It seems as though lawyers today (at least in the US) are always hated. There are constant lawyer jokes ( a snake and a lawyer are thrown from a building which one hits the ground first?...answer: who cares). And people are told not to go into the profession. Was this true of lawyers in say Roman times or other periods of history where lawyers existed? Are there any records of ancient lawyer jokes?

So I'm about 2/3's of the way in to "China: A Century in Revolution", episode 1: "China in Revolution" (1989) and essentially it's detailing life in China from the Xinhai Revolution in 1911 until Mao comes to power in 1949. However the way it's laid out (barely touching on certain topics, focusing on more heavily on others all whilst trying to keep continuity) makes it hard to follow.

So I just wondered if any of you knew whether we have records of what the average civilian's thoughts on their quality of life were during this tumultuous time (end of dynastic china, end of warlords, creation of the republic of china and the KMT-Communist divide, civil war, Japanese invasion, lack of support from LoN as well as Mao coming to power). Do we know whether their thoughts had changed by the time Mao died in '76?

Thank you for any help :)

I'm Brazilian and while our country surely is racist, we never had racist laws. So I was shocked to discover that a writer called William Buckley, who apparently was respected even by his opponents, once in 1957 wrote the following in this National Review magazine:

The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way; and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

What is this? Is this a kind of thing people would really argue for in those days? Wasn't this the kind of stuff that would bury a writer's career even in the 50's?

Specifically, what is the oldest language that we know how to speak (including exact pronunciation, voweling, slang, etc.) well enough to be confident that we could converse orally with an ancient native speaker? And how do we know what these letters and words sounded like if there was nobody speaking it at time of (re)discovery?

This may sound weird to you but this is very important to me. I once also believed everything someone said on the internet just because he cited some books. But i have a friend who once studied history and he told me that if someone doesnt cite pages, what he writes should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. Why? Theres 2 reasons:

1. If someone doesnt cite pages it could be that what he writes down is from his memory and he thinks that he read it in that book. But if he actually cites pages you can be sure that before making his claim opened the book and so you can be sure that it was surely from that book and not something he thinks he read.

2. Not citing pages makes it very hard for people to verify your claims. This is probably the more important reason. If someone doesnt cite pages, it will be very hard for you to verify what he claims is true or not if he cites a 700 page long book. So he basically says "Fuck you" to everyone trying to verify the accuracy of his claims. And what does this say to the credibility of his claims?

Many people may not care at all, but I do because this is the internet and people can write alot of bullshit, especially on Reddit. Just because this is a subreddit dedicated to historical questions with high standards doesnt mean that what someone writes isnt complete bullshit, even if he is a known member of the community.

And sadly most submissions to this subreddit dont include cited pages, so it is very hard for me to find answers to my questions which i can trust.

If the did, were they just unsuccessful or was it later decided it wasn't worth it because the lands didn't provide worthwhile resources? I know at least that Hadrian's wall was more symbolic than meant to be a practical defensive structure.

I mean ordinary people just like us. Did they know that shit might go down soon or realise that something wasnt right?

Were there any attempts to prevent it or non military things (such as germany annexing austria) that could give them a hint of what's coming?

Was it only anal sexual intercourse between men that was criminalized? (Since I’ve heard that sodomy has had different definitions at different times). Was male-male oral sex also against the law?

In light of the recent conviction of Reinhold Hanning I'm curious how likely he would have been used to help bolster the German guards at the death camps. My understanding of the case is that Hanning says that he was posted only at the labor camp - the prosecution says that they often helped with the unloading of trains at the death camp. How true is this? I read somewhere else that said most of the SS were only at the labor camp and not involved with the death camp operations.

If he is likely NOT to have been involved with the operation of the death camp, are concentration camp guards also found guilty after the war by being part of the camp system?

This is my first post here and after looking through the rules and searching the subreddit I think it's ok, but please remove it if it has broken any rules.

I've read about the Nazi-Soviet Pact as neither side trusting the other, and obviously just made to buy time. I also know that Stalin received ample warning from his spies, Churchill, and even German deserters that Hitler was going to attack, but he didn't believe them. However, he had also shown himself to be extremely paranoid and distrusting with his purges, and I don't understand why he trusted Hitler, who had openly voiced his hatred of Communism and desire to make an empire in the east, as well as having proven himself to be untrustworthy with his invasion of Czechoslovakia.

I got to thinking about this after listening to Space Oddity's lines about floating in space. At what point did Joe and Jane average know what it was like in space?

Does anyone know of any books that have been written about just what life was like in Ancient Greece, or, similarly, about what life was like in Rome? Any recommendations would be appreciated.