Thanks!

I couldn't think of any other subreddit to post this in. I'm reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of The United States and just came across this:

"A documentary film on the arms race made in Canada was forbidden to enter the country by the Reagan administration, but a federal court ordered it admitted."

He doesn't mention the title, and after several google searches,I can't find anything on it.

I ask because of Acts 22:

22 They listened to [Paul] up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!” 23 And as they were crying out and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust into the air, 24 the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, stating that he should be examined by scourging so that he might find out the reason why they were shouting against him that way. 25 But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.” 27 The commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” And he said, “Yes.” 28 The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.” 29 Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains.

This was in Jerusalem, in/near the Temple.

Surely the commanders and centurions wouldn't simply accept the word of someone about to be tortured? I'd say anything to get out of being scourged...and I'm sure plenty of people tried.

• Would the Romans have simply accepted his word?

• If not, what was the process of proving one's citizenship? Some sort of token or papers?

• Would the context have mattered? Paul was a Pharisaic Jew from Tarsus, and this event occurred in Jerusalem. What if he had been from another region of the Empire and/or this incident occurred in another region? (I realize this exact event could only take place under specific circumstances, but bear with me).

Black is in quotes as the concept of Blackness as we know it did not really exist until the seventeenth century.

The two just seem very similar and it sort of makes sense in that the villein would want revenge occasionally (kind of like how its always the butler)

Obviously today our training takes around 3 months for basic then varies for your school from there. What was the training time it took to train a GI during the war? Was the training different during different times of the war?-ie 1941 vs 1944. Also while a lot of troops were being used to fill in gaps for companies that had lost men, were we still trying to build full divisions or just replace men due to attrition?

An piggy back question, for different specialties, such as engineers, tank crews, etc, how much did their training time vary?

Finally, if anyone feels really adventurous, how long before America's full intervention (post Pearl Harbor) were we training troops? Did we start militarization when Hitler invaded Poland or was it not till Churchill asked for assistance that we began really mobilizing?

Nothing really seemed to happen to him after the war and he still ruled. Why?

I ask because the only reason it's done is because all the senior members of the club learned it when they were taught to shoot, so the tradition seems to stretch back quite far. Our best guess so far is that it's a shortening of "holdfast", but no-one really knows.
It might be worth mentioning that this is in Cheshire, England.

/u/theringinginmyears posted a very interesting question in ELI5, and it didn't get any good answers. I'm particularly interested in the result of abolition on loans made with slaves as collateral, but I imagine s/he wants all their questions answered.

I recently saw "Twelve Years A Slave" and "Django" and it inspired me to do more research on the topic of slavery and the general associated economics. A few sources have suggested that a slave may have cost around $1200 around 1860. In today's terms, this would have been around $30,000. Put in perspective, a slave may have cost as much as a good car. Being relatively expensive, it seems that this industry spawned a related financial industry dedicated to loans (mortgages) on slaves. Much like a house, an individual slave was used as security (or collateral) on these loans. All this makes logical sense, but I still have a few gaps in understanding:

1. It appears that slaves were a major investment and very capital intensive. Death or illness should have had a large economic impact on the process. Morals and customs aside, would it not be in the best financial interests of the slave owners to maintain the health and productivity of their slaves?
2. Were the slave owners really so wealthy that they could kill something worth the cost of a modern car for no good reason? Even most modern wealthy people don't go around destroying $30,000 cars for fun.
3. Using slaves as security to back loans seems like very unwise collateral. A simple farming accident could render the security completely worthless. Present banks loan money on real security such as land and buildings which are obviously far more secure than a human life. Why would a bank in the 1800s even consider such a risky form of security?
4. In the event of a default, were the foreclosures or repos on slaves? Would the bank come and take the slaves if payments were not made on the mortgages?
5. After the abolition of slavery, I assume that the value of the security dropped to zero. Were there massive defaults? Did it bankrupt many once rich and powerful families and companies? Or, did the banks and financial institution simply write off the losses now that their collateral was worthless?

I realize this might be hard to answer. I was wondering if there were a couple of events (like new methods or treatments or dogmas) , that could be described as the start of modern medicine. I was watching a historical medical drama and asked myself from which point on it would have been more sensible to go to a doctor instead of just toughing it out (I guess this would also depend on the place and not just the time) Thanks in advance for any answers.

We often hear the phrase "History is writen by the victors". How can we trust History with this in mind and can really unbiased History be achieved? My point is when I read about wars and such, how can I tell if both sides of the story are represented unbiased. Is it like chasing windmills?

Sorry if this sounds silly or is answered already but these questions have really bugged me throughout my life.

Self explanatory, I guess. My question stems from the pharaonic costs of the Sochi games, the fact that the infrastructures seem to be at time of questionable relevance to modern cities and the popular outcry over that as well as the ever shrinking list of candidates vying for the 2022 winter games (Kazakhstan and China are the last 2 remaining.)