This is a really really controversial topic, but ive heard quotes by Hertzl saying that his project is a colonial one or things of that nature. How did infulencial early zionists such as hertzl and ben gurion view it, as a colonial project or a nativist one?

Given that The Quran prohibits the consumption of alcohol, due to its intoxicating effects, and throughout history, one of the primary reasons for the consumption of alcohol, besides getting drunk, was due to fermentation being highly effective in its killing of bacteria and diseases, did Muslims throughout Arabia, The Middle East, South East Asia, Anatolia, and The Balkans for example, suffer from significantly higher rates of illness and death from viruses, bacteria, parasites, infections, when compared to their alcohol drinking Jewish, Christian and Pagan neighbours? (Prior to the advent of modern water purification and sterilisation methods)

Side question: As alcohol was also a significant, readily available and cheap source of calories for the poor, were Muslims from the same low social-economic background and within the same localities noticeably thinner than other religious communities when given the higher cost of food?

Many Canadians will agree that this band is one of the country’s greatest. Of their 13 studio albums, 9 had reached number 1 on the Canadian charts. They have 17 Juno awards and were the highest selling Canadian band in the country between 1996 to 2006. The CBCs airing if the bands final performance drew 11.7 million viewers, approximately 1/3rd of the entire country. Their music is often cited as THE example to learn Canadian geography, politics, culture and history.

However, the band notoriously could never gain traction in the US or internationally. Why is this so?

"prior to 2007" added to avoid violating 20-year rule

So for context, I'm trying to develop a story with a African American WW1 veteran character set in 1921. However, I am generally curious if there is a level of personality or traits that kept people alive better than others. (Im aware that with ww1 and subsequently with any modern war that survival is largely a giant game of luck). Also, as someone who grew up with family that served in active wars, they all talk about war stories with humor, is that common among other veterans?

as i blessed my cat with the body of christ (mild cheddar melted in the microwave over tostitos), we both wondered, “what kind of cheese would jesus have eaten?” guessing it is not mild cheddar colored yellow, but we are curious.

TIA!!

**TLDR: I went down a history rabbit hole and now I need someone to convince me history isn't just an endless list of atrocities.**

I am very curious and have a tendency, sometimes a bad one, to go down rabbit holes. The internet has plenty.

Here is how it went:

Politics has been constant hell in France lately. The madness is awe-inspiring, so much so that everyday conversations, no matter the age or group, somehow end up being about politics: how unfair the system is, how terrible the president or the police are, the circumstances around the recent terrorist attack, how some other countries like Japan & US are reacting to the riots and using them to further their own (fascist) political agendas despite not even understanding what the riots are about, etc.

It's just too much. So during my lunch break I thought, ok, let me read about something completely disconnected from France.

For some reason I became curious about the US Constitution and why it's considered such an important document.

So I wondered how long it was,
→ then who wrote it and why
→ then what "due process" actually meant
→ then whether there were actual cases where due process wasn't respected
→ then I realized the Constitution isn't really a rulebook, but more like **a rule that defines the rules**, and courts have to interpret what those rules mean in actual situations etc.
→ so then I wondered where those interpretations are actually written down and how some random judge 100 years later is supposed to know about them
→ somehow that led me to the Fourth Geneva Convention
→ which made me wonder what the fuck happened for so many countries to collectively decide "okay, we REALLY need rules about how civilians can be treated during war"

And here. **Here I started to find doom.**

How can human beings be so cruel? So evil? How is this possible? How can one human being treat another human being this way?

I was born in 2001. Reading history sometimes makes me feel like I'm reading something that isn't real. It's just too much. Not to say atrocities don't exist anymore, obviously, but as someone who has never witnessed atrocities on anything close to that scale, it's genuinely difficult to comprehend.

How do you even process the Holocaust? The Nanjing Massacre? And how the hell do you process Unit 731?

"An estimated 14,000 people were killed by [human experimentation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research) in the facility itself.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#cite_note-The_day_the_earth_died-8) Its activities included infecting prisoners with deadly diseases, conducting [vivisection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivisection), performing [organ harvesting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting), testing [hypobaric chambers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypobaric_chamber), amputating limbs, and exposing victims to chemical agents and explosives. Prisoners—often referred to as "logs" (or "maruta") by the staff—were mainly [Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) civilians, but also included [Russians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians), [Koreans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans), and others, including children and pregnant women. No documented survivors are currently known." [Unit 731 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731)

And then you learn that people involved in Unit 731 received immunity from prosecution from the US in exchange for information from their research.

I know I'm probably just emotionally shocked by what I've been reading for the past hour, but is there anything that helped you stop seeing history as **mostly just a gigantic list of atrocities?**

I finished the Iliad today and I knew that it famously didn't have a lot of the things we associate with the legend of the Trojan War. However, I was surprised to see that apparently no myth actually covers the death of Achilles, even thought it is depicted in artwork.

Given the predictions in the Iliad and the later conversation with Achilles in the Odyssey, is there any best guess on what actually took down the seemingly unstoppable hero? The Achilleid sews the seeds for something with its invention of his weakness, but is there any literary evidence for who might have killed Achilles? If it wasn't a named hero, then what point would the myth be making by having the meaningful hero be killed more or less "off screen"?

Both on those occasions the Europeans had deployed the largest armies to date.

I'm specifically *not* asking about the decline in men's headwear in general or the casualization of fashion over the 20th century.

I'm asking how we reached the point today where outside of particularly important meetings with higher levels or customers no one bats an eye at a baseball cap in an office while basically any other form of hat would be noteworthy and out of place. The only other hat that I've seen accepted are flat caps which are perceived as somewhat eccentric.

His coat and armband seem to look like pseudo-nazi garb. But he is studying at Berkley and, being with the Black Panthers, it seems he is supposed to be far left intellectual coded. So why would he be wearing neonazi-like clothing?

Before the rise of Nationalism I think most people primarily identified with their village, region or tribe. So I was wondering if a similar shift in primary identification took place during the medieval period?

Hey everyone, I’ve been looking into the political history of mid-20th-century Egypt and noticed some striking parallels to 19th-century Prussia/the German Empire that I’m wondering if historians have drawn connections between.

Specifically, I'm looking at a few areas:

1. Vexillology (The Flags): The Arab Liberation Flag introduced after the 1952 revolution (red-white-black horizontal tricolor with a central eagle) looks remarkably like the old German Empire’s flag (black-white-red) just inverted, complete with a central bird emblem reminiscent of the Prussian black eagle. (I know Pan-Arab colors technically have their own lineage, but the visual similarity is uncanny).
2. State-Building and Unification: Both Prussia and Nasser's Egypt pursued ambitious projects of uniting disparate territories or peoples under a single national identity (Prussia uniting the German states; Nasser attempting to unite the Arab world, culminating in the United Arab Republic).
3. Statecraft and Modernization: Both relied heavily on a strong, modernized military apparatus as the vanguard of national unity and industrial strength. Plus, Nasser did travel to Germany during his career for scientific/technological exchanges.

Was there any direct or indirect intellectual inspiration drawn from Prussian state-building or German nationalism by Nasser and the Free Officers, or are these visual and structural parallels purely coincidental?

Looking forward to any insights!

My great grandfather worked in the automotive industry in Ulm,Germany during WW2 and the only info I had gotten about this from my grandma (Who was around 13 at the time) Was "He didn't fight in the war because he made automobiles," and that one time she and her dad had to drive these cars into the forest to hide them from bombers while planes were actively flying overhead looking for them.

She told me he was against the war but I want to know if he was actually working for the nazi party actively by choice or if he as in a position of a manufacturer and didn't really have a choice.

From the kitchen, to the student, to work, to marriages, and the larger Hindu community, every segment of Hindu society experienced colonization differently. Since much of the religion is passed down via community in modern times, the different experiences must have warped the religion's interpretation significantly, causing a confusion in what is "tradition" and what is "influenced by colonizer laws". Is there any concrete historical documentation suggesting the various ways certain traditions have significantly changed pre- and post- colonization and invasion?

For ex. Are these claims true or false HISTORICALLY?

Claim1 : "Marriages- the way of arranging marriages changed significantly to mirror Victorian matchmaking. A study of the Hindu religious texts suggests that women had greater agency over who they married as well as the age at which they chose to do so pre-colonisation and invasion. Dowry too, seems to be very different than the way we know it now."

Claim2 : "Transgender community was influential and respected in the court of god which formed the heart of any fortified city and therefore any capital, and played a significant part in the study of arts and religion until they were outlawed and suffered alongside destruction of temples. Today the Hindu religion seems to have kept the Victorian views."

Claim3 : "Property rights changed during colonization era causing the Hindu-household associated Hindu traditions to be redefined. This significantly affected the organisation of Hindu communities and the way Hinduism was practised in them."

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-British-win-the-Battle-of-Normandy/answer/Michael-Nielsen-223?ch=10&oid=1477743906513440&share=ae3c6970&srid=ufJ25Z&target_type=answer

As many WWII historians and historical research centres have noted, the British and the British commonwealth torces engaged and defeated most of the German army forces, their elite torces, and the majority of their armour in Normandy and other campaigns where they fought alongside the American forces. Yet this post here on Quora by Mr. Nielsen seems to think otherwise. What do you guys think?

I would think an escaped convict would have better things to do than assasinate a civil rights leader. How did this escaped con get to Spain after the murder?

Who was behind the man holding the gun?

I’m curious if the admissions of both Alaska and Hawaii to the union had any influence from the country being at 48 states for almost 50 years, especially with their admissions being passed in the same year.

I’m also curious if there was any similar urge to round up after the United States started adding more states beyond 40 to reach 50? Were there pushes to add island territories to statehood to continue increasing state numbers?