It had to blow their minds to see a brid that could imitate their speech.

So, I just watched a documentary based on the book "Princes of the Yen" and it argues with many quotes from Japanese higher ups that the "window guidance" was the critical force behind Japanese economic "miracle", in which the Bank of Japan gives quotas to banks how much they should lend and to what companies under low interest rates. The Japanese officials of the time dressed this under technical jargon and pretended it was all free-market as revealing the truth would have been politically troubling.

Then, Japanese bankers educated in the US under free-market principles came back to Japan and judged that the "window-guidance" was a break from free-market and is a crisis waiting to happen. So, they needed to reform it, but they argued no fundamental reforms can be undertaken without crisis. So they decided to pump up the window guidance to extreme to create a bubble. They kept pumping it and when it started bursting, they avoided doing actions which would've solved the crisis.

How widely accepted is this?

Many history books I have read have indicated Nationhood as a concept came about at several different points of time.

Since the idea of nationhood is so endemic to me, I have a hard time understanding how this could be true of areas with histories of kings that covered over wide ranges of defined territory.

Was this true just in Europe with shifting Kings and dynasties? Did Chinese culture have a sense of nationhood? Does it matter greatly the exact year and did certain rulers and regimes cause more of a feeling of nationhood?

Thanks for any views.

If the popular conception was that a bunch of gods lived on top of the mountain, did anyone make an attempt to find them? For an atheist, it would be quite a coup to prove there were no gods there. For a philosophical empiricist, it must have been a burning question to know for sure. For a true believer it might be an opportunity to obtain a boon.

if it’s possible do provide some examples to prove ur stance

In visual depictions of interiors in pre-industrialized/pre-colonial West Asia and South Asia, there often feature a variety of luxurious cushions. I know of course that these depictions are heavily influenced by romanticized orientalist fantasies. However, with regard to such cushions as existed in medieval and early-modern Islamicate societies, what were they generally stuffed with? Was there a preference for firmer or softer cushions? Were there specialized names for different kinds of cushions?

Generally speaking, racial slurs are pretty stable. If someone takes an issue with blacks, or Jews, or Japanese, or Italians, or Irish, or White Anglo Saxon Protestants, we know what terms they would use today, which is what they would have used 100 years ago. But I am not aware of the term "Huns" being used against the Germans after WW1. Why is this?

Many europeans are named Lars. This comes from the Latin name Laurentius. However etruscan rulers seemed to carry a honorary name Lars, as in Lars Porsena (Pursenas). Do we know anything about why this might have been?

Ukraine Russia conflict has got me reading about Russia's historical boundaries/empires. One question though, is after the Soviet Union began expanding into the Russian Empire's historical boundaries why did some places become Soviet Republics within the Soviet Union while others became 'satellite states'? For instance, Estonia and parts of Poland had been part of the Tsarist Russian Empire, but only Estonia joined the USSR. Likewise, what were the pros/cons for Moscow for adding a new SRR vs. keeping a satellite state? Thank you!

#edit: Answers have been provided from previous threads. Thanks!

I've been doing a bit more digging into this important subject lately as it's something I've only ever skimmed but feel it deserves my proper attention at some point.

Something that's struck me as odd is how often I've heard the term Auschwitz in my life, yet before a few months ago I'd never heard of Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka etc. From what I gather so far, the number of deaths wasn't as high as Auschiwtz as they came later during the advent of Operation Reinhardt. However, from the little I can find about these specific extermination camps (eg Belzec) it sounds to me like the sheer efficiency and brutality was another step above Auschwitz. The number I keep seeing is that only two people survived Belzec.

So basically, why has everyone heard of Auschwitz but no one has heard of Belzec? Is it because of this lack of info from survivors? Is it because of the length of time Auschwitz operated? Is it because of the total numbers? Is it a mix of these or none of the above?

Thanks in advance, and apologies if any of this is phrased in an uncouth manner for the subject.

Pole dancing was seemingly extremely popular at least in the late 20th century so much so that "gentlemans'" clubs with pole dancers existed on the outskirts of every town next to the truckstop.

I just watch a video about how wonderful were ours ancestors, especially those who lived during Victoria's era, about their clothes and underwears. They were talking about corsets and about what they said, I was asking myself why women stop wearing them if they were so great.

Full quote in question:

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

And if you look at Gallup polls, there does seem to be a drastic decline between Americans in 1991 (there doesn't seem to be any polls before 1991) until 2002 on those who want stricter gun control (78% down to 50% or so) and those who want less gun control (17% to 35% or so).

How much of this can be attributed to the NRA's lobbying? If a lot, how was the NRA able to so effectively convince large parts of the US population on a more expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment beyond what was previously established under US v Miller?