whether it's generally an accurate framing?

Thank you for your time.

I have a question on how they used to deal with wounds. And I don't just mean from battle. For example from what I understand Vikings and other such cultures would fight and practice fighting constantly to be better fighters.

I also practice fighting (non medieval ofc) and I am filled with inflammation and injuries. How the hell would they treat their inflammation. If herbs do you have any idea which ones?

I am really curious since I want to try and treat mine, plus I don't like taking too many pain killers since those don't really help in the long run.

(Reposting because my title didn't have a question mark..)

I recently saw a tweet about the sentencing of a Russian citizen and it framed his punishment as being sent to prison. A number of replies included a comment along the lines of, "it's a gulag. Say that he's being sent to a gulag."

What is it that makes them different? And is that difference unique in Russian history?

There are many cases of enslaved persons buying their freedom with money they earned from various means. Obviously this wasn’t an option for most enslaved people because of the expense, but was it recognized under law as a potential right that they all had, or was it solely in those cases where a slaveowner needed money more than they needed the labor of one particular person?

EDIT: To clarify, I’m talking specifically about slavery in the U.S.

Based on a Google search, there are currently only 11 countries with nuclear weapons. Why is this case? Is it because of global policies to limit? Do countries know the process to create the weapons, but choose not to? Is there a knowledge gap restricting the creation?

I am currently watching Game of Thrones (no spoilers please) and I've noticed a lot of the characters use words like "fuck" "c*nt" etc. Were these types of words used in medieval times? Did they have the same connotation and denotation as they do now?

I always just believed that they used formal English back then (granted my only exposure to these times is from movies and TV shows). Thanks in advance.

​

Side question that I doubt really has an answer, but when were 'foul' words made foul? As in, when did people say "you shouldn't say *swear word*"

I am referring to Glasnost and Perestroika, primarily, but also other reforms and changes like giving more independence to the "Eastern Bloc" communist nations. I have a passing understanding of what happened, and know that it was in part because Gorbachev recognized that the Soviet Union would continue to fall behind the West economically unless it adopted more liberal policies. However, clearly Gorbachev came to value democratic self-determination, transparency in government, freedom of expression, and freedom of individuals to pursue their own economic interest. What I don't understand is why (and when), Gorbachev adopted these values. Was there some major life event where he had a conversion experience? Did someone in his life convince him? Or some philosopher or political theorist? Was he always a secret liberal (in either the American or European senses)?

Gorbachev could have reformed the Soviet Union economically without reforming the rest of the political structure, similar to what China has done, but it seems he didn't want that. Why?

I was having this debate with my peers in my Ancient History class, and I wanted to get your thoughts.