My main question is to the employment status of prostitutes in the old west working at saloons or brothels. Were they simply bought and sold from one madame/saloonkeeper to another (such as what the Mann Act targets) or was there a portion of prostitutes who could move freely from one location to another and choose where they worked? Did they make their own money and give a cut to the saloon keeper/madame in exchange for room and board or were they more like contract workers? Finally, how much control did the saloon keeper/madame have over a prostitute in their every day life, especially concerning their ability to switch jobs (choose a different occupation or simply choose a different place but remain a prostitute).

Also what if I was in a Supermarine Spitfire at the same time period? What would that have changed? Was I told to be more careful than if I were flying a Hurricane?

And what allowed Ieyasu Tokugawa to win? Was he a more preferable candidate to become Shogun over Hideyori? Was the Eastern Army just stronger? Was Ieyasu simply a better tactician? Could it be that he just got lucky?

Very curious to know. Thanks!

Why is there so much? Is it truly because of the conservative law makers or is it due to a lack of resources? I guess my question is "Is the south's poverty a preexisting condition that was bound to happen regardless of policy?"

From Wikipedia

In 1551, Oda Nobuhide died unexpectedly. Nobunaga was said to have acted outrageously during his funeral, throwing ceremonial incense at the altar.[4] This convinced many Oda retainers of Nobunaga's mediocrity and lack of discipline. Alienated, they then began to side with his soft-spoken and well-mannered brother, Nobuyuki. Hirate Masahide, a valuable mentor and retainer to Nobunaga, was ashamed by Nobunaga's behavior and performed seppuku. This had a huge effect on Nobunaga, who later built a temple to honor Masahide

As the question states, this seems like an odd choice given that French is not a hugely spoken language in this country (USA), nor was it ever. So what is the history behind this rather strange idea?

[deleted]

I'm visiting the Inca Trail and Machu Picchu in a few weeks, and I'd like to have some background so that I can best appreciate what I'll see. I've read "Turn Right At Machu Picchu" which is an entertaining travel story, but has limited historical information. I'd appreciate something that's more scholarly, without being too dry for a non-specialist. The AskHistorians book list recommends "The Incas" by Terence N. D'Altroy, but I'm not sure how much information that has on Machu Picchu specifically, and I believe that scholars have learned a lot since in was published in 2003. "Machu Picchu: Unveiling the Mystery of the Incas" looks interesting, although it seems to downplay the religious significance of the site. Any other recommendations?

I was surfing the Internet and came across a site claiming that the Moors essential civilized Europe. What confuses me about this is that the sites will say Moor occupation of Europe began in Spain around 700 A.D, but there were civilizations like the Roman Empire that had been established B.C. I was just wondering what the merits to these claims were and if they were factual?

Canadian historians, can you tell me why Canada is more progressive leaning than the US and more accepting of progresive ideas? Because a lot of things such as sphc(single payer health care) that the us derides as socialist or far-left are much more accepted in Canada.

Also I noticed a lot of my friends view not only Bernie Sanders with a great deal of reverence, but Green Party leader Jill Stein as well. Even some of my friends who want Clinton to win have a degree of admiration for Stein(two people I knew who ran as NDP MPs in October 2015 said they would vote Stein if they lived in the US, a IDS student told me Bernie should have endorsed Stein instead of Clinton or at least "forever held his peace", and one of my friends who supports Clinton says he hopes one day someone like Stein will be able to take office in the US).

So why is Canada more progressive leaning than the US? What is the historical basis that allowed this to happen?

I recognize that this question is technically about the British-Asian experience, however I thought that it was close enough (details regarding Asian immigration to the West)

Follow up questions:

Is Naipaul's quotation accurate? Who was this liberal MP? Did her opinion reflect the general consensus of the UK with regard to accepting Ugandan refugees?

The full quotation occurs on page 100 of North of South. Naipaul writes, "But the British did not want these paper citizens. Nobody wanted them. One respected front-bench Labor politician, well known for her liberal views suggested that, on purely humanitarian grounds, the refugees should be transported to a conveniently empty island in the Indian Ocean, there to await gradual and discreet dispersal."

Much of what I've seen about Asian immigrants to America around the turn of the last century has focused on those from China, Japan and Korea. Did America have much immigration from India and the surrounding countries during the same period? If so, how were those immigrants treated, and how did they participate in American society?

I asked the question a few days ago but got no answer.

I want to know about what women did for the war effort, as they weren't really allowed to serve as a soldier. I'd assume they'd have something to do in the military camps in the form of camp followers and the like but I'd like some specifics if possible.