People from a variety of subcultures will often refer to themselves by adding "head" to the end of whatever they are interested in. For example, those interested in hip-hop often refer to themselves as "hip-hop heads", and those into sneakers as "sneaker heads", and those into marijuana as "potheads".

Does anyone know what the origin or first instance of this practice is? I'm sorry if this in not the correct sub-reddit to post this, but it seemed fitting and I have no idea of how I would go about researching that.

Did it actually happen?

When did it happen? I've read that it happened in 1000 BC, and in 1200 BC, i'm not quite sure when it happened

I'm currently writing a graphic novel that takes place in [a fictional equivalent to] Grand Rapids, Michigan during the Great Depression (specifically 1932-1938). While I've done a lot of research into the time period nationwide, I'm having a lot of difficulty finding resources specific to the location I need. Any suggestions? I'm looking for just about anything but especially stats on immigration, and information about how the depression effected the area.

Obviously the Ford Model T was the point of divergence between horses being the dominant form of travel over cars, but when did Horses finally go away for good as a form a travel for modern society? Were people still riding horses instead of cars post-World War 2? How did horses and cars manage to coexist? Were traffic laws applied equally to both vehicles?

Firstly, want to establish whether or not it's even true that there was a time when grown women (almost) always wore their hair up (in public) v. girls that might/often wore their hair down. I get this impression mostly from movies/books regarding middle-to-upper-class 19th century women in England, Canada, and United States. So I'm not really asking about time before that, but whether there was a transition in the 19th-to-20th century or early 20th century?

Certainly, I know the bob was worn in the 1920s. And I can't really think of a time after when hair was always worn up in public - at least not in movies from the 1930s and 1940s. Was it ever that way in the 1800s, or do I just have a false impression?

I was watching a video of the German release of the video game "Wolfenstein: The Old Blood" (the premise of which being an American infiltrating Nazi Germany) when I noticed it has all of the Nazi Propaganda/Paraphernalia censored/removed.

I guess I can understand "why" in a sense but I'm more specifically wondering:

Did they implement this immediately after the war or sometime later in the 20th century?

Is this effort them trying to "forget" in a sense? The past is the past?

Do you personally think this is effective as an approach?

Edit: Wording

I mean in the fact of warfare, were there Japanese soldiers fighting alongside Germans?

[deleted]

XPost /r/medievalhistory Droit du Seigner. I just sent out a podcast giving the standard interpretation, saying that it basically didn't happen and wasn't really a law. Do any of you have any more updated information and interpretations that would change the way I presented it? t's also makes me wonder what other "rights" of lords have been invented or exaggerated and are more or less modern urban legends. In other words, how complex and negotiated were lord-vassal relations, generally speaking? I need to do some reading on this, and would like to provide my listeners with reading suggestions if you folks don't mind letting me know. Thanks, PB

As far as i can tell, the Greek inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire, for most of its 1000 year duration, identified themselves as Romans. But despite that 1000 year proud (should be) Roman/Byzantine history, the people there at some point started identifying themselves as Greeks and wanting an Independent Greece. When and why did that transition from Roman to Greek happen?

When the 1821 Independence war happened, and the new nation emerged, it wasn't referred to as Roman or Byzantine (the name the Eastern Roman Empire was being identified by that point from most people if i am not mistaken), but instead Greek.

And what confuses me even more is that the "Megali Idea" concept that dominated greek politics for the next century, was all about restoring the old Byzantine territory and re-establishing Constantinople as a capital (thus resurrect the old empire if i understand correctly).

And please excuse in advance any potential ignorance of mine.

Can you tell me, generally, about the concept and use of the term “dark age”? What trends in scholarship determine an era as a dark age? It seems that contemporary historians veer away from using this term because the negative connotations aren’t always necessary and accurate. My point of reference here would be the early middle ages (immediate post-Western Roman Empire) and the immediate post-Bronze Age (after the sea people cometh). Are there other noteworthy and/or disputed dark ages? What emerging scholarship has combated an era’s status as dark age? I often read that an era (post Rome or post Bronze, for instance) was “formally recognized” as a dark age- I’m curious about what kind of work goes into deeming an era as a dark age, and furthermore, what work goes into determining that an era was inappropriately deemed a dark age.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that either post-Rome or post-Bronze Age were or weren’t dark ages, I am more so seeking commentary as to whether or not they were and, more importantly, what goes into that determination.

I had a professor (not history department) say that prior to the colonial system Africa was much more peaceful than contemporary Europe. This seemed a dubious claim to me but I'm not sure how to verify it or not. Also, I realize that Africa is a huge place, but that is the statement he made

I saw in another thread people discussing it. Some say it was USA, others say URSS. And what was the contribution of Brazil (with Osvaldo Aranha) in that matter?

I am a college student, and I was told by my professor to do some research about how the soviets attacked Shah-I-Kot valley for a discussion next week, where we'll compare how the US did it, and how the Mujahadeen defended. but I'm having a really hard time finding any detailed information about what happened during the soviet attack in Shah-I-Kot Valley.

So far, I've picked up that they lost, but I can't find any good details about why.

If you could tell me, or have a few sources for me to check out, any information would be greatly appreciated!

Just to expand on my questions a little, I'm curious how close the rebelling colonists came to uniting all of British North America. In retrospect, the invasion of Canada seems like a wasteful failure from the start, but that's based on 1) knowing the outcome and 2) viewing Canada and the USA as distinct nations. Was there a serious chance that the Americans could have taken control of Quebec? Had they done so, was there enough support for the revolution in Quebec that it would have joined?

I'm also curious how Quebec joining the revolution would have effected the course of later events -- would the war have ended sooner? would Quebec have joined in the Confederation and later Constitution, or would it have more likely pursued an independent course? -- but that might be too counterfactual for this reddit.