A common feature of media depictions of indigenous Americans in particular is a deep connection to 'the Land' and a preoccupation with its purity and their sovereignty over it. The same is somewhat true of Africa; the notion of 'tribes' (better described as clans) who have a deep, ancestral connection to the land and rule over it is something that comes up often in Western depictions.

Yet in reality, land as a basis for personal identity and status seems a far more European phenomenon, with roots in feudalism and the emergent nationalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, so I'm suspicious that these preoccupations are more colonial projections rather than true-to-life representations, particularly given that they so often go hand in hand with condescending stereotypes of the noble savage and, in Africa, tribalism. Plus, a lot of what I've read about societies in Africa in particular indicates that in many cases land was subordinate to things like wives, subjects and slaves as an indicator of status.

So where, really, did land enter into the psyche of the many precolonial African and American societies? Are there any that really did have any resemblance to the Western portrayal?

I asked this a while ago and the overwhelming preponderance of responses beginning with "my dad says", or "my granddad says", or "my wife's mother's uncle says" resulted in the thread being nuked. So to try again, the North African campaign of the Second World War is sometimes known as the "War Without Hate" owing to how chivalrously the British and Germans supposedly treated each other. Is this borne out by documentary evidence, for example, statistics of how often MPs had to intervene to prevent war crimes or PTSD rates among veterans?

As I understand many Polish (and other eastern European) pilots went to Britain and we're absorbed into the RAF. How did they get there baring in mind that Poland was taken very quickly by Nazi Germany and the USSR. How did they escape?

Did they still have some semblance of their former society or were they living in scattered villages? Were their pyramids and cities decaying and unoccupied? I am asking because I recently watched Apocolypto and afterwards I read that the Maya depicted in the movie would not have existed when the Spanish colonized.

[deleted]

I've read that in the ninth century, the Catholic Church banned marriages within seven degrees of consanguinity, meaning that you couldn't marry your sixth cousin. How was this prohibition actually enforced? Was it on you to make sure the person you're marrying wasn't actually your distant relative? Was it only enforced among nobles?

Being an both a history fanatic and an atheist, it annoys me to see so many fellow secularists parade around this "Christ Myth" theory. From what I've read, almost every true historian accepts the existence of a historical Jesus. My question is to you on here whom identify as atheist and/or secular, what is your opinion on Jesus's existence and from what methodology can we determine it by?

For instance, people talk about the 1980's as having a certain cultural distinction (fashion/music/art/etc.). Same with the 1970's & 1960's. How many decades back does this go?

Was there ever an organized movement that tried to outlaw gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome as immoral?

While I have heard about the extent of the red terror done during the Spanish Civil War committed by political Leftists and anti-clerics, I have not seen any good info on the extent of the White Terror that was inflicted by Right Wing militias and fascists. Can someone give me some details?

Just curious, as i've only ever heard it was because he was willing to put the allied coalition above just the United States military and political interest. Was there actually more to it than just this?

In the late 20's, early 30's, the United States developed War Plan Red. War Plan Red was our plan if we went to war with Great Britain. My question is why did we feel the need to develop a plan for war against Great Britain in the 20th century. Was there underlying issues that the government believed could develop into a conflict? I thought we were really close with Great Britain after WW1. Or was this just one of the thousand of hypothetical plans that the government made over our history.

I am working on a reenactmeant gear, the internet has been verry thin on what the finnish soldier carried with him, I have seen pictures of backpacks, but not what was in it.

You hear a lot after World War II about how the stab-in-the-back myth and how the Peace of Versailles was unnecessarily punitive. But let's put the shoe on the other foot-- what was Germany planning to do to the Allies in the event that the Spring Offensive succeeded in reaching Paris?

Apologies in advance if this question has been asked before.

Today, there are a multitude of programs and organizations that offer hunger relief to those in need (such as the Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc.). In the past, did hunger relief programs exist, or are they a product of the 20th century?

Answers from any era would be much appreciated, but the older the better.

Why was it in both of their interests to swap their populations in such a way? Did Ataturk not have any connection or ideal to have his birthplace of Thessaloniki in his new Turkish state?