My name is Diana L. Di Stefano, and I am the author of Encounters in Avalanche Country. I am an associate professor at University of Alaska Fairbanks where I teach and write about the American West, the Environment, and Disasters. I'm excited to announce the paperback release of my book Encounters in Avalanche Country, now available via the University of Washington Press or Amazon.

He said that when he was in history as a kid, his teacher told him that sitting bull's name wasn't actually that, but instead shitting bull. He went on, saying that it's reasonable because bulls don't sit unless they are sick. Also, the story went that in his dream to get his name, he saw a bull defecating, but the newspapers wouldn't run the actual name due to it being too vulgar. Can anyone find something about it, whether it's true or not?

Any research I perform on the Internet provides me with lots of examples of Columbus' crimes and brutalities, but nothing seems to be directly cited at all. All articles about this aspect of Columbus just refer to Francisco de Bobadilla's '48-page report' that was thought lost but was 'recently discovered' in an archive in Spain.

Can someone please direct me to the scholarly research with documentation available to back up all this new info on Columbus?

What I'm really trying to say here is, help me find the evidence that Columbus was really as bad of a guy as everyone says he is.

Here is a question I've had for a long time.

Islam irrupted into the Iberian Peninsula with a force of perhaps less than 20,000 men, who crossed over from North Africa and successfully conquered most of the Peninsula. From what I understand, the Visigothic kingdom that ruled the Peninsula was already in a weakened state due to internal contradictions with the local populace and succession wars (or something of the kind). It still doesn't make sense to me that both native Iberians and their Visigothic rulers could be resoundingly defeated and subdued by less than 20,000 men. The Visigoths may have not been the same type of Christian as the Iberians, but they were at least Christian. Islam was entirely foreign.

I've heard that there was a large amount of local support for the invaders, due to discontent within the kingdom, and that facilitated the Islamic conquest greatly. The same people explained that much of the Iberian Christian population just converted to Islam and integrated into the Caliphate. What truth is there to this?

If this question belongs in a different sub please point me to it.

I.e., allowing the opposing side to retrieve their dead, no fighting after dark, etc.

We all know that American politicians pump up the church and bible love during election season. Did ancient Greek and Roman politicians do the same?

I realized I never really hear about Industrial Paris or Rome in the same terms. Also, is there equivalent literature that portrayed the poverty of those cities like Dickens that I don't know about because they aren't in English?

It seems to me that they could be, given that they would not be victims but for the bomb that was dropped as part of WWII (albeit a significant period of time has passed).

Around the world, "Jedi" is starting to become a State-recognized religeon, even though everybody knows that self proclaimed "Jedi"s don't believe in the literal "force". A similar thing is happening with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" among atheists. Are there any religions taken seriously today that started out as a sort of joke but then started to be taken seriously?

Hi, I've recently started getting into the history of Modern Greece and in particular the Balkan Wars and the Greco-Turkish War. Venizelos strikes me as a super interesting figure, and probably the most important figure in the history of Greece in the 20th century.

Any good sources for reading about him or Greece at the end of 19th century and first few decades of the twentieth?