Background

After coming to university and meeting many Eastern European friends, I became aware of apparent issues relating to the Romani community in Eastern Europeans countries. My friends tell me they often live in ghettos, suffer from poverty and generally don't have good levels of education. Basic research I've done on this seems to back this up, and also mentions many other social issues which affect the Romani group.

Strikingly, I found that many (although not all, still a majority) of them are quite openly critical of the Romani population, bordering on what in the West we'd define as racism. I mention this to them, but usually get a response along the lines of "if you lived where I lived, you'd understand". In any case, I realise this attitude towards Romani is purely anecdotal on my part, and quite possibly not at all representative, just thought it was interesting to mention.

I got to thinking as to why there may be many issues relating to the Romani, and got a bit bewildered that this situation exists in many newly democratic Eastern European countries despite having gone through Communism. My reasoning was as follows - despite the flaws in Communism countries which existed, they generally put a high emphasis on education, and I doubt they would have been fond of allowing ghettos or any sort of pseudo-segregation to exist. These two factors combined with the fact these countries had the Totalitarian power to enforce these beliefs led to my confusion about the Romani's current predicament.

Question

How is the Romani situation in Eastern European so bad despite having lived in Communist countries which place value on education, place value on the equality of peoples, and have the power to enforce these last two beliefs?

Side Question (which may really be part of the main question)

How were Romani (sometimes "Gypsy") people treated in Eastern European countries during the Communist Era?

Believe me, not trying to undermine the abhorrence of slavery but these plantations in these slavery movies (Django, 12 Years...etc.) are always depicted so horribly, where the slave masters are literally the second coming of Hitler/Satan. I wonder if this done for effect because these are movies. I find it a bit hard to believe the average slave owner was so cruel, I can see being raised to think slaves are your property, just as you might oxen or horses, but people don't beat their horses to within one inch of their life. Because most people are just not that evil/sadistic and why do that to your property? Better to treat your property well and take care of it so it is a well performing asset. But maybe it really was so bad. Anyone have any idea?

Considering that they're geographically approximately in the same area as countries like Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine, which are considered to be Eastern European, what makes them such a differing geopolitical group from the Baltic countries? How did the concept of "Baltic" separate from the concept of "Eastern European"?

I've never really grasped the concept. Were they consolidated organizations of a singular profession? Were they similar to modern day labor unions? And why did they constantly face opposition throughout history?

From what I understand, that the Mongols/Nomadic cultures tended to dominate many civilizations militarily during the Middle Ages. However, it seems like there is hardly a mention of the Mongols themselves (not counting the various successor states) after the empire dissolved.

Was it in part due to the emergence of firearms in the following centuries? And if so, was there ever a single significant battle that demonstrated the superiority of firearms over the horse-archer based warfare of the Mongols or other nomadic peoples?

I was raised Russian Orthodox, but never really understood the technical differences between this type of Christianity and its counterparts, primarily the differences in the calendar that Orthodox Christians use. The origins of Orthodox Christianity would also be interesting.

I've gathered that there was some affinity for/between Alexander II and Lincoln (and they have somewhat similar legacies in their countries). But I've never read anything that explained the reasoning for Alexander's blatant Union boosterism, especially compared to the hedging, neutrality, and outright Confederate sympathizing from other European governments.

In the age of the galley, it seems to have been a primary tactic. I know later in the monitor/steamship era it was used as well. I understand that reinforcing a hull specifically for ramming would slow down a sailing ship, and the broadsides of larger ships would certainly make it hazardous if not suicidal. But is there any record of ramming being used successfully in the midst of a major battle during this time? Or of any ship taking or sinking another via ramming?

At least in my view, I should explain I'm from Scotland where there seems to be a constant desire to re-connect to our Celtic past. In various festivals and trying to reinvigorate the Gaelic language. Yet I never hear of Norwegians dressing up as Vikings or Germans trying to connect with their distant past

I looked into the sidebar book recommendations but no sure what books would address my interests most succinctly. I have read elsewhere that the US labor movement can be identified by 'periods' with specific trends and that post WWII some claim there was a concerted effort by business and government to reign in US labor. Is this claim accurate? Please give me lots to read, I'm interested in Labor from its earliest years to the present so bring it on!

Thanks so much!

It's widely known that Vikings would frequently raid other nearby peoples. However, I've never heard it discussed why they did and how it became such a large part of their culture. So, why?

I've got a deep interest in the history of the USSR, but I've never really tried to learn more about it than what comes up in general history books. I'm specifically interested in the early years of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Any books, internet resources, or video series would be appreciated.

Why did no party invade/conquer those countires, while they were surrounded and supposed to be "easy targets"?

I realize this is a very vague and very odd question, but it's about all I have to go on. I was chatting with a guy at work one day a few years ago and he claimed he was picked up by the RCMP in the 1960s, along with a bunch of Cree men, for being indigent and dropped off in rural B.C to fight fires with minimal equipment. Google gives me nothing, but my mother, who is from that area, insists it did happen and was common. However, she's not really a great person to ask about history.

So does this odd tale have any basis in reality?

Okay, so I guess my question is how influential, wealthy, populous, etc. ancient Greece really was. Because I grew up in Western culture, I always sort of idolized the Greeks, and tended to think of ancient Greece as somehow uniquely civil, philosophically minded, wealthy, and powerful in the ancient world.

Obviously that wasn't completely the case - Athenians and Spartans had slaves/helots, and Persians had philosophers and mathematicians (so the whole 300 "A NEW AGE OF FREEDOM!" thing is kind of bs), but how exactly did ancient Greece compare to other societies in terms of development? I realize that this may change during different time eras, but were the Greeks really spectacular in any regard (apart from Alexandrian Macedon, were the Greeks really influential on the world stage, and was there any reason for it)? Because I've gotten the impression recently from some readings that Greece was actually kind of a small backwater, and that it was basically just Eastern empires (Persia et al) that were the civilized hegemons.

So... how was Ancient Greece in terms of development standards? Standards of living, culture, amount of global influence (in terms of hard power projection and actual diplomatic soft power), etc.?