I am interested in Visual Anthropology, but I just looked at a gif of George Bush interacting with African Americans... (Yes I sound like an asshole I know) - My question is: Is there anyone who studies Visual History? If so, is it just me or have presidents of the USA had a certain glorified look to them that they are over the people they govern (probably since the end of WW2 on my off handed recollection)

Also- what are some names I should look up if the visual history field is not overly crossed with documentaries?

We often read about how in the south desegregation was opposed and how the Little Rock 9 broke barriers, but I was wondering how the northern areas fared. Was it as opposed in those cities as it was in the southern states?

Not too long ago I moved from TN to CO. While I know a decent amount about the history of the Mississippi and the eastern US, I know very little about the details of western settlements and I feel I should considering where I now live. Is there a particularly good (and above all accurate) book/documentary series that covers the history of the frontier?

I'm reading The Devil in the White City, and I was noticing that almost every person introduced in the novel used their initials instead of their first names. For every John or James, there is someone named F.W. or H.H. or something similar. Was there a reason that this was so widespread during that time frame, and is there a reason that it died down as time went on?

As I am spending a lot of time researching Auschwitz, it keeps being mentioned Jews were brought for labor, while they would kill those not suitable for work. What kind of work would a prisoner be forced to do while in the concentration camps?

^

So I was at church on Sunday, and when the priest's microphone went out, I wondered what did people do to make themselves heard in buildings much larger than my church? I know that the Greeks had good knowledge of acoustics, but I've never heard anything about medieval architects.

Were there circumstances that made it necessary to do one rather than the other? Or is it just random?

Seeing as artillery is a long range weapon, I was wondering how likely the crewmen would fight in combat and of thy were even trained/given weapons to fight e.g. during a retreat.

I really hope this is the right place for this question, I've never posted before so bear with me here...

For a paper I wrote regarding Shakespeare's Henry V, my central argument revolved around the idea that Henry was "rebuilding his kingdom" after an "insurrection" by a "rebellious" king (Charles VI). My professor wrote on my essay that this was not the case, as Henry was "attempting to conquer another state with its own king".

I'm having a conference with her in a week, so I haven't yet addressed this, although I plan to. In the meantime I figured I'd come here first to see if my argument has any merit. Was Henry's invasion (after being denied the right to the French throne) an attack on his own rebellious territory, or an assault against an independent nation?

I was wondering, how much do we know about their route, security details, preparations and the way back?

What route did they take?

Were they travelling with small security details for going unnoticed or a big one to be able to fight back any posible attack?

Who were the organizing bodies? Secret services, military forces? How much effort did it take up of those bodies?

And especially on the way back, when the conference was known, how realistic was an attack against them, especially Roosevelt and Churchill?

How much did the germans know in advance?

Any other "big three" conference would be interesting also, and in general the personal security of these three leaders during WWII.

Are there any specific primary or secondary source on this subject?