I don't know how to put it... nowadays, many people believe that wearing makeup –in the case of women– (and the other things I mentioned in the title) supposes being a victim of “the patriarchy”, and that it is a form of mechanism to “keep women opressed”. There's also this idea (in the most radical feminism) that being “natural” aka not using any makeup or adorning oneself, not shaving, etc. is a form of fighting against “the patriarchal system”. However, it is my understanding that what we view as “natural” is a social construct as well. Thank you so much. This is my first question in this subreddit

Here's a good example from "Traces on the Rhodian Shore":

The idea that there is a continuous interaction between man and his environment—man changing it and being influenced by it—also has its mythological antecedents, but its full development belongs basically, I think, to rational thought, because such a conception requires a sense of history. The Sumerian thought the civilization of which he was a part—its institutions, cities, towns, farms, and so on—had been more or less the same from the beginning

And from Kramer's "Sumerian Historiography":

That Sumer had once been desolate marshland with but few scattered settlements, (...) —such thoughts probably never occurred even to the most learned of the Sumerian sages.

I must admit I am very skeptical of this statement. Obviously, the ancient world did not have the rapid-fire change we're experiencing now, but surely cities rose and fell, environmental disasters must have displaced people, foreigners introduced new pantheons and people would have a sense lots of stuff happened within their lifetimes.

So which is it?

A brief explanation of my question, I was educatedthat the reason the American revolution happened was because of increase in taxation as well as an inability to self-govern, but I'm curious what other factors led to revolution - ie - is there documentation that the political leaders felt a revolution was plausible because of the difference in ocean + support from other foreign countries and Britains weakened stance being in continuous wartime at the time?

So a more specific question is, did the political leaders that started the American revolution feel that it was winnable, hence a reason for revolution, as opposed to taxes and self-governance being the reason? Because the protest for self-governance doesn't always lead to revolution so was curious why it happened for America specifically.

It's crazy to me how quickly Harry Potter caught on, especially given that it wasn't an established IP or author. To be clear, I'm not looking for a literary analysis (I'm sure the content helped, but great books get missed all the time). Rather, I am curious what external factors allowed such an incredible rise in popularity. Did some media giant pick up the series early and decide "we're going to market the hell out of this"? Was there a lull in children's fiction at the time that led to a huge demand? Did the english-speaking world just decide that 1997 was the year to read to their kids a lot more than they used to?

I’ve read about people in the 18th century drinking beer with every meal, and laborers drinking beer throughout the day, but with the caveat that it was “small” beer with probably only 1% or 2% alcohol content. With the current rise in non-alcoholic craft brewing, I’m curious as to when (and why) low alcohol beer went from being a ubiquitous part of daily life to a niche market. Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide an answer!

We have a vast range of breads to choose from today and butter is butter, but would buttered toast from other times and places taste significantly different from what we have today? Eg, Japan in the 1960s, California in the early 1800s, Palestine in the 1700s, Italy in the 1500s. I’m not fussed on the comparison time and place, please answer with regard to your specialty knowledge.

I hope this doesn't come off as ignorant or anything, I just like learning where names and words come from, the cultures, languages, etc.

So like, my mom's best friend who helped raise me was Mrs. Tawana. My buddy was Daquan. Are those from African/Latin American names? Did Black Americans make their own names for their own culture?

My buddy's name is Todd Volpe, which is sort of funny because it means "Fox" in Scottish and Volpe is Italian, coming from the Latin "Vulpes, " which means "Fox," so his name means "fox fox." Or, "Cunningly cunning." That's sorta what I'm getting at.

Sorry for the vague question. I was watching a debate in youtube a few days ago and someone said something like this:

but since God is good he cannot create anything evil. In fact this was an argument made by [prophet's name], a Persian man who claimed to be a prophet and he said that Muhammed's message was corrupt for this very reason, but that he had been sent to correct it

The conversation then moved on to other topics but I was left wanting to know more

I've been trying to find out who this person was but I come out empty handed. I also tried to find the video in question but I've watched several similar debates and they are long so I have not found which one it was

Who was this Persian prophet?

I tried searching for some information on the festivals on the subreddit and found pretty much nothing interesting

How many days did a festival have? What sort of activities happened within a festival? And were there multiple festivals for the same deity in the same year or was it an annual occurrence? How many festivals were the annually in a polis like Athens? (I'd also be interested to read some information on other poleis)

Hey there,

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but it seemed to me more relevant to economic history, than to economics.

My question is:

Are there any visible increases in efficiency of production during the industrial revolutions, if we consider the input measured in calories or joule? I know that it sounds a bit stupid, but I am wondering. As I understood it, most technologies increase productivity by allowing for the use of more complex sources of energy, such as coal. Other increases in efficiency came from organizational matters or fixed costs that did not grow proportionally with the scale of enterprises. But is efficiency also visible if we look at the relation between the input of natural resources and the output of manufactured goods?

It seems to me, that most existing industries have a high demand for finite resources, and that they are not much more efficient than manual labor, but rather able to use resources that supply more energy - but at the same time are also finite. In any case, it doesn't seem to me that the input really decreased for most industries. At least in absolute numbers it seems clear that most finite resources are used up much more quickly now. Are there any increases in efficiency that would offset the increased demand from industries and growing populations?

Is this idea completely wrong or do you think it could be true that efficiency did not so much increase, but rather the scale of enterprises increased, while the amount of labor decreased.

I am just wondering if the input really decreased, relative to the output, if we consider natural resources. This might be clearly obvious if we take nuclear energy or solar energy into consideration, but does this thought have any validity with respect to the late 19th century in UK or Central Europe?

If anything about this question is not acceptable for this subreddit, maybe you could let me know how I could increase my chances for an answer :)

​

Thanks ahead.

My base assumptions might be wrong, so I will lay them out:

1. There was a prevalent slave trade in the Roman empire, which continued also in the Eastern empire.
2. The Church, either organisation wide or certain individuals, objected the slave trade, or at least the trade in Christian slaves, but never banned it.
3. The norse took active part in the slave trade, with slaves captured in England, Ireland and the Baltic area in raids and were sold all around Europe and northern Africa.
4. During 10th century norse chieftains converted to Christianity and consolidated their power as monarchs, which ended the viking raids on in northern Europe.
5. Around the same time the slave trade in Europe declined dramatically.
6. But the Scandinavian kings continued to raid the eastern Baltic, up and during the Baltic Crusade.

So my question is a. are my assumptions generally match the historical consensus? b. if they do, how come the norse slave trade died out? They kept raiding other people, which means they could still capture slaves, so why stop?

I've been noticing a lot of "and then Brân did something to the king of Ireland." Does this only mean a king of Ireland? Or is it something like there being a king of, say, Leinster that was treated by these people as the king of all Ireland?

During the setup for Bilbo's going away party, Tolkien mentions that Frodo had been in his 'tweens', a late adolescence of the twenties that last until a coming of age at 33.

Now, this reads like a comment on 'teens' to the present audience, but I thought the present conception of teenager-dom was relatively recent, or at least post-dating Tolkien himself.

Was Tolkien referencing a life stage we would recognize as 'teenage', or was he just (to his mind) making something up that happened to retroactively become a reference?

First of, I greatly appreciate all serious answers!

The story takes place in England and my character works in service. He is in his thirties. His homosexuality is unknown to the staff.

Secondly, there are some specific questions I have, as I want to write the story as historically accurate as possible. I would be super grateful if you could help me out!

1. What were common terms for diagnoses? My character has what today would be called psychotic depression and also has a problem with self-harm. How would those be referenced, e.g in a clinical report? A term I often read was "melancholia", is that correct?

2. How were medications used? I read that opioids and amphetamines were used to treat depression until 1950, but were they already used in around 1928-1929?

3. What were the most common forms of treatment? I read insulin-coma-therapy was common, but what was it used for specifically? Would it be possible for my character to have recieved it? What about electroshock-therapy? Was psycho-analysis common?

4. How long did most people stay in the hospital around that time? I read that with the onset of psychiatric medications in the 1950's, the duration of psychiatric hospitalizations decreased, but how long were they in general before that?

5. ICD-4 was used around that time, is that correct?

6. How were psychiatric hospitals organized and constructed? Were they seperated by gender? Were there specific wards for specific conditions or were they all more or less put all together?

7. Would he wear is normal civil clothes or were there specific hospital-garments patients had to wear?

8. What consequences would this have had for his job in service? Would his employers be aware of his absence? Would they be notified?

9. Who would have been allowed to visit him? He has a boyfriend, of course not openly (due to the laws of the time), would he have been able to simply visit my character or is only close family allowed to visit patients?

10. What would happen if the staff found out about his homosexuality?

I'm much interested in history, but this is a topic I couldn't find the amount of information I wished and need.

Thank you so much already for answering!

I read someone online claiming that 'vegetarianism would be more widespread if people had to slaughter and butcher their food themselves', followed by someone else claiming that 'people did have to slaughter and butcher their food themselves in 'olden times', and vegetarianism was not widespread'.

My understanding from previous comments in this sub (which I don't remember the link for - sorry!) was that food in pre-modern Britain revolved around grain-based staples with some amount of 'opportunism' or foraging, depending on what was in season, with the consumption of meat being pretty low. Hence 'vegetarianism' would be fairly widespread, although as a function of necessity and not really in the same manner that we think about vegetarianism today.

For the sake of being slightly more specific, I am asking whether the 'average' person in Medieval Britain (or earlier, or later if useful) would have slaughtered and butchered animals to eat themselves and how people felt about this (if they had any particular thoughts at all), or if they would get someone else (e.g a butcher) to do this.