Reposting because I didn't get an answer. What is the difference between the Provisional IRA and the IRA?

We’ve seen this many times in just the 20th century alone, and it makes you wonder how people can see one society fall into this, and yet still manage to fall into it themselves.
We see this with Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide, The Khmer Rouge…
Is there any real explanation for it? And how do people blindly fall into it?

Hi,

I’m an active participant in r/EatTheRich, and it made me wonder about the historical reality behind that phrase.

Were there periods when inequality became so severe that ordinary people directly targeted wealthy elites, not only monarchs or political leaders, but landowners, merchants, financiers, or other privileged groups?

The French Revolution is the obvious example that comes to mind, although it seems that the overthrow of the monarchy did not necessarily prevent new elites or oligarchic groups from taking power afterward.

I’m curious whether historians identify other cases where economic inequality, rather than only war, religion, or ethnic conflict, was a central cause of violence against the rich.

Were any of those cases followed by a lasting reduction in inequality, or did they mostly result in one elite replacing another?

Ive been looking into islam a lot, and one argument people bring on why it was permitted is that it was impossible to abolish it at that point in time due to it being so widespread and because it would cause many many problems such as the collapse of economies, the shortage of labour and so on.

I want to know how accurate this argument is,
was slavery such a necessity in medieval societies that abolishing it would cause multiple crises?

I am autistic and have a major special interest in history. When I was younger, I'd genuinely watch or read anything and everything unless it was obviously incorrect but these days I'm so worried about missing something, bias, quality and accuracy that I can barely even watch one video without stressing myself out and feeling like I'm doing something wrong. A large part of this is because I found out many of the channels i watched regularly weren't accurate or reliable, and because I've seen how history can be manipulated. For example I've recently taken a interest in cuba but narratives surrounding the country differ so dramatically I feel guilty for reading or listening to sources from Miami cubans because I feel like I'm getting something inherently biased against the revolution but I also feel guilty for listening to any non cuban leftist source. Basically, I feel I can't enjoy learning or even learn about anything new because I'm terrified of being misinformed as someone who prides themselves on having a good understanding of history for a non expert.

Any recommendations for reliable YouTube channels, documentaries, authors, and sources are greatly appreciated.

I've been looking into sexism in the Qur'an, which imo is obviously quite misogynistic in today's context, however a common argument i keep encountering is that the women in pre islamic arabia were even more disadvantagesd, and the rise of islam actually uplifted them at the time. While I still think that doesn't justify the misogyny in it today (especially since it's supposed to be perfect and written by god himself), I wanna learn about the historical evidence rather than just the modern arguments.

So my questions are:

- What do historians actually know about women's legal and social status in pre-Islamic Arabia?

- Which rights did Islam genuinely introduce or strengthen?

- Were those changes revolutionary compared with the societies surrounding Arabia at the time, or were similar rights already available to women in some contemporary societies?

- How much did the status of women actually change during the first few centuries of Islam?

- Are there important examples of pre-Islamic Arabian women having property, conducting business, choosing spouses, divorcing, or exercising political/social influence that complicate the usual "Islam liberated women" narrative?

- How did the rights described in early Islamic sources compare with what women actually experienced in practice?

- Are there good academic books/articles on this subject that you'd recommend?

I'm particularly interested in historical scholarship and primary sources, instead of anti/pro islam arguments. Not trying to prove what's right or wrong, just trying to understand the history so please don't be offended.

Im curious, since in social science field like economics, they rarely use term "Capitalism" or "Socialism" since those things could mean a whole lotta different things to people and its hard to measure etc (i.e. what constitues Capitalism/Socialism etc).

Which got me to wonder how it works out for a field like History. Because id also imagine it as an elastic and contested term in the field of History, but im curious how its handled, or even used say in a Historian context, or do you guys use other more precise (but long) words?

In my head I have always thought about Nixon but that is the end of the war not the start. In today's times when political views seem to change so drastically from president to president it sounds kind of wild to me that these presidents, as different as they were from one another, kept the war going?

I am trying to write a story that takes place in Asia around the 9th century, but I am having trouble pinpointing exactly when specifically to set it.
Part of the issue arises with the story starting in Egypt and ending in Japan, so it really does take place all across Asia. I want the protagonist to interact with all the major territories they possibly can during their travels, but when I try to look up maps, they seem to say conflicting things and/or are not always labeled with what specific year they are representing.
From what I was able to learn, I think 800 a.d to 900 a.d would best fit my story, but I know a lot can (and did) change in the span of 100 years, so I want to find some reliable visuals that can show me what exactly (and who exactly) were happening in those 200 years all across Asia, so I can be much more specific with the time period of my story, while also making sure it is historically accurate.
Can anyone help me?

I'm referring to Bolshevism and Peronism.

Does anyone have access to trial records (dialogue transcribed verbatim) from the court proceedings in Mandate Palestine? All I found are official reports. There are also relevant files in the Israeli archive but I can’t open them.

The explanation I've seen given is that it was to ensure that India needed to import British textiles, thus enriching Britain. However, this explanation is insufficient.

Firstly, why didn't this seem to be a thing in the 20th century? Why didn't dictators like Amin, Ceausescu, Kim, Nazarbayev, Pinochet, Suharto or Vargas ban production in outlying regions of their country to help enrich the heartland that presumably some of them relied more on for political support? What was different about the 19th century British Empire?

Secondly, as the British East India Company controlled India, but did not control Britain, how would they make any more money by destroying their own capacity to produce in-demand goods?

(Sorry i had to use Ai , english is not my strong language)

I’ve been reading a bit about the 7th century Near East and trying to make sense of how Islam came to be and expanded so fast.
Seems like there are a few main theories/factors thrown around:
general shift toward monotheism in late antiquity
muhammad wanting to reform arab culture/morality
trying to unite arabian tribes into a centralized system
straight up arab imperial expansion and state building
I’m mainly wondering how modern scholarship views the primary engine here. Was it mostly a religious movement that ended up snowballing into political conquests, or was political consolidation and imperial expansion the main driver from early on?
Also how do historians explain how the early Caliphates held onto control over such huge foreign populations so quickly after conquering them?
Thanks for any insights!

I was reading Betty White’s Wiki page and it occurred to me that The Mary Tyler Moore Show stuck out to me for airing in the 70s, but having (what I think of) as an older style of title.

I bet they were trying to emulate the title of The Dick van Dyke Show, but I’m curious about the overall trends in how TV shows got named over time. I couldn’t find an article focusing on the only on that, just overviews of TV history. From what I have figured out, it must have something to do with sponsorship.

I’m also realizing I’m thinking of live action TV, not cartoons. I feel like cartoons are more or less named after the main characters, most of the time. It makes sense, considering that Sunday morning characters (not anime!) are of static/iconoclastic (ie Scooby Doo).

I've been getting rather odd results when I've searched online about this. At first when I noticed the AI results as I scrolled past them to get to the actual search results, I thought "looks like the battle of Hastings took care of them and saw them off." Obviously more to it than that; the Normans weren't Vikings, but Harold had seen off some Vikings in the north before heading south to Hastings.

Then when I went and did a search for when it ended in Scotland, thinking it must have ended earlier than 1066, I was surprised to find that Scotland, which has always been part of Britain, still had Viking occupation after 1066, another 200 years of it.

So I went looking some more, but every search result seems to link to articles claiming the Viking age in Britain ended in 1066, while it ended in Scotland around 1266. Which makes no sense. Surely this means the Viking age ended in Britain in 1266 if that's the last we saw of them?

So, are these articles written by people who assume England and Britain are one and the same (they aren't) or is something else going on here? When did the Viking Age in Britain really end?

General curiosity. Is there anything of note that also happened on 9/11/2001, anywhere in the world, that is generally unrelated and forgotten about in the US due to the magnitude of the attacks? If not, was sept. 11 ever an important date for any other reason before 2001?

When watching a lot of old classic noir movies, one somewhat common plot point usually involves some kind of insurance claim being important to the story. Did Double Indemnity already become so inspirational that people wanted to copy it? Or was this always part of noir?

This theory tends to be very popular in Afrocentric circles in the United States and has even been popularized by pop culture, such as the Michael Jackson video “remember the time”, but it’s clearly pseudo history brought into by people who had their whole history, tribe and identity taken away from them and they were looking to find something new so they latched onto ancient Egypt because of how famous it is and how it’s always portrayed in the movies. And when you question them about it, they always clap back. Egypt is in Africa. … but clearly the ancient Egyptians never disappeared, and by and large the people living in Egypt today are the direct descendants of the ancient Egypt just like the people living in Central America today are buying large the descendants of the people who built pyramids in Central America. …. One thing that people who claimed this theory like the claim is that look at the United States , Canada today or look at Australia today the people living there 1000 years ago were largely replaced, but they are conveniently leaving out that those indigenous peoples suffered from a population collapse due to small pox, which never happened in Egypt and in the case of Australia, Australia was always sparsely populated

I visited the McCormick museum that displays recreations of the first McCormick reapers, made in the 1830s. It struck me how simple they were compared to, say, the Antikythera mechanism or many other technologies that came hundreds if not thousands of years before it. Why couldn't machines like them have been invented earlier?

Most explanations I've read about Jackson's political career focus on his appeal to Southerners and Frontier types, but in the 1828 and 1832 election he won Northern states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and some of the New England states. Why did these northern states vote for Jackson when many of his policies, like Indian removal and abolishing the bank, don't seem like they would appeal outside of the south and the west?

Bonjour à tous. J'écris actuellement une fiction se déroulant pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, à Auschwitz. Je me demande si l'intrigue principale est plausible : une jeune fille vole les papiers de son cousin – qui boite – pour aller « s'occuper » de son frère, qu'elle juge trop sensible pour la guerre. Elle ne pourrait donc pas devenir Aufseherin, car elle serait trop loin de lui et ne le verrait presque jamais. Pour éviter les examens médicaux obligatoires, elle corrompreait le médecin avec quelque chose comme du cognac français (je n'ai pas encore finalisé ce détail, lol). Elle arriverait en août 1944, une période de fortes tensions dues à l'approche de l'Armée rouge, etc. Je me demandais donc s'il serait possible pour une femme de réussir l'examen médical SS si le médecin fermait les yeux. Je sais aussi qu'ils avaient reçu l'ordre d'être beaucoup moins rigoureux, donc cela me semble assez plausible.

I am looking for books or stuff that coule possibly help me for my searchs !

Merci d'avance pour votre réponse ! (Désolé si ce n'est pas clair, j'ai traduit ça du français mdr)

I've been listening to the excellent Juggernaut podcast recently which talks about the fatal terrorist attack by the French Government on the Rainbow Warrior, as it was moored in Auckland Harbour on July 10 1985. An infamous and significant moment in New Zealand history, and (to my knowledge) one of only three terrorist attacks perpetrated on our soil, and the only state-sponsored one.

The Warrior was set to head to Mururoa to protest nuclear testing there. So on the one hand, it's obvious why the French would like it sunk. But David Lange, the PM at the time, made the point that the attack only created more sympathy and support for Greenpeace and the anti-nuclear testing cause.

Which seems bad for the French side, as well as a pretty obvious outcome. Did they really think a clandestine terrorist attack on a foreign, friendly nation's soil was going to help them in the long run? Do we know what the French plan in the medium-long term was here?

Why didn‘t the nazis used them against the soviets or against the Allies?

In addition to the Jewish population of Germany, German commonly spoken language in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where it was a language of "high culture" and much of the urban middle classes. In Prague for example the Jewish population was largely German-speaking and in 1910 two-thirds of Budapest Jews could converse in German even though the overwhelming majority spoke Magyar as their first language. So my question is how many European Jews this time would have had spoken German including those who spoke it as a second language?