For several centuries in the past, black people have suffered all kinds of racism and abuse, but this is really strange to me since science has proven that man was originally black and of African origin.

So, my questions are, what moment in history marked a before and after for the black race? And why wasn't it the other way around, why didn't blacks enslave whites considering all of the above?

Based on advice in the comments (which I greatly appreciate), I'd like to narrow the scope of this question to American societies in the 20th Century.

So I've been watching play-throughs on Manor Lords. Like most medieval city builders, you start by building a storehouse to shelter your supplies, then you go and gather wood, and finally build some houses, a church, and the farms. It got me wondering how historically accurate this framework was.

1. How was land granted? To begin with, did monarchs grant unsettled lands to their subjects?
2. In what order were buildings built?
3. How was a priest assigned to the new settlement?

I have a few questions concerning the Tariff of 1789.

My understanding is that figures like Washington, Hamilton and Fitzsimmons basically represented the interests of Northern businessmen while figures like Jefferson and Madison basically represented the interests of Southern planters.

Consequently, in 1789 Fitzsimmons wanted protectionist tariffs against British manufactured goods to counteract the abundance of cheap British manufactured goods in America while Madison merely sought revenue tariffs. Protectionist tariffs would have helped Northern manufacturers but harmed Southern planters who exported cotton to Great Britain because the tariffs would lessen demand for British textiles.

However, the Hamiltonians also wanted better relations and increased trade with Great Britain while the Jeffersonians wanted better relations with France along with retaliation against Great Britain for its trade policies that heavily disadvantaged the United States.

First, is the above correct?

Second, why did the Hamiltonians want to increase trade with Britain if that meant more competition against the Northern businessmen? I understand they wanted stable revenues, but didn't this work at cross-purposes with their protectionist aims?

Third, why did Washington, as a Southern planter, align with the Hamiltonians?

Fourth, I get the impression that the Senate in 1789 was skewed more towards the Hamiltonian faction given its stance on the debate over titles and its removal from the bill on tonnage duties of Madison's formula favouring France and penalizing the UK. Is that correct?

Fifth, why didn't Southern planters see the protection of Northern manufacturing as an opportunity to redirect their cotton to domestic factories, saving money on shipping and simultaneously punishing Britain?

Finally, did the law on tonnage duties impose duties on tonnage of goods or on tonnage of capacity? The law doesn't seem to state this clearly.

I always sort of assumed they were all pagan, but recently I found out that between 15 and 30% of them had been Muslims since there were many Muslims in West Africa. It also seems that many were Catholic, but I couldn’t find any info on that except this passage from the Wikipedia article on the Stono Rebellion:

“The slaves were Catholic and some spoke Portuguese, both of which point to Kongo. A lengthy trade relationship with the Portuguese had led to the adoption of Catholicism and learning of the Portuguese language in the kingdom. The leaders of the Kingdom of Kongo had voluntarily converted in 1491, followed by their people; by the 18th century, the religion was a fundamental part of its citizens' identity. The nation had independent relations with Rome.”

So does anyone have any info on what percentages of them followed which religions?

Do you have a link to a documentary about the discovery of them that you could share with me?

All religious ideals aside, if Jesus had been a real man who lived during the Roman occupation of Canaan (I couldn't find an exact name for the nation in those days) and he did in fact spread idealistic, religious notions superseding Roman right of rule over the Jews, what would the possible consequences have been if the Pharisees hadn't crucified him and the Romans had had enough? If his message had gained enough traction and he hadn't been killed, is it possible there may have been a massive genocide campaign against the Jewish people?

Not to invite any controversy or give offense, but if the Romans were known for wiping out entire peoples for dissent against Roman rule, then is it reasonable to assume that by crucifying Jesus the Pharisees actually saved millions of lives?

The fall of the Western Roman Empire stretched over many years or decades, but are there any accounts written by Romans that were living outside of Rome proper? Maybe a soldier or official stationed in Gaul or Spain dealing with local issues while Rome (and the Empire) is collapsing? I'm curious about their perception of the events and what the possible plan was to get home or if they felt abandoned and had to assimilate with 'the locals'.

I'm currently down a Wikipedia rabbit hole reading about the Carthaginian Empire. The introduction to the page for Ancient Carthage asserts that the Carthaginian army was "composed heavily of foreign mercenaries and auxiliaries," including Celtic Britons, but I can't find a satisfactory source for this last claim. Better sourced and more believable (to me) are the claims that there was some degree of Carthaginian trade with Britain, and that "Punic recruiters toured all corners of the Mediterranean, attracting mercenaries and fugitive slaves."

So is there any evidence that there were Britons fighting in the military of ancient Carthage?

The three kingdoms in Korea, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla, adopted "yu, bul, seon" as a package - Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

However, it seems that only Confucianism and Buddhism survived into later period such as Goryeo and Joseon. Taoism disappeared; only Korean ancient shamanism survived and filled the gap.

​

As far as I know, Taoism was also not as successful in Japan, while Confucianism and Buddhism was.

Why was this the case?

I know that by his time in the middle to late second century, Rome had given up much of it’s earlier suspicion of Greek culture and Hellenism was fully integrated into the culture of the western Empire, but Latin was still the primary language of Roman society and I am assuming that Marcus Aurelius, given his upbringing, parentage and the era in which he lived, spoke Latin natively and would have learned Greek only as a second language.

From what I know his Meditationes was a private diary, not intended to be published or seen by anyone, so why would he write his private diary in [Koiné] Greek, unless I am incorrect and his first language was Greek? If so, was that a common thing amongst the Roman upper class, or something unique to him or his family?

I've always seen depictions of Jesus always wearing the same outfit. A long white robe, usually down to his ankles, and a red sash over his shoulder. It's simple, but you can instantly recognize it. Especially in cartoons/comics, or any shorthand depiction.

And, I've heard and looked up decent amounts of discussions about how Jesus's appearance in regards to race is depicted, but his clothing always seems to be left out. When I tried to look up this question, I only really found conversation about his physical appearance. Never his clothing.

Why is that? Is there something symbolic about the colors? Did some painting where he wears the outfit become extremely ubiquitous?

We all know they hated jews but I'm really curious what they thought of Black People.

What was the original strategic need? Surely there was no sense to build their own deterrence against e.g. the Soviets, and their neighbours were hardly that much of a military threat. So why did the South Africans decide they wanted nukes?

Do people especially the one that study had a certain knowledge of different "time zone" and how they react for example if they traveled in different ones noticing difference with when the sun settles and rises?

I hope I phrased that right, english is not my first language. My question comes from seeing multiple pictures from the 60s where black people were publicly abused/made fun of by white people.

The slavery was abolished in the 1865, so that makes it 100 years. What went wrong in that 100 years that in 1960 was still socially acceptable for black people to be treated that way? Weren't there any laws against this?

In my limited knowlege, I think that time frame should've been enough for some change to occur. For example in the 80s the HIV pacients were heavly stigmatized but now it's not the case anymore.

Also, in Germany there are Antisemitic laws and against those who deny holocaust.

After watching true crimes series, I got to thinking about how crimes have to have been happening in the tribes (like theft, murder, etc) and someone probably had to go figure out what happened and by whom right?

How did that work? Did witnesses play into a court like setting? Who actually "solved the case?"

Thanks in advance!

If we compare this stance to what it meant to be "Roman," it seems that Romans had to be under the rule of the Roman Republic/Emperor, inside Roman territory, and willing to at least give a nominal nod to the divine emperor by making sacrifices occasionally. Many of those under Roman rule weren't really allowed to be Roman citizens, but merely provincial subjects.

"Barbarian" foreigners did adopt aspects of Roman culture, but I don't think the Romans would recognize them as Romans no matter how closely they aped them.

The Greeks didn't have to be part of a particular state or government. They didn't need to be in a particular territory. Any ethnicity was admissible. They just had to adopt the in-group buy ins and be part of the club.

Is this right?

Were the Greeks unique in this open-mindedness regarding their culture?