edit: The word in the title is supposed to be missionaries, not mercenaries.

I ask this because, as of now, the Internet is the single greatest tool to spread information and ideas over wide distances in human history. But prior to the Internet I've heard that the printing press had an equally profound impact on how information was disseminated to the public. Were there any attempts by governments to regulate the printing press?

Often times when I binge learn a topic of history I'm interested in the most evidence I can find is "an expert says so," which is a poor why to give when explaining/ranting about a historical idea or fact.

So how could I delve deeper into the historical world in this sense?

Thanks

Recently saw a posting on /r/propagandaposters about a KKK flyer warning black people not to associate themselves with the Communists.

So I understand the to a moderate degree the tactics of blitzkrieg. But the schlieffen plan had a similar concept of a quick offensive to take Paris, so how come that failed but Hitler didn't. Also this question is not focused on the battle of France how come other theatres maintained a war of movement

I know that "Negro" used to be the way that black leadership referred to their people. Dr. King referred to black people as "Negro." But at some point since, the word became a racially insensitive anachronism.

Is there any indication of when or why?

If i was. Person living in the year 1158 BC, when the next year came did I say "oh now its 1157" If so, didnt they think it was strange to count years backwards?

I've watched The pianist (movie) a couple of days ago, and wondered about the reality of some scenes. In the movie, there is alot of open violence agains the Jews, including shooting random "prisoners" (slave workers?). on public streets, alot of other forms of physical violence, bodies on the streets, etc, in a relatively peaceful period (alteast in Warsaw, no actual 'war' activities happening there at the time)

I didn't have the best history teachers in school, but I was always under the impression that the germans did most of those things privately/secretly (atleast in germany). More in the style of "everything will be ok, we will just move them somewhere else, they will live peacefully there, they'll work, get paid, etc etc.", and then ship the jews on trains to eg. Auschwitz, and we all know what actually happened there. I was thought that alot of the germans had no idea what actually happened there, and thought that the jews will actually be okay (stay alive, work,...), and didn't protest the actions of their government. I was also tought that alot of people just dissapeared (noone knows when or where, but not in a public-street shooting style). Or was this only for germany, and the germans didn't care alot about their public image in other countries?

So, was there actually alot of movie-style violence at the time, or was this an exaggeration, and most of the violence happened "hidden" to the public eye?

In 2005 Dr. Joy Leary coined the term Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome to denote the long term effects that the trauma of enslavement had on future generations. She argues that the changes in behavior caused by trauma related disorders (for the sake of ease we'll just use PTSD as a blanket term) have a psychological toll/impact in the raising of the next generation, and that this carries on to subsequent generations.

Areas of study such as the Holocaust, Slavery, and Indian removal/genocide cover ethnic groups which were exposed to PTSD inducing trauma, and this trauma has become a part of the collective and lasting shared memory for these groups.

How then should historians consider the lasting impacts of these events?

In the study of slavery the trauma of the experience tends to be ignored when it is replaced with the hardships of Reconstruction and Jim Crow. At least in my (admittedly limited) reading, no one seems to address how/if the trauma of slavery had a lasting impact on later generations. How does this limit our ability to understand the real meanings/impacts of these events on the group as a whole?

(incident at little creek mn) really happen

Ive read this a lot of times. That the English/British were late to the colonization game in the Americas. However I also read that the first French colony wasnt until 1608 (Quebec City) which would have been a year after the first English one in Jamestown, Virginia (1607). So what is actually true?

[deleted]

An argument I read before (I don't remember the name of the book) was that because a lot of men spent their formative years fighting WW1, and the trauma of this made them obsessed with war and violence, leading to the Fascist glorification of war (not wanting to admit that the war they'd fought was meaningless) and joining paramilitary organisations that went round beating up trade unionists, leftists, etc, giving them a sense of power and control (which had been stripped from them fighting the brutal WW1).

Is this a ridiculous argument? Or does it have some truth to it?

We understand that many soldiers after the World Wars were suffering from PTSD after their experiences, and their treatment and public response is pretty well known. But what about in earlier wars? Did the public ignore the soldiers and think they were cowards?

Did the Diffrent ethnic groups keep in their separate groups or get spread out through the legions?