My understanding is that the acceptance of seeing behavior disturbances as "mental illness" that could and ought to be treated, above all through institutionalized care, in Europe is really just getting started along with the beginnings of wide-scale white imperialism in Africa. (Wiki's "history of psychiatry" page puts that development just a fringe bit earlier, with hints in the late 18C.)

What happened when this relatively new perspective was exported to African colonies and forced on various groups of people? Do we see differences in British versus French colonies, power struggles between European and African parties, white doctors less/equally committed to their patients than back in Europe? What happened to the actual people who were the objects of this new European understanding and treatment?

[deleted]

Although there's still something of a gap in the way women and men are treated in tennis, it is generally fairly equal. Top female tennis players are generally as well known as male counterparts, they're paid similar amounts, they draw similar crowds.

Though there are a lot of female participants in sports like soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby, and so on, their numbers aren't as large as the men's, and they barely have five percent of the popularity, money, coverage or respect that their male counterparts do.

Why is this, historically? Was tennis ever dominated by one gender? Were there other sports that once had female athletes in the public eye?

I could be wrong but in the central belt there is no flint so I wondered what they would have used to hunt? Cheers

In James T. Patterson's "Grand Expectations" i read that Eisenhower did not vote (at least in presidential elections) during his career. The book doesn't explain this, but the implication is that, as his duty was to follow the orders of whichever president might be elected, he should refrain from taking sides one way or the other. Was this a common practice for US military officers? Is it still?

Humans originally came from east Africa, and the very first real civilization was in mesopotamia (sumer). Why would early humans begin civilization in sumer when they could start on the coast of africa or on the nile river?

I was just wondering if these things really existed? Like if a semi truck wanted to do something illegal would a blocker car actually exist that would draw the police away from the trucks? In the movie these trucker caravans seem to be able to defy the laws at will and do whatever they want, Why does it seem like there was such an emphasis on truckers throughout movies and popular culture in the 70s in the US?

I'm playing RotTK13 right now and there's a character by the name of 岳飛 - just wondering if this is a fictional character or if he's real.

It seems that one of the great differences between the modern world and any earlier period is communication. Specifically, the lack of it in the past. Most people were confined to their village, city, etc. for almost all of their lives, and, according to Pierre Goubert, almost no one besides the wealthy never travelled further than five miles from their birth. Despite this apparent lack of communication, languages still seem to have evolved more or less consistently wishin geographic boundaries. Admittedly, one English villager from the 16th century would likely have trouble understanding another from a village several miles away, and certainly dialects were more prominent then than after radio, television, and widespread literacy. Even so, coevolution of languages still seems to exist. I just can't quite figure out how.

[deleted]

To what degree was it mechanized at times for tasks such as threshing, thatching for roofs, etc.?

I know that mechanical harvesters weren't around until the 1930s...

It seems like the public welcomed the entry and there were more pro-war sentiments than anti-war. From what I've read the public felt that it was their duty to help the country. This seems to contradict the general notion that US was isolationist pre-WWI. But why did the public welcome US entry? If I recall correctly there were 13 million men who reported for 'selective service' and plenty were happy to join. Women even shamed those who didn't go. What was the reason for this?

Do we know of any family trees that actually are documented all the way from Roman (or classical) antiquity down to modern times? I guess I'm just curious as to any individuals from classical antiquity that we have anything more than spuriously claimed descendants. (I do realize that according to some estimates almost every person from classical antiquity that had children that also had children probably is the ancestor of most Europeans, if not humans.)

I've read the Hungarian government in 1945 seeked 470000 units of Salvarsan to treat the so called Lenin Sickness -- syphilis. Is this true?

Where did that name originate from? Thanks in advance.

I've been listening to the history of Rome podcast, and, as we all know, the capital of the empire shifted with the introduction of the tetrarchy and eventual rule of Constantine. However, I was wondering if, with the capital change, Rome (the empire) called itself anything different. I know Constantinople was originally called Alterna Roma, so I would imagine they considered themselves Roman, but with the breaks between the Western and Eastern empires and the moving of the Western capital to Milan and later Ravenna, did they (both the Western and Eastern empires) begin to identify as something beyond Romans? Thanks in advance!

Sorry for my terribly worded question.

I was curious about the extent to which the American revolution and political turmoil in the continental US was exported to other British colonial holdings, and if there was ever any effort put into having those 'other' colonies join the political upheaval.

Thanks and I'll take your answer off the air.