My teacher caught someone eating chocolate in class and said that chocolate is the only acceptable treat allowed because of it's history pertaining to that era/region of world history.

I was wondering how important it really was to daily life, royalty, and trade between empires before the Europeans arrived.

And what did the soldiers at the bottom of the wall do to counter that

In a philosophical way- no one can TRULY know another person's thoughts or feelings. But in every day life we say that we know how another person is thinking or feeling based on a number of cues (body language, what they say, how they say it, etc). Can/should the same be done with historical figures? Has this ever been done? What were the results?

I know that writers and historians have said "He/she was angry" and so on, but I'm more wondering if someone has tried to delve into the mind of a historical figure- made that their primary focus.

Was it a constitutional monarchy? How was it run with their king in London? Did they have a parliament similar to the English parliament? How many houses was this parliament made up of? What were the names of these houses?

I'm having an argument with my U.S. History teacher over who won the war of 1812. She says America, I say it was more of a draw.

I see that most americans use the term liberal for classic social-democratic policies instead of the meaning for the Ideology of Liberalism?

Thank you.

What were relations like between the two when Buddhism was still in the initial process of spreading and growing as a faith? How did they react to this new religion?

I have this question in my mind but I'm not sure how to ask it. So forgive me if I ramble for a moment. I've been watching some youtube docs on the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet Russia and learning a ton. My history classes in high school never made it this far and it's a shame.

So I got to thinking about German culture directly after WWII. I assume that the Nazi party was pushing out older culture for their own during this time for the purposes of gaining power. So you already start a bit hamstrung. Then after the war, the country is splt between two massive and very different blocks of power. Both of which are trying to emphasize their superiority over the other with Germany being the front lines. Time goes by and eventually the USSR lets go and the wall falls, etc. But now you have these two sections of country that are 50ish years separated from a Germany that both welcome on the international stage and one state.

So I guess my question is, how did the rulers of a unified Germany foster patriotism? Or did they simply say "Well it's a new day and a new Germany. Clean slate."

It sounds like quite a task when you pile up everything from WWII to that point. I'd love any info there might be on the subject. Thanks. (also I'm sorry if this has been asked before. It's a hard question to search for since I have such a hard time asking it in the first place.)

Since he was a slave it follows that the answer before his famous rebellion would be 'not much,' but I wondered if there was anything at all? I know we think he was Thracian, perhaps an ex soldier — this would certainly explain how we was able to lead an army. Any learned redditors who could shed some more light on this most famous of rebels would be much appreciated.

In Royall Tyler's 1787 comedy of manners, Jonathan, a likable country bumpkin type in New York for the first time, hopes for "a drab of cyder with a pepper-pod in it." I assume he's talking about mulled apple cider, and the OED suggests that the pepper would be a hot chile. What sort of hot chile would Jonathan be growing or eating at this point in history?

Sailors in those days would have been above deck and exposed to harsh elements on the open ocean for hours at a time. How did they treat sunburn and other exposure-related ailments?

Thousands of men from the South left their native states and joined the Union army. How were these southern-born men treated when they enlisted in the Union army? Were they regarded as heroes for preserving the Union, or were they regarded with suspicion and contempt (like the Japanese-American troops of WW2)?

The essay is "A Plan of a Peace-Office for the United States"

c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.uuma.org/resource/collection/9DC33407-5764-418F-9A5C-F22E1012A3C0/Plan_of_a_Peace_Office.pdf

While the overt focus is on promoting "perpetual peace" in the US, it also advocates public funding for a bible to be given to every home and requiring teachings from the bible in public schools, among others.

How common were these beliefs among government leaders at the time? Did this essay or other like it represent common public beliefs? Were there serious efforts at the time in Congress to enact similar proposals into law?