Why are Chinese burns (twisting hands on someones arm) called Chinese burns? Any connection to that country?

I've looked up my own and have gotten 3 different results. I was just wondering if Reddit had any luck.

If so how do they compare to each other?

Essentially what I said above. Did the huge violence of the war lead to a period of decreased violent crime/domestic violence as some sort of cultural catharsis? Or did PTSD/exposure to violence lead to an uptick? Or was there no effect at all?

I would love to understand the thought process behind this. I would be greatly interested to understand what why all prisoners were treated so horribly, not just focusing on Japan/China atrocities. I was told that they were motivated loosely by the Bushido code and their great sense of nationalism. I would love to understand this whole aspect of the war more. I learned a lot about the Nazis and such but less about the Japanese culture and their feelings about the war and their country. Thank you in advance, although good responses will be personally thanked as well.

Over the course of the film (set in 1937), several characters comment on the public's increasing desire for "old-timey" music. Did such a shift occur in the late thirties? What was the non "old-timey" music the public was rejecting? Was this a national phenomenon, or was this only in the South (where the film is set)?

I'm a fan of the Total War series of games, and in the forthcoming release, Total War: Atilla, the Huns are portrayed as Asian looking. But I have heard that there are a ton of different theories about their ethnicity, ranging from that they are Asiatic people, that they were Germanic or Gothic, or that they weren't a real "people", but more of a tribal confederation. Are there any theories that hold more water than others?

As a student of religious history I am interested in the seeming fact that the huge majority of Europeans living during the medieval period found most if not all religious yearning satisfied within the scope of Christian belief. Many friends disagree, arguing that they had no choice, Catholic hierarchy was too powerful, the Inquisition terrorized them, etc. Could anyone provide some insight on the matter?

I live in a Northeastern city and with the current snow accumulation, transportation is incredibly difficult on some streets bordering on impassable unless you have 4WD. So in a particularly snowy winter, would you just not travel at all unless absolutely necessary? How did they transport essentials like food and liquor? And were there special snowboots people wore, or did they just generally put up with feeling much colder than we do today?

I was reading article today claiming that northern Italy is richer on average then most of Germany while southern Italy is poorer on average then most of Greece, why the discrepancy?

I'm looking to get a tattoo of Athena in the near future but I'd like it to be based off of a historical piece (statue or painted/plaster image) that's accurate. Are there any specific pieces anyone can think of?

In many stories about Cleopatra, it makes it look like a cosmopolitan city, much more sophisticated than Rome. Is this true? Were there any other ancient cities that were not exactly tourist destinations, but great places to live.

Did the cities get destroyed? Did they retain their power? Did people completely move out, or did people stay in the center of the city while leaving the outskirts to rot? Sorry if this question is too vague, but I don't really know much about the history to ask a specific question.

I'm not sure if I'm phrasing this correctly or not but I'll try my best. I'm interested in history in a popular sense, I took a few classes, read a few books a year etc...Some of them are accounts of events that happened, but others seem to try to systematize human affairs. I know for example 'Guns, Germs and Steel' is not well received by professional historians. But others like 'Why the west rules, for now' seem to fare better. In these books people seem to try to abstract the events of the past into a unifying theory of the events in a somewhat scientific manner. Is there a branch of history that tries to do this in general, for all history?

I have identified a lot of good books on America from 1765 or so through the revolution but have not found any about the roots of the revolution from around 1700 to 1760. By the word popular I mean high-school level or lower-division college level.

Do you know of any such books?