Hello, I apologize if this is the wrong subreddit. If there's a better one to ask I'll gladly move my post elsewhere.

I've been on a bit of a research binge to try and find some records of the 1964-1965 worlds fair in NYC. My grandfather played that festival with his band "The Tra-Vets" in the Pavilion. I was hoping to come across any kind of documentation of it I could. Photos, perhaps even recordings would be nice.

I also posted this to /r/rhomeworkhelp, but I'm thinking I might get a better answer here. I'm a high school student.

So, I'm reading the Novikov Telegram for a history essay I have to write, and I got to this one paragraph that is really confusing me.

"Right now US foreign policy is not being determined by those circles of the Democratic Party which (as when Roosevelt was alive) try to strengthen cooperation between the three great powers which composed the basis of the anti-Hitler coalition during the war. When President Truman, a politically unstable person with certain conservative tendencies, came to power followed by the appointment of Byrnes as Secretary of State it meant the strengthening of the influence of the most reactionary circles of the Democratic Party on foreign policy. The constantly increasing reactionary nature of US foreign policy, which as a consequence of this approached the policy advocated by the Republican Party, has created a foundation for close cooperation in this area between the extreme right wing of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This cooperation of the two parties, formalized in both houses of Congress in the form of an unofficial bloc of reactionary Southern Democrats and the old guard of the Republicans headed by Vandenberg and Taft, is especially clearly demonstrated in the fact that in their statements about foreign policy issues the leaders of both parties are essentially advocating the same policy. In Congress and at international conferences where as a rule prominent Republicans are represented in American delegations the latter actively support the foreign policy of the government, and often due to this the above [policy], moreover even in official statements of "bipartisan" foreign policy." I know the context - the author is talking about how America would view Soviet influence in Eastern Europe as a threat to American expansionism. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what he's trying to say in this paragraph. I'm also a bit confused on the specification between democrats and republicans. It refers to the extreme right-wing of the democrat party, but by this point, isn't the democratic party the more leftist party? Is this me misunderstanding, a misunderstanding by Novikov, or a general Soviet view that all American politicans are far-right? Why are southern democrats brought up in this case?

Thank you.

Why did these changes happen? I know that in the Renaissance period many of the rich people married for the benefit of the family but why was there a sudden change from marrying for love to marrying for the economic benefit? Also what were the results of these changes in terms of how marriage would be viewed by the people of that time? In other words what happened after people decided that marrying for money was better than marrying for love?

Archaeology sites are often spoken of as spoiled by "looters", which for me, without thinking always brought to mind shadowy criminals, but giving it a moment's reflection I started thinkng that might be a hugely misleading term to describe people living before archaeological standards and customs arose in the past couple of centuries.

When did mores and customs about archaeological preservation arise?

Did anything like these modern values about preservation exist before modern archaeology (Did anyone at the time care about "looting")?

What sorts of people "looted" tombs? Was taking artifacts from sites ever a vocation or just people accidentally stumbling across artifacts?

Do we know anything about "looting" and "looters" before professional archaeology?

I remember reading that Yahweh was, before being center of a monotheistic religion, part of a polytheistic cult. Also, he was mostly first worshiped in the lands of Canaan before spreding. What are the earliest sources around? How was he perceived in these early days?

I'll elaborate a bit because I'm not sure if my title fully conveys my question.

In a lot of period movies or older novels, people attending the theatre or opera are often depicted as chatting with one another in their boxes, quite loudly at times, and generally paying little attention to the performance. For example, in the Count of Monte Cristo people are described as showing up late, sleeping through it, and being almost totally disinterested in the actual performance. Another example of some slightly different behaviour would be in the Wikipedia article on Rossini where it describes the opening night of the Barber of Seville as being disrupted by whistling and shouting from patrons trying to sabotage it.

What was actually going on in the opera? Was it merely for socializing? Why bother having an opera then? What about the people who didn't have private boxes?

I suppose I have the late 18th or early 19th century in mind but I'd be interested to know about the evolution of audience behaviour before and after that, and why it changed, since it's obviously entirely different today.

Thanks!

I understand that WWI was a complex issue mainly dealing with North America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia. However, Brazil did help out the Allies by sending weapons - do they represent South America in the continent count, or is one country too insignificant?

I can't think of any.

From what I've read, the Kaaba was dedicated to Hubal, but the Muslims eventually took over. That means at some point, they must have had a different prayer than what we know of today, or am I wrong?