I know the market sold 16 million plus shares causing the crash, but why did they mass sell?

I've read that Austria, Prussia, Hanau, and other German states made colonization attempts in South America and the Caribbean, but they all failed and I can't figure out why. I asked this question, because the theme of the week is empires, and I thought this was close to the theme.

Did people just keep going on living in the former Empire despite the collapse of government?

Was there lawlessness? How long after the empire fell apart did its people abandon the idea of Rome?

Are there any historical references as to what it was like to live in the period directly after the fall?

I’ve seen this narrative a lot online that the Arab world was a sort of paradise for Jews and everything was fine until the zionists arrived. Similarly, I’ve seen a lot of pushback from Jewish activists who cite the second-class dhimmi status and events like the Hebron Massacre. As a Mizrahi Jew myself, I grew up hearing my grandfather’s heart-wrenching stories of nearly escaping being stoned to death and his family experiencing the Farhud. However, these things all happened already after the British Mandate and the Ottoman Empire, and after the advent of Zionism (note: I do believe that persecution of Jews due to supposed zionist connections is still antisemitism). So what was life like beforehand, really? And how did it compare to antisemitism in Europe? Thanks!

I love the friday notification that I get. The problem is that once I look at it, it disapears from the page and is not (for me at least) re-findable.

Where are these stored so I can visit at leisure.

Apologies if this ends up in the wrong place..

The influence of China, beginning primarily with the Tang dynasty, on Japan can be seen in nearly every aspect of its culture. Architecture, religion, ideology, arts and various other aspects were heavily impacted by trade and communication with China proper throughout history. Even Kanji (漢字, lit. Chinese/Han characters), one of the three scripts of written Japanese, is essentially Chinese characters reformed while the other two were based off cursive scripts or radicals of Chinese characters used to phonetically represent spoken Japanese. Furthermore, Literary Chinese, called Kanbun (漢文, lit. Chinese writing,) was used in official government or intellectual writings until around the 20th century.

During the 19th-20th century, when Japan became one of the most powerful states in the world as China fell into disrepair and became antiquated, there was a rise of the ideas of Japanese nationalism and superiority. Did Japan during this time see the Chinese aspects of their culture as “Chinese” or something disconnected and changed to become uniquely Japanese? Was there any scholarly discussion on the potential identity crisis this may have been causing or any push revive old indigenous Japanese practices and ideas and forgo Chinese influenced ones due to their association with failing, subjugated state? Was this topic even a thought on the mind of the average learned man of the time?

Hello!

I'm Eastern European/Part Ukrainian/Russian, and I distinctly remember learning something about red boots being symbolic of nobility, either mythically or in real life, in Russian or Ukrainian upper-class culture during the Medieval Era (sorry I can't be much more specific than that). However the only thing I can find online is Louis XIV(?)'s little thing with red heels being a signifier of noble standing. I can infer that that means red was an expensive dye (but yet...I also learned it was rather cheap in Roman times when everyone would dye their stuff red, so how could it be expensive later on?) or at least somehow connected to nobility prior because I doubt King Louis would just make up a fancy colour and role with it.

Any help or links would be appreciated!

PS: This generally concerns mens boots because that's what I remember from cartoons and fairy tales, but I read (...in a vogue magazine article...) that Red has different associations for women, so that would also be neat to hear.

Like did they have museums of some sorts so if they dug up anything from older civilisations what did they do with it back then

Firstly, I'm sure I'm misspelling "hatru" but I heard about them in a Great Courses audio lecture called "The Persian Empire". They are essentially described as soldiers of areas that the empire conquered who were generally sent away from their homes to avoid rebellion. They were subject to yearly inspections and usually became farmers. But that's really all the chapter covers. I tried searching for more information online but what came up on Google was a bunch of unrelated stuff. So does anyone know if there are resources (ideally free ones) to give me more info on these people?

I'm not concerned with the person who died, but rather the one who has to "beat the ride and rap" after. Trials? Evidence? Does the defendant have any special duty to the body in the minutes/hours after? Did they have to "call it in"?

Obviously I have to pick some time and place if I want any specific answers; I like Greece, so how about ancient Athens, pre-Rome? But if your specialty pertains to another place-time, then don't refrain, please spill it.

The essay considers even one of the 14 characteristics enough for fascism to coagulate around, and additionally uses a comparison of family resemblance to suggest that one or more of the characteristics can be missing yet still be fascist, including if two "families" have no overlap of traits yet are connected via transitivity.

It seems a bit too broad and abstract, and many of the 14 traits can seemingly be applied to revolutionary radical movements of socialism, communism, race (like BLM), either in the rhetoric of these movements or the practice which doesn't seem quite right or compatible with the various other definitions of fascism by Paxton/Griffin/Payne which are more concrete in how they define fascism like the ultranationalism and rebirth.

It also seems like it can easily be applied by anyone to many movements or cultures. For example, I can see a right wing reactionary applying this list to the contemporary "left". For instance:

1. The Cult of Tradition can be applied to marxists who focus on reading works of marx/engels and refine it for the current era, but still treat it as a truth that was laid out. It can also be applied to anti-colonialists who wish to reconnect to their culture that may have been taken from them and its various teachings.

2. Rejection of Modernism which includes the spirit of enlightenment that opened everything up for debate in the name of reason. In the contemporary era many reactionaries came from the pipeline of "Internet Atheists" who applied this doubt/cynicism to issues such as feminism, transgender rights, socialism, marxism to the extent many simply shut them out or ignore them as being in bad faith which they can consider a rejection of the principles of enlightenment

3. Disagreement is treason: You see various... "cannibalistic" elements to the left where even different groups like communists/anarchists see themselves as ideological enemies, and "cancellation" by public shaming can be seen as a manifestation of this/ This can also be seen as leading to 4) fear of difference in terms of ideology or intent where they may consider purity tests and those imperfect may be seen as intruders whether or not its real

4. Appeal to a frustrated middle class or social frustration: This seems pretty common to most any movement for social change.

5. Obsession with a Plot: This can be seen as a focus on the capitalistic systems, imperliastic systems, the patriarchy etc depending the movement and the various machinations of these systems to undermine the movement and the people

6. Enemies cast as too strong and too weak simultaneously: Various movements on the left consider the oppressive power structures (that i listed in 6) to be very powerful, yet weak and scared of the collective power of the people which is why they need to engage in various machinations to distract and undermine

7. pacifism is siding with the enemy and permanent warfare: Many of the power structures I listed earlier can be considered large enough enemies that it can get people involved in a life of permanent conflict/warfare. Pacifism can be considered the same as kowtowing to the status quo and many leftists consider violent revolution the only way to replace many of these structures an would see centrists or those looking for peaceful solutions as fascist enablers. This might even blend into 9) action for actions sake

8. Contempt for the weak: The concept of privilege and fragility can seemingly backdoor its way into this. Those privileged are considered soft, and thus fragile, while the less privileged are considered to have endured more and thus strong. Thus there is a contempt for those with privilege and their weakness

... and so on.

So basically I'm asking, how useful is the Ur-Fascism essay, and what context should it be applied in?

I understand that the swastika has a long origin dating as far back as 15,000 years ago. It has historically common use in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. But why did Nazi germany decide to make it a symbol for the Arian race?

Japan's reforms turned it into a world power capable of conquering China and defeating Russia and (initially) the United States, while Egypt became a British colony which did not become independent until 1952. Why?

I'm interested in books about Summer '41 from Soviet perspective. Most books from Western authors that I have seen focus more on German perspective while I'm more interested how Soviets handled this slaughterfest. Also I haven't come up with almost any Russian authors on Amazon that write about this topic. Is that because they don't translate anything into English?

Also please I don't want the whole war, just 1941, I'd say until after Battle for Moscow. No memoirs, biographies, just in general situation Soviets were in. Thanks in advance.

It seems very counter intuitive to be a nation engaging in total war but be spending any resources towards something with no tangible benefits. It would make sense to send Jews and other “undesirables” to work camps, but maintaining death camps seems to have no strategic value that I can tell. The Holocaust was kept a secret from all but those directly involved, so why didn’t the Nazis wait until they had won when there would be less danger and no repercussions?

I often hear from a lot of people that the United States is the nation that the Nazis liked the most when constructing racist laws. How true is that claim?