Watching To Kill a Mockingbird and Home Alone this weekend and noticed both use it. In one a woman yells that men are a bunch of lousy yellow low life etc. In home alone the famous monster scene says to get your ugly yellow keister out of here.

To clarify myself, If one was teleported to, let's say late 4th century AD/CE Alexandria of Egypt, what kind of architectonic styles could have been viewed? Hellenistic styles were still predominant in the city landscape, or were they surpassed by imperial roman architecture of the first three centuries of the common era? Was a kind of late antique/early byzantine architecture already spreading? Were there still some remaining egyptian temples built in the traditional styles and egyptian homes?

I saw the question being asked a lot of time, but it seemed to me most of the answers is somewhat...weird, for a lack of better words.

We know that Asia was the birthplace of gunpowder, and saw a lot of innovative use of the weapons: the first cannon, the first guns, the first grenade. Chinese, Korean, and Japanese engaged in bloody wars using gunpowder weapons and Mughal/Safavids/Ottoman built empires thanks largely to their innovative usage of gunpowder weapons.

Yet, it seems like after the 18th century, their fielding of guns fell off, in both quality and quantity. For example, while the Safavids and Chinese were masters of artillery, they later had to import cannons and cannoneers from Europe (Nader Shah's hired Western gunners, and Ming China employed European Hongyipao). And the armies of India and China went from being major employers of the guns to gradually losing all understanding and knowledge of guns, getting so badly that the Chinese Empire of latter half of the 19th century and the Indian states before the 1857 still used matchlock muskets and even bows and arrows en masse.

What went wrong?

-Some users explained that this was due to the lack of war, but there were numerous existential war such as the Ming constantly fighting the Dutch, Vietnamese, Japanese pirates, and later Japanese themselves, all of whom were prolific gun users, and later on the Qing, having come into war against the Ming, also employed and innovated their gun park. The Indian was in a state of constant warfare amongst themselves, and so was the Ottoman against other state like Russia and Austria.

-Some users said that this was due to economic regression, but Mughal India and Ming/Qing economy were some of the largest in the world and were innovative in their own rights. Plus, given their large population, it is hard to think they would be found lacking in manpower and intellect. If small states like Sweden could go from a backwater in the 1500s to a major power until Poltava, it is hard to think these major states won't be able to field a major advanced army.

-Some said this was due to isolation, but Ming military treatise showed they had trades in arms with the West and the East and they understood/fielded Ottoman weapons. The Japanese too kept trade with Dutch and engaged in Dutch Learning (Rangaku) and had understanding and knowledge of chemistry, electricity, etc. and were pretty up to date with the world

So, what really went wrong? Why did Asian country fall back in both quality and quantity when it comes to gunpowder weapons?

There have been many examples of rich democratic countries that were originally authoritarian countries (especially in East Asia), developing themselves out of poverty into middle or high income nations, and then potentially rapidly democratized after industrialization.

There have also been mainly European and American examples of countries gradually transitioning into democracies over the centuries while already being quite educated and relatively wealthy.

There have also been Eastern European examples of poor, socialist countries adopting democracies (and the market economy), and then became quite wealthy. But the countries were already quite educated and industrialized under socialism.

Is there any examples of a country that fully democratized (with most of its population having a vote in national governance, freedom of press, etc.) while it was still undereducated and poor, and became a middle or high income country under democracy?

I’ve been told that Botswana is such an example, but it’s not clear to me whether their (relative to its neighbors) affluence is sustainable, or simply due to diamond mining.

And also please correct me if my portrayal of earlier examples is inaccurate.

Thanks for your time.

I recently read about calo, and the connection between Chicano slang and the descendants of the romani. This is peaked my interest because the Chicano slang is very unique and an iconic piece of Mexican American culture. I understand the Romani people originate in the Indus River valley region whose civilizations date back many centuries, and upon reading I learned of a Romani folk tale that of which the subject is a hero called Mundro Salamon or Wise Salomon who is known for his mental powers and cunning. This sounds similar to the Hebrew story of king Solomon, which lead me to investigate a connection between the two regions/groups. I also found the two civilizations were connected by a trade route trafficking lapis lazuli to and from Egypt as early as 3000BCE. This had me wondering about interminglings between the two groups as I could see some cultural similarities. Anyone have any more interesting data points or general thoughts on this subject? I find myself wondering who these people were and if they even have a similar genetic history from having such a close relationship, or is this the same people group but they just migrated from northern India? Thanks!

As far as I understand the portuguese Casa de Índia (and its precursors) and the spanish Casa de Contatación performed similar functions to the Dutch and English/British East India Companies (and their precursors) but were state owned as opposed to having private shareholders. Apparently france and even spain and portugal later attempted to create chartered companies. What was the reason for the english crown and the dutch republic to have these institutions publicly owned, was there maybe precedence in the pre-age of discovery trade practices of these regions? Did the state treasuries of these states lack the resources to allocate to such functions?

When I think of the French monarchy, Versailles, parties, luxury, and fun come to mind. While looking at the Brits, they just seem kind of lame humbugs - especially during the Victorian era. Perhaps a historian could add some context here.

Hello everyone,

What are the Native American tribes that would have been encountered in the region upon leaving what is today far northwestern Nebraska around the panhandle area and on up through present-day Wyoming and Montana? And, more specifically, which of these tribes would have been hostile to the mountain men, traders/trappers, and other whites/Europeans that traversed through there during this time period?

It seems that uploading photos isn’t allowed or I would have put a picture of a map circling exactly the areas, but I’m sure any historians who know the time period can visualize the areas I’m talking about. Any more information that anyone could give about general relations with Native Americans in the region during the time period would be appreciated too.

Thank you.

I've recently been studying socialist leaders, and Kim Il Sung is a leader I'd like to know more about. Is there any biographical book about him by any chance?

Some books of this style that I like are:

The Private Life Of Chairman Mao

Mao: The Real Story

Hirohito: The Making Of Modern Japan

How were empires across huge swaths of land administered before instant communication was possible and how were laws promulgated and enforced?

The full quote from the interview is:

I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.

Were celebrities and public figures still comfortable with publicly expressing views like this even after the Civil Rights Movement had achieved some of its most important victories during the 1960s or was John Wayne an outlier here? What kind of climate of acceptance are we looking at here?

Moreover, why would a liberal magazine like Playboy publicize "far right" views like this? Was there even a concept of what was "far right" back then or something similar? Was what we would consider "far right" today considered fairly mainstream back in the early seventies?

I apologise if I got the year wrong, but I was watching ** The Patriot** yesterday and I noticed that the Americans were waiting on aid from the french to help them fight the British, but to my understanding prior to viewing this movie, I've always heard that France is Britain's oldest ally. So am I missing something here ?

What Did Maids (Female Servants) In the Tang Dynasty wear and did it differ based on their status and the type of job they did? Like would a maid in charge of serving food, for example, wear something different to a maid that's in charge of cleaning? And did the maids that were personal attendants to concubines wear something different to the ones attending to the empress? ...etc ...etc?

Previous

Today:

Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.

I'm not sure if this question is more fitting here or on /r/askscience, but anyway: I just watched the most recent Kurzgesagt video called "The Real Reason Why You Have Allergies". It is very interesting, however one part of the script made me curious.

Starting from 01:30 in the video, the video states:

For your ancestors being infected by worms was a reality of life. We won’t get into the disgusting details – but in a world were drinking water and our poo were close buddies, some species of worms found just the perfect cycle of life. They enter your bodies with the water and make themselves at home, some times for decades, and then release their eggs or larvae with our poo. So until recently, in evolutionary terms, our ancestors had to deal with frequent or permanent worm infections.

However, this doesn't really make sense to me, especially the part "So until recently, in evolutionary terms", because according to my knowledge, polluted water supply only became a problem once humans lived in large cities without modern plumbing, which wasn't the case for the majority of human history and only consistently happened for about the last 500 years. Before that, there weren't enough humans on the planet for population density to be a problem.

So wouldn't our poo polluting our drinking water actually be a very modern problem and have no (or only a very small) impact on worm infections?

One of the sources Kurzgesagt list, NHS, "Worms in humans", from 2023 states:

Worms are mainly spread in small bits of poo from people with a worm infection. Some are caught from food.

You can get infected by:

• touching objects or surfaces with worm eggs on them – if someone with worms does not wash their hands

• touching soil or swallowing water or food with worm eggs in it – mainly a risk in parts of the world without modern toilets or sewage systems

• walking barefoot on soil containing worms – only a risk in parts of the world without modern toilets or sewage systems

• eating raw or undercooked beef, pork or freshwater fish (like salmon or trout) containing baby worms – more common in parts of the world with poor food hygiene standards

• You can catch some worms from pets, but this is rare.

There's no mention of this being a problem of the past, but rather a problem of today in areas with high population density, but no modern plumbing. The video lists a small disclaimer in the top right of the screen at 01:41, quote:

There are other factors, like lack of medicine and shoes, or proximity to farm animals.

I feel like all three of these factors are MUCH bigger than our own poo polluting our drinking water.

Is my criticism valid?

I just started reading the book and there is a lot of controversial stuff here even within the first 10 pages.

Can someone give me context and critique of the work so I know how to read it without being sidetracked by fantasy within it?

The book has a bombastic title and also is something most people into history among the Balkan Slavs know about but touch with caution which i dont get why.

Being that im not a historian I would like some heads up so I dont get mislead into biases of the writer.

It's hard reading Balkan history as is without running into bias.

Something that I read of as being missed by most historians.

Is it accurate? Is it a good account of post-war history?

Having recently read and archived question it was notable that there was an assumption of American slavery, a relatively short lived version and not even the last, it became appearant that documents on Roman slavery we're very different from American version. Romans seemed more likely to have their slaves purchase their freedom than Americans. What is going on there, did guns make slavery more oppressive or something?

My question comes from hamlet, where norway asked denmark for passage in order to attack the poles but then fortinbras, turns back to invade denmark, now is there any historical precedents for this type of act and what was the implications, since i assume turning back from your word and a treaty wouldnt be wiewed pleasently by neighbouring rulers.