Eleven days and a half gone and I have crossed three thousand miles of the perilous deep. Instead of a democratic government, I am under a monarchical government. Instead of the bright, blue sky of America, I am covered with the soft, grey fog of the Emerald Isle [Ireland]. I breathe, and lo! the chattel [slave] becomes a man. I gaze around in vain for one who will question my equal humanity, claim me as his slave, or offer me an insult. I employ a cab—I am seated beside white people—I reach the hotel—I enter the same door—I am shown into the same parlour—I dine at the same table—and no one is offended ... I find myself regarded and treated at every turn with the kindness and deference paid to white people. When I go to church, I am met by no upturned nose and scornful lip to tell me, 'We don't allow niggers in here!'

That's a letter from Douglas.

But the UK did once allow slavery. How did it so quickly shift to this egalitarian position?

Did he want the Monarchy to collapse?

I am doing a school project in which we have to write about a great turning point in history. I chose to write about the Protestant Reformation, and how it dismantled the catholic churches power in europe. As you probably know, the protestants praised science and drew much inspiration from the ancient greeks. I want to use Giordano Bruno as an example of the catholic churches view of scientists at the time, and how it differs from the protestants. I have tried my best, but i cannot find a primary source from the trials of Giordano Bruno, can anyone help me out?

Normally when I think of Native American sports I think of Mesoamerican ball games and the like - but what kind of athletic contests or games would Native Americans in North America do during the winter, when the snows got heavy? Do we have any records of...I dunno, archery competitions, or tobogganing, who can catch the biggest fish while ice-fishing, anything like that?

Anti-black discrimination and segregation, both de jure and de facto, remained deeply interwoven in the fabric of American society for at least a century after the Civil War (and unfortunately haven't been entirely eradicated today).

However, from what I've read, this doesn't seem to have been reflected in immigration laws from about 1865 to 1965, at least to not the extent that might be expected. I understand that people from predominately black countries couldn't immigrate in unlimited numbers, but that this also applied to people from nearly all non-Northern European countries, which is why I write in the title that black immigrants were apparently never "specifically" restricted. This is in contrast to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited non-Northern European immigration in general but imposed a blanket ban on all immigrants from Asia.

Given all the formal and informal mechanisms of oppression of black people in the US in full force in the 19th century and much of the 20th century, it seems contradictory to me that the politicians at the top of this structure nevertheless created laws that allowed foreign-born black people including Marcus Garvey, Sidney Poitier, and the Caribbean-born parents of Colin Powell, Malcolm X, and Harry Belafonte to freely immigrate to the US during the period concerned (edit: I'm finding out that many prominent African-Americans have recent Caribbean ancestry that I never would have expected).

In other words, why does anti-Asian racism seem to have made a much bigger dent in US immigration policy than anti-black racism, which was much more deeply rooted and fundamental to how American society was set up?

Am I going to ask her to be my gf? Will we go steady? Do I need to marry her first? Is there friends with benefits on the table? Was being girlfriend and boyfriend even a thing?

Alternatively, feel free to answer this if the fancy is also a boy. I'm aware the Greeks did not have a concept of homosexuality, so what concepts regarding courting and premarital romance/sex were there?

Any period of Greek antiquity, but let's say Classical for sake of example.

Many thanks.

Edit: To the people claiming the Greeks had a concept of homosexuality, you understand that is a very radical belief right? And makes me hesitant to value your experience. It should be easy for you to prove simply by indicating an Ancient Greek word meaning homosexuality no?. The fact is, that we know of, there wasn't one, in any dialect. Pederasty, a giver and receiver, yes, but that's not the same designation between hetero, and homosexual that we have today.

I know people in the early 20th, 19th, and 18th centuries talked a lot about the dangers of alcoholism, but in my history classes I didn't read much about addiction to drugs like cocaine and morphine and amphetamines until the modern (ish) day, even though supposedly you could casually get things like cocaine in a pharmacy. Is it because only the very rich had access to these drugs? Or maybe there were social factors that made people less likely to become addicts?

Particularly interested in answers relating to Western Europe/the US - aware that some countries like China had major drug addiction issues.

Hi. I’m watching bridgerton on Netflix. The women in the show can chose whom she wants to marry. I was under the impression that in English society, the women were married to whom ever her father wanted to marry her and that it was not her choice. Can someone provide some light on my understanding?

Just finished a study of the English Civil War and I really liked what Hugh Trevor-Roper had to say, especially his paper on the general crisis of the 17th century. I was wondering why everyone treats his stuff as a bit of a joke. I know about the whole thing with the diaries of Hitler which later turned out to be false, but is that why the rest of his stuff on early modern history is looked down on or is there another reason? Is it because he openly challenged what everyone else thinks? I’m pre-undergrad level so not very knowledgeable so sorry if this is a stupid question I’m just genuinely interested in why some research gets a really bad rep.

Hello guys my questions are those: Are there any dog in America before Columbus? If there are, how different are those from Old World dogs, I mean, we know that humans domesticated dogs from wolfs because there was mutual benefits both dogs and humans. Did any process like that develop America too? How can we differ old and new worlds dogs between each other?

Domestication of dogs in separate continents seems kinda strange to me, I mean, there are completely separate human populations and they both decide that domestication of wolfs will be good.

What are good sources to learn about early history of particular technologies?

I.e. textiles, agriculture (tools, seeding, harvesting, irrigation, etc), pottery, construction and especially early copper, bronze and iron techs - prospecting, mining, smelting, forging, casting, pressing - all the way from ores to mask of Tutankhamun or Sargon, sword, macehead or a bead

Seriously how in the hell does Bon Scott decide to play some bagpipes in 1975 because that's literally as far from Scotland as a boy can get.

Im planning on making a series of digital paintings based on events and people from WW1 and WW2. I have some questions and need for feedback regarding some of my ideas whos answers are difficult to find online or are fairly subjective, and best solved through conversation with someone knowledgeable.

We often hear of the valiant efforts of the RAF protecting Britain's skies during the Battle of Britain. But I'd like to know what the RN's role was. For example, did the Fleet Air Arm operate Spitfires (Seafires?) to protect the UK, from either Naval Air Stations or aircraft carriers?