[deleted]

Recently, Colin Kaepernick has come under fire for protesting the playing of "The Star Spangled Banner" at football games. One recent talking point in the controversy has claimed that the original third verse of Key's anthem refers to free blacks and slaves who fought for the British Army in America. The verse, in full, is below:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore, That the havoc of war & the battle’s confusion/ A home & a Country should leave us no more ? Their blood has wash’d out their foul footsteps’ pollution./ No refuge could save the hireling & slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,/ And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O’er the land of the free & the home of the brave.

The relevant lines are "No refuge could save the hireling & slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave."

However, to me, these lines refer to the Hessian mercenaries hired by the British in the American Revolution and the conscript armies fielded in the Napoleonic Wars/War of 1812. Hireling can refer to a free black hired for labor (it can refer to any hired, low-wage laborer or immigrant) but in this case it seems like a diminutive term used to disparage the British Army. Slave almost certainly refers to conscripts, as the British Army fielded thousands of them in America during the War of 1812.

By Finnish I mean a person who happened to live in the area which is nowadays Finland and who belonged to a tribe or a people which are included in what are called Finns nowadays. Were there any of them raiding with the vikings, or crusading in the holy land? If the answer is no, why? And if the answer is yes, is there any kind of literature I can find of this?

Sorry for my average English since it's not my first language.

For example, we knew Ruler X was in control in 1612 but no records exist anymore

Was it okay to say out loud the views that the Treaty of Versailles terms were humiliating and were to be resented during the post-war Weimar Republic time?

I would assume so in right-wing circles, but what about left-wing mindset? Was it seen as something taboo to say, were there "social justice warrior" equivalents during that time, who shamed you/called you an extremist for saying that the Paris treaty should be revised?

I heard that Debussy was not really the greatest pianists and in fact he could not play most of his own piano pieces. Is this true?

So, I've moved to Australia from the UK about 8 months ago. I have a wonderful Australian fiancee and it's an awesome country, with great weather, food and people (but too many spiders).

I now realise though that I know very little of its history post colonisation. We aren't taught it in school in the UK apart from the fact that people left the UK for it at various points. The more I watch TV and listen to decent radio (thanks Triple J!) the more I realise aboriginal people are still at a disadvantage and some pretty terrible things were done (e.g. the 'stolen' generation).

So my question is, what books would Reddit recommend as an introduction to the history of Australia post colonisation? I don't want to be ignorant of the issues that eventually I'll be expected to vote on, and as a teacher I feel like I need to better understand some of the students I'm expected to teach.

Thanks for your help folks :)

Unless every single person involved in the holocaust was a psychopath with no capacity for empathy (i know many if not most of them were) i have difficulty understanding how an entire state of people could be capable of such a massive atrocity. How did the Nazis manage to dehumanise the Jewish people and other groups so much that mass extermination could be seen as an acceptable option? Did they manage to convince even otherwise normal people?

[deleted]

Like for example, if when Mt. Suribachi at Iwo Jima was being lit up by heavy shells a Marine fighter goes in for a gun run but gets inadvertently hit by friendly fire

I have been reading a few articles on his campaign and I understand that converting the Saxons to Christianity helped pacify them, but none have really stated his purpose for invading and converting, other than just to finish what his Grandfather started. One even mentions that in the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae that, unlike most of his other capitularies, Charlemagne doesn't provide an opening clause describing his motives.

I assume it wasn't Christianity? And when did his disciples started calling it Christianity and themselves Christians?

The trailer looked very Zulu(ie). It didn't feel accurate but more emotional. But I only have the trailer and wiki to go on which can be inaccurate. Sorry for the cop-out id rather trust you guys than buy a book from amazon. unless it is vetted through this sub.

And why? Did the medieval kingdoms of Europe just not have the means to maintain such public buildings, or was it a cultural shift? Were there any places where public bathhouses never went out of style (Rome itself, maybe? Constantinople?)

How did the two scandinavian kingdoms at the time (Denmark-Norway and Sweden) avoid civil war or breakup during their conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism? What allowed such a relatively smooth transition (when compared to France and Germany)?

Essentially the title. Was the conversation comparably polarizing to how it is today or was the decision viewed pretty favorably by the general public? How long had the issue of abortion been in the public consciousness prior to the decision?

Did they have a checkbook type of thing for credit or have the bank or someone be a witness?

Without our modern technology of food storage, how would a ship go about feeding its crew for long trips, ex. sailing from Europe to the Americas? I'm inquiring information for larger crews (300+) and their diet, daily intake of calories and how the food was stored. Also, what actions would the captain take if a ship starts to run out of supply due to unforeseen events? And would individuals try to fish to supplement the food supplies?