Follow-up question to this: Was there any particular Texas Republic laws on the books that clashed with ones from the United States or could be considered flat out strange to the rest of what the Union's citizens were accustomed to at the time?

Hey there guys. This is my first time posting on this subreddit so my apologies if I break any rules or conventions, or if this is the wrong place for this question.

I had a religious studies teacher in highschool who was a very informed man. Now, this was religious studies class in a Catholic high school, so needless to say everything was taken with a grain of salt, but as he approached the subject from a more historical perspective than his colleagues (who mostly just liked to talk about wishy-washy things like the value of virtue and the church's importance as a a community. Eventually getting to the point where they try and peddle the cruder point of Aquinean philosophy to bored high schoolers) I actually got very interested in his class.

He would always go on these lectures of biblical "history" (to give him due credit, he would always open up a semester's class by trying to give some perspective: that none of this stuff was entirely verifiable, and was really more myth with a message than history).

Anyway, to the point. One day he was talking about Exodus (Moses in Egypt, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you) and he was talking about the curses which the lord sent against Pharaoh (plague, locusts, etc etc) but he mentioned one that isn't actually mentioned in the bible but he claims is more a folklore tradition (in the same vein as ideas like the devil, the story of Lilith, and so on). Basically the crux was this: the last and final curse the lord laid upon Egypt, was to raise the seven hills that would soon be the seat of Rome, which would ultimately conquer Egypt.

Now I'm just wondering, has anybody ever heard this before? I've searched a lot and I couldn't find any reference to it, and so I'm starting to think he pulled it out of his ass. Now, obviously this isn't the truth - even setting aside issues of religion and whether God exists or if he actually acts on the world in such a tangible way - the timelines simply don't match up. I imagine the geological event that shaped the hills of Rome would have happened somewhere on the scale of thousands of years before we were even painting in caves, but I'm interested in the history of this myth. Does it have precedent? Or is it just a fancy idea my high school teacher had.

I know the use of the N word went from somewhat common usage to distasteful to abhorrent in American opinion. For example, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn(1884) portrays "nigger Jim" as humanized friend of Huck's. Did Twain use the harsh word for a friendly character as an attack on racism or did he use it because of the colloquial language of the time?

I've recently noticed that leaders in the Mormon church were still using the N word in the 1900's and I wonder how acceptable that usage would be compared to common acceptable use of the time.

I understand that "history" is an immeasurable subject on its own, through all of time and all of the world. How can a lay person learn history. I'm mean breadth, not depth. I just find myself knowing nothing about anything historical, so I just want to know... things. Is there a resource that is just "everything you need to know about world history"? Or, I was thinking I could learn a fair amount of history of Poland, since I'm Polish, and then just branch out to other countries? Any ideas would help. Thanks.

Like where you could place your order and stuff, or only bakeries. I am quite stoned and wante o know

My son has recently discovered the old Warner Brothers WW2 propaganda cartoons, and we started talking about the propaganda on the other side. How did the Nazis justify being allied with Japan? I tried looking for German propaganda on the subject, but couldn't find much.

I heard this the last 2 times I visited Spain. During the colonial times the trees were supposedly cut down to build ships for exploration, and they left none to repopulate the country, which is why the middle of the country is now so arid and has few trees. is any of this true? or is this just a myth?

What was the crooked logic behind them? How did people justify their racism and bigotry?

Most available information from that time period focuses on the US contribution and action during the conflict. I am wondering what, if any, the rest of the nations made. I'm interested in knowing exactly how many troops, supplies, financial aid or any other kind of aid was given by each of the coalition nations.

Follow up question: For those nations who had combat personnel in the Persian Gulf (once again, aside from the US), how many of those saw combat and/or took part in operations inside Kuwait?

I'm not entirely sure if this classifies as a current event, so sorry if it does. But, since I've been studying(ish) the Vatican. I've been wondering. At what point did the Swiss Guards become almost entirely exclusive to Vatican City? What caused them to fade out from being used in other countries? Again, I'm sorry if this classifies as a current event. Thank you for reading.

As a budding historian and anthropologist, I'm having trouble finding sources on East African history without an obvious bias, either Eurocentric or Afrocentric. Are there any (relatively) unbiased sources on East African history specifically, or will I have to resign myself to general African histories and wading through biased works?

From what I understand is that slavery in its earliest form (before the U.S) was based on religion and social economic status. I also read that the start of slavery in the U.S was started with indentured servants of both European and African descent. So if all of this is true then my question is why did slavery become a thing of race in the United States?

I apologize if this has been posted before, I was unable to find out anything from this perspective on my cursory searches of Reddit or Google.

What would happen if you were an atheist or just simply didn't care about what happens when we die and had no desire to partake in any form of organized religion?

It was mentioned in a Marcus Didius Falco novel. It's also on Wikipedia with the helpful line "This crossing of gender boundaries has been interpreted variously" and then nothing about said interpretations.

The US constitution specifically forbids the formation of new states out of the territory of existing ones. Virginia was at no time considered to have legally seceded. So how is it that West Virginia is considered a valid state?