I've been thinking about this a good deal recently-I've always found it strange that common racist tropes of non-whites as being somehow childlike, primitive, "ape-like" lacking moral character, or otherwise inferior in some way have been remarkably consistent across the world and across the centuries' worth of European colonial rule, from 1492 all the way through to the 20th century, and in more understated forms ever since. I can sort of understand how, from a twisted point of view, these sorts of stereotypes could stick to peoples who lived a completely different mode of living to Europeans, such as in the Americas or sub-Saharan Africa when viewed from a European perspective unfamiliar with those cultures, but how did identical, or very similar ideas, come to be attached to places such as the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, or East Asia, settled societies with very old intellectual traditions and political modes that would've at least been somewhat recognizable to a European observer?

I’m about halfway through my undergrad, with a declare history major

The trouble is I don’t want to concentrate in anything, I don’t really like focusing on any one time period and region for too long

I’m very interested in fields like economic history which look at multiple times periods and regions; however my professor told me that it is a dwindling field and all but said to pursue something else

In the book "The Crusades" by Thomas Asbridge, its briefly mentioned that in the battle of Arsuf the crusaders faced for the first time black fighters (in the book it makes it sound that they are from sub sahara africa). What do we know about these fighters? Where they african muslims who came to help Saladin?

Howdy yall, I have been doing some quick google searches on this but I cannot find anything on what happens to the duelist that killed another duelist. Is it manslaughter? What if both parties are aware of possible accidents and witnesses were present? I do not mean modern times fyi

A Marxist understanding of First World War is that it was a competition between capitalist states that seek to expand their own Empires as such imperialism which is caused by capitalism is a major reason for war between European powers. Additionally war is extremely profitable for many capitalists especially armaments manufacturers and thus defense companies would advocate for war to increase their profits.

My question is there any evidence that capitalists in Europe advocated for European wide war to increase their own profits?

Hello I hope this kind of post is allowed first off. I was basically wondering how you knew history was the right major and how it’s come in handy since? I’m also thinking if I do I’d pair it with anthropology or possibly archeology and wondered what sort of job future I could look forward to that actually utilizes my degree especially if I decide to get my masters in it. Thank you for any help you can give!!

I ask this question because I have recently learned that my fourth great-grandfather was born aboard the HMS Thunderer during the Dardanelles Operation of 1807. I wondered - why would his mother have been aboard the ship, especially during a combat operation? His father appears to have been a carpenter, which may explain his presence (though I do not know for certain if he was aboard), but I don't see why he should have brought his wife with him.

Enough about my family history: I am not asking specifically for insight about that. It merely got me thinking more generally about why women may have been aboard these ships during this period, and what roles they might have served on them. That is what I am asking about now.

Was pulling on string ever used as a long distance method of communication? I would imagine that if you could bury a string underground in a tube for instance for long distances and then pull on that string in coded ways or in patterns (similar to morse code) you could transmit information over vast distances. I'm wondering if this was ever used throughout history pre-telegraph?

In 1988 the UK passed "The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988." It lists 14 classifications of weapon, some of them I can understand the reasoning for, like various types of concealed blade or baton, but 7 of those 14 weapons I can only describe as "ninja" weapons.

Those weapons are the "handclaw," the "hollow kubotan," the "footclaw," shurikens, kusari gama (specifically a sickle on a cord), kyoketsu shoge (a hooked knife on a cord), and the manrikigusari (a weight on a cord). Fully half of their 14 weapon list are items that are straight out of a B ninja movie.

Do we have any of the reasoning behind these rules? Were there actual plagues of ruffians using ninja weapons? If it's fearmongering why specifically these weapons?

I have seen things that says medieval pedants work far less than modern people do, and also things that say that peasant life is so filled with drudgery that people would take any opportunity to leave it and do something else.

I was reading on Wikipedia about Persian history, and I saw that one of the religions practiced in the Sasanian empire was Mazdakism, which Wikipedia describes as a "noteworthy example of pre-modern communism." The article on Mazdakism is very short and offers no explanation of this.

What was the story behind Mazdakism, and why would historians describe it as communistic?

By “specialized” I mean anything that would take skill, time, or resources to produce that the average citizen would not be capable of. Referring to things such as jewelry, glass makers, skilled smiths, etc. Would you expect to find, for example, one skilled smith in a moderately sized city, would there be multiple with each specializing in a different thing, etc?

For context, I am trying to figure out what the closest real-world equivalent would be to a magic shop in a fantasy world, how common they would likely be, and what sorts of goods they would sell.

I caught a post from 2 years ago on the subject but jt wasn't really in depth and I would love to know more

Before the Civil Rights movement, with Jim Crow in full force, I am surprised that the federal government would allow non-white immigrants beyond the smallest token amount.

I was wondering why was the position of the US from the crisis opposing to those of Britain and France, what were actually the pressure points that the US had over both Britain and France to withdraw, finally was the Suez crisis the opportunity for the US to declare that it is the new world leader?

I watched some documentaries and they answered some of my questions but I couldn't talk with them so I had to ask here.

1. Why did the Romans even accepted the faith?
2. Out of all the religions that the many ethnicities in the Roman Empire embraced, why was Christianity adopted?
3. Why didn't the Roman Empire embrace Judaism but rather Christianity?
4. How did Christianity split from Judaism?
5. What made the followers of Jesus so motivated to spread their religion around while the other tribes and people of the Roman Empire weren't so willing to?