Its armament of .50 caliber machine guns was equal or more than the gun armament aircraft of the same era. Are there any recorded instances of the B-17 using its guns in a close air support manner in WW2 or beyond?

I was hoping you guys could provide some evidence in regard to the above claim. It's frustrating that people seem to use this as a justification for the Confederacy, etc.

It seems obviously untrue, but I'm not a historian and I want to read more about how the general public and leaders viewed or contributed to the issue of slavery

Growing up in the South, Lee has always been sort of a cultural icon. In school, we learned that Lee joined the Confederate Army because he could never fight against his home state of Virginia (and regardless of who he fought for, he was one of the best military leaders in American History). But we were also taught that he was basically opposed to slavery. There's a quote from a letter to his wife where he describes slavery as a "political and moral evil". So I always assumed that he was a great guy, fighting for his home, even though he knew it was a lost (and perhaps he even knew it was an unworthy) cause.

With everything that's been going on recently, I decided to read that whole letter to his wife. This is a passage from it, dated 1856:

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

The more I researched, the more I found sources that said he also owned slaves, and there were reports of him being particularly cruel and abusive to them as well.

So now as far as I can tell, other than his military prowess, he was just another racist, slave-owning rebel. I feel like I need to go have a talk with my HS teachers... Can someone give me some good sources to go along with this?

[deleted]

Why did liberal student movements support the Iranian revolution?

Did they not expect it to end in theocracy?

Was there infighting once the revolution took power?

I've heard of a phenomenon called Presentism, or viewing history through a modern lense and often using it to prove a point outside the context of history. An example I've often seen would be moral arguements, like us judging, say, Romans, and their practice of sacrifice or gladiatorial games and judging them and shaping policy through a modern, very different and often political, lense. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this definition.

So I was listening to 1A on NPR and Confederate monuments, due to recent events, have come up and I heard a member of the panel say that we need to view these statues through the lense of the day, meaning when said statues were erected, rather than that of 2017. I understand this and agree with it, but at what point does it go too far? He seemed to be ignoring other events closer to today, the most notable being that said monuments were often erected in the 1920s. Is there a phenomenon of only viewing history through a skewed, historical view, rather than our modern historiography? If so, how do we counter that?

Also, if this is the wrong place to ask or it violates the rules do too it's relation to recent political events it totally understand, thanks for the time.

I've looked through the FAQ and the Book List and did not see anything that really honed in on the topic. Also, this is my first post in this sub so I apologize if I have inadvertently violated one of the rules.

[deleted]

I'm currently reading the book "Fall of Giants" by Ken Follet. There it describes how Lenin was at some point being paid by Germany.

Is this statement proven?

*update: can some fix the title?

In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain is a farmer and Abel is a shepherd. They both provide offerings of their trade to God, but God only accepts Abel's. Farmer Cain murders his shepherd brother (suggesting inherent evilness in farmers? Evil is probably too strong of a word, but you get my point.).

In a Sumerian story, the fertility goddess Inanna wants to marry the farmer god Enkimdu, but is persuaded by her brother (the sun god Utu) and the shepherd god Dumuzi to choose Dumuzi instead (because, as Dumuzi argues, "What has the farmer more than I?"). The text is incomplete, so we don't know what happens in the end. But other stories survive that suggest Inanna ended up choosing Dumuzi, a union that was celebrated by ritual sex acts designed to bring fertility to the land.

So...why are shepherds valued over farmers (at least in Mesopotamian culture)?

Obviously any actions by enslaved people would have been severely limited, but did these people have any ways to seek better treatment or to improve their lives in general?

I was curious if there have been other monuments besides confederate war memorials that have been removed in the US, particularly due to controversial reasons. With the recent goings on its been very tough to google.