I read on wikipedia (no source) that Malevich called Rudchenko "a mere constructivist" in 1917 after seeing his latest works in an exhibition. After some hours of research online as well as in Farthing's "Kunstgeschichte" and Thames&Hudson "Art since 1900" it seems that this may be the earliest use of the term if it's true, but still no historical uses in these books explain the etymology. Now supposedly the Realist Manifesto (Naum Gabo, 1920) not only has laid foundations of constructivists' creating in the following years, but has also used the term "Constructivism", but I have failed to find that term, although I also failed to find an authentic text in English online.

In summation, I am unfamiliar with the historical stem of the term constructivism. Also since Deconstructivism (in both Derrida's writings as well as in the architecture movement) seems unassociated with the Russian Constructivism, then likewise: does it itself strongly rely on any historical term, or is it merely concerned with deconstructing the timeless architectural functionalities superposing them to the architectural tendencies contemporary to Deconstructivism (modernism and post-modernism), or respectively in the case of Derrida, solely concerned with disassembling the supposedly existing relationship between text and meaning, rather than referring to any historical constructivism?

I was reading Lest Darkness Fall which is about a 20th century man sent back to around 500ce to the city of Rome and he knows classical latin so he communicates initial by writing his requests down. This stuck me as odd, what are the chances whoever you meet in rome is literate.

I read that beer consumption was high because of unsafe drinking water. Was that an issue restricted to urban areas?

This is one of those horrific questions I don't really want to know about but at the same time am curious. I watched a documentary about Auschwitz that said how everyone entering the camp was sorted to either be gassed or be a prisoner and do hard labor. They showed men and women being treated similarly, the ones who were fit enough to work had their heads shaved and were given prison uniforms. However, usually in war documentaries they talk about how women were treated differently than men and crimes like rape happened. But I realized I've never heard this mentioned with the Holocaust. Were female prisoners raped or treated worse by guards or other prisoners? Or was the male and female prison experience very similar?

If rapes did commonly occur I'm guessing they occurred against men as well but perhaps that is even less known due to stigma of homosexuality at that time.

I'm watching MAS*H now and there are often episodes where they talk about single surgery sessions lasting up to 70 hours, and the amount of wounded reaching up to 300 coming through the 4077.

For instance, the Việt Cộng fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments while being both outnumbered and outgunned, but still emerged victorious in the end through primarily guerilla tactics. However, the Native Americans resisting Andrew Jackson's Indian removal acts whom were under similar disadvantages lost terribly.

My question is why did the Native Americans not succeed in employing the very guerilla tactics they helped the Americans invent for use against the British in the first place? What made the Việt Cộng superior in guerilla combat?

Basically did monarchs always refer to themselves in plural or is it just for special occasions? And when was royal "we" even established, really?

Went to a nearby burg with my nephew today. Saw a row of shield which were shaped and decorated like typical Pavise shields, but they were far too small, something between a heater and a buckler. I'm sure I've known their name before, but I just don't remember. They are primarily decorative/heraldic I guess. Can anyone help me out?

Not sure if this counts as a "trivia question" according to the rules.

For example, Sarajevo, Belgrade, Thessaloniki, etc.

Is there any truth to the claim that it was due to 'similarities' between Arianism and their ancestral beliefs, and if so, what similarities were there?

How is it a mythical creature appears in imagery of cultures from Europe to China to pre-Columbian America when these cultures were separated by contact, in some cases, by many thousands of years?

That's it really. They're outside quite a few Habsburg buildings. And the parliament.

For research for a story of mine. My character is a reasonably well respected merchant (well-off but not rich) in a northern European province. What sort of food would they have likely ate? It's not hard to imagine what the very poorest/richest in society could have eaten, but for the rest I'm more shakey.

It makes sense to me that humanity started in Africa and eventually settled in Mesopotamia, and then migrations started east and west into Asia and Europe. Ancient civilizations in China and the Mediterranean (Egypt, Greece, Rome) flourished in temperate, often sub-tropical climates where .

But after they lost power, why didn't other people move into those areas? Countries like England and Russia have brutal winters and much of Europe gets bitterly cold. Even countries like France are beautiful in the south, but Paris is in the northern part of the country.

Why didn't countries like this move or establish their capitals in more hospitable locations?

Are there any subjects or topics that are especially fashionable in your academic circles just now? Is there a question over which people are choosing sides and fighting like cats and dogs? Has some new evidence recently surfaced, or are you perhaps especially looking forward to the publication of some new find/book/article in the coming year?

Did the Huns even use surnames?

The Dutch and Flemish people share the same culture and language group as the German-Austrian people, and the Dutch proudly referred themselves as "Diets" until German identity became tarnished by the World Wars. Certain regions of the Netherlands speak dialects which are rather similar to German too, at least superficially. The region had also historically been part of the HRE.

Did Austria or Bismarckian Prussia ever seriously consider annexing the Netherlands, Luxembourg and/or possibly Flemish Belgium into the ideas of a German superstate they had? If so, why didn't they go through with it?

My grandma, born 1933, was telling stories from her childhood when she mentioned that her father was visited by government officials during the war. She also remembers him being questioned in more detail, and possibly interrogated at other locations. His name last name was Hess, he lived in the Midwest at the time, but was not politically active or in contact with anyone in Germany. Was the US Government simply questioning all Germans? What else could have attracted interest from the government?