Did this happen or was it just a myth?

If you watch Mad Men, it seems like there were no boundaries when it came to smoking cigarettes in the mid 20th century in the United States. I'm wondering about laws and general cultural permissiveness towards smoking cigarettes at that time. Were there areas of the US or specific places where smoking was looked down upon or not allowed? And were there a significant amount of people who were against it?

This is something I have been wondering for a while. Are there any documented cases of black soldiers being discriminated or receiving threats by white soldiers prior or during the Korean War and Vietnam War?

The more I delve into the study of south, east, and southeast Asian archaeology the more I realize that many of the dominant theories of state formation and political control were not only severely incomplete or flat out incorrect, but incomplete or incorrect in a particular direction. For example, the idea of the "hydraulic empire", in which states were formed due to elite control of water resources for irrigation and other purposes which allowed them to control the countryside, is still very popular in a lot of broad comparative studies and global surveys. But when I delve into the scholarship of the regions themselves it seems like these ideas are either extrapolations from data purely from absolute centers (such as Angkor Wat) that quickly break down in the countryside, or are hopelessly muddled in the first place (for example Egypt, the paradigmatic "hydraulic empire" didn't exercise central control over irrigation until the Middle and possibly Late Kingdom).

So it sort of occurs to me that the image painted by these theories is invariably one in which the a small circle of god-kings and their divinely sanctioned aristocracy exercise complete control over a population utterly cowed by superstitious awe--the implied epilogue being the arrival of the Europeans, who institute rational and popular government.

So long introduction, but how well does that match other narratives of colonial justification? We have all heard that Europeans justified their control through the idea of spreading civilization, but how important were ideas of popular liberation to this?

The introduction of planes gave a whole new dynamic to the war. Which country dominated air superiority throughout the second World War?

I've been looking into Lucifer today, after learning Satan was an entirely different entity until recently, and went on quit the casual research tangent. As I learned more about Lucifer as a metaphor to describe the fall of Babylonian royalty (?) and Venus personified as the goddesses of love, I've come to wonder if the concepts are linked.

Was Lucifer in the Bible meant to represent the feminine, animalistic human nature, or love/passion? Would this carry over into Jesus describing Christianity's rise to power as the light of the morning star or the fall of Babylon's king(s) compared to Lucifer? Am I misinterpreting anything or looking way too far into this? Thanks!

How would a large group of Seljuq riders or Frankish knights be maintained? Just through pillage? Even in domestic conflicts/civil wars? Was stealing food from local people seen as a sinful or immoral?

Everyone knows about the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, but what about Sarah? She was post-menopausal, meaning Abraham's sperm wouldn't have any eggs to reach regardless. I feel like this should be a bigger deal. Does it get acknowledged much?

I'm in a situation where I regularly need to explain the significance of a city's previous status as a Free Imperial City of the HRE. I've read quite a bit of history about the HRE so I understand it reasonably well, but I have a hard time explaining what the HRE was, and what that meant as far as a Free Imperial City went to people with very little knowledge of European History without confusing them, going off into tangents, etc.

Anyone have any ideas how I can use perhaps a modern metaphor, or just clear language to give a brief overview of what the HRE was and how it functioned? I don't need to go into depth, I just want them to understand the basics.

I can only assume it was to hide the facts of what he actually used for his false teeth.

I was just wondering what could have been done differently by either side, to achieve victory easier, without the drawn out trench warfare? I know tanks were a pretty late development, and they weren't sure how to fully utilize airplanes. I'm sorry this is such a broad question, my knowledge on WW1 is pretty limited.

except palm trees...

A "grave breach" of the Fourth Geneva convention is extensive destruction not justified by military necessity. I'm sure there were militarily significant factories and ports in both cities, but the level of death and destruction seems much more than needed. Or is it justified by the effect on Japanese national morale?

I'm asking this in terms of international law. I'm certain the ethical debate will continue indefinitely.

In doing some research for a creative piece I am writing, I found myself trawling through many websites and some wikis for stone age and pre stone age working tools. It led me to wonder the above, given that stone could surely not have been so well cut that it provided a decent cutting edge / blade for woodcutting, given that most examples of early stone axes look a lot more like mashing devices. Any thoughts / directions for further reading would be much appreciated!

Were there clothing designers who set the trends for what was popular to wear in that time period? Who are they, and how would they accomplish it?

I mean, somebody had to design all the elaborate clothing of the 17th century, do we know who they are?

With the World Cup coming up, I was trying to get some history on the subject. There are many sources that say Brazil changed the color of their kit (shirts and shorts) when they lost the cup to Uruguay in the 1950 final, out of not wanting to be jinxed (and to sort of wash away the embarrassment). Even the Wiki page on the match says this specific section of the page needs a citation still.

I can't find any legitimate sources on this and I was wondering if any of you guys had any idea whether or not this is just jive or if there is indeed something that points to this statement having been expressed or legitimized in some way.

By this I mean settling like in the Americas or Australia.

I'm asking if any agents provocateurs of anti-British nations were actively trying to incite rebellion in America prior to Lexington.

My father served in the OSS in WWII. His team was the first Allied soldiers to enter Peking in 1945. Really long and interesting story, but he ended up with a Japanese 'samurai' sword, allegedly from a Japanese General. My brother, years ago, copied the inscription on the tang of the sword, sent it to someone in Japan where it was id'd as a 16th C sword. I would like to get it professionally appraised, but have no idea where to look. Brother lost all his documents! Anyone know where I can start?