Specifically around the Age of Sail where swords were still used but without shields?

I watched the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou? some time ago (where records and radio play a large part of the plot) and this morning I thought about the Gorillaz playing quite loudly in my favorite bagel place and I got to wondering…

Once the phonograph was widespread, I suppose(?), there was the possibility for music in cafés, restaurants, and stores without needing a live band. Did playing music in these sorts of places kick off immediately or was it a slow progression ? Was background music only popular once there was radio? Did the US and countries across Europe & Asia have different reactions to the music in this setting? Did upscale or “dive” or mom-&-pop places play music first? What kind of music caught on first (classical, hymns, folk, the pop of the times, etc.) for this purpose? What were people's reactions to once quiet places now all playing music? Did it shape cities vs. rural towns differently? Was there backlash?

I take it for granted that there's music everywhere but I wonder what the transition to this way of things was like. Thank you very much!

I'm currently on the second semester of (contemporary) European history and will have to present and defend a paper for this course. I plan on doing an analysis of a biography of one of the prominent figure of the space/arms race, ideally a person who's neither American nor Russian by birth.

But given the vast array of biographies on Von Braun alone (not to mention others of his no less brilliant contemporary) I'm thoroughly lost as to whom to chose and which book to read. And as much as I wish I could read them all, I regrettably have deadlines to contend with.

So you (yes: YOU!) who has already finished their degree in modern/contemporary European History: what do you recommend. Is Von Braun overdone? Should I go for the Ukrainians or is there not enough translations of it? Should I have chosen a course with better employment perspectives?

Thank you any help you can provide!

Not sure my question is very well worded, but to be clear: In India, the Caste system is still upheld and rigidly followed by many (i.e. it is frowned upon to marry outside of your Caste, Untouchables face heavy discrimination etc.). Why has Indian culture clung on to the Caste system, yet societies with similar systems, such as Medieval Japan & Feudal Europe have basically abandoned the concept?

Follow up questions

• If there were, what religions did they preach? Were they Abrahamic religions and/or sects? or did they preach something else entirely?

• How did the early muslims view these prophets, if they were aware of them at all?

• What happened to their religions/teachings? Did they survive or did they die out? and if so, why?

I know that the monarchy in Great Britain shifted over time from a more absolute form to the constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy that now exists. And it's my vague understanding that the greatest part of the shift happened in the last ~200 years.

Where in the "process" was the monarchy of Great Britain at the time of the American Revolution (1765-1783, if we need to be specific)? What level of control did King George have at the time, and how much of it was in the hands of the Parliament?

To my understanding, they were allies until that point. Why did napoleon tun on them?

All responses about the history of manifestos are welcome, but I'm particularly curious about why there seems to be so many manifestos in the interwar period (fascist manifesto, surrealist manifesto, manifesto of fascist intellectuals, manifesto of anti-fascist intellectuals, etc.). Was the form of the manifesto particularly suited to the politics of this era? Why/ why not?

I was reading The Chinese in America by Iris Chang and came across this interesting quote:

Like the 1949 refugees from Hong Kong, most of those trying to leave [Hong Kong] in the 1990s found the logical destination - England - closed to them. Although Great Britain traditionally issued British passports to all those born on its territory, it refused to do so with the Chinese born on Hong Kong while it had been British. These passports would have ensured entry to England for those who chose that path. Many Hong Kong residents felt profoundly betrayed, convinced that Great Britain had shirked its responsibilities to avoid ruffling the feathers of the PRC. Even though the British had enjoyed a century of colonial rule in Hong Kong, benefiting from the wealth created by the colony, it appeared they were unconcerned about the fate of their former subjects.

So what's the story here? Is it correct that the UK didn't issue the passports just to avoid upsetting the mainland government, or is there more to it than that?

I'm part of an old historian brotherhood name ECV (E. Clampus Vitus) I joined at 21 thinking it was fun and games and now know very little about the society, I would love to learn more details about this secret society and the history behind it, I know very little but please if anyone knows information I would love to learn. I heard it originated back in the gold rush era.

On a global scale, the US and Canada have a lot in common, with large overlaps in history, culture, religion, language and politics.

However, there are also differences. For example, Canadians are often described as having a bigger trust in government, a more liberal lean (Canadian politics have for a long time been dominated by the liberal party), being less individualistic and being less religious than their US counterparts. Most people can probably list some cultural aspects that they think differ between the countries, which might not have been the case in the 17th century.

When and why did the cultures of the colonists start to diverge?

Note: I don't want this to turn into a debate as to what the actual differences are, the questions concerns the major causes of said differences.

[deleted]

From my understanding feudalism was a largely agrarian-based economy, with most peasants living in small villages in the countryside working the land, and most of the nobility living in castles or manors.

If this is the case, who lived in the cities?

In the 1990s, it seems as though there was a large movement of celebrities, especially African-American ones, who converted to the religion of Islam. Notable examples include:

• Mike Tyson, converted in the mid-90s while in prison.
• Dave Chappelle, converted in 1998 (less than 20 years, sorry!).
• Ice Cube, converted in the 1990s.
• Jermaine Jackson, converted in 1989.
• Everlast, converted in 1996.
• Q-Tip, converted in 1995.

Was there a surge of popularity for Islam in the 1990s, or is this just confirmation bias at work?