Was channel flicking and saw some tornado chasing show and was thinking that those storms must be absolutely overwhelming to someone who hasn't experienced anything like that before.

Based on what I've read my assumption would be no, but I want to hear your opinions.

This was way after the agricultural revolution, so I imagine there was a lot of agriculture about - and of course the civilisations that were arising in mesopotamia. But were there any entirely hunter-gatherer tribes left in europe, that had little or no agriculture? If so, were they widespread, or were they in specific pockets? Where did they live?

This is all for a story. Thanks for the help :)

Looking at a persons forearm its pretty obvious that something is in them that is not the normal skin color. So what did humans think of these before the idea of veins and arteries came about. It's also obvious that when a hand extends something is moving on top of the hand so what did humans think of that? Now we know its muscles, tendons, arteries, and veins but what did they think?

Or was the idea that something (muscles) controlled there movement and tubes (veins and arteries) circulated stuff so far beyond them that they didn't think about it.

I feel like if I lived in the medieval ages and something that was not my normal skin color was inside my arm I would wonder what it was. I know the church could just ignore it or say that its part of the human body, but what did others not influenced by the church think?

Let's say I am a craftsman without formal education besides some training in my craft, I don't live in poverty but I am by no means rich.

I am interested in the changes in treatment, attitudes, preventive measures between the 14th century and the 18th, not so much in how the authorities faced the crisis.

I chose Marseille because it was heavily affected by the plague both in 1348 and 1720 but if you'd like to reply more generally about France or even western Europe you are more than welcome.

Thank you very much.

It seems like every morning on the news lately there's a story about people who support (or don't support) a certain candidate getting into violent altercations. It would be easy to say "What is the world coming to! This is the worst it's ever been!" but I expect that this is not the case by a long shot. Have there been other US presidential elections throughout history that were particularly known for their supporters/detractors getting out of control and ending in violence? Are we seeing something new, or is it all just the same old routine?

Referring mostly to the fact that they were part of the german federation of the mid 1800s

During a commercial last night for the upcoming remake of The Magnificent Seven, my roommate made the comment that he found it virtually impossible to believe that white and black individuals could befriend each other in that time period (I believe the post-Civil War West, even though my question is far broader with respect to region and time). Literally no room for exceptions. He just didn't believe this was a thing that happened.

I find that very hard to believe. Obviously I can imagine this being almost non-existent in the Slavery era South, but even then I would imagine there were at least some white people in the North and West who befriended blacks and held them in high esteem (and even considered them equals). I understand that even the abolitionist North had a population where many (most?) held racist beliefs, but I find it mind-boggling that at least some people (even single digit percentages) wouldn't be able to interact with blacks enough to see their humanity and understand that they were people just the same.

As far as the South goes, I know my roommate might be far more on point. Even still, the South wasn't one monolithic entity, and I'm sure there were many within that looked at the treatment of blacks with horror. Maybe the end of slavery allowed for these individuals to interact with blacks more directly.

I really have no idea, but we both thought this was a really interesting question. Hopefully the historians here can help us figure out whether there were segments of the population that saw past the bullshit and had meaningful, frequent interactions with black Americans at the time. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I was late to the Korea AMA, so I'm reposting my question here.

Here's a very broad and ambiguous question:

What is Korea? When did Korea gain an independent identity?

I don't mean their political independence. I'm asking where the ethnic identity comes from.

Talking to Koreans, it seems they like to think of their national identity as existing far into the distant past, and that they descend from a people group who moved together from central Asia into Korea and stayed there, making them distinct from their Chinese neighbours.

But talking to Chinese people, I've heard people emphasize the dependence of Korea on China. Some people seem to view Korea as an offshoot of China that only really developed its own independent culture during the Qing dynasty.

But looking at Korean history, it seems like the answer must be a combination of these things, but with added complexities. There are historical kingdoms that stretch from northern Korea into Manchuria, and I wonder whether you call them "Korean", "Chinese", or "Manchurian" depends more on modern ideas of nationalism than any actual historical self-identity. The Koreans do have a distinct language, but so did the Manchurians, and I understand that the Manchurians have almost completely assimilated into the majority Han culture, whereas the Koreans maintained their distinctiveness, even as a Chinese tribute state.

So: what makes Korea Korea? How and when did it develop to be culturally distinct? Were there some states or periods where the definition gets a bit blurry?