(Reposting this from a post 3 years ago because the comments seem to be removed, and I have the same question)

A common anecdote given on tours of college campuses in the United States is that certain buildings designed in the 1960s and 1970s were expressly built to be “riot-proof.”

Was this really a serious consideration?

Apologies if the question is a bit clunky, my attention is a tad split at the moment. I am researching the history of how Christian churches and denominations treated the subject of homosexuality (and to a lesser extent Jewish practices) in regard to the Levitical law and the letters written by/attributed to Paul before 1946 (the year generally suggested when the term "homosexual" was added to the Bible). I have attempted going through various church websites or different faith blogs and get conflicting answers and so wanted to try a different, more history focused approach.

I am open to just about any source, whether it's a linguistic study on the original languages used in either Leviticus or the Pauline letters, some sermons on the subject, or correspondence letters discussing the subject.

I apologize if this question is a bit broad; I hope this made some sense (my pets in the next room sound like they are raising hell as I type this) and will clarify any points if requested. Thank you for your time and for any material or information you provide.

Have a wonderful rest of your day.

-WackyNameHere

I'm certain that I read this in the not too distant past. As I remember it, it was part of a Fuhrer Directive, but I am utterly unable to find a source for this. Did Hitler (or the OKW) issue such an order? If yes, can you please point me to the source?

Or were they relatively backwards compared to places like modern-day Germany and France given their peripheral location within Christendom?

I was googling "hiragana" but accidentally hit enter having just written "hiraga" which lead me to learn about the fascinating life of Hiraga Gennai

Something odd from his wikipedia article was the mention of his works about homosexuality, implying that he was gay. I would like to know if he was openly gay and how he was perceived by society at the time

I've tried to find his works to check them out myself but I've not been successful

Wasn't it in the interest of the French king to confiscate the Catholic Church just like the English crown did?

I was wondering if there are any primary sources in which an enslaved individual negotiates the terms of their bondage using the concept of disability to their advantage? Additionally, could the concept of disability be used to resist work, keep familial ties, or negotiate the terms of bondage? I was reading my professor’s dissertation on slavery and noticed that on different plantations throughout Virginia during the 19th century, some enslaved people were sold for $0 if they were above the age of 40. I would infer that meant they had some sort of disability or impairment which inhibited them from working. It led me to think of this.

and would there be records of lobotomies being performed with the intention of harming people, made by professionals, patients and tutors aware of the real result?

Ming/Ching China was known to have been more advanced (at least untils the 1800s) than the world in many aspects except for womens' rights.

1. How would life be like for a single mother (one who does not know or could not prove the father of their child) at that time?

2. Would it be possible that a divorce lawsuit end up with the mother instead of the divorced father taking care of the child singlehandedly?

3. What legal matters might they encounter?

4. What kind of social help could they seek out for?

5. Would the answer to all these questions differ significantly according to the social status of the mother?

Many male slaves were castrated in order to be sold, as this raised their price in the market. It makes sense when one considers that many would become guards in the harems or domestic slaves, but what about the ones that were sent to the fields, or the ones that worked as, for example, bricklayers? Nicholas McLeod claims that the number of slaves in the muslim word was always in decline because of manumission and castration, and it was uncommon for slaves to marry each other. If manumission was a problem, why not guarantee that slaves were capable of reproducing and ensuring the continuation of slavery, the way it was done in the Americas?

I have a hard time believing soldiers were yelling "golly gee!" in the trenches of WWI. But the writings of the era suggests that words like "fuck" and "shit" didn't exist in any American or Brit's vocabulary, no matter how unrefined their trade.

I heard this

...This is the return to the days in which those who only spoke dialects, those who could not read and write in the national language, those who didn't have enough money and property were all deprived of a political say and a share in political power while continuing to be exploited in the labor market.

Not knowing much about history, I thought first only the rich voted (they voted each other), then all poor men, then women. From that quote, I see I was wrong, how did the right to vote - who had the right to vote - change over time.

(Edit: I'm asking in general, didn't want to specify any specific country, the author of the quote, Lea Ypi, was talking of European nations)

I just shocked my fingertip getting up to close the door and was fascinated by the little bolt I saw. What did people who’d never heard of a lightbulb think?