Conspiracy theories and urban legends reflect current social fears, whether it's serial killers stalking women or shadowy cabals secretly controlling your destiny. Even the name urban legend reflects a very particular socio-economic setting, the city. With the 20-year/modern politics/soapboxing/bigotry rules firmly in effect, tell us: what conspiracy theories and "urban" legends emerged in your time of study? How do they help us understand the past?

Next week: "Peace & Peacemaking", as suggested by /u/delayT3! Then we'll have some Halloween-influenced weeks that will more easily allow our archaeology experts to get in on the action.

As someone who is considering participating in Mars Colonization, I am curious.

I've seen garbage disposals in American movies, but have never seen one in any country that I've visited (Europe/Africa). I was wondering if there was a historical reason why this particular invention hasn't spread (much).

How close were they genetically and intelligently? Could you take a prehistoric baby and raise her to be just like an average modern human? Were they exactly the same as us?

I'm interested in humans from two periods:

30 000 years ago, when there was art but before writing/farming

100 000 years ago, or whenever humans first started using spoken language

Thanks for any info!

To clarify, I am specifically curious to know whether the period spanning the 6th to 14th centuries was notably different in its social organisation and in its economy from the societies which preceded Roman Hegemony. Was monarchy the original norm or was it inspired by Imperial Rome's legacy? Were European economies and societies as dependent on agriculture before 5th century climate change (approximately coincident with waning roman influence in the West) as they were after it?

Why did classic liberalism fail to develop in places like Eastern Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, yet arise in Britain/France?

I visited a large country house in Tuscany recently and the room layout was a bit strange, it seems like the architect designed for a different way of life. I've tried to find literature on the subject but the searches get muddled with american tuscan pastiche. So does anybody know how aristocratic/noble Tuscans lived in the 17/18th century?

Wouldn't he have a lack of troops? Why did the Allies take so long to invade Germany?

Also, how did he manage to control so much land?

I've heard that from the time Columbus landed, more than 90% of Native American people were killed (I forget the ending date).

While modern Hinduism has moved farther away from its Vedic/Brahmin roots, in Roman times (meaning Principate onward when trade with India increased) and Greek times (post-Alexander and especially Seleucid or greco-indian kingdoms) Hinduism would have resembled the Indo-European pantheon represented across all Indo-European language areas. Did the Greeks or Romans make direct connections between their gods and the Brahmanic gods the way they did with themselves or the celts?

For example I know Indra was heavily worshipped and associated with lightning, and who's father is Dyaus Pita meaning sky father, just like Zeus and Jupiter (Iou Pater)

In one of my classes last week a fair amount of people thought America should dearm and get rid of its military and other forces. While I do think this is a horrible idea I am genuinely curious as to how past attempts of doing this have turned out in history. Has such an attempt succeeded without the country getting crushed? Sorry if this is too broad of a question.

Resubmitted because nobody had an answer last time. Sorry if this is too soon to resubmit.

I know that Louisiana had no US equivalent to the Quebec Act to grant it authority to maintain French civil law or establish French as an official language, but it still seems strange to me that there was not (to my knowledge) much or any pressure within Louisiana to maintain a uniquely French-American identity.

Were the relatively few people living in Louisiana at the time of statehood simply drowned out as Anglophone settlers from the eastern states began filtering in, or was there actual pressure (either externally, from the government, or internally from the Louisianans themselves) to assimilate into the wider American culture?

By this I mean how important was the geography and facilities of Australia to the US in ensuring victory? Could any other country be used just as effectively for basing troops and operations?

I am looking for an alternative to this book for my nephew who is interested in learning more about Russian history. I've read Riasanovsky's book and although I enjoyed it, it was a very mechanical read and I fear he won't enjoy it. I was wondering if any of you knew of any similar books in terms of coverage, but more engaging from a literary perspective without compromising accuracy?

Hinduism spread far and wide in ancient times to almost all of Southeast Asia and areas like Afghanistan. There is much evidence of strong Hindu traditions and ties to India in these countries from temples like Angkor Wat to influences in language and scripts. At some point the Thais, Khmer, Burmese, Malays, Javanese, Filipinos, and Champa of Vietnam were all Hindu. So why did every country convert away from it? Now all these countries practice Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity. Even close places to India like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are Buddhist or Islamic. Why was Hinduism so strong and then it never stuck around?

I don't even know how to ask this question precisely. Today in a developed country, the death of a child is an unimaginable tragedy that would send parents into years of grief and shock. In earlier times though, death of children was tragically common. I've seen infant mortality rates of 50% or something! How did people cope with so much death? In particular the death of children? Did they actually have a different attitude towards it - seems strange to ask but did they "love" their children less because they were more likely to lose them? Or did everybody in society go through life with major emotional/psychological issues?

So my book asks: "was the Gilded Age political system effective in meeting its goals", but makes no mention of what the goals were. I know of all the corruption that was in place, and have facts to know which side to support, but I don't know what the main question is. Any help would be appreciated.

I wonder how having that last name would have changed things.

Adolf Schicklgruber.