Were asians and latinos subject to the same segregation and discrimination as black people? If not, how did white people justify it?

my impression - from i don't know what - is that there wasn't too much stratification of wealth - is that accurate?

i mean, i imagine it differed with time and place - oooh i hope this doesn't count as a throughout-history-no-no

thank you!

:)

[TITLE SHOULD SAY THRONE NOT THRONES]

I have seen so many movies where kings [Egytian Pharaoh] are always sat on their throne for the whole movie. Ofcourse I know it's a movie and stuff but I have been thinking about this..

How boring must it have been for a King.. waking up every morning to sit on a chair for X amount of hours a day..

Did they really do that? Or were the thrones usually empty most of the time?

I hope this is the right subreddit for this; apologies if it isn't. I was reading a newer version of Don Quixote, translated by Tom Lathrop, and in the introduction, he claims that some previous versions by other translators were translated from Spanish texts wherein contradictions were "fixed" by editors. Lathrop then explains that these contradictions (various names for the same character, a math error, etc.) were on purpose, and meant to either be satirical or a reflection of Quixote's mental state. Is there any agreement on this topic?

Was bread ever an historical staple in East Asian cultures like China or Japan? If not, why not?

What did an archer do when he had to fight hand to hand, what weapons did he use for up close fighting?

If there was can you tell me where can I read about his adventures?

I like many of you am watching the new Netflix series Narcos. One scene in particular stood out. The judges of Colombia become a target of Escobar, and a judge dons a balaclava before entering the court room to sentence a drug trafficker. Did this really happen?

At the very start of the movie Patton, George C. Scott in front of the giant American flag. Patton gives a speech which becomes iconic for most of the 70s. But, did Patton really give that speech or just something Hollywood came up with?

I am watching the film again (excellent film) and at one point the Surprise seems to set sail from the Galapagos islands heading South South West in pursuit of the Acheron. To my limited knowledge there's not much out there and I'm wondering how far they could have gone before having to turn back out of fear of starving before reaching land.

I had a read of the other Master and Commander questions posted but couldn't see anything specifically about food.

Edit: Sorry if it's not a fifth rate ship, that was my best guess from a Wikipedia read.

Also, I didn't ask about water as in the film they end up with a shortage of water but are saved when it rains, so presumably food was a bigger limiting factor.

I have a rather bulky question.

In the 1700's, why did infantry stand in unprotected straight lines for the majority of battles? There must've been a less risky way to plug some people with lead.

Additionally, what did a lancer/uhlan do after they drove their lance into someone? Surely they couldn't remain behind enemy lines and draw their sabres, right? Did they turn tail and get new lances? Why did they even charge at musket-waving infantry anyway? Wouldn't that make them obvious targets?

Were there any notable Soviet philosophers? Was the field of study encouraged or discouraged (too bourgeois?) ? Were certain western philosophers considered (more) suspect? (Heidegger?) Was it limited to Marxist theory and its offshoots? Was there any effort, as we see in academia today, to include more non-Western thinkers?

I ask because-

1. It is generally accepted that an invasion of the Japanese main islands would be fiercely resisted and US forces would in all probability suffer heavy casualties.
2. At the end of the war the US had achieved naval and air superiority, so why couldn't they have just blockaded Japan until they surrendered.