Hi, as a U.K redditor I see a lot of respect on this site for the U.S policy on national parks. The front page often shows images and there's the inevitable hive mind of comments praising the system, while it is typical for the agenda to be pretty anti U.S federal policy. With the apparent strength of corporations in the U.S policy making process I am really interested as to how the national park system became so entrenched.

Just for clarification it's the law process, not the general history and public opinion of the parks I'm after.

Thanks :)

This question is not about elections in a dictatorship to be generally either completely abolished or bogus elections. That should be clear. I try to find information whether especially womens right to vote was ever abolished in a country that already had granted womens suffrage.

I would expect such a measure to happen especially in a right-wing dictatorship, where the regimes ideology is often based on 'Return to the good old times'. One can easily imagine such a dictatorship to justify revoking womens voting rights with something like "Public affairs are Men's realm, while Women's realm is home and family".

It is quite difficult to find concrete information about elections in dictatorships, perhaps because such election were scams, anyway. But even the archetypical right-wing dictatorship - Nazi Germany - seems to have upheld women's suffrage. I found a contemporary report about the Reichstagswahlen 1938 (where the ballot consisted of the possibility to elect en bloc 'Hitler and the other Nazi party candidates', and nothing else) of a member of the working classes, where he reported what happened on that day in his town and how he and his wife Eva 'voted'.

The question is mainly about right-wing dictatorships of the 20th century, but also about information about other governments that might have revoked womens right to vote, like theocratic dictatorships.

(*edit: Clear up a sentence a little bit)

Specifically, he is said to have been very friendly, cooperative and sympathetic towards the Arabians. What I'm wondering about is why.

Was he affected by the nationalistic thoughts in Europe at the time, and thus wanted the Arabians to be independent? Or was there some other reason behind his actions during WW1?

Thank you for answering

For example, putting on a great but ultimately non fatal show.

I am struggling to find modern, objective accounts of the early Christian movement. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

(this question prompted by going down the rabbit hole of trying to find out the origins of cataphracts)

There are relatively well documented accounts of contacts between the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty of China, but I have not read much about the Hellenistic world.

Alexander the Great is amongst the most legendary figures in the western hemisphere, whether in good(no examples needed) or in bad (Zooroastrian texts…), and I've been wondering if the Chinese Kingdoms knew, not so much of Alexander specifically, but more generally of a legendary conqueror in the west, and/or if parts of the corresponding legends ever reached them - that we know of, of course.

From what I understand Prussia was pretty much the birthplace of modern Germany, but a large portion of it now lies in other countries (we can thank Stalin for that).

So why is it that a region which used to be so proud is now so... quiet? Did all of the germans in these regions leave during to WW2? Is there still a large Prussian identity in these areas? Has there ever been separatist movements relating to this?

I saw a video, "The Bowes Museum The Art of Dressing," where the model was being garbed in an exact replica of an 1870's dress complete with pantaloons (bloomers), petticoats and all and I wondered what bathroom etiquette would be in a home, a restaurant or a society function? Did servants have to help?

What was preventing them?

[deleted]

Context: I'm a history undergrad and I am looking for interesting topics to write for my final year project next year, thus the question in the title.

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty writes:

In addition, there are serious lacunae in German tax records, owing in large part to the country's turbulent history in the twentieth century, so that it is difficult to be sure about certain developments or to make sharp comparisons with other countries. Prussia, Saxony, and most other German states imposed an income tax relatively early, between 1880 and 1890, but there were no national laws or tax records until after World War I. There were frequent breaks in the statistical record during the 1920s, and then the records for 1938 to 1950 are missing altogether, so it is impossible to study how the income distribution evolved during World War II and its immediate aftermath.

This distinguishes Germany from other countries deeply involved in the conflict, especially Japan and France, whose tax administrations continued to compile statistics during the war years without interruption, as if nothing were amiss.

I can understand the incomplete records from the mid-1940s on, with Germany being invaded, divided into occupation zones, the non-Russian parts being merged into Bizonia and Trizonia, etc.

However, it seems remarkable to me that records would be missing from 1938, when France (Vichy? Occupied? Both?) was able to continue to collect tax records throughout.

Was this a result of some sort of policy change by the Nazi government to cease publication of tax data? A change in tax laws which no longer lead to collection of said data? (E.g., a switch from income taxation to something like a VAT.)

Wikipedia says that the ethnicity is Georgian yet, the two ethnic groups, Armenians and Georgians, have ruled in both Armenia and Georgia. Who was the founder and were they actually originally Georgian or Armenian? I believe it had to have been Armenian but my eyes say it's Georgian.

It seems like in many cases an empire can be said to have existed in just two phases - a rise, rapid or steady, followed by a rapid or steady decline. Why do they seem to follow this pattern? Couldn't they instead experience multiple peaks? Are there any good imperial comeback stories?

What did the Vikings believe would happen to woman when they die? Where would they go? Did they have a concept of honourable deaths and dishonourable deaths specifically for females?

If how I've learned in brief American public education is any way to imagine, I would figure most people and producers would have been wanting to make this change, including any other symbolic change of unity rather quickly.

Is this accurate? How quickly were these sorts of changes made?

Hi everyone, I teach 18-25+ year olds Biology and we are going to talk about human evolution and creationist theory. I want to explain to them that religion evolved in very similar ways to nearly everything else that does, acquiring small changes overtime. I am unsure how to specifically explain this as my knowledge base is not strong in the history of religion. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.