Why didn't it face the same faith as the other British colonies, and became part of the United States? Has Canada or parts of Canada ever been close to becoming part of the United States?

I've always believed, or been told, that bluegrass is a style of music invented by white American slave owners as a mocking parody of traditional African music. It was played by white men at minstrel shows and public lynchings in effort to demean black culture and dehumanize black people. The banjo, as I understand it, was an African instrument used in bluegrass to further the parody. The first true bluegrass songs were minstrel show standards and sometimes ripoffs of black work songs. Is there any truth to any of this? I'm having trouble researching the topic.

In my shallow perusing of Indian history I have always noticed that whilst the Maurya, Pala, Gupta, Sunga etc. Empires dominate every part of the subcontinent from Bangladesh to modern Afghanistan, they always leave alone the small Tamil kingdoms of Chola, Pandya and Chera.

I read one source that mentioned that Ashoka the Great mantained good relations with the friendly Tamil kingdoms, but I'm confused as to why none of any of Indian history's multitudinous conquerors, who subjugated time and time again the entire subcontinent, never took on the Ancient Tamil Country. for any reason.

Was thinking, during wartime, rationing means that a safety net which might not have existed for those very poorly off now comes into being. While the consumption for the average person is probably going down due to the restriction, this possibly has the converse effect of providing a guarantee for those who were well below average!

So during World War II, was there any noticeable effect on this front? Was it particularly more pronounced in one particular power than another?

A friend of mine told me that while the Huns did conquer large swathes of land whenever they unified under one ruler, the empire would usually fragment soon after the ruler died. Did Hun succession cause a lot of in-fighting or what else is the cause?

Question 1: Europeans nations called Ottomans this because Ottoman Empire were technologically inadept, socially backwards, economically poor and militarily weak. Was the situation of Ottoman Empire better than ANY other European nation in terms of technology, economy and socially?

Question 2: Persians were usually the rivals of Ottomans. Was Persia any better than Ottoman Empire during this time? Was it more advanced or less advanced?

Question 3: Does this statement mean European nations counted Ottoman Empire as a European nation?

Question 4: Why did Ottomans gave out so many capitulations? It seems they gave it to anyone who was more powerful than them, to the point where merchants of UK paid less in Ottoman ports than they did in UK ports.(or at least that's what my Grade 10 history teacher told me back then)

Question 5: Was there any hope of Ottoman Empire regaining it's former glory post-1800s or was it hopeless?

Hello,

After reading the 'Story of Joan' of Arc by Arthur Lang I wanted to fact-check some point of the story as told by the author. As far as I can tell, the two main primary sources are court transcripts of her trial by the English as told by English and French scribes actually present at the trial. There are details to the story, however, than can only be exacted from private letters and other correspondence. Mains question is, whose correspondence?

Also, I was unaware of the existence of a 'fake' Joan of Arc that was feasted and pampered by the people of France both before and after she was found out as a fraud. This revelation was fascinating to me and I'd love to read more about it, preferably in the form of materials based on primary sources.

Please help me identify any and all relevant sources of the Story of Joan of Arc.

I'm not talking about things like Blondie's Rapture or 'World Destruction', or the Beastie Boys. I'm more curious about the rise of both musical cultures affected each other on a personal level, in the streets and venues in NYC. Was there any kind of significant crossover in fan bases? Memorable concerts with both kinds of music? Side note: This 'Pop Music' topic is producing some really interesting stuff. I like.

[deleted]

I'm not up on House rules and procedures, so a series of questions occurred to me given the current events in congress.

• Can the minority part in the house nominate a candidate?
• If the minority can nominate a candidate, could they nominate a moderate member of the majority, and conceivably pull enough votes from the majority to beat their official candidate?
• If this is possible, has it ever happened?

I've always wondered how and why the Roman maniple system was considered superior to a phalanx. How could a soldier with a heavy shield and gladius penetrate a wall of spears? I understand that the phalanx was hard to manoeuvre and terribly vulnerable at the flanks, but assuming the flanks were secure with cavalry or something, how would a typical legionnaire be able to do anything apart from throwing a pilum or two?

It seems kind of weird to call them "the Romans," given that I am a Roman myself, and I've heard the term "Byzantine" was invented much later by historians. So what would I call those Greek-speaking Christians based in Constantinople?

Great Britain's soldiers were well known for their red coats (although I'm not sure if they were called "Redcoats" back then). Were all the nations of Europe color coordinated? Was Great Britain the only nation that stuck to their colored coats? What, if any, were the other colors of the other nations? Finally, what were the reasons for the specific color that was chosen?

I get the sense that certain kings, like Henry II, viewed England as sort of a backwater and source of ready funds to support their "real" domains in Aquitaine. Is this just my understanding or is there some truth to it?

[deleted]

Follow up: How did those estates come into existence? What would be considered a normal income?

Basicaly one of the most controversial politician in my country said that there is no evidence that Hitler knew about holocaust. As far as i know Himmler was the one that gave the order to kill jews. It looks obvious and I am 99% sure that he knew, but if there was a trial today is there some documents about holocaust or something else that can prove that he(Hitler) knew about it?