So I'm sitting in a packed bar the night before Thanksgiving (as one does) and I noticed that literally every man and about 80% of the women are wearing jeans. I know leggings have kind of jumped on the scene the last few years but for as long as I can remember jeans have the been the regular casual clothing. When did that happen? Levi's have existed since the 1800s and in pictures as recently as the 40s or 50s people wore more formal clothing it seems, so it doesn't seem like a novelty thing. How did jeans take over a hundred years after thier invention?

Hello all.

I am currently writing my thesis for my graduate degree in history from a private university here on the East Coast USA. My question has to deal with terms and their relationship to historiography.

My entire undergrad and graduate historical education I have came to understand that in terms of historiography, history goes through phases; you have and "original" interpretation, and "revisionist" interpretation and sometimes a "post revisionist" that attempts to connect the two. For example I think of the whig interpretation of the American Revolution as being very nationalistic and idealist vs Charles Beard more economic/progressive approach. I would call Charles Beard "revisionist." He is revising our understanding of the revolution from a different perspective than the "originalitst" whigs. He is putting the historical facts into a different narrative. Now obviously the longer time has passed, the more " revisions" a time period can have.

My question is am I on the right track? Obviously this is a quick summary, but am I using these terms correctly? My thesis advisor is a great civil war historian, but she gets really upset when I say the word "revisionist" and thinks I mean it in a political way to describe any historian with "anti American" views. I do not at all. I just mean it in a way to describe phases of historiography on a subject.

I would appreciate what this community has to say on the matter. Thanks!

The obvious answer would be to refer to them as King Edward, and Edward II respectively. Their epithets were created after their deaths and they were canonized as saints.

But King Edward I is Edward Longshanks. And Edward II is his son. I realize that the former Edwards were Anglo-Saxon kings, while the latter pair were Normans, but the crown, sword, and staff of St. Edward(the Confessor) are used in Coronation ceremonies.

Technically, those are replicas, since the originals were destroyed during the English Civil War. But those replicas were created circa 1660, and named for Edward the Confessor. Until they were destroyed, even during the reign of Edward Longshanks, the original St Edward's Crown was kept as a holy relic at Westminster.

So why is the third King named Edward the First? And what did they call Edward the Confessor while he was alive?

They both have broadly similar values as a culture. Both have similar issues in their democracies (with some outliers). Both use primarily First past the post. Yet while Britain has several parties in parliament, america has 2. What caused this difference?

Was there any precursors or any plans to introduce an EU currency before 1999?

Whilst Tiberius came to full power as Roman emperor on death of Augustus in 14CE, according to Seutonius (in his Lives of the Emperors) he was appointed co-regent with Augustus in 12CE. This was standard procedure to minimize succession violence. Thus, where Luke 3:1 asserts that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius, is that 27CE or 29CE? According to ancient historical reckoning, did the reign of Tiberius commence on his appointment as co-regent or when he became sole regent? The answer is pertinent to deciphering the timeline in Daniel chapters 8 & 9.

I've heard people (especially in China) believed dragons to be real creatures, but is it known if that was genuine worldview? Could it be compared to the belief of UFOs or bigfoot nowadays?

Were weapons like swords allowed in Medieval Taverns and Inns? If not where would a knight or soldier leave his weapons if he was travelling? Was there a degree of arms control or code of ethics in Taverns?

Did knights just enter taverns with swords? How common were sword fights in taverns?

I’m not sure if I’m in the right sub so please direct me to the correct place if I am not. While home for Thanksgiving, I’ve been going through a box of family history records that my grandmother put together before she died. She died in 1998 but no one ever went through the box (until now).

The box is full of photographs and newspaper clipping from the 1920s to 1980s, as well as letters and other artifacts. There’s a NY drivers license from 1918, a page of the New York Times from 1929, and a handwritten family history - and I’m not even halfway through the box! They are literally the oldest photos I’ve ever seen.

My question is: what do I do with all this stuff? I want to preserve it and compile it in a way that allows people to trace the history through the generations, but I don’t even know where to begin. Or maybe the best course of action is to just put it all back in the box for the next generation?

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!

Edit: Finished going through the box and the oldest photos I found are dated c.1866! There are description on the back of the photos but they’re all written in German.

Boxer Rebellion, World War 1, etc.

There have been plenty of times that European countries have teamed up, and it wasn’t uncommon that sooner then later they would just start going to war with each other all over again.

What was it about WW2 and the Cold War that European Countries just went “aight, you’re cool let’s become friends and economically team up” and never went back to internal mayhem?

I’m watching peaky blinders season five and Oswald Mosley is made to be this big bad guy who the people love.

Is there any truth to this, or is it played up for dramatic story telling?

I know WWI was called The Great War even while it was going on, and I think the term "World War" was used interchangeably. But at what point did WWII become known as WWII? It couldn't have been in September 1939, as not much happened during the first few months and it was actually called The Phoney War.

What I’m searching for: diaries written by colonists/ writings by historians or travelers in 1400-1800/ books that show the day to day life of colonists such as Pizarro

What I’m not searching for: fiction, studies, podcasts, or anything written after ~1950

Major thanks in advance for helping!!!

We all know how Nazis committed horrible deeds in the concentration camps. Given the terrible nature of these atrocities, were these types of things ever shown/ made known to general German people? Were non-Jews able to see those camps or were they completely sealed off from public eye? What was public perception towards these camps (did people have watered down perception of what actually happened there)? Also, were these concentration camps part of propaganda or were these the ultimate aim of Hitler?

As in long hair being essential to woman and a woman's pride. To an extent where in medieval times, part of a punishment was to cut a woman's hair short? (If I'm not remembering this incorrectly)

Hello, fellow historians and/or history enjoyers!

I am in a bit of pickle, for the deadline on my paper for Uni draws close. But since I have some trouble finding good sources to work with, I wanted to ask you people for some help.
I wish to write about similarities and differences between the situation and treatment of Native Americans and Ainu Natives during World War 2.

Is there anyone who knows of good literature/essays etc. on Ainu and Japanese-Ainu relations during World War 2? Maybe even primary sources, interviews or recordings on Ainu veterans? I have a lot of stuff on Native Americans, but I seem to not be able to find anything on Ainu.

Many thanks in advance.

Nancy Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."

Winston Churchill: "Madame, if you were my wife, I'd drink it!"
------

Nancy Astor: "Winston, you are a drunk!"

Winston Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."

Before the 1870s there were different parties that sprouted up and did well. The whigs, federalists, Democratic-Republicans, all rose and fell. But ever since the post civil war just these two parties have dominated everything.

How have they been able to keep going so long? Why has neither fallen apart or been beaten by a new party?