The are where I live is 100 km from any rivers/streams or any moving water of any kind. There are only a large number of shallow, stagnant alkali sloughs containing water and they are absolutely littered with goose droppings. Wouldn't drinking this make them sick?

Thousnadaries? Hundries?

(I know this is more concerning historiography than actual history but I couldn't think of a better place to ask the question)

Lately I've been researching the different approaches to history developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and it would seem that the progressive view of history was once justified, yet at this point has lessened the usefulness (or perception of usefulness I should say) of history in academia.

Generally I'm speaking of the attitudes that "every man is his own historian," there is no objectivity, truth is relative, etc. What purpose do we have for being historians if there isn't a possibility of truth? I know the assumption of no possible truth is a tad extreme but it would seem that no matter where you turn today popular, newly written historical works are very reductionist and almost needlessly contrarian to past interpretations.

What scientific value, or teaching value rather can the study of history offer if we feel the need to always teach the controversy simply to "stand out" from past generations? I realize truth is subjective and that being provocative will sell more books, but at some point it seems like history is slowing merging with philosophy or sociology rather than being an actual science on its own account.

I'm very interested in both insight into why this shift occurred in the last century and other historians opinions on the matter.

TL;DR questions

• Why did the progressionist view of history come about in the last century?

• Was it justified at that point?

• Are post modernism and progressivism still justifiable in the study of history?

• Do you feel like the role of history as a proper science (and therefore historians as "scientists," for lack of a better term) has been lessened?

If any of those questions are too meta then I'd simply like to understand the evolution of the study of history in the last century and the historiographical ramifications from these shifts. (Still very meta but a question nonetheless!)

Thanks for any responses!

Hi guys, first time posting here. I'm writing a research paper on the potential effect America's foreign policy during the 1960's and 1970's on the popularity of state sponsored welfare within the United States.

More specifically, my thought is that prior to Vietnam, America embarked on state building. That is, it would go into countries and work on improving its infrastructure. At the same time, the United States also had an interest in state building within its own borders (War on Poverty, Great Society, etc.). Yet after Vietnam the United States cared far less about state building in foreign countries. While it's been revived today, its being done on the cheap and with more reliance on local governments to build up infrastructure and provide programs (think Iraq and Afghanistan).

My hypothesis is that Vietnam, and the decline of interest in foreign state building, had an effect on the degree to which Americans were interested providing welfare for its citizens.

I'm unsure of where to start. I gotten one book on Daniel Patrick Moynihan to begin with but I'm looking for some more.

I'm willing to tweak my thesis based on what research I come across. But yeah, any help would be appreciated!

Hello, I am currently in a university oral communication class. We were assigned an informative speech where we can describe a process to the class that they may not know much about. I want to talk about how there were many people who helped the color barrier be broken, however, it seems like everything I search just results in web pages about Jackie Robinson. Does anyone know any sites or people i should be researching? I hope it is okay to post this here, thank you for any help.

Particularly in America and Europe in the 1600s+, I know that blacks were held as slaves and such. Were they free in Ancient Rome? I tried to word the title by being concise and tried not to be racist.

Both Japan and South Korea were relatively poor countries and Japan had been war struck after WWII. (I imagine they had to pay reperations?) but now they are both considered some of the richest and most developed nations. I know they are both in very good geographic locations for shipping to the developing world which is very useful, but that can't be the only reason.

I read that people who watched the debate between the two candidates on television, voted for Kennedy because how he looked like a moviestar, Nixon had a knee-injury in addition to a cold. While those who listenend to the radio, thought that Nixon was more of a better choice.

I've been thinking about Donna Haraway's cyborg theories and how she tries to propose a fluidity beyond the constraint and absolutism of unquestionable binaries...I immediately think of the emphasis of male/female, dark/light (this could be coded as racial in a more recent historical context), sun/moon, material/ideal, biological/synthetic, etc. Why and how was this significant in the development of various cultures, such as Western European culture, Meso-American culture, South Asian culture, etc. I feel that learning about the genesis and necessity of binaries within various cultures will aid me in understanding the fabric of present Western social order, and the relation between people, their environment, and each other.

Also, were the Australians scared of this and what did they do to defend?

I heard this idea that after WWII when the Air force was created they were basically given domain over all non carrier planes. The Army meanwhile desired more planes for close support but the Airforce was more interested in strategic bombers, so the Army greatly increased their attack helicopter investment to get around this limitation, but helicopters were not as effective as planes could have been. Is there any grain of truth to this notion?

This is the text:

What many scholars overlook in their postulation about end time prophecy is that there was an empire that arose out of 670 years of battles, eventually conquering the Middle East and parts of Europe after the Roman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, an Islamic Caliphate, benefitted from Muslim conquests beginning with Mohammad (circa 622) until it was officially formed in 1291. By then, Muslims ruled the Middle East, parts of Eastern Europe, and had advanced on Italy and Spain. The Ottoman Empire emanated out of Turkey, coalescing the Caliphate and uniting Islam from 1291 to 1922. It was ended with a severe, seemingly fatal blow, when Turkey became a Republic in 1922 and abolished the Caliphate in 1924.

From 1096 to 1291, seven Crusades responded to hundreds of years of Muslim attacks on Europe, threatening to eliminate Christianity from the world. Even in 1801, the Ottoman Empire’s sanctioned piracy prompted America to commission a navy to fight. The Ottomans had required ransom of what amounted to 20% of the US government’s revenue, yet were still taking our ships and enslaving our Christian citizens. Renown Crusade historian Thomas F. Madden of Saint Louis University writes: “Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them…From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.”

Madden continues: “With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt-once the most heavily Christian areas in the world-quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece…That is what gave birth to the Crusades.”

Madden says the Crusades “were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.”

Is this historical summary objective? Obviously it is brief, but does it ring true in regards to it's point that the Crusades were a defense?

What reading can I do that focuses on this subject?

Thanks!

Hello,

I've been reading a bit about the Napoleonic Wars and I'm curious about one aspect:

How did an Army know when they had defeated the other one?

Was it when the opposing Army had all been killed/captured? Was it when the commanding officer of the defeated army officially surrendered to the winning commanding officer?

Thank you.

Just saw a reddit post claiming that JFK allegedly smoked in the white house. Just wondering if that's accurate or not