I was reading about the partition, but I didn't seem to find any newspaper articles or such from the time, except for a satirical cartoon.

Would anyone else know any sources about reactions to the events at the time?

During the apartheid era, of course.

I feel like when the Axis are brought up, everyone focuses on Germany and Japan. Why not Italy?

Hi all,

I'm currently studying the renaissance and have been wondering a few things:

1. Humanism and civic humanism seemed to flourish in Florence, and I feel like a lot of that has to do with the republican nature of the city. Can anyone expand on that?

2. Patronage in the renaissance almost seems like partially a political tactic, or kind of like warfare without the arms. Am I right on this, or am I crazy? It just seems like a lot of city-states were trying to out do each other in a very aggressive way.

3. I keep reading that northern europeans took humanism further than italians in regards to science and exploration. Can anyone explain that to me? Obviously they did that stuff, but I just don't really get how they 'took it further'.

4. In your opinion, what was the greatest consequence of the Renaissance and why? i.e.: the new art styles, new education system, voyages to discover new lands, etc.

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes their time to read and answer this all! I'm just trying to get a better grasp on the renaissance as a whole, rather than the purely political stuff I've been learning at school, which in itself is confusing.

I understand what a microdot actually is, but how did spy agencies create text that small with the technology from the 1940's? What was the process that spies used to create the microdots from wherever they were located, since they would not have the facilities available to headquarters?

I know that the "rape of Belgium" was a big part of UK-French-US propaganda during the first World War. I remember hearing some historians later saying that this was overblown. But is there consensus among historians on this point? How does the 1914-18 occupation compare to earlier/later military occupations? Was it a dress rehearsal for the 1940-44 occupation of France and the low countries - did the Germans draw any (good or bad) lessons?

We know that throughout history various civilizations and groups have forged weaponry from bronze, iron and steel. I recall that the Aztecs used an obsidian blade in combat (or rather, the sword used obsidian in its making), and I was curious if other civilizations created weapons from "exotic" or unusual materials.

Are the Aztecs the only group to have used obsidian? Have other other tribes or civilizations used other materials or metals in weapon making?

I randomly happened upon a article about Tver being, at one point, a rival to early Moscow for supremacy in Russia, and they mentioned that Tver used to be a land of bogs and just generally being a not so nice place and then that it was vying with Moscow for dominance in Russia. How did a town like that become so important?

For example,

When in the Course of human events

...as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

...the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends

Was this common in contemporary writing? If so, when did the shift to modern-day capitalization standards occur?

I understand that the US conquered the Philippines in the late 1890s, but it also annexed Puerto Rico which still uses Spanish as the majority language, and Puerto Rico has been held for far longer by the US than the Philippines. So what accounts for this difference in language?

Sorry if this is against the rules since the question is about contemporary culture, but I figured that since the answer is almost certainly historical, it makes sense to ask here. Feel free to remove this post if it violates the rules.

I know that the French and British often employed Indian mercenaries/allies against their colonial rivals. Did Indians ever hire settlers/soldiers in a similar manner when fighting other tribes?

It seems possible that bison could be raised on ranches in place of cattle. I'm assuming that they are better adapted to their environment and therefore would require less maintenance. So why bring in cattle? Was there not a market for bison meat?

Say we're in Paris circa 500. Would there have been two distinct communities of Romance Latin-speaking Christians and Germanic Frankish-speaking pagans? Would the Romance Parisians have been "high society" and the Franks "low-society" or the other way around?

How about 800? Is there still an ethno-linguistic distinction between those more "Roman" and those more "Frankish"?

Is there any evidence they had knowledge of it? If they did, was it ceremonial like the more northern tribes, or was it more recreational?

Also, any books about the history of tobacco in pre-columbian societies would be awesome.