I don't know whether this is an appropriate place to submit this question. If this is not the right place, I apologize.

Now the question:

I was reading Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality when I came across this passage in the text:

[on the development of language] The first [question] that presents itself is to imagine how languages could be necessary; for since men had no communication among themselves nor any need of it, I fail to see either the necessity of this invention or its possibility, if it were not indispensable. I might well say, as do many others, that languages were born in the domestic intercourse among fathers, mothers and children. But aside from the fact that this would not resolve the difficulties, it would make the mistake of those who, reasoning from the state of nature, intrude into it ideas taken from society.

[interlude on how it was just natural for men and women to live isolated from one another and how nomadic "savage people" were]

It should […] be noted that, since the child had all his needs to explain and consequently more things to say to the mother than the mother to the child, it is the child who much make the greatest effort toward inventing a language […]

Now, I don't know if it is bad history or not. But now I want to know:

1. Where did the need for language rise up first, if it's possible to determine this?
2. What was it primarily used for?

I should clarify that it was not just American soldiers involved, that it was a NATO plan.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 waives sovereign immunity for the government and allows you to sue the government and its agents for constitutional violations. These are notoriously hard to prove because of cost, bad law, bias in favor of the police, and police lying. Has there ever been a situation where members of a police unit were sued for, say, a raid gone wrong, and convicted because of this law?

I was reading an excerpt of a De Tocqueville piece that talked about the "ancien regime" and the centralization of the state under high crown authority, but i feel like thats a very shallow understanding of the monarchical system, and there's probably so much more to it besides "the king was super powerful and controlled everything, and the people wanted freedom and an end to poverty. The end."

I really want to know what the govt system was like in France at the time.

If I remember correctly, Muslims forcibly spread their religion all throughout Africa, while destroying Native African culture in the process. Muslim soldiers pillaged, raped and killed African villagers. Why did Malcolm X so strongly support Islam?

Were they expected to use the "colored" facilities or sit in the back of the bus? Sorry, just a question that interests me, which I've never heard an answer to.

Curious as to how the Roman Republic fell or the events that caused it.

As far as I understand Genghis Khan's army was a mobile horde that scourged the earth, but if an army marches on its stomach and the horde didn't have a nation's farmland producing enough food to sustain such a large army, logistically how was Genghis Khan able to maintain an army?

I would assume that no one does, since it is referred to as a mythology and not a religion.

Title, and if so, are there any books on it with two preferably differing sides? I know some factors include the environment, soviet numbers, and hitler's restrictive leadership, but can someone help detail this for me? Thanks! :)

I'm in an undergraduate course on the Reformation and we are currently in the middle of reading Erasmus' The Praise of Folly which I've so far found super interesting and fun to read. However, in the introduction, there were several mentions of the "Pauline Folly of the Cross". What did this term refer to in 15th and 16th century Europe?

I recently watched a PBS documentary (Secrets of the Dead) about the seizure and shelling of the French fleet in 1940. I was somewhat taken aback by the refusal of the French to sail with the British. It seemed that they would rather sink their own ships than work with GB. Given that France had capitulated at the time, what was the purpose of resisting the British? Also, the French seem very angry about the incident, some even calling it murder. I don't understand what the French were thinking. From my perspective, they were defeated and the only way to regain their country was to fight the Germans. Given this situation, why did the French so strongly resist transferring their fleet to English ports?

So in browsing reddit/the internet, I typically come across a scenario where one person says that Muslim rulers were relatively tolerant. Then another person exhorts the first not to over-state his case, and that Muslim rulers were indeed still very oppressive. Then somebody usually references jizya.

Is there something besides a differential tax rate that we can point to to show oppression from Muslim rulers? Or can somebody expand on the jizya to show how it was oppressive other than it wasn't exactly equal?

From a psychological standpoint.

He was born in the early 20's, served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War. Has been middle class in the Northwest his entire life. What do I ask to get a glimpse at the eras he got to see? What questions could give me an insight into the economic, social and political changes he has witnessed?

I am in my early 20's, my grandpa died when I was young. Didn't get the chance to learn much from his history. I don't want to let this opportunity go, but I am not well-versed in 20th century history.

Essentially, what can I ask that would be personable and historically enlightening? I want to capture how his perspective as a young 20 yearold must have been radically different (yet similar in perhaps some ways) to how I live today.

There was an entire underground culture and supply chain for alcohol consumption during prohibition. What happened to this supply chain once prohibition ended? Were they simply out of business? How did the underground clubs adapt?