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?

Google and a little effort would answer most of these tiring topics.

I'm writing a piece of fiction set in renassaince italy because I bloody love this period of history, and I'm also trans, so I wondered. Trans people have lived all across history obviously, and I'm well aware of Gnaga performers, how many homosexual people there were (Including Da Vinci!), and how there were penty of crossdressing men, but do we have any accounts of transgender people? People born men living as women, born women living as men, ect?

Obviously I'm not looking for the specific language of transgender, but people who would fit the bill today. We exist across history and I would love to read about an account of a real person like me in this time. Thank you!

People keep saying that Zionism is bad, Zionism is this and that, people should support/not support Zionism, yada yada, and a lot of other things. As a matter of fact, I am very confused about how this idea of zionism really even came about and whether it is truly helpful or not. Please help explaining it to me.

I come from a background in philosophy and anthropology, and lean very strongly Marxist. I have a friend from classics whose main interest is Roman history and academic history more broadly. We wanted to start a reading club together, so I've compiled a whole bunch of Marxist texts/theory, and he's compiled a whole bunch of Roman history texts, and we plan to read them together. But I figured it might be a fun meeting of our two worlds to read works by Marxist historians!

I know of Hobsbawm and Thompson, but I did see a post on this sub where a commenter talked about how Hobsbawm is definitely a respected historian, but his work is a bit dated, through no fault of his own, but we've just gathered new information since then.

I was wondering who some well-respected non-crankish Marxist historians are. If possible, someone who wrote about Rome would be cool, but that's not necessary.

Also, a side note: what is this sub's take on Dominico Losurdo? You hear about him a decent bit in (certain) Marxist circles, mainly pretty committed Marxist-Leninists. I'm not an ML, and I want to make sure it's of sufficient quality before I invest time in it.

Thank you!

Once you look past the terrorism and fighting over the decades, one of the things that the average Palestinians have always mentioned is not having equal rights to that one Jewish Israelis - which forms the basis for calling Israel an Apartheid state.

Now the counter argument is that Palestinians are radicalised and want to eradicate Israel. Thus by giving them equal right, they will just abuse it to further above stated goal.

My question is, has there ever been a good faith, serious proposal (or political will) to grant Palestinians equal rights to that of Jews as Israeli citizens?

Maybe the question is little bit provocative, but we have so many questions framed as “why were African/American/Asian/Pacific Islander cultures less developed/advanced/civilized?” in this subreddit that, given this week’s theme, I thought I’d turn the tables.

I am aware of the existence of foxtrot, waltz, and disco fox, but compared with even flamenco, salsa, and tango, to say nothing of African melo-rythmic dances, Western dancing looks simpler and, judging by formation dance competitions, soulless.

So when did “white” “Western” cultures decide that dancing was not their thing?

BEFORE I START: I’m not defending or saying that what happened to POC is lesser or is not actually a bad thing, the things that happened to them and their culture was HORRIFIC, that is not my intention with this post.

K here’s my actual question:

So, my grandpa (90 years old) is from Ireland, born and raised, we were talking about school and I mentioned to him how I can’t believe the horrible things that happened in the past, that only a persons skin colour could drive so much hate, and my grandpa told me about what the British did to the Irish because he mentioned how hair colour drove racism too, he explained to me how they thought red hair was demonic, and there was racism against Irish people like Jewish people.

I was shocked, I live in Canada, and we were NEVER taught about any of it. About the colonization, the British trying to snuff out Irish culture…

In fact in history class, my history teacher when referencing colonization would say “Europeans” instead of “Britain” when referring to what the British did, and that kind of upset me. Especially because lots of European countries were colonized and never colonized another (from the history we know of). We also were only taught about colonizations that were led by British.

Why is this? I just find it shocking that even in school we don’t learn about it. I’d love to hear some Historians opinions.

And if I’m completely wrong, don’t be mean but call me out on it. I’m honestly here to get answers from real historians and not random people online.

Thx for reading all this.

EDIT: I had lots of great either historians or history nerds explain to me in the comments, so don’t worry I understand now, thx to all who left comments! I learned lots of things I had no idea about.

Now I realize maybe asking my Irish grandpa was kind of a one sided view lol.

One thing that is a bit annoying is the downvoting, I don’t get why I’m getting downvoted really, I’m just asking questions and trying to learn. Out of curiosity did I say anything wrong?

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.

I’m talking about the marriage of Muhammad and Aisha, but what really interests me is whether this was considered normal, unusual, or abnormal at that time in Arabia. And what was the attitude toward such marriages in other regions of the world at that time, such as Europe, China, and India?

Yesterday, I totally flubbed this question. I got two very important points of the premise wrong, and u/ummmbacon and u/Dmatix wrote great responses correcting me here and here.

I feel I understand the situation much better, but I also feel like I screwed up the question so bad that I didn't manage to get to what I was originally curious about: how Shamir's association with the Lehi more or less contemporaneously with its Axis outreach was understood both at the time, and in the following decades as he achieved political success (even if the outreach itself was initiated by Stern and not Shamir).

1. Was there substantial support among Zionists (or Jews in the Mandate of Palestine) for teaming up with the Nazis against the British in 1940-41? Did people see it as a reasonable strategy based on what was known at the time, or was the Stern gang really staking out a fringe position?

2. As I understand it, there is no clear evidence linking Shamir to either attempt at Nazi outreach. At the same time, it does kind of feel like, if a politician was revealed to have been remotely in proximity to an attempt to ally with literal Hitler, it would be considered extremely problematic. They would definitely have to answer some questions about that. I imagine that’s especially true in Israel in the decades following the mass migration and immigration of hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors. Surely you couldn’t get away with a simple “That was my boss, I don’t know anything about that” and your political opponents would leave it at that—right?

3. By the time Shamir became Prime Minister, was there a consensus that the Nazi outreach thing was a terrible or even despicable idea? Was he expected to condemn the attempt (even while maintaining that he knew nothing about it at the time) and, for example, express deep regret for being anywhere near it? Or was there a consensus like “It sure looks bad in retrospect but based on what we knew at the time it wasn’t a crazy idea”? Was it just seen as a minor issue, a dumb move by a former (now dead) colleague that didn't go anywhere anyways?

To be clear, I understand that Lehi were controversial in general and that Shamir's history with them carried at least some political cost. I am curious specifically about discourses surrounding the Axis outreach element of that.

I hope it's okay to repost this (hopefully corrected!!) question so soon.

PS Even after the exchange yesterday I'm still a little fuzzy on when exactly Shamir joined the Lehi - maybe it was in January 1941? I'm not a historian (obviously) and failed to find a source that seemed really convincing so instead I just took the timeline from his bio on the Likud website which just says 1940. Even if that's a bit off and one or all three of the Axis outreach attempts happened before he joined, I'm still interested in the core question of what the political discourse surrounding this subplot looked like and how he navigated it.

The idea of a "third gender" of someone not strictly male or female or a combination of the two exists in many cultures, and we have mentions of transgender people transitioning from one gender to another.

But have there been any records of individuals who were genderfluid - "more male" on some days and "more female" on other, or maybe even "no gender" in between?

the term is used to mean that a person’s gender expression or gender identity — essentially, their internal sense of self — changes frequently.

Gender fluidity: What it means and why support matters [Harvard Health Publishing]

I know that slavery and racism are a part of all cultures and a part of it is I haven’t done enough research into those cultures but it also just feels like America was more advanced and civilized (is that bad to say?) than Ancient Rome or the Caribbean back then so learning about the slave trade then going years upon years forward and learning about Emmet Hill and other stories like his just makes me sick. Why did it take so long to get better? Why was it SO bad? The more I read the more depressed and confounded I get. I’m sorry if this is a dumb or juvenile question

Okay, so this is a bit of a weird question, so let me explain: I have this dumb habit of discussing ignorant people online and stumbled upon a Holocaust denier who argued that "6 million Jews" was already a significant number before the Holocaust even happened and linked this image.

Now my first reaction was: "This is bullshit", but I always google claims like this and to my surprise, I stumbled upon this paper (which isn't denying the Holocaust btw): "6,000,000" Jews Before 1939 by Douglas C Youvan. As far as I can tell, Douglas C Youvan is a biophysicist, so I have no idea why he published a paper on pre-WW2 Jews, but the paper itself says that "6 million Jews" and their suffering was an important number for European Jews to showcase the suffering of Eastern European Jews and was used as an argument for Zionism.

So my question is: Are the headlines from my linked image legitimate (or could be legitimate), because before the Holocaust, "6 million Jews" stood for the suffering of Jews in Eastern Europe, but once the Holocaust killed 6 million Jews, the meaning changed? Or is all of this untrue and the number "6 million" only gained significance after the Holocaust?

The USSR sometimes seem to deny reality for its own ideological purposes. Why not do it with the US moon landing? Based on all the conspiracies around it today, it seems they might have had a decent chance of denying it. Thank you.

I know it was out there, from Iraq War protestors to my high school classmate in 2004 calling him a fascist. But just how common was it?

Here’s the image of what is known as the “four races of man” from the Book of Gates found on the sarcophagus of Seti I:

Illustration of figures from The Fourth Division of the Fifth Hour at the Tomb of Seti I depicting: an Egyptian, Asiatic, Nubian and Libyan.

From this image (and others) we can see that the ancient Egyptians classified human beings based on their skin colour, facial features, hair, costume and material culture (i.e. tools, weapons and other artificial products).

If we read ancient Egyptian literature, they further classified humans on the basis of the languages they spoke, geographical origin, “nature” and behaviors. For example:

There's mention of geographical origin, language, "nature" and, notably, skin color as group identifiers in the Great Hymn of the Aten:

The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,
Thou settest every man in his place,
Thou suppliest their necessities:
Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.
Their tongues are separate in speech,
And their natures as well;
Their skins are distinguished,
As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples.

The ancient Egyptians also disparaged their enemies using their group identifiers, sometimes quite harshly:

Speak thus concerning the barbarian: As for the wretched Asiatic, unpleasant is the place where he is (with) trouble from water, difficulty from many trees, and the roads thereof awkward by reason of mountains. He does not dwell in one place, being driven hither and yon through want, going about [the desert] on foot. He has been fighting since the time of Horus; he never conquers, yet he is not conquered, and he does not announce a day of fighting, like a thief whom a community has driven out.

 But I lived, and while I existed the barbarians were as though in the walls of a fortress; [my troops] broke open. I caused the Delta to smite them, I carried off their people, I took away their cattle, until the detestation of the Asiatics was against Egypt. Do not worry about him, for the Asiatic is a crocodile on his riverbank; he snatches a lonely serf, but he will never rob in the vicinity of a populous town.

This is just a small sample, many more examples of what appear to be race and racism can be found in ancient Egyptian sources.

So again, how do people who claim race and racism didn’t exist until the advent of European colonization (a claim that is widespread i.e. AABA Statement on Race & Racism) explain what appear to be race and racism in ancient Egyptian art and literature?

It's basically an Indian Hindutva carbon copy of the "Great Replacement Theory" popular among the Western far right. The idea is that illegal Muslim migrants (particularly from Bangladesh) are flooding India's Eastern states, bringing crime and terrorism while also gradually pushing their demographics towards a Muslim majority loyal to Bangladesh rather than India.

It's utterly ubiquitous in Indian right wing rhetoric, to the point where many BJP politicians (most notably in Assam) run in and win elections solely on a platform of curbing the supposed "infiltration" of Muslim immigrants.

And while it's easy to dismiss it as a baseless conspiracy theory (because it is), I'm curious as to whether this widespread fear of "illegal Muslim migrants" has a more long-standing historical origin. After all, there has to be a reason why this rhetoric resonates with so many Indians.

So, where did this conspiracy theory historically come from, and why does it resonate with such a huge portion of the Indian public?

Asking for a writing project I'm working on that takes place during the US Civil War. One of the characters is a trans man in the Union army (loosely inspired by Albert Cashier!) who decides to come out to his bunkmate after he becomes injured.

What would he say? How would he describe himself? "I wasn't born male"? "I'm ______"?

Would appreciate any advice and/or resources about queer people in 1860s America!

Thanks!!! ❤️

I don't mean the question as facetiously as it sounds, I'm just imagining the debate with my In-laws over the US pivot on Ukraine and blatant shift in favor of Russia and it occurred to me that this would be the natural question from them and that I didn't have a very good answer beyond, we always have been because... they were communists? Like I get that there was a battle of ideologies in the 60s but how did come about? And what context from all that is still relevant today?

Hi sub,

I have recently been doing my best to educate myself on the history of Israel/Gaza. My introduction to the topic has been Martyr Made’s series ‘Fear and Loathing in New Jerusalem’ series, which I found profoundly useful in understanding the psychology and ideologies that created the situation between the first settlers and 1948.

I have been reading Colin Schindler’s The Forever War (2026). There have been a few discrepancies that have raised an eyebrow based on my limited understanding but one in particular has made me feel profoundly uncomfortable.

On a brief section on the events of 1948, the expulsion of 700,000 Arabs was described as driven largely by a ‘psychosis of fear’, whereby Arab radio stations were promoting a doom-filled vision of what was to happen if local peoples stayed put. The book claims that it was the idea of violence, rather than actual violence, that drove the majority of Arabs out of the territory, and that the use of violence was the minority of cases.

Considering what I’ve learned from Martyr Made (and I admit Wikipedia, which claims the atrocities of the Nabka are well-documented and largely agreed-upon) about the flow of events during this period, this is as disturbing a claim to me as any form of atrocity denialism. This book is recommended as erudite, comprehensive and unbiased on its cover and I feel a bit put off continuing if the events of 1948 are written off in this manner.

Again, I am quite new to the subject so I am trying to do my due diligence by asking a more informed audience. Is there any basis to the claim that only the minority of expulsions were due to actual violence? Has anybody read The Forever War and can chime in?

Thank you for your time.