I've always seen it in celebrations and not to mention the national squads have it on their uniforms.

During WW2 black American soldiers were put into segregated, all black units. Was the same true for Asians and Native Americans or were they just put into units alongside whites?

I think the Continental Drift Theory is more accurate.

Not like a knights armor, but did they wear even a little bit of something like it? Anything for basic protection? If not why didn't they?

Or at least a goal of turning one of them into Soviet allies? Was gaining a foothold in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf ever a long-term goal for the USSR?

Thanks.

Hello historians! During Holy Week back in April I was struck by the claims in the "Passion Narrative," specifically:

• “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfil the scripture, “They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did this.
• After this Jesus, knowing that all was finished, said (to fulfil the scripture), “I thirst.”
• For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, “Not a bone of him shall be broken.” And again another scripture says, “They shall look on him who they have pierced.”

My questions are which scriptures are these? When and where were they written? And also, are their similar scriptures that go unfulfilled when connected with the story of Jesus?

Please note, I am strictly not asking these questions from a religious perspective but a historical one. I am not asking in order to try to "prove" anything about religion, faith, or christianity, simply curiosity about the origins of these ideas.

Thank you!

i.e., the Cahuilla people in the Coachella Valley of California, or the Pueblo people of New Mexico?

Having traveled throughout the Southwest, from the Colorado Desert to White Sands, it's incredible to me that anyone could sustain themselves in such climates without modern technology given the lack of obvious sources of water or nutrition.

I am Belgian, and although I know the official version (with the opera) and the Flemish-nationalistic version (Belgium was created by the English as a buffer between The Netherlands and France), I do not know the version that academics are thought, both in Belgium as abroad.

I've always wondered how the Red Army soldiers who sacrificed so much would be treated once they were home. Were they regarded as heroes? Did they get any special privileges not afforded to the average citizen? We hear so much about the celebratory homecomings for Allied soldiers in capitalist societies, but not so much the Red Army soldiers in a communist society.

Many towns had sheriff's or police units at that time. What did they do when soldiers came into town? Did they take sides, or get out of the way?

In many modern representations of roads during times gone by (Game of Thrones, The Hobbit etc) whenever they travel long distances they seem to go for days without seeing anyone. How accurate is this. We're there that few people on the roads?

By 2600 BCE, dozens of towns and cities had been established and between 2500 and 2000 BCE the Indus Valley Civilization was at its peak. As Rig Veda is concerned, Nakshatra were developed in 2400 BCE. They are important in a religious context, yet the Rigveda does not mention this, which suggests the Rigveda is before 2400 BCE. The youngest book only mentions constellations,a concept known to all cultures, without specifying them as lunar mansions. The IVC collapsed somewhere around 1800 BC. So there is an overlap of around 600 years. Moreover as RV mentions about Saraswati as the premium river as per the oldest sections, which suggests that if we consider drying up of Saraswati as an impact on the IVC, the Aryans co-existed in the same place and during the same time with the IVC. Why does not we have a documentation supporting the same? Are my speculations right? What are the facts for and against the same?

I'm a Mexican, and I always see Santa Muerte altars in little houses along the desert.