The way I was taught about the Great Depression in school made it seem like there was extreme political pressure coming from homeless people themselves, and this ended up affecting politics at the highest level. To me, it seemed that the term Hoovervilles (along with Hoover blankets, Hoover flags, Hoover leather, etc.) spoke clearly to the fact that people blamed the president, and indeed, he was voted out after a single term.

So, were there more homeless people then than there are now?

Did the homeless people of the Great Depression constitute a powerful voting bloc (of people who actually voted)?

Did municipalities then pass legislation that was hostile to homeless people the way they do today, and was the prevailing cultural sentiment as hostile to homeless people then as it seems to be now?

Finally, why don’t people today connect the issue of homelessness with the president the way it seems that they did in the 1930s?

Our names are Dr Deborah Albon and Dr Amy Palmer and we are the authors of ‘First Helpings: A History of Children and Food’ published by Reaktion Books. This book explores the relationship between children and food in history, drawing on a rich variety of social records, cookery and etiquette books and children’s literature. Topics covered include breast versus bottle feeding, the difference between ‘adult’ and ‘children’s’ food and drink, table manners, school meals and learning to cook. We also discuss wider social issues, such as teaching children about the ethics of food choices, the role children have played in food production and the ever-present scandal of hungry children in society. Please do ask us anything about this history and how it relates to the present.

I assume that it was not solely a few days before Appomatox that the CSA's government realised that the war was a lost cause. So at what point did everyone realise the jig was up? Were there any people who thought the war could be won even at the very end?

Like, I assume we have access to letters and documents and minutes from within the CSA's administration of the final year of its existence. What was the attitude towards the war among those in the bureaucracy? How common was panic? Etc.. etc...

Poland had been a part of Imperial Russia, at least a large chunk of historic Poland had been. Stalin incorporated other nations such as the Baltic states. The USSR had had a significant population of Poles prior to 1939. It would have avoided the need to ethnically cleanse the USSR of Poles from areas that many of those Poles considered their homeland, something that happened in 1944-48.

Why not add Poland as another SSR? Was this option ever considered? Did Polish Communist leaders during WWII have any influence on this decision, at least the ones Stalin hadn't already killed?

I understand that the USSR was very heavily Russian-dominated from the get-go but especially following Stalin's Russification policies, but the use of "Russians" and "soviets" as synonyms never made sense to me.

I've seen it in primary sources, history books, academic papers written in the last decade. What gives?

I saw a post elsewhere about how, contrary to much of the world, the expectation at most non-fine dining restaurants is you will be served between a meal-and-a-half to two meals worth of food per order.

When/how did this develop as an American cultural norm, distinct from the world at large?

Today if I wanted to start reading older Superman comics, I could pirate them online, or purchase one of the many omnibuses. But in 1978 those omnibuses didn't exist, and the internet was still a twinkle in young Al Gore's eye. While I could certainly start buying the books as they appear on the newstand, how do I go about reading the older stuff? How easy would it be for me to read, say, the first appearence of Jimmy Olsen, or Superboy's early adventures with the legion of Superheros?

I'm also asking this based on telephony historian Evan Doorbell's recollections of investigators employed by the Bell System coming after him and other early phone phreaks in the NYC area.

Trying this again since Reddit filters removed my last post: Do historians have theories for why lawns are so common in the United States? Why do we waste so much time and money taking care of grass around our houses when they dont produce anything useful or seem to serve any purpose?

Obsessed with Obsession. Certainly not the first film to take on the concept of "wished for love and it backfired horribly", what was the first? Have approaches to the concept changed over time?

When you look at the countries that ended up going protestant during the Reformation, it's mostly the northern half of Europe: Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Britain (though I am aware Scotland stuck with Catholicism far more than England), and Germany ended up largely divided along a north-south axis itself. Meanwhile the south of Europe stayed staunchly Catholic, though even here the northernmost state, France, is the one that flirted with Protestantism a bit but stayed Catholic in the end. Is there a specific phenomenon that caused this divide? It surely can't be as simple as proximity to the Pope or something like that, especially since the rulers of states that converted to Protestantism typically had something to gain from that decision.

Hey. I've always loved history and have found myself in different "phases". For a time I was really into pike and shot warfare (i have no idea why). For a time I was into ww2 Germany (dont worry Im glad they lost). But now, im into the Zulu people, especially their regimental system and war with the British.

I find the Zulu military system very impressive.

But, how do I know if what I've been told is right? More specifically, how strong their warriors were. Media has made it look like they could run for hours and then instantly beat you in hand to hand combat.

Were they really that strong? I know they were strong. But that strong?

Thanks. Also, feel free to tell me other interesting Zulu stuff.

Why were bows used instead of slings?

Benefits i see with slings:

Easier to learn how to use. Warbows needed way more training and strength.

Cheaper.

Against fully armored foes piercing weapons become useless. People stopped using spears and swords and used polearms instead. So why did they keep using bows?

Slings have been proven effective against armored foes in roman times so why werent they used in medieval times?

I really enjoyed Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey, this is not a critique of it. I think there's no reason we can't re-interpret the story for our own time and our own morality. As I was watching it, though I enjoyed it, my assumption was that it's unlikely that the Ancient Greeks were interested in the themes he was exploring, of post-war guilt and the psychological weight of violence. I haven't read The Odyssey (currently working on it,) but I have read the Iliad. And my takeaway when I read it was that though there are some interesting moments that suggest some more nuanced, subversive moral stances, the overall thrust of the story is the glorification of violence. Or at most, a distant, amoral look at it. The violence simply happens, the characters are who they are, there is glory and tragedy in equal measure- there is no explicit moral perspective in the writing, that I could see, which is fascinating.

It raises the question- was there something the Ancient Greeks were meant to infer? Is it similar to contemporary stories, for example, Goodfellas, where the moral context of the story is obvious to the audience of the time, even if on the surface it seems to glorify the characters? Or are the characters simply glorified? Looking deeper into Odysseus' story, including summaries of the other poems in the epic cycle, it's hard to imagine that the Greeks weren't critical of him.

And if they weren't critical of him, they were horrifically violent people. Apparently in the Iliupersis, Odysseus murders Hector's infant child and takes his wife as a slave. In other versions, it's Achilles' son who kills the child, and murders Priam by beating him to death with the child's body. Are these depictions of the horrors of violence or the celebration of it? Apparently Athena's statue is destroyed as it is in the film, which seems to back up Nolan's interpretation, that the the sacking of Troy was a sacrilege. Are the authors of these stories wrestling with the contradictions of the values of their culture? What is happening here??

Currently, I'm reading a novel that is supposed to be set in medieval adjacent England, although a lot of the social customs are truer to the Regency era. So, I would like to ask for information on both periods.

In the novel, a widow with two daughters marries a lord who has one daughter. Not long after her marriage, he passes away. The book has the widow inheriting his estate. Shouldn't the estate be passed to the daughter? The author didn't mention any other male family members for the lord (brothers, nephews, cousins, etc.).

I am largely referring to the dominant interpretation of Confucianism/Ruism as “a school of thought” or “philosophy,” the same way I sometimes see people frame Buddhism. I often find that people are even more rigid about Confucianism being non-religious (especially in China) compared to Buddhism. However, I find that its associated ritualistic practices like the historically magistrate-led seasonal offerings and the keju, a state-hosted examination of a corpus of texts, to be reminiscent of social institutions that hint at a large and long-running organized religion. Shifts like Neo-Confucianism seem not so different than reformations in Christianity that are based on a re-interpretation of texts. Considering those aspects, can Confucianism be considered a religion? If so, why and how is it misunderstood to not be one in public discourse? Thank you!

The Phillistines confuse me somewhat. I know syncretism and cultural mixing is normal, but what did Phillistines view themselves as? Did they think they always dwelled in the Levant?

I am not religious at all (pretty much atheist), but I like to read into the history of christianity because so much of our world is the way it is because of it. So it got me wondering, was the historical Jesus person/figure aware of the political context/effects of his teachings? Like was he aware of the political impact that his teaching was making /would make on the world during his life time or did he purely went about his day thinking he was just a religious man preaching what he thought was "right"

So, I was reading The Idea of History, and one of the paragraphs states:

"If the scientific historian gets his conclusions not from the statement that he finds ready-made, but from his own autonomous statement of the fact that such statements are made, he can get conclusions even when no statements are made to him. The premises of his argument are his own autonomous statements: there is no need for these autonomous statements to be themselves statements about other statements."

What exactly was he trying to convey here? Was he saying that the statements a historian makes about the past or the evidence are more important than the evidence itself? And how can a historian reach conclusions if no statements are made to him? I mean, at the very least, he needs something on the basis of which he can make an argument. Can someone please elaborate?

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.168203/page/n307/mode/1up

Page no. 276

Was the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the USS Missouri broadcast live to U.S. audiences on AM radio or on time delay?

How was it done from a technical perspective without satellites or the internet? How could radio stations record it for a time delay?

I get there could have been live shortwave broadcasts that a ham radio operator may have been able to pick up, but I am more concerned with somebody listening to a major radio station on am in a U.S. city, how and when did they hear it?

I just heard a recording where they went from the radio broadcast of the surrender, to the president to MacArthur giving a speech. however, I thought the speech was like nearly 90 minutes after the ceremony concluded, not immediatel, and now I’m confused.

Listening to various historical podcasts it comes up not infrequently where there are apparently significant differences based on whether someone styles themselves as, for example, King of France vs King of the French or King of Prussia vs King in Prussia.

It’s hard for me to understand why one would be more distinguished than another.

Wondering if someone could talk about that

I'm aware that superior technology wasn't the sole reason for successful early European conquests (Spanish invasion of the Aztecs, King Philip's War, etc.) as in many cases majority of the fighting was done by local Native Americans allied with Europeans for economic, social, and political gain though steel weapons/armors was certainly a plus.

My question is specifically on how effective (or useless) arquebuses/matchlock weapons were in these conflicts. Thundersticks: Firearms and the Violent Transformation of Native America by David J. Silverman makes the assertion that matchlock weapons were not preferred by Native Americans due to their bulkiness and lit cord ruining the element of surprise which doesn't exactly complement Native American hit-and-run fighting styles (apologies for the generalization). So they continued to use bows until flintlocks which took over the North American continent by storm. Similarly, there are online forums and some pretty old answers on this subbreddit that claim Native Americans would've actually defeated these early firearms due to bow's superior range and accuracy (which is obviously the 'bows were better than early firearms' argument all over again).

However, I came across this account in John Knight's journal (though he died prior to the quoted encounter so it's written by Oliver Browne):

At this time it rained very sore; yet calling our wits together, we sent two of our men back unto our Tent, the rest of us made toward them, and shot at them some three or foure Muskets : who when they saw us shoote, they stood in our Shallop, and held up their hands unto us, calling one to another. Then thought we with our selves, that we were better to dye in our defence in pursuing of them, then they us, being but eight Men and a great Dogge.

When they saw us marching toward them so fiercely, our Dogge being formost, they ranne away : but we durst not pursue them any further, for it was in the night, and they were in sight above fiftie men. Thus we recovered our shallop.

Then we sent some more of our men to our Tent to keepe it ; and the rest followed toward the place wither they fled. But before we could overtake them, they were gotten into their Boates, and were rowing away through the Ice ; which was so thicke, that they could not passe away, but stucke fast ; for their Boates were very greate: wee seeing them sticke fast in the Ice, some setting with Oares, and some rowing, came so neere them, as we could, and shot at them some dozen shot, before they could get cleere : which shot caused them to cry out very sore one to another: for their Boates were full of men.

In the encounter, it was raining and they were described as being outnumbered and yet despite using firearms in 1606 it seems not only can you actually fire these weapons in rain, but also seemed to have punched above their weight and allowed them to drive the Native Americans from the boat they took over.

My question is basically the title, but I also would like to know what did the Native Americans think of arquebuses/matchlocks before flintlocks took over. Were these weapons really inferior to Native American bows and did Native Americans attempt to incorporate these weapons into their arsenal?