In some ways, a sign language seems more intuitive than a spoken one. Vision is generally more communicative than hearing, and signs could be made to resemble what they refer to. Chimpanzees and gorillas have also been taught to sign. It doesn't seem terribly likely that sign language would come first, but lots of unlikely things have happened.

Disclaimer: I'm not being racist, nor am I trying to be.

There's no giant African empires, with ruins and legacies, like we see in other parts of the world. In South America we see remnants of the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan civilizations, who built extensive roadways, and impressive cities that are still standing today. All across Europe there's medieval castles, there's empires with legacies like Rome and Greece (who, at one time or another, were extensive/successful/prosperous/influential). In Turkey there was Istanbul/Constantinople, in the middle east there were the Sumerian and Babylonian empires, ancient Egypt (yes it's technically on the continent of Africa, but it's right on the edge and basically part of southern Europe). India had extensive empires, and so did China.

We don't see anything like that in Africa. (I mean technically Egypt, but...) There's no remnants of a prosperous empire, or ancient (or even recent) civilization.

In terms of world powers in the (semi)modern era, we have America, Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK, the EU, maybe India, Japan, Brazil, etc. There's no large, powerful, prosperous, influential African countries really. Maybe South Africa is partially successful, but no countries really look up to them and aspire to be like South Africa, nor are they influential in any real large-scale politics.

Why is that? Was it geographic factors?

It seems like every leftist group has their own stance on what happened during the Kronstadt Uprising of 1921 - that it was planned/strongly encouraged by pro-White agents, that it was a mass uprising in the same vein as those in 1917, and so on. Each argument I read invokes sources and perspectives they claim the other sides don't have, and it doesn't help that they all accuse each other of betraying the values of the revolution. In recent years, have historians made headway in trying to find out the full course of events?

Were there any communist parties that existed in elected multi-party systems that were able to successfully push for reform?

There are four hundred neatly marked graves in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job—but they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before his officer did.

Is there evidence of such an episode, where Americans successfully ambushed a German bivouac in part due to a sleeping sentry? Or did he just intend the story to drive home his point, like it seems?

I lean towards the latter, but it's still entirely possible that it did occur.

I've heard if St. Louis would have accepted deals to build railways across the Mississippi River in the 1850s the city may be instead 10 times larger than Chicago today. Could this be true?

Was it really just overstretched supply lines and extremely cold winter, or was there a more complex reason?

I've seen depictions in passing in film (Apocalypse Now, American Gangster...) but how was it in reality? Would soldiers overdose? Would they use in combat, or to combat the constant stress of war? Are there any documentaries or other films/novels that show this side of the war?

I picture people in the late 70s having a problem with this. On the other hand the average person enjoyed the first 3 films, did people simply overlook this based on preferential bias?

I was watching the movie "The Patriot" the other day which takes place during the revolutionary war. But I noticed that the Americans had a modern American accent and the British forces had a British accent. I thought to myself, wouldn't they be speaking roughly the same way this early?

Franks* my bad

According to the book I'm reading, the Heads of Proposals were much more attractive to Charles I than the some of the initial settlement plans offered to him by Parliament. This seem confusing, because my understanding is that the Army was a more radical force than the Parliament insofar as it was full of Independent Protestants who opposed the Presbyterianism dominant in Westminster.

This question begins with the presupposition (possibly incorrect) that German attitudes towards war today are decidedly pacifistic. It seems like this applies both to Germany's official foreign policy and the attitudes of it's citizens.

So, I'm curious what happened after 1945 that caused this drastic shift in public opinion and social values. I mean, there have been plenty of defeated powers in the past that just become more bellicose in defeat, and nourished thoughts of revenge (Germany after WWI). Was this shift the outcome of planned educational reform? The result of self-reflection and criticism? Was it imposed from the outside or more the result of internal changes?

I remember reading that on 1800 orcso the most literate societies in the Atlantic World were New England in the US and Scotland. When did Scotland become so literate?

If we look back to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice we can see that there were of course communities of enormous properties held by the wealthiest landowners, each topped with an impressive manor and people working the land for them too. But where exactly in England were these manors and farms? I can imagine somewhere closer to Middlesex rather than completely out in the Midlands of England.

Also we know of course that many had big mansions in the downtown and outskirts of London, such as the Duke of Wellington's own Apsley House, so I can imagine suburbs of the rich existed in certain areas too. Which were they and what are they now?