Did Spanish accounts of conquest have an influence on how the English saw the Irish as savages before the founding of Jamestown? Did they view distant peoples in Africa or Asia as subhuman savages, and if so what form did this perception take? What about other Europeans, was there any other group that the English generally believed to be inferior (not just hated enemies but really subhuman)?

You see, I'm very left wing and I'm reading this to get another perspective. This is one point that I absolutely needed to fact check.

He claims that the Federal Reserve was messing with the economy and caused the Great Depression. Is there any truth to this? I've always thought it was a lack of regulation that caused it.

How accurate is this guy in general for historians? I know he's a leading figure of conservatives and his books are what catalyzed the era of neoliberalism, but I don't know much else. What more can you tell me about Milton Friedman and his book Capitalism and Freedom?

Thank you very much.

I'm aware of the (sadly ongoing) practice of female genital mutilation, but from what I understand, the purpose of such is not to permanently render someone unable to reproduce, as is the case with castration.

Was it possible to sterilize women safely with pre-modern technology? Was it ever a widespread practice? What cultural role did it serve, if any?

I was looking at a map of the dominion of Canada in my history classes which dates back to late 19th century (circa 1880). How were the maps so precise given the instruments that were available at that time? How did cartographers draw maps with such precision? How did they work? How did they travel in regions that were hardly accessible (think about the islands of Northern Canada)?

Thank you!

Whenever I'm reading about France during the late 19th/early 20th century, the Prime Minister always seems to be the person of focus. However, after WW2, the President is the person of focus when discussing France's policies.

I'm pretty sure the form of government generally didn't change (Prime Minister appointed by President, etc.), even though the Constitution had changed over the course of the 20th century. Even recently, the media always focuses on the President of France, but almost never on the Prime Minister, unless you're in France.

Why has it changed? Did the Prime Minister of before command more legitimacy and power? Did de Gaulle change the role of the President to wield more power? Is this just selection bias?

Thanks!

I'm an art history grad student working on my masters in the field of graphic design. For one of my current courses (19th and 20th century modernism), we have to write an indepth research paper; and I want to delve into my chosen field a bit more. My problem lies in not having an abundance of sources since graphic design isn't huge in the art history field. I want to write on WWII propaganda posters (American or European), but I'm having trouble finding posters that are done in a modernist style. Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated!

Source: Galleano I originally thought they had been lost.

Can anyone recommend a good book (in English) about this conflict?

US political history is dominated by two parties and our first-past-the-post system essentially guarantees that won't change. However, at times when we've experienced major party transitioning like the split of the Democratic-Republican Party and the collapse of the Federalist Party, were there meaningful periods when three major parties existed?

Some of these examples might not fit into a timeframe of possibilities. But perhaps an equally great journey over long distances occurred, and if so how common was it?

I have several people who recommended the podcast Hardcore History. I found the first show I listened to, to be quite interesting but I was wondering if any historians know of the show and what their thoughts are on the accuracy of the show?

The French mutinied after the failed spring offensive of 1917. The British Army operated in the same hellish conditions, with heavy losses and failed futile attacks. Was a mutiny ever a possibility?

I just read "Wars End" by Chuck Sweeney, the pilot who dropped the fat man on Nagasaki and he briefly mentions that the B-29 was the only plane capable of dropping the bomb over Japan. Due to the secret nature of the B-29, did scientists at Los Alamos have a plan for deploying nuclear weapons? Were they made aware of the B-29 before it became public, or did they have other plans to actually drop the bomb?

During a recent visit to an early 19th Century Citadel (Dinant), I learned that the garrison would use special, longer, "fortification rifles". The length of these rifles supposedly made shooting through the embrasures in the thick wall easier. Where there any other differences between these rifles and "normal-length" variants, in construction, accuracy, rate of fire, etc... ?

There are plenty of examples of it in historical art but has it ever really happened that we know of?