...that would justify such equating?
1 Answers 2021-06-27
A few days ago there was a post here in askhistorians talking about the relationship between African American intellectuals and Black Africans. A recurring theme seems to be African Americans like Malcolm X considering Africa to be a homeland from which they were kidnapped, a view that seems to disregard the participation of many Africans in the slave trade. I am not trying by any means to deny the role European colonizers had in the slave trade - after all they created the demand and maintained and expanded slavery through violence and dehumanization once it was installed in the Americas. But still, Africans also took an active part in the slave trade by enslaving and selling people captured during wars, or even capturing people with the express intent of selling them to the Europeans. I am just wondering how Malcolm X and other African Americans felt about the fact that their ancestors were enslaved and sold to the Europeans by the ancestors of Black Africans.
1 Answers 2021-06-27
I've read that ww2 did more to do away with America's historically puritan culture than any other force. Which seems like an oversimplification, so how true is that statement and to what degree did the war affect American religious attitudes and outlooks?
1 Answers 2021-06-27
The Ottoman Empire was allied to the German Empire. However the two nations were of different religions who had historically fought a lot of wars with each other (although the Germans had not historically fought many wars with the Ottomans even though Christians in general had), although both Christians and Muslims had cooperated in the past. Was this religious difference ever an impediment to the alliance, such as people opposing allying with a nation with a different religion, or did people generally not have a problem with it?
1 Answers 2021-06-27
I've been reading through Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century Vol I: The Structures of Everyday Life. On page 135, there's a graph of the price of a quintal of wheat in terms of hours of manual labor. I have uploaded a picture of this graph here for convenience.
I think I understand the unorthodox layout of the chart (the two superimposed series of dots do not actually overlap in time; the light-colored region is dated according to the x labels on the top edge of the graph), but the labels on the y-axis confuse me. The description provides some elaboration as follows (bolding mine):
This graph seeks to show the significance of the trend in real wages (expressed in wheat). Old-style measures have been converted into present-day quintals and the price of wheat calculated in tens of hours of manual labour.
The line marked 10 (i.e. 100 hours of work) represents the dangerous ceiling above which life becomes difficult for the workers; it becomes desperate at 200 hours and famine occurs at 300 hours (the record was reached in 1709: 500 hours). The interest of the graph lies in the area where the two curves cross: in 1540-50, the 100 hour line was crossed and there was not to be a return to this low level until 1880-90, after a very long period of high prices. The crossing of the 100 hour line appears to happen very precipitately, whether the movement is up or down; whenever it happens, it marks a shift in the entire economy.
From the description of this crossing point as being in 1540-50 and then again at 1880-90, it certainly seems like the line marked "0" (rather than 10) is the 100-hour mark; given that it is directly above y-labels of 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, it seems reasonable to infer that this was supposed to be a 10, and that the units are in tens of hours, as described.
But this interpretation seems to me to be at odds with the labels further up on the y-axis; what do the 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 marks indicate? If they represent tens of hours as before, then the 100-hour mark shows up twice on this graph, and the situation is even more absurd if we interpret them to be in units of individual hours. Certainly the remark that prices reached 500 hours in 1709 would suggest that they should be read as tens of hours.
We could perhaps suppose that the markers on the lower half of the graph are to be interpreted as individual hours, and only on the top half are they denominated in tens of hours - but then the 100-hour mark does not comport with the description of when this line was crossed. (One could suppose that the 100 in the description is a typo, and it is the 10-hour mark which is the "dangerous ceiling", but this seems in contradiction with common sense - if 10 hours of manual labor can purchase 100kg of wheat, one should be in no danger of starvation.)
I can't seem to find a sensible interpretation of this graph any way that I look at it. If anyone can shed light on the proper reading here, point to errata in a future edition of the book, or perhaps consult a copy of the original French edition for more insight, I would greatly appreciate it.
I realize this question is much more narrow in scope than most on /r/AskHistorians, though I don't think it violates any subreddit rules - if it is misplaced, I would appreciate a redirect to someplace well-suited for this kind of inquiry.
1 Answers 2021-06-27
R5: This is the full page ad that my great-grandfather's father took out in the Chicago Tribune following his daughter's abduction. The story goes that she was walking to her piano lesson in southside Chicago (at the time a wealthier neighborhood), but never made it to the piano lesson. They searched for her for years - going to brothels, factories, the works, but never found her.
Some personal context is that my grandfather (this would have been his aunt) is likely dying (after a long wonderful life). Him and his wife (my grandma) have always been a huge history buffs and love talking about their family histories, and I would love to shed some new light on this story before he passes :)
EDIT: To make the third paragraph more sensitive so I could share with my parents/siblings
2 Answers 2021-06-27
1 Answers 2021-06-27
2 Answers 2021-06-27
1 Answers 2021-06-27
One of the most reccurring theme in the feminist intellectual foundation, is that humans are "naturally" equalitarian (like their Ape cousins) and have been living so until the Patriarchy transition phase 10 000 years ago.
In this common narrative, patrilinearity was not a thing then. Women raised their offsprings relatively without the assistance of men, and could sustain themselves quite easily. They had complete control over their reproductive process (killing babies like any other mammals, if unable to sustain them), men had seldom any involvement in their education and lived generally separated from women, while carrying activities that women didn't have time to pursue (war and hunting), because of child bearing. Sex was free and devoid of any social contract.
Everything changed with the creation of agriculture, surplus production and thus property : men also figured out that they had an involvement in reproduction and started gradually to exert control over women's offspring and thus their body. They claimed rights over their male infants to impart their inheritance and changed the fabric of society.
How "true" is this kind of narrative ? Can you recommend any accademic work that can back up this theory ?
Thank you.
1 Answers 2021-06-27
This question was sparked by a quote in the following Wikipedia article:
Prussia changed from the authoritarian state it had been under previous rulers to a democratic bastion within the Weimar Republic where (unlike in other states and at the federal level) democratic parties combined to win comfortable majorities in every free and fair election held.
1 Answers 2021-06-27
1 Answers 2021-06-27
I'm old enough to remember a little but my perspective is going to be pretty limited given that I was in my mid teens at the time. What was wider internet culture like in the late 90s?
1 Answers 2021-06-27
1 Answers 2021-06-27
Dear Reddit Users,
I was watching a lecture on Prussia where it was mention that the word Prussia is actually of Slavic origin and that the language of Old Prussias was Slavic.
I did some reading and it looks like that the language of Old Prussians was actually a form of Baltic language rather than Slavic.
If anyone made a more thorough research on that subject and would like to say a few words about it?
Thank you
1 Answers 2021-06-27
Growing up in Massachusetts, this is something I've always wondered. Signs of historical agriculture are everywhere, from old rock walls that were farmer's land boundaries, to old cisterns and wells. The soil is famously rocky in the region so we were taught that agriculture largely shifted to more prosperous areas, which made sense, but did people simply abandon their land? Sell it to new owners who found little to do with it in the emerging regional economy? Was there depopulation out of the region or within certain areas?
1 Answers 2021-06-27
Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.
4 Answers 2021-06-27
10 Answers 2021-06-27
Every time I try to read up on the Merovingians and understand the early Middle Ages, something like this (from Wikipedia) happens:
During the final century of Merovingian rule, the kings were increasingly pushed into a ceremonial role. Actual power was increasingly in the hands of the mayor of the palace, the highest-ranking official under the king.
Clotaire's son Dagobert I (died 639), who sent troops to Spain and pagan Slavic territories in the east, is commonly seen as the last powerful Merovingian King. Later kings are known as rois fainéants ("do-nothing kings"), despite the fact that only the last two kings did nothing. The kings, even strong-willed men like Dagobert II and Chilperic II, were not the main agents of political conflicts, leaving this role to their mayors of the palace, who increasingly substituted their own interest for their king's.
Two paragraphs, completely (and seemingly, to me) brushing over what must have been some major power shifts in the Merovingian kingdom, without any explanation how it happened, whether the Merovingian monarchs retained any level of power, whether there were any struggles or efforts to regain their power, what role the monarchs had in Merovingian society, how they were seen abroad, what factions there were, whether the kings were content with their diminished role, what specifically made the mayors so strong, etc.
And it's not just Wikipedia. Everywhere I look, it seems that the transition from the Merovingian kings to the Frankish empire(s) starting with Karl Martel is incredibly blurry, getting glossed over in a half-sentence in the passive voice.
So, what's the straight dope on the Merovingians? What happened to push what was arguably a formidable dynasty, to the sidelines? Is it just a matter of "we don't really know, either"? Or is there somewhere something to read that has a bit more meat to it, as it were?
4 Answers 2021-06-27
Additionally is there anything I would recognise like a latte or espresso?
1 Answers 2021-06-27
What is the point of this sub if the mods delete practically every single solitary response? I’ll see a question I think is very interesting, see that there’s something like 5-15 responses, and when I check it every single one has been removed by a mod; even highly rated responses. If you all just delete everything, what’s the point?
Edit: to the person who replied, thank you. Though I think someone who has just studied something a shit ton independently, especially if they hand over sources shouldn’t be deleted. I mean, if I got a historical degree in all the useless information I have knocked away in my scull that I could answer here and back up with sources - I’d be bankrupt and constantly in college and have like 10-15 degrees under my belt. I understand the derailment thing, but deleting things just appears sus, especially if people back up their answers with proof.
4 Answers 2021-06-27
