To ask specifically: my grandmother occasionally brought up Karl Emil Nygard, the communist mayor of Crosby, Minnesota (near to where she grew up,) but never had much to say on the political ramifications of him being elected or what happened afterwards.

More generally: were there other Communist politicians in the United States? What did they do and how were they viewed?

I know it would have undermined the Republic, but the conflict was so brutal that I have trouble imagining Northerners not having second thoughts.

Did Northerners have a great deal of faith in the United States at this point? I know it has been around for a while at this point, but it takes time to form a national identity.

I'm reading an essay by the Islamic studies scholar Adam Silverstein titled " The Quranic Pharaoh". In the beginning of the essay he mentions that the term pharaoh was an idiosyncratic biblical usage and that ancient Egyptians didn't actually refer to the ruler of Egypt by this term.

However I have read elsewhere that ancient Egyptians did use the term pharaoh to refer to their ruler and there was a gradual evolution from using the term "king" to using the word "pharaoh".

Which view is correct ?

Also which sources would the author(s) of the Quran have consulted regarding stories about Moses and his encounters with the Pharaoh.

Relevant quote from Adam Silverstein's essay.

" After all the term "Pharaoh" or "par-o" means great palace in ancient Egyptian. It is an idiosyncratic biblical usage to refer to the ruler of Egypt by this term (Pharoah)... The fact that this quirky usage of the term "Pharaoh" recurs in the Quran suggests that the Quranic Pharaoh is to be interpreted with reference to an originally Biblical context that an Egyptian one. "

• The Quranic Pharaoh by Adam Silverstein. Published in the book New Perspectives on the Quran edited by Gabriel S Reynolds.

[deleted]

The Jacobite's weren't happy with the 1707 act of union, and wanted their stewards back, but were defeated in the fifteen. My textbook says that this lead to the Tories being purged from public offices, and helped with the Whig Ascendancy, but its unclear why. Didn't the Tories love the monarchy?

I am asking because of a new production of Miller's Incident at Vichy.

The argument of complicit Germans unable to be anything but Nazis makes sense, inside Germany. But are the reasons more complicated for the 'armed neutral' Vichy French? Obviously some of population were nazi supporters but what are some of the less obvious reason a French police and populace would be complicit with the nazis.

Apart from the French surrendering to everything. Har har!

I am currently in my last year of high school (grade 12) and have been assigned a social project in which I must show how a certain pre assigned dictator used the 4 techniques of dictatorships. (Force, propaganda/indoctrination, controlled participation and direction of popular discontent) I have been able to find information on the first three forces but I cant find anything about the direction of popular discontent. the assignment defines the direction of popular discontent as “A population is likely to harbor some frustration or grievance. If, however, their grievances can be directed against groups other than the government; if the government can find someone else to blame, then the policies of the government will not be questioned.” If anyone can link Alfredo Stroessner to that, that would be great. Thanks in advance

Exodus 21:22 (KJV) says "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished"

What does "her fruit depart from her" mean in this passage?

Modern versions interpret this as causing her to give birth prematurely, but it seems strange for that to be a punishable offense. There is also the interpretation that it referred to causing a miscarriage.

What was meant by this in the earliest versions of the Exodus that we have?

My daughter, by the age of 3 as soon as she could speak a few words, was identifying and expressing her affinity for the color pink as part of learning her gender identity. And I have witnessed this behavior in other girls as well. Gender identity psychology aside, how did it come to pass that our culture has it so deeply ingrained that pink is for girls and blue is for boys?

Such as Albert Spreer

[deleted]

When reading autumn in the heavenly kingdom, which is a great book by the way, the author says that the British refused to give recognition to the typing because they were afraid if they won the Civil War, that they wouldn't be able to hold China and a stabilizing way that would promote trade with the British. But why did they have the idea that the confederate states would do any better? That's why I presume they gave them diplomatic recognition.

sorry if this is a stupid question, but I was watching something on the war the other day and it came across my mind. They mentioned that Stalin met with Churchill during the war, and I pretty sure the Allied leaders meet a couple times. I'm curious about the flight paths or other means of transportation used. In order for Stalin to meet with him, wouldn't Stalin have to fly over enemy territory? Even if he went around central Europe wouldn't his flight path still be in nazi territory if he went through Africa or the North Sea?

"Natural disaster" is a fascinating phrase. The word "natural" implies an inherent, inalterable condition underlying the event; the word "disaster" frames it as something that affects its victims--who are only those victims because of choices they have made, that is, not naturally. Whether it's planting a city and its vineyard in the extra-fertile soil at the base of a volcano, or increased trade carrying wealth, prosperity, and cataclysmic plague around a hemisphere, natural disasters are one of the clearest signs that "environmental" history is truly human history.

So today, tell me about the times that "nature" has met "disaster" throughout history!

Next week: Gender - You're Doing It [Wrong?]

Conventionally, people seem to think he was "The Bastard" until 1066, whereupon he had a global official name change to "The Conqueror".

I assume he is mentioned in documents in Anglo-Saxon English, Celtic languages, Norman French and presumably legal/ecclesiastical Latin?

What do we actually know about this?

I was born in 65. I barely remember the 60s, remember the 70s fairly well, and have great memories of the 80s. I lived a normal suburban, middle-class life in the southeast US.

I know it's quite common for older generations to look at younger ones and say they're all rotten -- goes back as far as the Greeks, probably much farther. What I'm wondering about is how the younger generation has viewed their predecessors over time.

When I consume mass media that describes the 60s, 70s, or 80s? The fashion and behavior of characters is a caricature of what it was actually like. Showing a scene from the 80s? Everybody has big hair and wears workout clothes. Casting a TV show in the 70s? It's polyester suits and disco. You can't have anything set in the 60s without tie-dyed shirts, pot, and long-haired kids.

Sure, these fashions existed, but by and large they were only the extremes of decades that saw several fashion trends. My question: have other generations had comically-exaggerated views of the ones before them? Or is this just a thing that's happened in the last few decades?