Hello!

I have the goal of learning all of world history in a year. I would like to mainly focus on the events leading up to ww1 to today, but I would still like to have a foundational understanding of everything that happened before that. Enough to know how what was going on in the world influenced the art movements of the era, and to be able to spot recurring patterns in human nature that exist throughout history. I really want to get into the nitty-gritty of ww1 era to today tho.

I have this very uncommon, genuinely unique situation, and basically due to my home life, my ability to perform in hs for 2 school years was severely and negatively impacted. During the first year of what happened, I took world history. I got a D, which is passing, so I never got to do it in summer school. This event also fucked up my SAT score and ECs.

I'm not idiotic; I was an honors student, and besides, I've learned more from self-education than attending a well-known, good middle/upper middle class public American high school. Anything can be learned with time.

I'm not asking you to do the work for me. I'll learn everything and find out all the patterns and themes myself. I'm just wondering if any of you guys have any outstanding textbook/book recs that go over world history in general, how world events have influenced pop culture throughout the world, the history of media and propaganda, how/why America is the dominant force in pop culture throughout the world today, and youth subcultures. Preferably ones I could find for free on the Internet Archive or download as a PDF.

You only live once, so I thought it would be fun to do this side mission of trying to get into a top college as a community college transfer.

For one of my extracurriculars, which is the first step in my grand master plan, I need to be knowledgeable about world history, how it has affected pop culture, and art so I can make cultural commentary. Anyways, we should all be knowledgeable abt world history.

I'm taking a gap year this year and plan to do 2 years of cc course work in 3 school years. Also, does anyone know if that will affect my transfer chances? I'm a California resident. Do you need an SAT score to transfer from a CCC to Berkeley?

I have a plan that could get me into the Ivies or Berkeley, and I'm lowkey delusional, so I figured I might as well try.

If I don't get into a top school, I won't beat myself up about it bc at least I tried my best, and my inability to perform in high school was 100000000% not my fault, and it was just this really crazy, freaky, absurd, odd scenario that I was born into. It's just how the cookie crumbles; some ppl are born really lucky, others are born really unlucky.

Thank you so much, and have a great day/afternoon/night, internet strangers.

Basically the title. I have heard mixed opinions, ranging from "Yezhov did everything" to "Stalin did everything", which of course isn't true. I'd just like to hear a historian's take on the matter.

This was explained by Imran Khan in his autobiography Pakistan, stating it is was not an unreasonable request at all.

Is there any truth to this? If so, why couldn’t they work things out?

Was it that the Taliban’s doubts were beyond what is called reasonable doubt? Was there any dialogue in the first place?

Did Pakistan play any role since the they had worked so hard cultivating the Taliban?

I’m interested in whether there were particular events or campaigns during the history of the British Empire that historians consider to have constituted genocide. I’m not asking whether the British Empire as a whole was “genocidal,” but if there are specific examples where its actions have been described as genocide.

. I’m interested in cases where historians disagree over whether an event should be considered genocide.

I'm specifically intrested genocide not other forms of colonial violence, such, forced displacement, forced labour, cultural destruction, or deaths resulting from migration.

Also why some cases are considered genocide while others are not.

I’m also interested in how, demographic evidence and eyewitness, are used to assess these questions.

And please, I’m looking for a historical discussion of the evidence rather than a moral debate between the British Empire and other empires

I was never able to understand how they ever expected to maintain that system of oppression and white-minority rule. Like, alienating large swaths of the population from civil rights and brutally suppressing them only works for a short time, and only breeds resentment.

Clearly they could have seen that right? For example, in Algeria, only the pieds-noirs Algerians had full rights and participated in French society. The local Algerians were essentially alienated despite being the majority.

At first I figured, ok maybe it's because they dont actually care much about the colonies which is why they didn't try to use less heavy handed and brutal tactics against native rebellions or riots or insurgencies, which in and of itself is what bred more rebellious behavior.

But in the case of, as I mentioned just a paragraph ago, Algeria? The french wanted to keep the province as part of France, with nearly 2 million ethnically french people who called themselves Algerians living there. They clearly had a good reason to want to hold on to that territory. And you can see this will to hold on to territory in a few others colonies

So why would they continue to use such brutality and heavy handedness to keep the territory, even though that's exactly what led them to losing it in the end?

I hear things such as fighting Mass migration on the news everyday and throughout almost every political party in the west.

I actually wonder if that has ever worked. If a large sum of people from a different region move to another region, I think it would be almost impossible to move them back to where they came from or send them to another place without committing crimes. Has this actually ever worked?

It’s a surprising lack of compassion especially with his overall character and upbringing. He really does not have an excuse. But maybe going to a military school and interacting with boys from slaveholding families made him make excuses to himself. Like if these guys are “good” then slavery can’t be bad. Befriending the Dent boy from school and visiting his slaveholding home and then marrying his sister. Again no excuses for him to just ignore all of that.

I really don’t know but his attitude reminds me of my cousin who is a good guy to family until we talk politics and he just shrugs off the pain and struggles of certain oppressed groups. Even worse when he’s a minority himself! And I think he must’ve got it from his awful friends growing up and online because his parents aren’t like that at all. Anyway just a guess would like to know the opinions of actual historians!

I came across this quote from General Wesley Clark who shared this behind-the-scenes account the aftermath of 9/11 in an interview in 2007.

According to Clark the countries mentioned were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

I don’t understand because these countries have nothing to do with 9/11 and run on quite different ideologies with nothing or little in common.

Clark stated that an anonymous general working on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon physically showed him the classified memo in November 2001.

The unnamed general told him the memo came directly from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and his Deputy (Paul Wolfowitz)

EDIT: seven Muslim countries

I LOVE history n I wanna learn it in depth, where can I find online free places to research m learn

Hello! I am a 5th year student in ireland looking for reliable sources for an essay I have to do for my leaving cert course. I want to do it in alchemy and the impact it had along with its history. My teacher tells me to have a minimum if 3 sources, max 1 website and 1 documentary. I was wondering if there are any reliable sources for alchemy, since I havent delved into yhe subject much, but do find it really interesting. I read that the forge and the crucible was a good source, but wanted to confirm this, and seek for other good books or sources.

So far, I haven’t seen many people trying to refute the claims made in this movie, and many people talk about it as if it were some secret truth that was finally being revealed.

Have any of you watched it, and what do you think about it?

I am a korean american and I've learned a lot about japans crimes and what the weight behind the rising sun flag is from my dad and from school but I always see it around. I've seen it multiple times as tattoos (usually white people) and in a lot of clothing. Once I was in a korean lunch place and saw it in a poster (not similar looking but it literally was just the rising sun but pink with text). Is the flag now just a common symbol in japanese culture now?

Around the turn of the 20th century, Argentina was an economic giant with one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world, while Brazil was deeply impoverished and agrarian. By the end of the century, this relationship completely flipped: Brazil became the dominant regional superpower in South America, and Argentina grew economically and geopolitically weaker.
What are the primary historical reasons for this total role reversal?

What are some cases where this happened

When my mother was telling me about her side of the family (from Laos), I was told that we didn’t have much in the way of family history due to no one writing anything down. Did no one truly write anything down or were the records simply lost?

Was it limited to the smallest person sitting on the fastest horse, so like 40mph? Tobogganing down a steep mountain maybe?

I've heard about the terrible "reign" of Blackbeard and many others like him but how much of reign was it, did pirates actually how real influence in this region of the world or where they just criminals who were persecuted. I'm aware this may sound like a dumb question but the same way gangs have great control over unstable countries like Haiti in the modern day, how much of this "gang power" existed back in those days with the pirates

I’ve read that abortion became a touchpoint issue in the US after the evangelical movement embraced the anti-abortion stance in the 80s. However, abortion was still illegal in most of the country before Roe v. Wade. Clearly, anti-abortion views must have existed prior to the 80s. The US does has a large Catholic population, but Protestants have always outnumbered them by far. Widespread abortion bans would require widespread Protestant support.

How did 20th century Americans view abortion prior to the rise of the modern anti-abortion movement? What changed with the rise of said movement? Did Roe v. Wade cause a shift beforehand?

I usually see the anecdote about African-Americans serving in congress during reconstruction come up but I haven't heard much about what they did while in office. I would assume they would have mostly similar views given the circumstances and support the Radicals for obvious reasons, but I don't see that come up when reading about radical republican actions which mostly focus on Stevens, Phillips, and Butler.

What acts did they support? were they considered an important block in the congress or were they ignored? How did they get treated as more and more southern Democrats got elected to congress as well nearing Reconstructions end?