I've heard many different things regarding just how bad slavery in the U.S. really was. The one thing I don't listen to is "It wasn't that bad." But I've been doing a lot of research lately and one thing I've come across is the idea that it truly was one of the worst forms of slavery ever to exist. Granted, this is from far-left people. And obviously, chattel slavery in and of itself is pretty bad. But was it significantly worse than other chattel slaveries?

I've thought about it. The U.S. is really one of the only countries in the Americas where the people did not mix. They did a bit, obviously, but when you go to Latin America, most people are some mixture of black, white, and Native, despite slavery being even bigger in Latin America than it was in the States. Not all, but I'd bet the majority are mixed. In the U.S., people generally bred with their own race.

What I've read is that slavery was especially bad in the U.S. because the racism incorporated into it truly made it out as though blacks were subhuman. Black babies were used as alligator bait (if the cost of feeding another mouth outweighed the revenue the baby would provide), families were broken up, there was frequent rape, it was illegal to teach slaves to read/write, etc. So obviously it was bad, but was it straight up one of the worst forms of slavery ever?

Thanks

Yes some of the other apostles wrote things which were included in the NT, but Paul has more than his share in there considering there were a bunch of others following Jesus.

Another way of looking at this could be: Why wasn't stuff written by the other apostles included? The apostles who spread in basically every direction from Jerusalem, and spread to sub-Saharan Africa, and even into India, surely they wrote stuff worth including?

On the eve of the French and Indian war New France had a European population of around 50,000-60,000. The English colonies by comparison had about 1,000,000. How did such a difference occur between two colonies founded at the same time?

Due to the way European monarchies were set up there would eventually be, through happenstance, a time when no male heirs existed. Either that or some complex political situation would create a queen when inheritance was in dispute.

In Europe we have Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, Queen Isabella, and Czarina Catherine.

What was different about Muslim monarchies that they never ended up with a female monarch?

I could be wrong and there was a Muslim female monarch in history. In that case tell me about her!

Today, there is a culture focused around eating the spiciest/spicy foods, but how have people treated spicy foods historically? Did they avoid them due to the pain associated with eating them, or have there been cultures that embraced spicy foods?

Curious to know if we can trace that linguistic influence regionally.

Trying to settle a bet: I swear that years ago I saw an old 1990s (I think) New York Times cover article championing Osama Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter" instead of as a terrorist.

I know there have been major shifts over time how the US views or portrays different actors in the middle east - was there a time when we considered him positively and can anyone link me to that NYT article? TIA.

Edit: have been doing some more searching and my guess is if there was a positive article about him it probably was from the mid 80s around when we were arming and funding the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union. Would still love a link whether to NYT or similar mainstream news.

In Patrick Stewart's version of A Christmas Carol, the overweight Mrs. Fezziwig claims to be on a diet after being called out on eating by Mr. Fezziwig.

Would anyone from that period think of "a diet" as a restriction on caloric intake to lose wright, or that being overweight was even a problem?

I've been reading "The Good Soldier Svejk" by Jaroslav Hazek, and I've got so many questions! Mostly because I don't know a whole heck of a lot about Austria-Hungary.

Do we have some sort of church record from where he came from like we do Shakespeare? Is it just a nickname we gave to him, kinda like how we named one of the oldest human bodies found "Lucy"? Did he leave an engraving of a rock somewhere in the former location of Vinland that says "Lief Erikson wuz here?"

Just a quick question.

And, if allowed, do we know what would happen if that did occur with DJT? Protocol-wise, I mean.

What the title says. He's fairly well-read for his age. He's more interested in science and technology. But I think he also caught the "history bug" from all my comments back when they were playing Civilization.

He's looking for a book that describes WW1, the whole thing, not just a slice. Is there a book that strikes a good balance between comprehensiveness and accessibility, that would not be too abstract or too scholarly for a high school kid?

TBH, I would read that book too. :)

Thanks!

I was just wondering when sex became "civilized" in the sense of being the opposite of animalistic. Obviously different animals have different mating rituals, but is there a comparison?

Though not always taken as a serious crime, rape has been known for a long time, so when did consent become a thing?

That is to say, if he wasn't born, would the auto industry have grown substantially slower or was he just the first to really ride the wave of technological progress in manufacturing and industrial process design in that era?

All the evidence suggests that if Germany had invaded Briton, ordinary folk would take up arms and put up a long fierce fight (e.g dad's army, or Churchill indicating that "there may be no need to die after all" after America joined the war). So why was this not the case in France. Why was defeat accepted to readily?

In 167 BC, the Macedonians were defeated by Aemilius Paulus which resulted in the withdrawal of direct taxes to citizens of Rome. Cato the Elder is also said to have been "admired" for his austerity.

I was curious whether there was a political shift that happened due to the increase in wealth. Did things become more competitive? Was War welcomed more?

Slave spys have always been interesting to me. People like Harriet Tubman and Henry Scott running military info from the south to the union army up north just seemed like such a feat for the time and many of these people go unnoticed. It took a lot of courage to run back to the south and risk their capture back into the tortures of slavery, a display of true valor.

I chose to do this subject for my extended essay (4,000 words. Topic is on how dispatch slaves contributed to the victory of the Union) because it is very unique and challenging at the same time. Finding information for this subject proves to be a obstacle in its own. I was wondering if anyone here knows of some primary sources that relate to dispatch slaves/spy slaves in any way. Maybe a military officer that was receiving info from these spys, or one who was the one sending them on a mission, or maybe even a diary kept by the spy themselves.

I know this is a lot to ask as there seems to be very little info on this subject but any help would mean the world to me.

'Wackier' beliefs meaning things like nocturnal flight, the Sabbath and all the cannibalism, orgies etc that went along with it. Were English authorities genuinely more sceptical of such things, or (as I have always assumed) were they simply less able to introduce these elements into the trials due to the adversarial legal system and prohibition of torture?

If you consider the known world as the entire world in this case, how many "world" wars were there before World War 1?