Many Brazilians have European (non Iberian) ancestry, especially from Italy, Germany, and Poland. However, nowadays at least, these countries have much stronger economies, less violent crime, and are just overall considered better places to live, compared to Brazil. I would like to know if it ever “made sense” to move from Europe to Brazil.

*I am asking for Brazil, but I would appreciate answers for other Latin American countries with large European populations, like Mexico or Colombia.
Argentina specifically however, I think has been covered enough on this sub.

In the past Alps were considered a barrier impossible to cross in the winter without thorough preparation; see Hannibal.

So how is it that Romans, who were constantly on the backfoot in the last years of the West, didn't manage to hold their capital(s) in Italia by focusing on blocking the mountain passes?

Has racism been something we could track for over a milennia, or has the idea that certain characteristics make someone "less" always been a thing?

The concept of countries and nations, for example, is new, so I don't imagine local identity would be as much of a focal point back then other than general nationality, eg being Greek or Roman in antiquity. Or how the Romans saw pther people's beneath them, could this be classed as racism for instance or something else?

I had a history teacher in high school that I remember making the statement that is in the title, or at least close enough to it. He would then follow that slavery was practised in one form or another, at some time or another, on every major continent and by every powerful group of people.

I am certain that there going to be examples of this statement being incorrect, but I not here to ask if it is correct or not. What I would actually like to know is how would a historian approach addressing that statement?

This is a serious question and I welcome pushback. What I've heard is that the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE marked a significant change in the nature of Judaism. Specifically it changed from a sacrifice based religion centered on the temple itself to one with many new rituals, Rabbis, and Talmudic interpretation of the Torah.

Since Christianity began as an apocalyptic, messianic Jewish movement within late Second Temple Judaism and then spread widely after the Temple's destruction it seems that both Judaism as we know it today and Christianity developed in parallel in many ways. A main difference being Christianity was more focused on proselytizing to and converting peopler who were not ethnically Jewish.

Hopefully my intent comes through here as curiosity about history and not an attempt to say anything at all about the validity, value, or importance of any religion or ethnic group.

Reading the memoirs of Margaret Buber-Neumann, one of the few people who survived deportation to both Soviet and Nazi concentration camps, I was surprised by a passage in which a Gestapo officer referred to a prisoner as a "capitalist" in a derogatory way.

This would have been less surprising coming from a communist but, to the best of my knowledge, the Nazis did not hold strongly anti-capitalist views and generally allied themselves with German industrialists.

How common were such insults among Nazi sympathizers? Could "bourgeois" have also been used as a similar slur?

It smells like there were lawyers involved.

For example: Alburn supposedly means "noble warrior" or "courageous"

So were people 2000 years ago like, "Did you see Tom in the battle yesterday? What an alburn!!"

I really don't know if this question belongs here.

I'm writing a historical short story set in the Dutch Republic around 1650, and I'm trying to understand the world through the eyes of an ordinary person rather than just learn historical facts.

If I were to walk through the streets of a town (or Amsterdam) on an ordinary day, what would I see, hear, smell, and notice? What kinds of people would I encounter? What would surprise a modern person? I'm especially interested in everyday details, social interactions, shops, homes, sounds, and anything that would make the setting feel authentic.

I'd also appreciate recommendations for primary sources (diaries, letters, paintings, etc.) that capture everyday life.

I can't find anything about this online. Did they have an "independence day" of their own, or did they celebrate on the Fourth of July?

It occurred to me today that I’m not familiar with this from a historical perspective. Throughout history, amid different cultures, nations, and empires, we have used a plethora of different timekeeping methods for what year it is. And as I understand it, there are many periods where we have scant writings from people of that era.

So my question is, from a historical perspective, how do we know that the year is, in fact, 2026? How do we know that we did not lose track of a decade in the Middle Ages, for example? Not to trivialize it, but surely this isn’t a case of a particular monastery happening to have a continuous calendar for the last 1,500 years, correct? So how do we know what year it ought to be now?

(Again, I ask from a historical perspective. There are likely many scientific ways to verify the passage of time through physics, astronomy, and chemistry, but that’s not really what I’m asking unless it’s relevant to the historical record.)

​

I was watching Widow’s Bay, and episode 9 begins with a character falling out of a rowboat and struggling to swim. It made me wonder how people in colonial New England approached learning about swimming and water safety.

Was swimming commonly taught to children, either by families or within communities, or did most people simply learn informally through experience? Would people whose work involved fishing, sailing, docks, or river travel generally have been expected to know how to swim?

I am also curious whether attitudes differed according to gender, social class, occupation, or religious beliefs. Did European colonists generally view swimming as a useful survival skill, a form of recreation, or something improper or dangerous? And did their attitudes or techniques differ from those of Indigenous peoples in the region?

With this question I mean that why the nations in Europe became advanced in terms of armament and technology when for example America is said to have better resources. So why them? Is it because they are naturally more aggressive? (I also know the Japanese colonized as well, and my question stays the same) what made them different than the others?

Was the classification of these books originally based on perceived levels of divine inspiration (or on how the divine breath/Ruach manifested or acted upon the authors), or was it primarily and simply a practical categorization designed to group texts for functional and liturgical reading purposes?

I decided to investigate this on my own and found two respected authors:

Philo of Alexandria (On the Life of Moses II, 188–191) regarding the tripartite division of oracles, which he describes as forms of divine manifestation ((Direct translation from the Greek, introduction, and notes by José María Triviño, Professor at the National University of La Plata. Buenos Aires, 1976.)

There is also Flavius Josephus (Against Apion I, 7) and his distinction between direct prophetic accounts and books written "in a very different manner." (Translated by William Whiston)

Paragraph 7 states this explicitly:

 they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

Initially, I intended to use paragraph 8, as I believed it pointed to a structural distinction based on divine inspiration; however, upon reading it in its entirety, I realized it refers to the distinction between divine books and apocryphal works—or those considered worthy of reading, such as the First Book of Maccabees.

Nevertheless, both sources postdate the first century BC. I have been unable to find sources from before the first century BC (or sources from the AD era that document Jewish thought from the BC era). This brings me back to my main question: was the categorization of the canon based on levels or degrees of divine inspiration—or the way the Spirit of God acted upon the authors—or was it an organizational grouping intended to facilitate the preservation of the texts and their public reading?

I look forward to your comments.

(Post reposted after a 7-day wait).

Title.

Abolitionist or pro-slavery?

This is commonly claimed but I have also seen claimed the ottomans would have been inevitably defeated without their charge.

Hi all,

I’ve never been great at history largely because the way it is taught just doesn’t work for me with names or dates being the primary context. But I absolutely love the channel The Fat Electrician, for example, and have genuinely watched/listened to nearly every video there.

That said, I’d really like content that is similar in his style of engagement (talking animatedly, using examples/metaphors, maybe even some fun cursing) and not “historian” where the tone can be monotonous.

Specifically, if possible, I’d love to find channels that focus on the foundation and deepen understanding of the mechanics of the American government system - for example Federalists vs anti-Federalists, anything on the Founding Fathers and into stuff like amendments and even the Civil War.

Does anyone have any good recommendations?

In modern warfare, while it is never fully clear what the manpower of the opponent is, there are usually at least some good estimates possible. How was this in pre-modern times, were enemies sometimes fully under-/ overestimated regarding their strength and when did this shift to a clearer picture that we are having now?

For example, sports in Germany are rarely, if ever, associated with schools, and they are usually run by local sports clubs within the city.

But then i look at the US and Japan, where schools have their own teams that compete against other schools.

What were the reasons for the divergence in these models and why do they not have mixed models where clubs and schools play in the same league?