For a little context, this guy on facebook did the thing where he said that the "White Irish slaves were treated worse than any other race in the US" and then went on to use that to justify his racial prejudices.

See now like I know it's bullshit, and I'm trying to bring out my arguments as much as I can, but I don't feel as if I know enough about the topic as I should, and I would like to be prepared when it comes up again (and it comes up quite a lot).

So, how does the oppression of the Irish in the United States compare to the oppression of other racial or ethnic groups? Which groups would have objectively "had it worse" than the Irish? And for completion's sake, which oppressed groups have the Irish objectively had it worse than?

I have suddenly and randomly become fascinated with the Christian prosecution in 16th-century Japan. Any other fun facts or illuminating information tangentially related to the question will be devoured with open jaws.

Also: any book recommendations regarding this?

[deleted]

I was curious about a comment that my history teacher made about John Green's Crash Course videos the other day. He stated that he started to progressively feel that Green's videos had an extremely biased view on history. Now when I've watched some of his videos, I do admit that I have noticed a bit of a slight bias in how he presents his information. Considering that I am not any sort of eclectically based historical scholar by any stretch of the word, I cannot truly say that I feel 100% confident in my opinion on this. Is there any Historians on this subreddit who could concur with my teacher's viewpoint on John Green, and even go further in explaining his specific biases?

[deleted]

My history teacher briefly mentioned that an invasion could cost up to a million Allied lives, but he vaguely stated that there are other reasons without expanding on them. I'm particularly interested to listen to what other nations thought about the bombs.
Obviously there is the moral reasoning to not nuke the Japanese, but were there other reasons as to why someone might argue against dropping the bombs?

Good afternoon,

I would like to ask if any of you could recommend a good book dealing with the social class during / after the Civil War? What I need is to find out what people used to be like before the war, during the war and after it ended, what changed, especially considering the social classes, what impacts the war had, how the people lived, what important changes and events affecting the people and social classes came after the war, etc.

Any help with finding books addressing these topics would be much appreciated. Thank you.

i have heard of treaties in the usa and in canada. i have never heard of any in mexico.

While reading about the puppet Manchukuo government I learned that their navy's ability declined sharply due to the Imperial Japanese Navy withdrawing most of its forces so the Imperial Army could consolidate political control over China. Why was there so much political tension between the two branches of the same military and government? Were there certain parts of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that were under greater political influence of the Army or Navy?

So I am a little hesitant to ask this question because it is so subjective, but reading both Greek and Roman sources, I always got the impression that Greek thinking and way of life, despite its deep influence on us, is very alien, while the concerns and attitudes of the Romans seem very modern in some sense. I do not mean that one is better or worse, just the impression you get reading them.

Recently I found a quote by Nietzsche that says something similar:

To the Greeks I do not by any means owe similarly strong impressions; and — to come out tight with it — they cannot mean as much to us as the Romans. One does not learn from the Greeks — their manner is too foreign, and too fluid, to have an imperative, a ‘classical’ effect. Who could ever have learned to write from a Greek? KGW VI, pp. I48f. [Twilight of the Idols, “What I Owe the Ancients,” sections I, 2].

And this is coming from someone who had a profound admiration for that civilization.

So I wanted to know: a) whether this is something that has been noticed by historians reading the sources, and b) whether anyone has come up with an explanation for this.

My name is Chatterjee from "Chattopadhyay" which is a contraction of chatta - a region, and upadhyaya - "teacher". I'm trying to find some genealogy info. My first question is where exactly is the "chattol" region my family is alleged to come from (and don't say West Bengal or Bangladesh, I want specifics).

My second question is where I could find a family tree for Chatterjees/Chattopadhyays.

The third is where I could find a database or service that could tell me specifically what my ancestry is several generations back, to the first kanauj families that emigrated.

The answers to any of these questions or just general help in finding Indian genealogy resources would be very much appreciated. Every source I find is very vague or doesn't relate to what I want. It doesn't help that records kept getting destroyed every time some new invaders took over.

How did (and do) pre-industrial people of the world deal with earwax? I can get gobs of the stuff out of my ears after just a few days of not swabbing them out. What the heck would I do without cotton swabs?

The word 'faggot,' in its use throughout my lifetime, has seen use exclusively as an insult and slur against LGBT+ individuals, with its original definition of 'a bundle of sticks' (as I understand it) entirely irrelevant to its current meaning.

Yet, clearly, 'faggot' did once carry a significant non-derogatory meaning, and presumably saw use as common parlance rather than a slur. I'm interested in when, how and why 'faggot' transitioned from being a (presumably) innocuous word to the derogatory slur it exists as in western society today.

Title. The Romans built special asymmetrical trenches with pikes at the top for defense during seige. Are there any examples of enemies countering this?

Perhaps this speaks to my ignorance, but Assassination seems incredibly common in the 19th and 20th century, killing even heads of state such as Lincoln, Ferdinand, and Ceaușescu with frequency, were as it seems almost absent in the 17th and 18th century. Presumably there have been people in all ages who had reason to assassinate state officials.

It seems like the Protestant Reformation in Early Modern Europe was a pretty traumatic event in a lot of places. As societies converted to new forms of Christianity, there was often violence against the new types of Christians and/or violence against Catholics once some form of Protestantism had taken hold. Catholics in many protestant nations were subsequently viewed with suspicion, accused of double loyalty to the pope in Rome. In staunchly Catholic nations like France, there were incidents of extreme violence against Protestant communities.

But did any of the societies whose religios composition was directly affected by the Protestant Reformation buck one or more of these trends? Did Protestantism take hold in any Catholic societies without violence or persecution against Protestants? Did any converted nations treat the parts of there populations that remained Catholic without suspicion or prejudice?

Or is my understanding of the traumatic nature of the reformation off base or misinformed?