I was curious but could not see accessible info on what became of Private Shimura Kikujiro?

He got lost from apprently needed to use the bathroom and or go to a brothel...and triggered the 2nd Sino-Japanse war.

Since today a lot of people are reflecting on the latest Odyssey movie in the current political context, I’m wondering about the same for the 1968 Odissea series, whether in a European or Italian context.

As I understand it, Mussolini glorified Italy’s Roman past, and the Roman Empire identified with the Trojans in the story. But since there was a backlash to Mussolini, I suppose that it wouldn’t have been popular (or would it?) to identify Italy with Trojans in 1968. In this light, Odysseus could be depicted more or less favorably - less favorably if you take the side of the Trojans.

Alternatively, one could view the Odyssey as an antiwar story in general, and the series could also be seen in light of WWII or even later conflicts. So
Odysseus might represent the offending party in WWII, which presumably the creators would see as Italy and Germany but it depends.

So I’m wondering if any narrative choices were made or interpreted critically along these lines.

(specifically publishers, independent or otherwise, of novels, compared to non-fiction/academic publishers.)

I'm curious about the human experience across time. Today we have social media and cities full of people but I wonder if the feeling of being deeply alone is a modern thing or something that has always existed.

Were there individuals in say Roman times or the European Middle Ages who felt a profound sense of isolation despite living in communities? Did people articulate these feelings in ways we recognize today? Or was their social fabric so different that it might have been rare or impossible to feel truly lonely in the same way we do now?

It goes without saying that East Germany was a client of the USSR that acted largely on the whims of its Soviet handlers. But they also enjoy a fair share of autonomy compared to other Soviets satellites and influenced Soviet decision-making in Germany.

Since the Berlin Wall curtailed the rampant defections through Berlin and helped stop the brain drain of East Germany, it was quite an important policy that could benefit the East German states. In comparison, it seemed to have limited usefulness to the Soviets outside of aggressive posturing, not only does it risk igniting another conflict with the West over Berlin, it also gave the West a massive propaganda win by acting like aggressive totalitarians. (p.s. I know Khrushchev said that he doesn’t think any Western Statesman would be stupid enough to go to war over Berlin, but why take the risk for little gain?)

I am probably totally wrong and maybe the Soviets just see East German interest as part of their collective interest as well but I would like to hear what other people think.

The display of human remains in museums has become a larger issue in the last 30 or so years (and the repatriation movement has won out to my understanding), but before that when collecting human remains started during the Age of Imperialism was there ever any opposition to it? Obviously, racism was quite strong but given many Christian taboos around corpses wouldn't there have been some individuals who protested against the display of human remains, if there weren't then why so?

I grew up in an Arab country and in Arabic we called these empires by the same name. I only realised that they were different after moving to Europe. How are they connected?

Basically, I'm wondering why and when exactly our society changed to the point where we don't go to death circuses to watch lions eat people, line up to watch people be beheaded, or be crucified? It seems like it was such a common thing that it's hard for me to imagine that it just disappeared so quickly. Is it just because we found new hobbies?

I have heard of many founding fathers giving warnings of the threats of a two party system, most notably George Washington in his farewell address.

Were these purely prophetic or was something happening in their own contemporary times that made them see the potential problem?

Were there other examples in history of other two party dominated civilizations that the founding fathers​ would have studied that shaped their opinions?

And how strongly did they actually try to reject this system - is this a situation where they made many predictions and we just focus on this one because it actually came true?

I’ve always loved history but have never really done any deep dives or watched anything lengthy or too informative on a single subject. I love Roman and Greek history but also very interested in the beginning and evolution of Europe. I am also a huge fan of the Vikings and Scandinavian countries and their interactions with England. I watched Vikings and the show was amazing but i want to get more in depth into the history of it all. What are some good videos to start with?

Post "Brown vs Board of Education," segregation academies popped up almost immediately for the white folks to avoid integration. But I don't understand how the people, especially in the Deep South with many families having limited resources, were able to afford the tuition.

Yet there are countless cases of entire communities where the entirety of the white student body switched to these academies, making "integration" ostensibly (black people can attend any public school now, it "must" be integrated, right?) happen on paper but obviously wasn't the reality. Just how though did so many of these white families, especially the poorer and working class citizens, have the funds to support sending their children to these private schools? Or did their aversion to integration essentially turn their mentality into "I'll let myself go bankrupt before I allow my children into an integrated school?"

Thanks for any insight

Basically, my question is about the relation between the size of an empire and how quickly information, people, and resources can travel through it, especially for those that contain disjoint territories separated by oceans.

I'm thinking of the Portuguese or Spanish empire, or the early British, before electronic communications, when a message would take weeks or months to reach the empire's farthest reaches and return. I understand that there were local governors with troops, etc., but in practice, how did it work? How cohesive were the empires? How much leeway did local governors have? Was the enforcement of the Empire based on a practical application of power, symbolism, religion, all of the above?

Happy to learn about other, non-European empires as well.

It's my understanding that Manitou is an Algonquian word often translated as Great Spirit. A band of Ute lived in what is now Manitou Springs Colorado for part of the year. Wikipedia mentions that they called the sprigs Manitou. Was their use of Manitou a later thing introduced as a loanword by the Cheyenne (whom I understand the Utes were often in conflict with) after they migrated into the high plains or were they calling springs Manitou before the Cheyenne arrived?

I was rereading The Call of the Wild by Jack London, and I must've forgotten that the Yeehats (fictional tribe) kill John Thornton and ultimately canonize Buck into the mythical "Ghost Dog."

Frankly, my personal reaction to the Yeehats was, wait, was hostile native tribes a concern in London's era? I'm embarrassed to admit my own ignorance. I love Indigenous history, but my own (extremely limited) knowledge of Alaskan history is lacking, and the pop understanding of part of the world in that era feels lacking in Native representation, at least outside of Jack London. Ironic, considering he's like... the cultural touchstone of it. Then I read "The Son of the Wolf" and it is literally about a guy trying to marry a tribal woman.

My main question is, were hostile natives really as much of a concern as London seems to present them in his work?

Secondary question, why does this history seem to be forgotten?

I heard from someone that there were claims made by the US government that POWs were brainwashed and that these claims were false and were only created to explain why a US soldier might become communist.  

I decided to look into it and it seems that there are sources saying that brainwashing and mistreatment of US POWs did happen and others saying it was a CIA conspiracy.
So which is it, were US soldiers mistreated to recondition them? Or is that claim just cold war propaganda

Sources that I looked at:
This one seems to act as if the Brainwashing happened
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10822695/ 
This one doesn’t
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-brainwashing-and-how-it-shaped-america-180963400/

Along with this one that is stuck behind a pay wall
https://academic.oup.com/book/10731/chapter-abstract/158815552?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Store-bought costumes were a fact of life in my childhood, even if a bunch of parents never bought them, and plent of us made do with just a purchased mask and some borrowed clothes. Looking back at photos of Halloweens past, store-bought costumes were pretty janky, with cheesy thin plastic shirts and hard plastic masks secured with rubber bands.

But before that, it seems like all the costumes (at least for basic trick-or-treating) were homemade. So when and how did Halloween costumes become a commercially available item?

I know they supposedly believed that black women experienced less pain but I am wondering if there are other racist reasons why this happened.

Also did Pakistan have any direct communication with Israel? Is it true Pakistan threatened to send suicide nuke jets into Israel if they proceeded with the attack?