I've been going on a bit of a history binge about the Vikings, and it seems clear that life for the average Icelander was pretty crap. Poor soil, freezing winds, precarious fishing practices, cramped conditions, disease - I realise must of that describes much of Europe at the time, and yet Iceland is always described as being somewhat uniquely miserable. So why did anybody move there? Was Scandinavia overpopulated? What happened?

As my Facebook feed blows up with various people voicing their opinions over Beyonce's Black Panther themed Superbowl half-time show, I'm sort of wondering what the big deal is. In particular is one post I saw of a local sheriff saying Beyonce's act would be akin to a white band coming out in hoods and white sheets. Yet when I think about it, I can't remember any one incident where the Black Panthers were actually convicted of murdering anybody. I quick internet search turns up a police raid that turned into a shootout, with two Black Panther members, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, being the only fatalities. I know the Panthers were vehemently anti-police, but I feel like people are stretching history to suit their opinions here. I'm just so tired of this ranting over a musical performance, help me understand what the real story is here.

I am wondering what the connection between these three topics were because Historian Carl Degler said that they were part of a revolution. Particularly, imperialism seems out of place when put beside the other two domestic stages of change in American history. Can these events be put in the context of a revolution in that it has a moderate stage, followed by a radical stage, followed by a conservative stage, like the French Revolution?

Specifically, in Western Europe. I've heard that they could be if they broke their code, and that the ceremony after they were kicked out was quite elaborate, including a funeral in which they were put in a casket. Can anyone verify this? And if so, can you provide some sources that discuss this?

Does anyone have sources on the manufacturing techniques used to get such precision out of marble and other really hard materials?

Did Germany realize that it would not be able to defend its oversea colonies because its troops were tied down in Continental Europe?

How did it plan to get them back?

Did it even want them back?

Also, what's the difference between the gangsters of the time and the mafia? Or is there one?

I have a memory of either reading, or being told by a teacher, that the requirement in the Constitution that to be eligible for the office of President, the candidate had to be either a Natural Born Citizen or a Citizen at the time of radification was a political move by Alexander Hamilton's rivals. Because he was born in the Caribbean, he would be ineligible.

A cursory search of the subreddit to see if this question had been asked before revealed several answers to similar questions that maintained that Hamilton was in fact a citizen before ratification and therefore he could run for President if he wanted to.

Did his rivals intend to make him ineligible but crafty wording rendered their intent void? Or did the clause have nothing to do with Hamilton and his rivals at all?

Obviously by wrestler I mean some sort of Folkstyle/Freestyle (possible Graeco-Roman?) art. I've heard some pretty crazy claims about the guys abilities and while I have no doubt someone as massive in size as him could be capable of it all I just wanted to see if anyone could supply some good facts or sources about it. Thank you!

And, for this week's topic, how common was it for Cossaks to fight on both sides of a war and Cossacks fighting against Russia come to do so?

In school we studied many other nationalist movements but I don't remember ever talking about an Albanian movement to create their own nation.

And how much of the oppression that Eastern Europe suffered between 1930-1945 was a result of the interaction of the repeated conquests by the Nazis and the Soviets, rather than just the separate actions taken by the two powers?

Edit: I've tried to clarify the second question.

[deleted]

For most of the war, He served as a static flak gunner in 2 cities. I think he alternated regularly between Essen and Köln (or maybe Düsseldorf I'm not that sure). His unit was then converted into an anti-tank unit in 1945 to stave off the Russian assault in the East. I'm pretty sure he served in Saxony near the city of Dresden or Leipzig. They fought there until his unit fled in fear of being overrun. Something extra: In the next few months, he trekked from Dresden to the Northern coast on foot, where my Grandfather and his mother lived at the time. He avoided allied and Russian patrols the whole way and never got caught, which sort of amazes me during a time where being a German soldier was the most dangerous occupation. If anyone can sort of help me great, if not, at least I tried.

I took a quick glance at the FAQ, so if I missed my question I apologize ahead of time. I have narrowed down my research paper down to the post-colonial impact on gender fluidity and sexuality on African colonies, Latin American colonies and the Native Americans (and their well-documented 2 spirit designation). However I thought of my question a little more, and with the help of a tutor began to question when the "Eastern" and "Western" world began to separate from each other. So when does the East and West split, was it when the Romans started to conquer left and right? Was it with the creation of the Catholic Church and the Great Schism? Or was the split for a different reason? Edit: Just to clarify I want to know the general consensus, if there is one, as to when the the train of thoughts began to divulge from one another in Europe and Asia despite all being one big land mass. Just for the sake of keeping things simple, Europe is the "West" and Asia is the "East".

Eating improperly handled meats and contaminated vegetables can cause digestive problems or worse. My intuition is that prior to the widespread availability of refrigeration, and especially prior to mass knowledge of germ theory, it would have been very difficult to avoid eating tainted items, and thus getting sick. On the other hand, constant exposure to foodborne pathogens would have presumably caused people to develop at least some amount of immunity.

Do we have any reliable information about that? To make the question more specific, as an average adult, roughly how many times a month could I expect to have diarrhea or an upset stomach in your time period of interest?