The 14th amendment says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But up until the 1960s at least, most white Americans did not want equal protection - they wanted substantially inferior public accommodations and treatment for non-whites, bans on non-whites from marrying whites, no black police officers, etc, etc, etc, etc. So how did the amendment pass without substantially different wording?

This is a common trope in sci fi, where people live on land that's owned by a large corporation. Depending on where the work falls on the dystopia/utopia spectrum, most of the things on the land might be controlled by the corporation and they probably have a private military at least, with private police branches that enforce rules and such.

Has such a thing happened in real life? I'm under the impression that companies like United Fruit, Standard Fruit and the East India Trading Company exhibited certain signs of this but weren't really "governing" in the modern sense of a government. Am I wrong about this? If I'm not are there places where this actually happened?

Considering they knew the world was round I'd have thought this was something they could deduce even if not easily prove

What led Norway, Iceland, Finland, and especially Sweden to use the nordic cross on their flags? It seems like with the historical enmity between Denmark and Sweden, they wouldn't use a Danish symbol.

Before "modern" warfare/weaponry (I'll say pre-American Civil War for the sake of this question) it seems that, while the death and casualties weren't as astronomically high, the fighting itself seemed more personal. There's data on the psychological stress and trauma that comes with war today but I can't even imagine the level of desensitization a soldier would require if killing an enemy required looking at them while you impaled them with a spear or sword.

I know even the concept of psychology is relatively new but I'm curious as to whether we have any accounts on the effects that more personal brand of warfare had on soldiers. What do we know in general?

Was there a defeatist stance that the world revolution might not happen, but there still the Socialist countries needed to be maintained?

Was there a middle ground, like Stalin's idea of the world revolution in this late era of the Soviet Union?

Or was the revolution ''very close'' to the leaders of the Soviet Union like it seemed to be in the late 1910s/early 1920s?

Is it because of officers? Is it because it looks unique? Or is there another historical reason?

According to Adam Tooze`s book The Wages of Destruction, the French Char-B1 and SOMUA 35 tanks were on an individual basis fully comparable to the German tanks, with the B1 even being superior in armor. However most of the people I know who have an interest in this say the German tanks were far superior, even on an individual basis. Who is right?

[deleted]

Welcome to Monday Methods!

This week (a bit late) we are going to ask all our readers to share their tips, stories and general advice on organizing your research trips, to archives near and especially abroad!

What have you learned is important to know about doing research in archives or libraries near you or abroad? Anything special to prepare? Any funny stories you can share? With the need to do archival research arriving relatively late for many people during their historical studies (here for example, we have MAs who go to the archive for the first time for their thesis), what are some useful tips? How do you contact archives? Do you use a camera and if so what kind? What is generally important to know about in your opinion?

Thank you and until next week!

i.e. a history of history

Something going over different thoughts from the ancient Greek historians to "great person" history to marxism, to how history is studied today.

So what I'm most interested in is getting resources to read on my own, especially the history and information on ships, but for any historians that have taken a special interest in that era, what are the things you see in movies that cross your eyes? I've seen all of Pirates of the Caribbean, the first season of Black Sails, and I like to think there are some nuggets of truth in each on a base level, but I want to know what things that seem plausible are actually incorrect.

[deleted]

In popular culture it seems it that the threat of armed was ever present to people travelling around this time, I'm interested to know to what degree this was a reality. Additionally how well armed would such people have been in the late middle ages and early modern era (for the purposes of this question 1400-1600 ad)

Did Byzantines consider themselves Roman after the fall of Rome? I think I've heard that somewhere. Also, what pushed the steppe tribes to migrate west? I'm specifically interested in the Ostrogoths. What sort of tactics did the Ostrogoths use? How did romans feel about the migrators, both in Rome and in conquered areas, and did the conquered tribes view these migrators as liberators or simply new conquerors? And finally, for now, why was the Eastern Roman empire prospering, while the western empire collapsed?

Cheers in advance, any information will be really appreciated.

Considering that the two nations were equipped with vastly different equipment, how was the process of standardizing the new military handled? Did they scrap all of east germany's soviet equipment or was it sold back to the USSR/Russia? Or did they simply put it all in storage and still have some old T-72's that they can dust off?

P.S: First post on this subreddit so if there's any issues with how I presented the question or if I made it too broad any feedback on that would be appreciated

[deleted]