[deleted]

I recently graduated from university(US). My dream is to curate a museum but the problem is that I have no idea where to even begin. It seems as though a lot of the museums are staffed by volunteers, and I didn't put myself into crippling debt to work for free.

Any advice/suggestions?

Odd question, I know, but in the rare images I've seen of Britons fighting invading Norsemen, the Welsh wielding a two-handed axe is persistent, at least enough for me to pick up on it. Was this a common thing? I'd always associated them with the huscarls and Scandinavians of later years, but these are depictions of the early invasions, when the Sons of Ragnar were still running amok. Follow up, if this was a thing, did the practice extend into the Hen Ogledd as well, or was it primarily a Gwynned/Glywissing/all the others in that area thing?

Further, medical school in the United States is a post-degree professional school, while in Europe is is most often structured as a multi-year university track begun after high school. What factors led to this divergence in medical education?

Hi, I am a leader at a Jewish youth movement and we are expanding our educational programs by including non-Jewish Zionist figures (or people who helped Israel in a big way) in our category of inspirational sources/ people

We have recently added John Henry Patterson to our list and are looking for more people like him.

It would be great for me, and for the movement, to learn about more non-Jewish zionists.

Many Thanks

TL;DR= Looking for names of Non-Jewish Zionists (or Israel supporters/ helped created the state of Israel).

I often hear people exclaiming that Castro murdered thousands of political prisoners, and treated the population of Cuba very poorly. I know that he publicly executed notorious Batista sympathisers or Generals shortly after the revolution, however how many other people did he 'murder' and when/where did these 'murders' take place?

how is it that the Great Pyramid was crafted with such precision, beautifully finished and decorated inside and out, and yet the Egyptians built the King's Sarcophagus looking unfit for a king and with visible tool marks ?

For example, did Constantine XI know that the small empire he ruled had once been a Mediterranean spanning empire that was founded over 2000 years ago in Rome? I'm sure he knew that his empire had been way larger, controlling all of Grecce and Anatolia(and obviously Rome).

But did he know that Rome had once been a republic? Did he know about Carthage? Augustus? The fall of the west? I'm sure he knew about Constantine the great but other great emperors and statemen?

Obviously their names are similar, but Freya's husband is supposed to be missing and since she and Odin split the noble dead between their respective underworlds, she would have to know if Odin and and her lost husband are the same person, right? Is there any mythological basis to explain why some academics think this?

I'm pretty sure the US even sent out flyers that said for people to move out of the cities before they bombed it. So why was a civilian city targeted instead of a military base? It would seem much more beneficial to bomb an enemy's military base/command center/whatever than a city.

I've read this idea before and just came across it again in Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."

"One fact disturbed: whites would run off to join Indian tribes, or would be captured in battle and brought up among the Indians, and when this happened the whites, given a chance to leave, chose to stay in Indian culture. Indians, having the choice, almost never decided to join the whites."

How accurate is this?

I started watching this series a few months ago, and I know it's just a series rather than a scholarly works, but I was amazed at the number of things it presented that are unpopular/we are typically not taught (best example I can think of is Henry Wallace and his contributions and personality as VP, which if this series is in any way trustworthy Wallace should be a much bigger name in US history and should receive much more praise than right now as he is relatively unknown).

I know Oliver Stone is not your typical director and does not make the typical Pro-American movies, but one thing that especially struck me as interesting was how sympathetically the series seems to portray Soviet Russia, at least in the first 5 episodes because that's how far in I am. It struck me as interesting because it seems that typically in American media Russia (Soviet and post-Soviet) is painted in a negative light, their contributions are not widely known to America, and neither are US transgressions against them. I grew up in Canada, so I am close enough to America to be familiar with American media but our history classes never highlighted Russian involvement in world events: we were always presented with more information and explanations about the American side of things. As for media, TYPICALLY in more popular blockbuster type movies Russia and Russians are the villains, OR if they are shown to be neutral, America is shown to be the hero on the right side of things and not much insight is provided into Russia's motives etc.

This show seems to do exactly the opposite: it shows America's transgressions, America's bad decisions, flaws in popular American historical figures etc, and it shows Russia's side of things, their motivations, their contributions, their perceived slights against them, etc. It does this for other countries too like Japan and Korea, but I presume due to Russia being a bigger key player in the world (?), the Russian information is a lot heavier. While it's refreshing to be viewing history without the Pro-American anti-Russian (or lack of Russian) tinted glasses, I can't help but feel that the Russian sympathy is a little too extreme, that although Russian/Stalin's atrocities are presented, they seem to be HEAVILY brushed off and overshadowed by a more sympathetic view.

Since I began watching this months ago I am unable to come up with examples of this but there are many. And unfortunately for me, I've JUST NOW forgotten the one example from a recent episode watched today that I was going to use in this post...so, I apologise for being unable to elaborate further. But my question is for anyone who's familiar with the series, is it showing Russia a little too sympathetically, or is that really just a perfectly valid interpretation of events?

I am a history major and for one of my finals I am writing about the evolution of NASA astronauts from test-pilots to scientists. I wanted to be able to see exactly what the NASA requirements were for each astronaut group but so far I have only been able to find information about the current standards and the original Mercury requirements. Does anyone have access or know of a way for me to access documents such as these? If not, does anyone know the important changes that have been made and when they were made? Thank you in advance!

Orestes was an influential figure, and he had many ties in Alexandria - yet as far as I know, Hypatia was the only one of his associates who was targeted solely for her social ties to him.

Was there any particular reason it was her who was attacked, or did she just happen to be a convenient target?

The professor said it can be fiction, but still needs primary sources. He's given me some suggestions, but I like to run historical matters by this subreddit.

"In 1940 France lost 100 000 men, fallen fighting against the Germans on the field of battle. The British lost about 1/10th of that, and half of those (5000) because the Luftwaffe sank one of the ships they were fleeing in. Churchill's cabinet had ordered that they abandon the fight and, to make this worse, hide it from and lie to their French and Belgian allies (so that these poor suckers would cover their retreat). Churchill even reassured the French leadership (when they noticed something was not quite right) that the British were not withdrawing and in it till the end. And, adding insult to injury, for morale reasons, British propaganda then blamed German victories on the French and Belgian lacking fighting spirit. Having Hollywood now making films to try and make the British look good and their unspeakable betrayal at Dunkirk heroic is just further bullshit added to insult to the injury. Oh and by the way, when the French leadership asked the USA to enter the war, they were told to fuck off. The USA would not enter that war until they were themselves attacked years later. US history books are of course chock full of references to French (who declared war on Hitler) appeasement of Hitler. :/ "