Right now in Ghana, many view history education up to the secondary level as irrelevant and almost like a token subject about trivial topics e.g. The first person to import cocoa, migratory journeys. Most of pre-WW2 history is based on oral tradition which differs depending on which ethnic group is telling it. Post-war history leading up to independence and after independence isn't covered much due to bias and the sensitive nature of some of the figures who have descendants in prominent positions today e.g. The current president's father was also president in 1972. How should History education in Ghana and African countries like Ghana be covered to make it more relevant?

This line is uttered during 'A Christmas Carol' by Scrooge after the ghost of Marley visits him.

Did the Victorians at the time associate the digestive system with the cause of hallucinations or causing dreams?

I know his name, and as far as I know he was an officer, possibly involved in logistics. His son, my grandfather, is still alive but I have limited contact with him. I'm wondering if there's any archives of german operations in North Africa during ww2 that may include names.

I speak German, so german language sources are OK.

Thanks for any help!

The colony of Virginia had a legislature, the Old Virginia General Assembly. It is bicameral, containing Council of State (Upper-house) and House of Burgesses (Lower-house). I just want to know about their term limits. How many years are in a term limit for each house.

Multiple websites have infos on its origin, but nothing about its term years or the nature of appointment/election

My question is specifically referring to the fact that in many longest lasting empire lists, the Roman Empire is said to have lasted from 27 BC to 1453 AD. But why are the different dynasties of Rome considered a single empire but not, let's say, the Chinese Dynasties.

One common response I see is that the culture, administration, offices, etc were preserved throughout the reigns of the different dynasties of Rome. Were none of the Confucian analogues preserved similarly in China? And what about the dynasties that ruled Magadha from Pataliputra? By the same yardstick, shouldn't the Haryanka, Shishunaga, Nanda, Maurya and Shunga dynasties be considered one empire?

How is the Three Kingdoms Period different from something like the Crisis of the Third Century or the period of the rump states following the sack of Constantinople?

The seat of power changed in the case of the Roman Empire too. In fact, for much of its history, Rome was no longer part of the Empire. And if we consider ethnicities, yes, the Jurchens and Mongols ruled China but many of the ruling emperors and dynasties of Rome were not ethnic Latins. Especially all the successive Greek Dynasties in the East.

Thanks!

I have a few questions about the Treaty of Versailles. Everyone knows what happened to Germany but I'm wondering what some of the other powers were thinking, specifically Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire like did Austria have to pay war debt to the allies and have a reduced military same with the Ottoman Empire and did they have to deal with any war guilt or was it all on Germany.

For example, a Hopi women mentioned to me a web of energy in their ancient belief system.

Polynesia has the concept of Mana.

Similarly, Mesoamerican theology from books like Aztec philosphy: Understanding a world in motion says that the world is made out of Teotl, a kind of energy originating from a god.

Did ancient cultures even understand the concept of energy the way we do now? How are these ideas so wide spread that even disconnected cultures know of it throughout multiple eras?

Can we know who did it, how, and when please ?

Without any way of tracking people, or proving who was who, how would people in a town I had never been to, 100 miles away, ever know I was untouchable unless I told them? Why couldn't I just say I'm not an untouchable, what would any of the townsfolk do to verify my claims? Why didn't any untouchables in Indian history do this? Or, did they?

We have an indescribably large database of facts and of primary and secondary sources, which all historians have access to and contribute to. We can analyze and narrativize for millions of different times and places, and also for millions of different peoples, and we can also form countless different perspectives. The perspective of kings, queens, popes, poets, peasants, trade, gender, sex, food, technology, customs, art, religion .. and so on.

Can there ever be an end to this? I understand that personal passions will always be a driving force, but can we "run out of history?"

It seems like only after the Soviet Union fell that Islamic terrorist attacks occurred within Russia and the former USSR. Why is this? I’d imagine Islam was suppressed just like any other religion within the USSR, yet I can’t find any stories about even a little resistance to Soviet policies by Soviet Muslims. Are there some stories I don’t know about r was it just not in the minds of the people to resist Soviet policy?

Why “Nuts”? What did that word or phrase really mean in demotic English spoken by Americans in 1944?

What was going on with General McAuliffe? Was he in command of his senses? Why not negotiate?

The whole exchange seems so much like a piece of propaganda

• like a set up?

Is it?

The battlefields of the First World War are notorious for being extremely dangerous, and still so dangerous that some areas to this day are off-limits to general public due to active and inactive ordinance still found in those fields and ruins, my question is that during the nazi invasion of France and the western front fighting that took place from 1944-45, were these area’s considered in the battle plans for both sides?and how did that effect the fighting and grand strategies?

So as a finn, all I was taught was that Russia instigated the war. Having read the wikipedia article in Finnish and trying to read the russian version (my russian is rudamentary at best), I feel I'd benefit from a neutral explanation. How did the continuation war begin and who was the main aggressor?

I've been reading some stuff about it and I'm just even more confused than when I started. Christmas has possibly no connection to his birth as he might've been born in summertime. Also the year confuses me even more as some say he could have been born in year 2 BC (Before Christ). As a side question, what proof do we have that he was actually real?

It’s a big wall but it’s never actually stopped anyone from invading China. Why was it even made and why has it been so useless?

I’m hoping someone can help me. I’m working on an essay about the purpose of myths - and I was just wondering if there’s an identified point in history where “myths” came to mean fictional/fantastical/unverifiable? Was the concept a Plato thing? (It’s a philosophy essay not a historical one - so I just need to check a few things as I build my argument).

Also - does anyone know who originally said/what the precise quote is about philosophy being the point where “logos triumphed over mythos” (I’ve been Googling for hours and can see vague references to the phrase but for the life of me can’t find its origin - I apologise in advance if I’m just being incredibly stupid).

I’ve been thinking recently of similarities between the state of American politics today and prior to the American Civil War and how the integrity and functionality our two party system seems to devolve significantly every 100 or so years. John Adams is quoted as saying:

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

Seems pretty spot on, no?

So if these foresighted men were so apprehensive of the two party system or of the role of parties in general, how did they come to be prominent political forces so quickly? Why did the Founding Fathers not include constitutional provisions to prevent them from becoming too powerful and sectarian? I find it unfortunate that exactly what Adams and Washington predicted has come to pass and would like to know how this system developed in the 1700s while they were aware of its damning consequences.