I studied Chinese and anthropology in college and have recent started to really research the historical connections between Tibet and Mongolia. I've learned some of the claims China made to take control of Tibet in 1949/50, but what claims did China make to control Inner Mongolia as of 1957?

Also, how far could Southern states and their municipal governments go in suppressing civil rights?

That's the impression I get from 1776: The Musical, which I'm told is very accurate, but I don't know just how accurate those claims of accuracy are.

I come from Michoacan, Mexico and I always thought that the Aztecs had their empire through Michoacan, but today I learned that the Tarascans ruled over the Michoacan region. This is a very exciting find, so I would really like to know more. I wish school had taught us more about the Tarascans, but that didn't happen. I would love to learn more of their history! Thank you.

He had a long history in the United States Senate, starting out as a member of the Democratic Party before switching to a Republican following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He is known for the longest-ever filibuster by a single senator in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and he opposed the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Later in life, he sent a message to the U.S. Attorney General urging him to have John Lennon deported from the United States as an "undesirable alien" because his influence threatened Nixon's chances of reelection. He suggested that terminating Lennon's visa would be "a strategic counter-measure". After he died, it was revealed that he had fathered a daughter identifying as African American and helped her pay her way through college despite never acknowledging their relation publicly. Which leads to what may be the greatest question: What possible reasons are there for which South Carolina carries such a positive image of the now-deceased senator?

Wikipedia claims:

The He 111Z's operational history was minimal. One such machine was caught by RAF fighter aircraft over France on 14 March 1944. The He 111Z was towing a Gotha Go 242, and was shot down.

and cites :

Nowarra, Heinz J. Heinkel He 111: A Documentary History. London: Jane's Publishing. 1980. ISBN 0-7106-0046-1.

What would a He 111Z be doing towing a Gotha 242 over France in March 1944?

I teach high school history in the USA and one of the courses I offer is an elective for seniors is an in-depth look at the Second World War.

One of the most frequent questions that I am asked by students is how Germany, the German people, and the other Axis powers in general handle the teaching of the war and in particular Adolf Hitler and the Nazis today, especially in their public schools.

I have heard that many of the subjects associated with the period are very taboo today, and I've come to wonder if a lot of the media and subject matter I explore in my course may not even be allowed to be taught in German schools.

For instance, we analyze a lot of Nazi propaganda, we watch clips of Triumph of the Will, and we explore documents and images relating to the Holocaust and the actions of the SS and Wehrmacht.

So, how does Germany, Austria specifically, and also Japan handle the teaching of this highly sensitive subject?

I know that in the USA, we purposefully teach subjects that are considered "national embarrassments" today by many, such as the genocide of the First Nations, Slavery, and racial discrimination and disfranchisement.

How does German society deal with their national shame and teach it to their young?

I've recently seen this question a lot in other subreddits. So I want to come here to get a straight answer.

The GOP was a progressive party in the 1860's extending voting rights and emancipation to otherwise disenfranchised groups. In the 1960's it was a democratic president that signed the civil rights act.

How did the republicans become the "conservative" party? Also, why do so many people say that the switch is a myth?

I'm getting more and more interested in the life of Emperor Augustus and I'm tired of reading the Wikipedia page and random articles on the Internet. What is the definite book on Augustus?

I'm currently in my second year of a bachelor in history so a little complicated isn't a problem.

If this is not the right sub, please let me know where I should post this instead.

It seems as though the main instigator, Sancho d'Avila, and his officers still went on happily serving in the Spanish military afterwards. Was the sacking not viewed as a major concern or violation by the Spanish, or did they simply have bigger fish to fry after effectively declaring bankruptcy?

Also, what were the driving forces behind giving buildings a coat of paint? I would presume the primary reason is for protection from the elements, but were there other factors at play? What were early "building paints" made of, and what type of materials were typically used (brushes, rollers, etc)?

In television/movies I always see "old west" towns consisting of raw wooden buildings--is this accurate? Was paint not available at this time, or did the cost/benefit (in both money and labor) just make it impractical?

What are the yes and no arguments for this question? Do you think things like 19th century Christian missionaries integrated tribes into a more civilised society? Or do you think more conflict was caused by all the diamond and gold mines being uncovered?

I see this cited often in 2nd amendment arguments and I wonder how it could be true.

Statistics can be played with for both sides...

I know the idea of tracks predates the idea of steam powered locomotives. How extensively were these used and what were some of the main advantages and disadvantages? Were there any long distance tracks designed for horse drawn trains?

Most of us interested in WWII history have most likely read the book and/or seen the TV show. There is no reason to deny that Easy Company did very well during the war, but was it really that outstanding and exceptional company-level unit that the book/show make us think?

I personally believe that the weakest point of Ambrose's book is his explaining why he chose this particular unit. Didn't most US rifle companies consist of men from various backgrounds who became 'brothers' during the course of war? Ambrose himself in his another book, Citizen Soldiers, describes a 'stock company' (not sure about the term, I haven't read it in English) consisting of eager to fight young men from various backgrounds, with varying education, etc.

I also recall reading somewhere that during the Siege of Bastogne (highly dramatized in the book/show) Easy Company was in fact in reserve for the other two companies of its battalion.

Thank you for addressing my doubts.

I could have phrased the question as "why didn't Egypt and Jordan, who respectively occupied the Gaza and West Bank, grant Palestinian independence between 1948 and 1967" but I wanted to have a more neutral and open ended tone to the question.

Why wasn't Palestine an internationally recognized undisputed state before Israel eventually occupied it in 1967?