Sorry about the ridiculously long title. Did Iconoclasts name their children Jesus?

Edit: please stop sending me old links. I've received them many times.

Although people have always thought Europeans are the better people and see Europe as superior civilization, people weren't generally racist back in 17th-18th century.

We have de Gerando for example who said, "human nature was fundamentally the same in all times and places," that although Europe is the single best civilizations, he noted, "all humans could achieve and enjoy" the same degree of superiority if they're willing to learn. There were also George Forster, who argued universalism but still recognized local differences.

But in 19th century, statements such as this from Georges Cuvier seem to be more common,

There are ... certain intrinsic causes which seem to arrest the progress of certain races, even in the most favorable [environmental] circumstances. ... The civilization of the Mongolian race had remained stationary and that Negroes had never progressed beyond utter barbarism.

What happened in a century? What theological and philosophical paradigm changed?

Through reading this Subreddit and other sources I have a fair view of how the cattle/craft wealth of the farmstead Village Communities was created and passed around among them, and how the "Gold/Prestige economy" of the warrior-elite functioned, but I am unclear how the warrior-aristocracy, local strongman, and the King acquired the foodstuffs and provisions for everyday living, if there was no formal taxation or tribute giving, and if there was no mechanism for "buying" these goods with gold, etc. Were the members of aristocracy generally large land owners with tenant farmers or slave labour that provided these kinds of goods to them? Any clarification is greatly appreciated, thank you.

I've read several articles about Thatcher's policies, and i've learnt about the fact that she instaured a society of personnal ambitions and really made a property owning democracy. I understand that she made a transition between and industrial economy which revolves around steel and coal to a service economy, but I can't seem to find anything more about how she influenced today's British society.

I am wondering about the etymology of certain village/town names in England and Scotland. In the USA, most city names are taken from European city names or people's names. But in Britain, there are place names such as Nether Wallop, Upton Snodsbury, Pucklechurch, Papplewick, and my personal favorite, Great Snoring. Now my question is, how were these places named, and who decided to name these places?

Edit: Also, what led to the use of common prefixes/suffixes or similarities in names (such as - chester, lots of dashes, blank upon blank, etc.)?

Browsing the OED (hush you now), I notice a whole lot of "opium X" expressions noted from the very late 18th into the mid 19th century, mostly related to opium consumption and its problems (opium den, opium sky, opium-shattered, etc.). I understand the timing in the general context of trade and Chinoiserie, but how did all this opium consumption affect people's lives and the overall nature/direction of contemporary English society and culture? Like, did opium dens become "the room where it happened," or did people escape there because opium made them the room where nothing happened and if so was this seen as a problem, etc.

(I am not looking for a primer on the Opium Wars/maneuvering to legalize the opium trade.)

I heard that during the 1940s, the allies did various estimates of how long a soldier would remain combat effective, with the US estimating ~250 days and the British (whose troops had longer rest periods) ~400 days...but how did this mesh with the length of service?

What I mean is, the vast majority of soldiers were conscripted for the duration of the war so how did the armies take the reduction of combat effectiveness into account?

Did they just accept that soldiers would be worse after X days or was it possible to reset the soldiers by retraining etc (or giving them extended leave periods etc)?

In ideal circumstances would they have demobilised troops who had reached this cut off point?

By usual colonial justifications, I mean the whole business with 'civilising the savages' narrative that most colonial powers seem to have adopted.

I'm writing an essay about the trials but I'm too broke to buy any books at the moment and many of the books I would need are not available in my country's libraries. I'm not asking you guys to write my essay for me but it would be awesome if someone could give me some secondary source quotes and possibly direct me at relevant primary sources. I'm particularly interested in 'Salem Possessed' by Boyer and Nissenbaum, John Demos' study and Carol F. Karlsen's 'The Devil in the Shape of a Woman'.

[deleted]

Nowadays everyone is pretty much literally Hitler, but at some point people must've been comparing politicians to someone else. Who was Hitler bring compared to when he was rising to power?

Is there any mention at all?

[deleted]

The early Cold War took place during a time in which atomic weapons had to be loaded onto bombers, and which only had yields in the dozens of kiloton range. It was only after the introduction of hydrogen bombs and ICBMs that people began to consider the end of the world as a plausible outcome for a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

By the time "blow up the world" could have been shorthand for a full nuclear exchange with a doubtful outcome for human civilization, both NATO and the USSR were in a very different place, in terms of military technology, than they had been at the end of the WW2. That being the case, with little evidence of how both sides would fare with their updated equipment and tactics, how did NATO planners go about assessing the probable outcomes of a major conventional clash in Europe? Prior to WW2, many generals profoundly misunderstood the tank, it's implications, limitations, and how to best use it. With the introduction of new weapons like attack helicopters, ATGMs, and so on, how could war planners not avoid the same mistakes that were made in assessing how a war with second generation tanks would be fought?

To boil it down: how did they decide that the conventional conflict would last for less than a week before NATO found it necessary to deploy tactical nuclear weapons (with a plausible escalation to a strategic exchange occurring almost immediately thereafter)?

[deleted]