In the beginning of the film, Soloman is a free man. He appears to have all the rights, privileges, respect, upward mobility and protections as his white counterparts. How historically accurate is that representation? I guess my question is, for not just Soloman Northrup, but also other free men of that time, what was it really like for them? Did they have an "equality" of sorts? Please help me grow into a better person by expanding my knowledge of history. See the movie, it's really good. (On a related side note, what kind of violin strings existed in the 1850's?)

Whose idea was it to split the day into intervals and decided the duration of each interval? Also how did the units for time become so universal? The hour, minute, and second are the only units to be used by every country in the world. How did this idea spread, or did every civilization come up with it on their own?

I'm doing research for a potential thesis topic involving 20th century Poland, and am trying to get a handle on how Europe dealt with the consequences of the war (rebuilding of cities/economies/societies, emotional trauma/amnesia, the handling of war crimes, executions/expelling of minorities), and how things progressed politically (how the immediate postwar circumstances escalated into the Cold War, and what things were like behind the Iron Curtain).

I'm interested in both Western and Eastern Europe, but know next-to-nothing about the Eastern side of the story and so would love some more background information. I suppose essentially what I'm looking for are cultural and/or political histories of this period, both general and specific.

Postwar by Tony Judt, Under A Cruel Star, and Bloodlands are currently on my 'to-read' list, but are there any others I could add?

While researching the letters of Lady Franklin I came across sources claiming that the expedition had left Britain with spoiled food. It was also noted that the expeditions carried with it a large number of books and even a grand piano, seemingly taking up a large amount of usable space. What caused the ship to be outfitted in such a way that retroactively seems so poor for survival?

I read that the first match was invented in 1826. Historically that is pretty recent. So how did people light things such as cigarettes, torches and other things that needed lighting before that time?

Where did the profession of veterinary medicine come from? Can its roots be traced to that of 'human' doctors? Who would one take sick animals to before the professionalization of Veterinary Medicine?

What were the factors that caused this, and why did it happen?

Copper has antimicrobial properties.

Did the ancient Romans notice the health benefit or did they have other reasons for chosing copper for their pipes?

It seems the wiki entry on the battle leaves the question open to debate with this quote:

On July 23, 1942, Hitler personally rewrote the operational objectives for the 1942 campaign, greatly expanding them to include the occupation of the city of Stalingrad. Both sides began to attach propaganda value to the city based on it bearing the name of the leader of the Soviet Union. It was assumed that the fall of the city would also firmly secure the northern and western flanks of the German armies as they advanced on Baku with the aim of securing these strategic petroleum resources for Germany.[15]:p.528

Whiggish, Marxist, Hegelian, religious, essientally any history with a narrative or looking through the lens of a viewpoint seems to be very much rejected (see Howard Zinn).

Are there any acceptable historians, histories, or history books with a very strong bent accepted?

I want to figure the historian's consensus on these issues because just looking through this sub and /r/badhistory it seems as if 98% of what commoners believe about history is full of shit, 100% of what libertarians (Paul style or chomsky style) is full or shit, 85% of history books are full of shit, 75% of what's in non college textbooks is full of shit, 95% of what atheist believe about the history of Islam and Christianity is full of shit, and history believed by ideologues (hitchens, chomsky, etc) is 60-75% full of shit. What all of these things have in common is that they have a strong religious or ideological bent and want history to conform to it. Is this why post- modern, post-structuralist, post-post, anti "presentist", nihilist relativist about everything style-histories are the most popular here and in academia? Or are opinionated, moral (praising or indignant), narrative or meta narrative histories that stand their ground against post modernist ideas?

Also, are there any examples of "better" swords?

I was reading about the handover and how Britain had a lease on New Territories but held Hong Kong island outright, ie with no agreement to hand back after 99 years.

So, could the UK have given back New Territories but kept the island of Hong Kong and if so, why did they give it all back?

I'm planning on writing an Alternate History story revolving around it, and it would be eminently helpful to know how things happened in the original timeline when writing a new one. Also, is there anything you would suggest as reading for this?

I read somewhere that the origin of the name football was because of the diameter of the ball was 1 foot (1ft). I wanted to look on the internet for more about this claim but is unable to.

there are various different sources being cited, but all of them are conflicting, ultimately saying that we cannot determine the true origin of the sport.

Is that true?

I have read that the US Navy maintained a large oil storage facility at Pearl Harbor, about 6 months supply for the Pacific fleet. If this had been destroyed, fleet operations would have been severely restricted for months. Did the Japanese consider that this might have higher value than some other targets, and why did they decide not to attack the oil field?

Kind of a novice at this topic, so please forgive me if I'm insulting the Australians. It is not intended.

I'm in the middle of reading Albion's Seed, and Fisher quotes William Penn in the context of the simplicity of Quaker dress. Penn mentions "shoes and slip-slaps laced with silk or silver lace..." What in the world are slip-slaps? My Google-fu seems to be failing me. Thanks in advance.

Slaves being the most obvious group, but I guess I don't want to limit my question. I knew slaves were sold at higher or lower prices according to physique and ability, but were there attempts to "breed out" unwanted traits like, say, aggressiveness?