Also, were Phoenician Carthaginians a mixture of Phoenician and Berber heritage?

Literally as I type this, I'm watching the Academy Award winning Selma. There was one scene that went like this:

Two men, an African-American and a supporting white, walk out a diner at night and two men come along. Both are white and are holding some beating object. These two give chase, eventually bringing down the supportive white and beating him. The scene cuts between this scene and one of one of King's close friends comeing to him informing him of the death. Before dealing the final blow, the attacker says "This is how it feels to be a n119@ in this neighborhood."

This made me think, were any whites civil rights activists at the time beaten to death in a similar fashion to this scene?

After reading a rough translation of the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence from the Jewish Virtual Library, a few questions arose on the nature of the letters.

First: What prompted Hussein to write to McMahon? Was it simply ease of access given that McMahon was based in Alexandria? If not, how come he didn't send a letter to France/Russia? Was Britain perceived to be more powerful?

and

Second: Hussein claims Arab interest in a rebellion against the Ottomans "are based upon the maintenance of the honour and dignity of their [Arab] life". How oppressive was Ottoman influence on Arabs? Can you possibly point to a wiki article or the likes that may give me a better understanding?

Thanks!

Lately i have been fascinated with the history of India a place filled with amazing culture, history, many great empires, ancient origins, all the good stuff. But all the documentaries i have found barely scratch the surface, very often just skimming over many important periods in India's history. Do any of you have any suggestions on some good, reliable, detailed documentaries about India and its past? Books as well. (i haven't read any books on that subject so i cant really add more to that). No prefference in any specific period in history or anything, other than anything before the British Raj

e.g. More bombs?

Hi guys, covering for /u/Commustar today as he’s out, and obviously in an end-of-summer haze I forget about it until dinner time. T_T But today I have a really neat theme prompt and I hope it stretches your brains today, for the Americans hopefully after you’ve finished your merry-making and day-drinking on your front lawn.

Today’s theme comes to us from /u/neschalchancerman! And I’ll quote them directly because it’s very well-spoken:

Over time we update our tools and methodologies building a better picture of past events. However just at the start of the use of the new tool there exists an examination gap where not all old records have been re-examined but where the new tool has become prominent and has cast away results using previous tools.

Now it's easy to say that this shouldn't occur as people judiciously weigh evidence obtained from different tools, but unfortunately new methodology are sexy and often the absence of results from the new methodology dominates the existence of evidence under the old methodology. Consequently instead of a linear progression there exists a brief - and interesting to consider - moment where our knowledge declines.

Doing research for my paper thx

He sent people to the Gulag and executed people without much regard but, did this apply towards children too?

In Ulysses, Mr Deasy incorrectly recalls a story about Tiernan O'Rourke and his wife Derval. Derval is abducted by another Irish king, Dermot MacMurrough. MacMurrough somehow reaches Henry II, the Norman King of England, and thus the Norman invasion of Ireland commences from 1169-1172:

A faithless wife first brought the strangers to our shore here, MacMurrough's wife and her leman, O'Rourke, prince of Breffni. A woman too brought Parnell low. Many errors, many failures but not the one sin. I am a struggler now at the end of my days. But I will fight for the right till the end.

If the Normans really were the 'first strangers' to attack Ireland (I don't believe the Romans ever had an inclination to), how much did they know and what sources did they have for such information? Were Norman diplomatic relations with the Irish common, frequent, formal, or at all extensive? Could the Normans have been at all confident in their invasion strategy (outside of support from MacMurrough)?

My mother recently heard that her father was one of the officers aboard the USS Missouri when Japan surrendered WWII. He didn't talk much about that kind of stuff. Is there a list anywhere of who was onboard?

With the advent of photography, people who had never seen other places/cultures could see them for the first time ever, and with the massification of this technique, those who could access it must had an enormous amount of visual information of 'far away places' few others had.

Photography also revolutionized the accuracy and time resistance of data preservation techniques.

I wonder if photography somehow influenced literature and other arts, and/or our society as a whole as it must have changed our perception of ourselves in the great scheme of things, and the diversity of scenery and people there are there.

Is there some study about this?

As in the structure of the platoon. I imagine that there would be more variation and specialisation in ww2 than the ww1 platoons.

I'm curious as to why the later British colonies (Canada, Australia, NZ, et cetera) did not have such violent revolutions as the United States did. And since these colonies were established later, wouldn't they have seen that it was possible from the American example? Was there simply no desire to revolt due to fair British policies?

[deleted]

I've just read Paul Bairoch's Economics and World History. In it Bairoch argues that colonialism wasn't important to the economic rise of the West, as it was almost insignificant compared to GDP. Is this the dominant view? Where does Bairoch fit in the literature? Any ideas what to read from here? Thanks in advance.

I'm referring to the Etons and Harrows, etc., of the world. In books from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it almost seems as though a certain amount of buggery, semi-consensual or otherwise, was par for the course at these institutions, and that the boys would "grow out of it." Is this the case? Why was it so tolerated at a time when male homosexuality generally was not?