Hi there, can’t find any information online, were people treated as cowards if they didn’t go to war in the first or Second World War? I know we had conscription in many places but for the soldiers not effected were they labeled cowards at home? Thanks in advance!

This question came about innocently enough when I realized that the soccer (association football) teams of these three entities play for CONCACAF (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football) instead of South America's CONMEBOL. Wikipedia has this to say:

[CONCACAF's] 41 member associations represent countries and territories mainly in North America, including the Caribbean and Central America, and, for geopolitical reasons [emphasis added], three nations from the Guianas subregion of South America—Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana (an overseas region of France).

A little digging found that Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana are all mentioned as often being historically/culturally considered part of the Caribbean/West Indies, but I haven't found a sufficient explanation for why. This history seems to have implications on current geopolitics - Guyana and Suriname are the only mainland full members of CARICOM (the Caribbean Community), with Guyana actually the site of CARICOM's headquarters. I get that those countries/departments are on the north coast of South America close to the Caribbean islands, and that their French/English/Dutch colonial history is differs from other South American countries, but:

• Brazil also has non-Spanish colonial history and coastline on northern South America, but doesn't seem to be considered part of the Caribbean region
• Venezuela and Colombia also have coastlines on the Caribbean Sea but don't seem to be considered part of the Caribbean region

So what is it about Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana historically/culturally that make them more Caribbean? And have the people of the Guianas generally considered themselves more Caribbean rather than South American?

Previously

Today:

You know the drill: this is the thread for all your history-related outpourings that are not necessarily questions. Minor questions that you feel don't need or merit their own threads are welcome too. Discovered a great new book, documentary, article or blog? Has your Ph.D. application been successful? Have you made an archaeological discovery in your back yard? Did you find an anecdote about the Doge of Venice telling a joke to Michel Foucault? Tell us all about it.

As usual, moderation in this thread will be relatively non-existent -- jokes, anecdotes and light-hearted banter are welcome.

Hey! Really interested in this topic!

• What was life like for US Navy Airship Crew?
• What training did they undertake?
• What roles/positions did they perform?

Any good books/bios/sources I can read for further info?

People complain about crime in larger cities becoming an ever increasing problem. What has historically works to reduce crime rates?

I’ve heard people (most conservatives) say Guiliani did a good job in New York in the 90’s, but were there other factors at play?

What has typically worked in the past and what are the steps authorities could take to replicate it?

Edit: also I know my title’s sentence structure is messed up but I can’t edit it ☹️

I know France, China and USA invaded Vietnam. But after I readed a post on BaoBinhPhuoc and I saw the sentence:"4/5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council once invaded Vietnam". And I wonder, did British invaded Vietnam?

fyi: https://baobinhphuoc-com-vn.translate.goog/news/33/131771/phieu-trang-hay-nao-trang?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=vi&_x_tr_pto=wapp

P/s: I'm Vietnamese.

I’ve read “His Excellency” by Joseph Ellis and “Washington: A Life” by Ron Chernow and really liked them both.

What are the views on these two biographies amongst the historical community?

Are there any other biographies that I should be looking out for to read in the future?

Whenever I watch a video on this topic the comments are full of, "this video is full of lies", "it doesn't show the whole story" etc. I would appreciate for someone to give me an unbiased summary of the history behind the Israel-Palestine conflict up until October, 7th.

Thanks in advance.

So, back in the day, early humans were portrayed as stupid and ape-like. But they were our direct ancestors, didn't they see an irony in calling their own ancestors stupid, when they were trying to play that exact card to claim superiority to other races? I've thought about it for a while, and I'm not getting an answer if I don't ask, so here we go!

I can't think of what the article or book I read was, but I read something recently which indicated the Romans understood Europe as being part of Asia. From a modern point of view this is perfectly valid. But of course at some point there the genesis of the Western idea of Europe as it's own continent. Does anyone know when that idea might have started to form, or what prevailing social circumstances might have been in place? My first thought was it probably the outgrowth of Western imperialism, but maybe it was older?

Famously, Zoroastrianism has a strong taboo regarding death, and the remains of the dead are seen as impure. Burial is not practiced in Zoroastrianism as it is seem as bringing impurity to the earth, and cremation is not practiced as it brings impurity to fire, and similarly water, the third sacred element, was not to be tainted with the remains of the dead. However, there are several prominent mausoleums and necropolis' in Iran, most famously Naqsh-e Rostam and the tomb of Cyrus the Great. My question here is how these places corelate to Zoroastrian ideas regarding the impurity of human remains, and the general custom of leaving them to collect at Dakhma. Are all of these examples simply from a time when Zoroastrianism (or debatably 'proto-Zoroastrianism') simply did not have the same strong associations regarding death? I know that Dakhma are a much later development, but a tradition of excarnation seems to predate the towers at least. Even if we accept that earlier Zoroastrians did not feel as strongly about the taboo surrounding human remains, it doesn't seem that later populations were particularly bothered by them.

Would anybody have any insight onto this topic?

There is a popular claim online that the Nazis banned Jazz/Swing Music. For example Wikipedia mentions that “Jazz was banned in 1935”. Yet there is a lot of German jazz music from the 30s on Youtube. In fact, Hitler’s favorite movie “Der Mann, der Sherlock Holmes war” (1937) features a swing song titled “Jawohl Meine Herr’n”.

So were there actually any restrictions on Jazz music if it was played by Aryans (And not jews and black people)? If so, why were some songs allowed in movies/radio and others were not?

I've been playing Red Dead Redemption 2 and watching Bridgerton and my mind has been wandering. 😂

I hear about debutante balls from the "old south;" what was high society like in the Wild West? Were balls and socialites a thing?

I've been trying to do my own research and failing miserably. Thanks in advance for any guidance!

I read one of Shiller’s NYT op-eds where he says that today, the American Dream is about having a house, but it used to be about freedom and opportunity.

When did this change?

What did he do to first get people to realise his talent?

So I have this theory, probably gleaned erroneously from watching too many TV shows but I haven't been able to conclusively disprove it, so can someone tell me why I'm wrong?

The theory is that Culpepper and Katherine planted the letter which initiated the investigation and ultimately their downfall. I seem to think the letter only suggested Katherine wasn't a virgin when they got married, which was grounds for divorce in Henry's eyes, but not death. Henry's last wife was divorced quietly and given her own household and pension, so the precedent had been set. It would have been easy for Culpepper to use his position to suggest he marry Katherine following that divorce, and I think Henry was the type that would have been enamoured by the chivalric code of his ex wife marrying his privy chamber man. It was also a convenient way for Katherine to remove Dereham from her court, where he was hanging around like a bad penny and knew too much.

I think the plan backfired because Culpepper didn't grasp the level of politicking Cramner was playing at, who used this as a way of attacking his enemies and Katherine's supporters. Couple with not knowing how much lady Rochford knew (and he descent into madness seems too convenient to be real to me) and it all unravelled badly for them.

As I said, it's my theory, it's probably not right and I'm probably missing something the TV shows don't discuss, but I've always wanted to throw it out there for someone to explain why it's not true?

Can anyone provide any helpful websites about Russia specifically during the 900s I'm currently writing a novel about a war between Norse vikings and the rus. I know these two people didn't fight each other in real life and it's a fictional novel but I am trying to have some historical accuracy so I'd like to know more about Russia during that time period. Specifically how big their territory was and the size of their armies?

My understanding is that origin of birth determining US citizenship is grounded in the 13th or 14th amendment? I am not sure if that is 100% the case but that got me wondering what was the immigration process like before the amendment? Was it determined by state law or federal? What generally were the requirements? What could non-citizens do and were there illegal immigrants, if so was there any real risk of deportation or arrest? Thank you!

There were a lot of people the Nazis considered Jews, that considered themselves to be Germans, so I just thought that there should be a lot of Germans with Jewish background that sympathised with the NSDAP.

A quick google brought up the "deutsche Vortrupp – Gefolgschaft deutscher Juden" Jews going for a clear separation of German Jews from the rest.

So were there many Jews in the NSDAP as well? Did the party know, or explicitly look for Jews in their ranks?

what was the hourly pay for normal jobs in the 1920-50s ? would getting paid 20/hr be considered a lot?

Was in a discussion in class and some dude said that whites dont have a history in music and that beethoven was black. Is this true?

I imagine give the extent of his travels, he must have seen some, but I gather they aren’t common on the steppe + wonder if historians have any sense of what he thought of them.

As I go down my History of crusades, this guy named “Dr Roy Casagranda” keep appearing and trying to talk history. This guys is 60 percent right and kinda preaches a weird and twisted version of history that fits a political ideology. I heard he works at a community college in Texas and isn’t actually a historian. Does anybody know anything about this guy and is he legit, a lot I see of him is just nonsense but he sounds super confident and at least actually likes history, no matter how wrong or right he may be.

As I reread and do research on Saladin and the crusades, the whole point of his need for Jerusalem is not fully clear. No matter how you look at it, Saladin was a very generous man for his time and especially as the head of the biggest caliphate in the world, a kind and respectable man was not to be expected (take that with a grain of salt, the ayyubid dynasty still did plunder and ransacked cities like it was nothing but he was still a good man for his position and time). A single factor keeps me wondering, what was the need of losing thousand upon thousands of life just for one city of minor significance in the grand scheme, even if Kingdom of heaven (very inaccurate but great movie) they want us to understand that this cities is pretty pointless in the grand scheme of battle. I also understood why King Richard wanted it (he was a prideful warlord but one hell of a warrior who wanted to own the holy land) but that just didn’t fit Saladin

Did Saladin need this city for pride reasons or did he need it for strategical advantage. One thing said it was for revenge but that never made sense, Saladin easily could have killed every Christian in the city instead of letting them walk and I even heard he allowed local Christians to stay within the city. It just seemed like a waste of life and it didn’t help in the long run and especially sense Richard got a lot of land back but came to his senses and saw the city for what it was, a risk not worth taking and so they signed a peace deal and ended the war for a little while.

How did Marcus Brutus view Caesar's Dictatorship prior to him becoming dictator perpetuo? Obviously Brutus was distraught by Caesar becoming Caesar for life, but how did he react to Caesar becoming Dictator in 48 BCE? Or even Dictator for '10 years' in 46 BCE?

I'm basically trying to figure out if Brutus' opinion drastically changed in 44 BCE, or if it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Just something I heard on a talkshow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se6ulRL0gTw&list=PLtLL3RHUBWnYka2OmqF552ebuLUbc93PC&index=9

, but did the Qing Chinese only ban foreign opium and not domestic?

I follow soccer and I like to learn the history of the game in this country. I was surprised to learn that soccer was actually fairly popular at least in the northeast. In fact the US national team finished third at the very first FIFA world cup and American Bert Patenaude scored the first ever world cup hat trick. On YouTube there is even footage from the 1924 Lmar Hunt US open cup and stafium jam packed

How popular was soccer in America until the great depression and why did it's popular completely collapse? Would the average American have known about this sport?

Were they like lathering it on or just putting like a bit on their hands and rubbing it in? It was in fashion for like 2000 years so I figured I’d try it for my next workout if there’s any documentation.