I remember hearing this a lot in my childhood, but can not seem to find a decent source or trusted website that discusses it.

In other words, were Whites allowed to use a segregated Black bathroom or drinking fountain at will without fear of getting in trouble with the law? Could they sit anywhere on the bus, even in the back? Was there some de facto privilege that they wouldn't get prosecuted in the same way an African-American would if he/she violated segregation? Or was the law equally applied to Whites who broke the rules?

I understand that the United Arab Republic was a move by Syrian Ba'athists to have Nasser remove the communists from Syria's government. Did Nasser believe that the UAR would be forever, or did he sense that it was fragile? What about the Syrian leaders? What about the Egyptian and Syrian people? Was there a widespread belief that the UAR would grow to incorporate all Arab peoples, or was this ambition considered unrealistic?

Was there outrage in western Europe? Did no one care? Am I overestimating the significance of the Holy Land at that point in time?

This was originally posted on Askreddit but i was referred to here:

If you have seen any war movie(older ones) you'd see the one or two guys with a trumpet playing to the other men. Who woke up the trumpet players?

From what I've been reading some places distinguish them differently than the Achaeans and others say that they were Greeks living in troy. I've been having a bit of a discussion about this over in /r/CFB as to whether or not the USC Trojans would be a Greek mascot. Any answers would be great.

I saw a similar post about Turkey's Armenian genocide, and couldn't help wondering about this.

Was the near-extinction of Native Americans a genocide? If so, why is the US denying it? If not, why not?

I know that the usual textbook explanation is that Natives died from the diseases they weren't immune to, and Europeans only killed a little bit here and there. However, that doesn't quite add up to the fact that all modern countries in the Americas except for the US and Canada are heavily dominated by people of Native descent, starting right from the Mexican border.

I have been tasked with reading The Campaings of Alexander the Great and to answer the prompt: What ways does the text relate the deterioration of character through excess of power?

Let me start this by saying I don't want the answer, I'd rather find it on my own. What I do need is a little insight.

I'm little over one hundred pages in, so 1/4 through not counting the extras, and I have yet to come across and instance where Alexander made some egregious power crazed decision. I have found several instances of him, by Arrians account, being a pretty decent King and General.

I guess what I'm asking is do I need to read deeper into the material I have already covered, or is does this 'deterioration' of Alexander happen later on in the text? I know the question can be answered, otherwise it wouldn't have been asked. I'm just worried I am missing some greater meaning in events that I have already covered.

Thanks in advance for any insight provided!

The book is basically a how-to on Ruling but I haven't found much on whether or not monarchs actually read or took interest in the book and Machiavelli's influence on rulers in his time.

Anybody know anything about this?

Hello all, just a quick question. I've spent the past few months listening to various lecture series via Yale/Oxford/Harvard/etc's open courseware programs. Recently, after watching a documentary on Velazquez, I've become interested in Spanish history and was wondering if anyone knew of a series on that topic. I've tried searching various online course websites, but to no avail.

Thanks for any and all help.

I just watched Woman in Gold with my wife and the movie depicts how Jewish people were prevented from leaving Austria as the Nazi's gain power.

I can at least understand the motivation to steal all of the riches that Jewish people had at the time, but cannot understand why they had their passports removed and were denied the ability to leave the country.

Was it because the Nazis intended to kill all of the Jewish people and didn't want them to escape the country? Was it a fear that they would join the enemies of the Axis powers in battle? It seems like it would have been easier to just plunder the riches and allow them to leave with nothing of value in their possession.

What is the evidence that he actually killed himself and not just faked it? Also if there is any, what is the evidence he did not kill himself?

With there being a seemingly endless amount of shapes available, why were shapes such as fettuccine, spaghetti, bow-tie, penne, etc the ones we see most widely distributed and made available in restaurants.

I've found an exception here or there (e.g. long rifles chambered in .25 caliber) but for the most part civilian and military muzzle loading long guns tended to fire .50+ caliber bullets. What gives? Why the big bores?

I can see civilians using the wide bore for firing birdshot and also for taking down large game. What was the point for militaries? Shooting cavalry?

I'm asking because my high school history teacher always emphasized the point that political parties are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. But can we really infer from this that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, et al. thought there would never be political parties...? I'll be frank--it sounds uncharacteristically naive. Also, the "message" this factoid is supposed to send strikes me as just a little too neatly packaged for our current era, when our pundits are constantly lamenting the alleged hyper-partisanship of our politicians...