diff --git "a/askhistorians/test.json" "b/askhistorians/test.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/askhistorians/test.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+{"post_id":"jtx04m","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Some states have legalized marijuana and are now having to make decisions about how to handle people in jail for marijuana convictions. What happened to moonshiners, rum runners & other intemperate folks in jail when Prohibition ended in 1933?","c_root_id_A":"gcac5ck","c_root_id_B":"gcakuj0","created_at_utc_A":1605386377,"created_at_utc_B":1605390444,"score_A":69,"score_B":557,"human_ref_A":"Ok, trying this again with a little more detail because I think my first answer was removed.   The 21st Amendment, passed in December 1933, repealed the 18th Amendment, which mandated nationwide prohibition. By February 1934, all pending cases dealing with prohibition violations were ordered to be wiped from Federal Court dockets. There were roughly 9000 such cases at the time. The Supreme Court ruled that the repeal of the 18th Amendment meant courts could not sentence or inflict penalties based on that amendment in pending cases (*U.S. v. Chambers,* 1934).   No general rule was established regarding pardons or commutations of sentences for those who broke dry laws before the repeal of Prohibition, however. U.S. Attorney General Homer Cummings recommended leniency for casual offenders, but not those who made careers out of illegal liquor practices.   Part of this lack of forgiveness for larger-scale liquor violations (involving bootleggers, rum runners and the like) stems from *revenue* violations. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th, but it did not override specific tax and permit violations incurred in the process of illegally distributing liquor. In 1934, for example, the Justice and Treasury departments expressed a desire to \"vigorously to prosecute all forms of liquor-tax evasion and other frauds upon the revenue which have resulted in a tremendous loss to the Government.\"  At a state level, there are examples of larger-scale pardons granted for dry law violators. A New York Times article from Feb. 26, 1933 describes Indiana Governor Paul V. McNutt's decision to repeal the state-level prohibition enforcement law before Prohibition was ended at a federal level. McNutt announced that he planned to pardon or parole roughly 400 people who were serving sentences for liquor charges at the time. \"If these men were kept in prison after the liquor law is repealed, they would be political prisoners,\" McNutt said. He only granted amnesty to people charged with transporting, possessing, or selling liquor. He did not include people who were incarcerated for public intoxication or driving under the influence -- these charges would remain illegal even after prohibition ended.  Similarly, in 1932 California Governor James Rolph announced plans to pardon the roughly 1000 liquor law offenders held in California prisons following the state's decision to repeal the California liquor prohibition law.   In summary, pardons depended on the specific nature of the crime, especially when it came to prosecution at a Federal level. There are certainly instances of retroactive pardons, some on a large scale.   ​  Sources:   \"INDIANA WILL FREE LIQUOR PRISONERS.\" *New York Times,* Feb 26, 1933  \"Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States for the fiscal year 1934.\" Department of Justice, Jan 5, 1935.   \"GOV ROLPH TO FREE DRY ACT VIOLATORS.\" *The Baltimore Sun*, Nov 5, 1932.   \"BIG OFFENDERS NOT TO GAIN BY DRY LAW EDICT.\" *The Baltimore Sun,* Feb 6, 1934.","human_ref_B":"PART I  To start, unless they were prosecuted after 1929 they probably wouldn't have been there in the first place.  Let's go back a decade to explain why this was the case.  The Volstead Act - the legislation providing the nominal teeth to provide a method to enforce Prohibition on the federal level - had a structural weakness that essentially doomed it from the start even if everything else surrounding Prohibition had worked: it required jury trials.  To say this overwhelmed the Federal Court system and made punishment under Volstead laughable doesn't even come close.  From Daniel Okrent:  >\"One of the nobler aspects of the Volstead Act was its guarantee of the right to a jury trial for anyone charged with a violation. It was a requirement, it soon turned out, that the legal system was incapable of handling...Mabel Willebrandt [one of the most aggressive prosecutors of Prohibition] acknowledged that \u201cjuries will not convict if the punishment does not fit the crime,\u201d and she was proven right in city after city, as juries effectively nullified the law because they didn\u2019t think any punishment at all was appropriate for breaking the liquor laws. After Smedley Butler was fired as director of public safety in Philadelphia, he offered a statistic that was simultaneously a boast and an admission of defeat: in two years, his police force had made 227,000 liquor violation arrests. To Old Gimlet Eye, this indicated that his men had nabbed 15 percent of the city\u2019s population; to anyone else, it indicated that they had arrested the same people over and over and over again.  Or as one district judge in New York put it to a Prohibition violator in the mid 1920s, \"You have been brought before me twelve times in twelve months for violations of the Volstead Act. What do you have to say?\" His reply: \"Your Honor, I can't help it if you're not promoted.\"  This led to what was essentially chaos in the court system for a decade, especially since Dry advocates used conviction numbers as a brute force yardstick to measure prosecutorial effectiveness; the Southern District US attorney in New York was expected to clear 10,000 cases annually.  >\"Proceedings were conducted without court stenographers or clerks. Six judges and one magistrate were expected to dispose of fifty thousand cases annually. Even if each had worked full time on nothing but Volstead cases, together they would have been able to handle fewer than four thousand a year\u2014and had they done that, no other federal matter would have been adjudicated anywhere in the district, which stretched all the way to Albany...by one accounting, U.S. attorneys across the country spent, at minimum, 44 percent of their time and resources on Prohibition prosecutions\u2014if that was the word for the pallid efforts they were able to sustain on such limited resources. In North Carolina and West Virginia, the federal prosecutors devoted 70 percent of their time to Prohibition violations; in Minnesota, 60 percent; in southern Alabama\u2014where Mabel Willebrandt would directly supervise one of the most aggressive enforcement efforts in the nation\u2014Volstead prosecutions consumed a staggering 90 percent of the federal docket.\"  What this led to in turn was a shortcut: the vast majority of cases - which were misdemeanors anyway - were plea bargained out for a guilty verdict and a nominal fine, and if you were crazy enough to actually bring something to a jury trial, then as one prosecutor put it, \"The fixers, he said, were found even in the men\u2019s rooms, attempting to bribe jurors hearing those few cases that made it to trial. In the courtrooms crooked lawyers encouraged perjury.\"  In addition given the terrible training and miniscule expenditure on Prohibition Agents - presuming they weren't already felons when they signed up, where by 1930 almost 10% had been fired for lying on their applications for previous convictions, which doesn't even begin to cover those taking bribes - the police work was generally terrible and the courts often had field days with fourth amendment violations, and had legal implications that still exist today.  Last but not least, at the beginning of the 1920s there were a grand total of three federal prisons throughout the country - so where exactly were you going to put all the miscreants?  So this led to such scenes as \"thousands of Volstead violators were...(delivered) by the wagonful to the badly degraded Federal Court in downtown Manhattan. This led the (US attorney for the region) to concoct an opportunity that quickly became known as \u201cBargain Day.\u201d Publicly promising to request light fines in exchange for guilty pleas, he invited defendants to the Old Post Office Building south of City Hall, where his staff, working with two cooperative federal judges, could process five hundred cases at a time and clear up the backlog.\"  While the fines were often small, usually ranging between $5-$250 (the former for consumers, the latter viewed as a cost of doing business by the providers), the numbers added up: in the Northern District of New York, in 1925 and 1926 a single judge assessed $2.5 million in fines for Volstead violations, or the better part of $40 million today.  Incidentally, this is one reason my second favorite scene of *Boardwalk Empire* (the first being Nucky Thompson declaring 'that imbicile is going to be the next President of the United States!' when he hears Harding has received the nomination) is the one in which the Mabel Willebrand-inspired prosecutor is shocked to discover she finally has a shot at Nucky in court and attempts to throw the book at him - and the exhausted judge working at 2 am looks for 10 seconds at the evidence he's actually arrested for and fines him something like $5.  While the scene is of course entirely fictional, it's also a decently accurate representation of the general futility of Volstead era prosecutions; in fact, one of the few judges who decided to actually try to enforce the law as intended and who had used sightseeing buses to round up prisoners actually went insane after two years of doing so and ended up killing himself.  But that was just in Federal Court.  One of the nuttier aspects of the Eighteenth Amendment was that it allowed concurrent jurisdiction between the Feds and the States with the expectation by the Drys that State governments would step up.  As you'd expect, this didn't quite work out uniformly.  From Okrent again:  >The peculiar second clause of the Eighteenth Amendment, assigning \u201cconcurrent\u201d enforcement power to the federal government and to the states, mandated (or at least encouraged) armies of cops across the nation to stand shoulder to shoulder in the booze wars. The relative strength of the Anti-Saloon League in various parts of the country could be measured by the proliferation of state laws designed to be \u201cconcurrent\u201d with the federal strictures. Anyone arrested for insobriety in Vermont was subject to a mandatory jail sentence if he failed to name the person from whom he acquired his liquor. At one point Indiana vested train conductors and bus drivers with the authority to arrest passengers carrying alcohol and made it illegal for retailers to put flasks or cocktail shakers in their shop windows. Mississippi decreed debts related to the acquisition of intoxicating beverages uncollectible. Iowa banned the sale of Sterno, from which alcohol could be extracted by filtering it through a rag or, among drunks with better table manners, through a loaf of bread...only eighteen states bothered to appropriate as much as a dollar for enforcement. In some jurisdictions this reflected a distaste for the whole business; New York repealed its state enforcement code in 1923, and Maryland never even bothered to enact one.  One great example of just how even true believers were restricted comes from Pennsylvania, where Gifford Pinchot - the legendary founder of the Park Service - got himself elected Governor on a Dry Platform.  >In his first month in office he turned the state police into a commando army. A single week saw raids on illegal liquor operations in eighteen counties. Reminding Republican legislators that he was now head of the party, that he had led them to victory at the top of the ticket in November, and that they had pledged their support to his legislative program, Pinchot got all the laws he wanted. Swollen with the pride of a triumphalist, gleaming with the righteousness of a reformer, Pinchot announced that he had achieved his legislative success without making a single promise in exchange for a vote. \u201cThis is an unbought victory,\u201d he proclaimed, \u201cand ten times as valuable on that account.\u201d  Unbought, perhaps, but unfunded as well. After Pinchot\u2019s glorious moment had passed, the legislators who had gone along with his program stiffened. It was one thing for the Pennsylvania legislature\u2014any legislature, really\u2014to give militant drys the laws they wanted, but quite another to provide the funds necessary for their enforcement. As a result, the legislators decided that the total appropriation for Pinchot\u2019s ambitious program should amount to precisely...zero.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4067.0,"score_ratio":8.0724637681}
+{"post_id":"jtx04m","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Some states have legalized marijuana and are now having to make decisions about how to handle people in jail for marijuana convictions. What happened to moonshiners, rum runners & other intemperate folks in jail when Prohibition ended in 1933?","c_root_id_A":"gc8bio4","c_root_id_B":"gcakuj0","created_at_utc_A":1605333792,"created_at_utc_B":1605390444,"score_A":26,"score_B":557,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  #Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot** as it takes time for an answer to be written.   We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"PART I  To start, unless they were prosecuted after 1929 they probably wouldn't have been there in the first place.  Let's go back a decade to explain why this was the case.  The Volstead Act - the legislation providing the nominal teeth to provide a method to enforce Prohibition on the federal level - had a structural weakness that essentially doomed it from the start even if everything else surrounding Prohibition had worked: it required jury trials.  To say this overwhelmed the Federal Court system and made punishment under Volstead laughable doesn't even come close.  From Daniel Okrent:  >\"One of the nobler aspects of the Volstead Act was its guarantee of the right to a jury trial for anyone charged with a violation. It was a requirement, it soon turned out, that the legal system was incapable of handling...Mabel Willebrandt [one of the most aggressive prosecutors of Prohibition] acknowledged that \u201cjuries will not convict if the punishment does not fit the crime,\u201d and she was proven right in city after city, as juries effectively nullified the law because they didn\u2019t think any punishment at all was appropriate for breaking the liquor laws. After Smedley Butler was fired as director of public safety in Philadelphia, he offered a statistic that was simultaneously a boast and an admission of defeat: in two years, his police force had made 227,000 liquor violation arrests. To Old Gimlet Eye, this indicated that his men had nabbed 15 percent of the city\u2019s population; to anyone else, it indicated that they had arrested the same people over and over and over again.  Or as one district judge in New York put it to a Prohibition violator in the mid 1920s, \"You have been brought before me twelve times in twelve months for violations of the Volstead Act. What do you have to say?\" His reply: \"Your Honor, I can't help it if you're not promoted.\"  This led to what was essentially chaos in the court system for a decade, especially since Dry advocates used conviction numbers as a brute force yardstick to measure prosecutorial effectiveness; the Southern District US attorney in New York was expected to clear 10,000 cases annually.  >\"Proceedings were conducted without court stenographers or clerks. Six judges and one magistrate were expected to dispose of fifty thousand cases annually. Even if each had worked full time on nothing but Volstead cases, together they would have been able to handle fewer than four thousand a year\u2014and had they done that, no other federal matter would have been adjudicated anywhere in the district, which stretched all the way to Albany...by one accounting, U.S. attorneys across the country spent, at minimum, 44 percent of their time and resources on Prohibition prosecutions\u2014if that was the word for the pallid efforts they were able to sustain on such limited resources. In North Carolina and West Virginia, the federal prosecutors devoted 70 percent of their time to Prohibition violations; in Minnesota, 60 percent; in southern Alabama\u2014where Mabel Willebrandt would directly supervise one of the most aggressive enforcement efforts in the nation\u2014Volstead prosecutions consumed a staggering 90 percent of the federal docket.\"  What this led to in turn was a shortcut: the vast majority of cases - which were misdemeanors anyway - were plea bargained out for a guilty verdict and a nominal fine, and if you were crazy enough to actually bring something to a jury trial, then as one prosecutor put it, \"The fixers, he said, were found even in the men\u2019s rooms, attempting to bribe jurors hearing those few cases that made it to trial. In the courtrooms crooked lawyers encouraged perjury.\"  In addition given the terrible training and miniscule expenditure on Prohibition Agents - presuming they weren't already felons when they signed up, where by 1930 almost 10% had been fired for lying on their applications for previous convictions, which doesn't even begin to cover those taking bribes - the police work was generally terrible and the courts often had field days with fourth amendment violations, and had legal implications that still exist today.  Last but not least, at the beginning of the 1920s there were a grand total of three federal prisons throughout the country - so where exactly were you going to put all the miscreants?  So this led to such scenes as \"thousands of Volstead violators were...(delivered) by the wagonful to the badly degraded Federal Court in downtown Manhattan. This led the (US attorney for the region) to concoct an opportunity that quickly became known as \u201cBargain Day.\u201d Publicly promising to request light fines in exchange for guilty pleas, he invited defendants to the Old Post Office Building south of City Hall, where his staff, working with two cooperative federal judges, could process five hundred cases at a time and clear up the backlog.\"  While the fines were often small, usually ranging between $5-$250 (the former for consumers, the latter viewed as a cost of doing business by the providers), the numbers added up: in the Northern District of New York, in 1925 and 1926 a single judge assessed $2.5 million in fines for Volstead violations, or the better part of $40 million today.  Incidentally, this is one reason my second favorite scene of *Boardwalk Empire* (the first being Nucky Thompson declaring 'that imbicile is going to be the next President of the United States!' when he hears Harding has received the nomination) is the one in which the Mabel Willebrand-inspired prosecutor is shocked to discover she finally has a shot at Nucky in court and attempts to throw the book at him - and the exhausted judge working at 2 am looks for 10 seconds at the evidence he's actually arrested for and fines him something like $5.  While the scene is of course entirely fictional, it's also a decently accurate representation of the general futility of Volstead era prosecutions; in fact, one of the few judges who decided to actually try to enforce the law as intended and who had used sightseeing buses to round up prisoners actually went insane after two years of doing so and ended up killing himself.  But that was just in Federal Court.  One of the nuttier aspects of the Eighteenth Amendment was that it allowed concurrent jurisdiction between the Feds and the States with the expectation by the Drys that State governments would step up.  As you'd expect, this didn't quite work out uniformly.  From Okrent again:  >The peculiar second clause of the Eighteenth Amendment, assigning \u201cconcurrent\u201d enforcement power to the federal government and to the states, mandated (or at least encouraged) armies of cops across the nation to stand shoulder to shoulder in the booze wars. The relative strength of the Anti-Saloon League in various parts of the country could be measured by the proliferation of state laws designed to be \u201cconcurrent\u201d with the federal strictures. Anyone arrested for insobriety in Vermont was subject to a mandatory jail sentence if he failed to name the person from whom he acquired his liquor. At one point Indiana vested train conductors and bus drivers with the authority to arrest passengers carrying alcohol and made it illegal for retailers to put flasks or cocktail shakers in their shop windows. Mississippi decreed debts related to the acquisition of intoxicating beverages uncollectible. Iowa banned the sale of Sterno, from which alcohol could be extracted by filtering it through a rag or, among drunks with better table manners, through a loaf of bread...only eighteen states bothered to appropriate as much as a dollar for enforcement. In some jurisdictions this reflected a distaste for the whole business; New York repealed its state enforcement code in 1923, and Maryland never even bothered to enact one.  One great example of just how even true believers were restricted comes from Pennsylvania, where Gifford Pinchot - the legendary founder of the Park Service - got himself elected Governor on a Dry Platform.  >In his first month in office he turned the state police into a commando army. A single week saw raids on illegal liquor operations in eighteen counties. Reminding Republican legislators that he was now head of the party, that he had led them to victory at the top of the ticket in November, and that they had pledged their support to his legislative program, Pinchot got all the laws he wanted. Swollen with the pride of a triumphalist, gleaming with the righteousness of a reformer, Pinchot announced that he had achieved his legislative success without making a single promise in exchange for a vote. \u201cThis is an unbought victory,\u201d he proclaimed, \u201cand ten times as valuable on that account.\u201d  Unbought, perhaps, but unfunded as well. After Pinchot\u2019s glorious moment had passed, the legislators who had gone along with his program stiffened. It was one thing for the Pennsylvania legislature\u2014any legislature, really\u2014to give militant drys the laws they wanted, but quite another to provide the funds necessary for their enforcement. As a result, the legislators decided that the total appropriation for Pinchot\u2019s ambitious program should amount to precisely...zero.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":56652.0,"score_ratio":21.4230769231}
+{"post_id":"jtx04m","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Some states have legalized marijuana and are now having to make decisions about how to handle people in jail for marijuana convictions. What happened to moonshiners, rum runners & other intemperate folks in jail when Prohibition ended in 1933?","c_root_id_A":"gcakuj0","c_root_id_B":"gcaikmq","created_at_utc_A":1605390444,"created_at_utc_B":1605389402,"score_A":557,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"PART I  To start, unless they were prosecuted after 1929 they probably wouldn't have been there in the first place.  Let's go back a decade to explain why this was the case.  The Volstead Act - the legislation providing the nominal teeth to provide a method to enforce Prohibition on the federal level - had a structural weakness that essentially doomed it from the start even if everything else surrounding Prohibition had worked: it required jury trials.  To say this overwhelmed the Federal Court system and made punishment under Volstead laughable doesn't even come close.  From Daniel Okrent:  >\"One of the nobler aspects of the Volstead Act was its guarantee of the right to a jury trial for anyone charged with a violation. It was a requirement, it soon turned out, that the legal system was incapable of handling...Mabel Willebrandt [one of the most aggressive prosecutors of Prohibition] acknowledged that \u201cjuries will not convict if the punishment does not fit the crime,\u201d and she was proven right in city after city, as juries effectively nullified the law because they didn\u2019t think any punishment at all was appropriate for breaking the liquor laws. After Smedley Butler was fired as director of public safety in Philadelphia, he offered a statistic that was simultaneously a boast and an admission of defeat: in two years, his police force had made 227,000 liquor violation arrests. To Old Gimlet Eye, this indicated that his men had nabbed 15 percent of the city\u2019s population; to anyone else, it indicated that they had arrested the same people over and over and over again.  Or as one district judge in New York put it to a Prohibition violator in the mid 1920s, \"You have been brought before me twelve times in twelve months for violations of the Volstead Act. What do you have to say?\" His reply: \"Your Honor, I can't help it if you're not promoted.\"  This led to what was essentially chaos in the court system for a decade, especially since Dry advocates used conviction numbers as a brute force yardstick to measure prosecutorial effectiveness; the Southern District US attorney in New York was expected to clear 10,000 cases annually.  >\"Proceedings were conducted without court stenographers or clerks. Six judges and one magistrate were expected to dispose of fifty thousand cases annually. Even if each had worked full time on nothing but Volstead cases, together they would have been able to handle fewer than four thousand a year\u2014and had they done that, no other federal matter would have been adjudicated anywhere in the district, which stretched all the way to Albany...by one accounting, U.S. attorneys across the country spent, at minimum, 44 percent of their time and resources on Prohibition prosecutions\u2014if that was the word for the pallid efforts they were able to sustain on such limited resources. In North Carolina and West Virginia, the federal prosecutors devoted 70 percent of their time to Prohibition violations; in Minnesota, 60 percent; in southern Alabama\u2014where Mabel Willebrandt would directly supervise one of the most aggressive enforcement efforts in the nation\u2014Volstead prosecutions consumed a staggering 90 percent of the federal docket.\"  What this led to in turn was a shortcut: the vast majority of cases - which were misdemeanors anyway - were plea bargained out for a guilty verdict and a nominal fine, and if you were crazy enough to actually bring something to a jury trial, then as one prosecutor put it, \"The fixers, he said, were found even in the men\u2019s rooms, attempting to bribe jurors hearing those few cases that made it to trial. In the courtrooms crooked lawyers encouraged perjury.\"  In addition given the terrible training and miniscule expenditure on Prohibition Agents - presuming they weren't already felons when they signed up, where by 1930 almost 10% had been fired for lying on their applications for previous convictions, which doesn't even begin to cover those taking bribes - the police work was generally terrible and the courts often had field days with fourth amendment violations, and had legal implications that still exist today.  Last but not least, at the beginning of the 1920s there were a grand total of three federal prisons throughout the country - so where exactly were you going to put all the miscreants?  So this led to such scenes as \"thousands of Volstead violators were...(delivered) by the wagonful to the badly degraded Federal Court in downtown Manhattan. This led the (US attorney for the region) to concoct an opportunity that quickly became known as \u201cBargain Day.\u201d Publicly promising to request light fines in exchange for guilty pleas, he invited defendants to the Old Post Office Building south of City Hall, where his staff, working with two cooperative federal judges, could process five hundred cases at a time and clear up the backlog.\"  While the fines were often small, usually ranging between $5-$250 (the former for consumers, the latter viewed as a cost of doing business by the providers), the numbers added up: in the Northern District of New York, in 1925 and 1926 a single judge assessed $2.5 million in fines for Volstead violations, or the better part of $40 million today.  Incidentally, this is one reason my second favorite scene of *Boardwalk Empire* (the first being Nucky Thompson declaring 'that imbicile is going to be the next President of the United States!' when he hears Harding has received the nomination) is the one in which the Mabel Willebrand-inspired prosecutor is shocked to discover she finally has a shot at Nucky in court and attempts to throw the book at him - and the exhausted judge working at 2 am looks for 10 seconds at the evidence he's actually arrested for and fines him something like $5.  While the scene is of course entirely fictional, it's also a decently accurate representation of the general futility of Volstead era prosecutions; in fact, one of the few judges who decided to actually try to enforce the law as intended and who had used sightseeing buses to round up prisoners actually went insane after two years of doing so and ended up killing himself.  But that was just in Federal Court.  One of the nuttier aspects of the Eighteenth Amendment was that it allowed concurrent jurisdiction between the Feds and the States with the expectation by the Drys that State governments would step up.  As you'd expect, this didn't quite work out uniformly.  From Okrent again:  >The peculiar second clause of the Eighteenth Amendment, assigning \u201cconcurrent\u201d enforcement power to the federal government and to the states, mandated (or at least encouraged) armies of cops across the nation to stand shoulder to shoulder in the booze wars. The relative strength of the Anti-Saloon League in various parts of the country could be measured by the proliferation of state laws designed to be \u201cconcurrent\u201d with the federal strictures. Anyone arrested for insobriety in Vermont was subject to a mandatory jail sentence if he failed to name the person from whom he acquired his liquor. At one point Indiana vested train conductors and bus drivers with the authority to arrest passengers carrying alcohol and made it illegal for retailers to put flasks or cocktail shakers in their shop windows. Mississippi decreed debts related to the acquisition of intoxicating beverages uncollectible. Iowa banned the sale of Sterno, from which alcohol could be extracted by filtering it through a rag or, among drunks with better table manners, through a loaf of bread...only eighteen states bothered to appropriate as much as a dollar for enforcement. In some jurisdictions this reflected a distaste for the whole business; New York repealed its state enforcement code in 1923, and Maryland never even bothered to enact one.  One great example of just how even true believers were restricted comes from Pennsylvania, where Gifford Pinchot - the legendary founder of the Park Service - got himself elected Governor on a Dry Platform.  >In his first month in office he turned the state police into a commando army. A single week saw raids on illegal liquor operations in eighteen counties. Reminding Republican legislators that he was now head of the party, that he had led them to victory at the top of the ticket in November, and that they had pledged their support to his legislative program, Pinchot got all the laws he wanted. Swollen with the pride of a triumphalist, gleaming with the righteousness of a reformer, Pinchot announced that he had achieved his legislative success without making a single promise in exchange for a vote. \u201cThis is an unbought victory,\u201d he proclaimed, \u201cand ten times as valuable on that account.\u201d  Unbought, perhaps, but unfunded as well. After Pinchot\u2019s glorious moment had passed, the legislators who had gone along with his program stiffened. It was one thing for the Pennsylvania legislature\u2014any legislature, really\u2014to give militant drys the laws they wanted, but quite another to provide the funds necessary for their enforcement. As a result, the legislators decided that the total appropriation for Pinchot\u2019s ambitious program should amount to precisely...zero.","human_ref_B":"Well, at that point there probably weren't many of them locked up for very long, honestly! One of the major problems with prohibition was the lack of funding for enforcement of prohibition under the Volstead Act, and the level of enforcement varied greatly from region to region. In general, small towns were more likely to be strict on their enforcement of prohibition, and many counties chose to remain dry (some even to this day), so even though it was no longer a federal crime to make, drink, or sell alcohol, that doesn't mean it was necessarily decriminalized in certain areas in 1933. This means there wasn't like a floodgate of people suddenly locked up for things that weren't crimes anymore.   For some context, the federal Prohibition Bureau was formed in 1927 and was headed up by a prohibitionist lawyer from Ohio named John Kramer, but 6 months later he quit when he realized that the law would not, in fact, basically enforce itself as he had claimed it would, and his department was dramatically under-funded for the amount of work that his employees were expected to do. Prohibitionists essentially expected everyone to just obey and not drink at all, so when people continued to produce and consume booze they were like \\*surprised Pikachu face\\*.  This meant that the measly $10 million budget for the Prohibition Bureau in 1926 (out of the estimated $300 million actually required) left agents very underpaid - especially in more expensive cities- so agents were often very susceptible to taking bribes\/payoffs just to make ends meet. This meant that those who could afford to slip an officer some funds were not often arrested, so the \"big fish\" who made and distributed bootleg liquor weren't often nabbed and charged.  When FDR took office in 1932, he slashed the department's budget down to barely $2 million, so the funding was drying up even further before prohibition was finally repealed.  According to Richard Hanes in the early 1930s, \"Raids on speakeasies were rarely more than an annoyance, and even padlocking doors rarely kept speaks closed more than a day. Courts were overwhelmed with Prohibition cases, and the juries generally sided with the accused. As a result courts began to set aside certain days for bootleggers, moonshiners, smugglers, and speakeasy managers to come, plead guilty, pay a five or ten dollar fine, and go back to what they had been doing.\" So, essentially, by the end, the budget for finding and prosecuting folks was dried up, and people could get sprung from jail easily as long as they could pay their fairly small fines.   After prohibition was repealed there was a mad rush for liquor licenses, so those in the previously-illegal booze business were generally able to stay in their same field if they wanted to do so above board.    Sources (sorry they're not public links - I got these through my local library system's online databases):     \\- Prohibition Repealed 1920-1933. (2002). In R. C. Hanes & S. M. Hanes (Eds.), *Historic Events for Students: The Great Depression* (Vol. 3, pp. 1-32). Gale. https:\/\/link.gale.com\/apps\/doc\/CX3424800068\/UHIC?u=sirls\\_main&sid=UHIC&xid=5ea2ba25      \\- Prohibition Ends. (2001). In J. S. Baughman, V. Bondi, R. Layman, T. McConnell, & V. Tompkins (Eds.), *American Decades* (Vol. 4). Gale. https:\/\/link.gale.com\/apps\/doc\/CX3468301235\/GVRL?u=sirls\\_main&sid=GVRL&xid=1d8f4792        \\- \"The End of Prohibition \/ Nov. 18, 1933.\" *America*, vol. 220, no. 8, 15 Apr. 2019, p. 8+. *Gale In Context: U.S. History*, https:\/\/link.gale.com\/apps\/doc\/A584852808\/UHIC?u=sirls\\_main&sid=UHIC&xid=9d63bedd. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1042.0,"score_ratio":24.2173913043}
+{"post_id":"jtx04m","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Some states have legalized marijuana and are now having to make decisions about how to handle people in jail for marijuana convictions. What happened to moonshiners, rum runners & other intemperate folks in jail when Prohibition ended in 1933?","c_root_id_A":"gcac5ck","c_root_id_B":"gc8bio4","created_at_utc_A":1605386377,"created_at_utc_B":1605333792,"score_A":69,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Ok, trying this again with a little more detail because I think my first answer was removed.   The 21st Amendment, passed in December 1933, repealed the 18th Amendment, which mandated nationwide prohibition. By February 1934, all pending cases dealing with prohibition violations were ordered to be wiped from Federal Court dockets. There were roughly 9000 such cases at the time. The Supreme Court ruled that the repeal of the 18th Amendment meant courts could not sentence or inflict penalties based on that amendment in pending cases (*U.S. v. Chambers,* 1934).   No general rule was established regarding pardons or commutations of sentences for those who broke dry laws before the repeal of Prohibition, however. U.S. Attorney General Homer Cummings recommended leniency for casual offenders, but not those who made careers out of illegal liquor practices.   Part of this lack of forgiveness for larger-scale liquor violations (involving bootleggers, rum runners and the like) stems from *revenue* violations. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th, but it did not override specific tax and permit violations incurred in the process of illegally distributing liquor. In 1934, for example, the Justice and Treasury departments expressed a desire to \"vigorously to prosecute all forms of liquor-tax evasion and other frauds upon the revenue which have resulted in a tremendous loss to the Government.\"  At a state level, there are examples of larger-scale pardons granted for dry law violators. A New York Times article from Feb. 26, 1933 describes Indiana Governor Paul V. McNutt's decision to repeal the state-level prohibition enforcement law before Prohibition was ended at a federal level. McNutt announced that he planned to pardon or parole roughly 400 people who were serving sentences for liquor charges at the time. \"If these men were kept in prison after the liquor law is repealed, they would be political prisoners,\" McNutt said. He only granted amnesty to people charged with transporting, possessing, or selling liquor. He did not include people who were incarcerated for public intoxication or driving under the influence -- these charges would remain illegal even after prohibition ended.  Similarly, in 1932 California Governor James Rolph announced plans to pardon the roughly 1000 liquor law offenders held in California prisons following the state's decision to repeal the California liquor prohibition law.   In summary, pardons depended on the specific nature of the crime, especially when it came to prosecution at a Federal level. There are certainly instances of retroactive pardons, some on a large scale.   ​  Sources:   \"INDIANA WILL FREE LIQUOR PRISONERS.\" *New York Times,* Feb 26, 1933  \"Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States for the fiscal year 1934.\" Department of Justice, Jan 5, 1935.   \"GOV ROLPH TO FREE DRY ACT VIOLATORS.\" *The Baltimore Sun*, Nov 5, 1932.   \"BIG OFFENDERS NOT TO GAIN BY DRY LAW EDICT.\" *The Baltimore Sun,* Feb 6, 1934.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  #Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot** as it takes time for an answer to be written.   We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":52585.0,"score_ratio":2.6538461538}
+{"post_id":"jtx04m","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Some states have legalized marijuana and are now having to make decisions about how to handle people in jail for marijuana convictions. What happened to moonshiners, rum runners & other intemperate folks in jail when Prohibition ended in 1933?","c_root_id_A":"gc8bio4","c_root_id_B":"gcanmqb","created_at_utc_A":1605333792,"created_at_utc_B":1605391740,"score_A":26,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  #Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot** as it takes time for an answer to be written.   We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"This is a boring answer, unfortunately. Prohibition's enforcement was relatively unlikely to incarcerate people. America was not yet used to arresting large groups of people or detaining them for long periods of time. This meant the number of people in jail for violating prohibition in 1933 was tiny. (So was the general incarcerated population, really.) The most generous count of people serving long term sentences for violating prohibition in 1933 is a few hundred people. And almost all of those people were serving time for what we'd call aggravated crimes. They'd been smuggling rum and opened fire on the police and killed an officer, for example. Their clemency was not a major goal of the legalization movement.  Prohibition enforcement, paradoxically, was lethargic in the courts even where it was vigorous on the street. And it wasn't always vigorous on the street. Even where it was, the norm was that large amounts of alcohol was seized and destroyed. Only a percentage of those led to arrests and a small percentage of those led to convictions. Most of the criminals were simply released or plead out. New York is fairly typical: of something like thirty thousand raids, about seven thousand led to arrests. Of those seven thousand raids leading to arrests, only seventeen led to convictions. This amounted to less than ten convictions per year and not all those convicted actually went to jail. The proportion was similar in most other major cities. And enforcement outside of the major cities was weak to non-existent with a few exceptions.  And it's not as if people weren't imbibing. To return to New York, there were at least twenty five thousand speakeasies and maybe as many as a hundred thousand. There were as many as hundred thousand permanent establishments engaged in lawbreaking. That doesn't include people imbibing at home, just professional establishments. And yet you had less than ten people a year being convicted and less than that being incarcerated. Even multiplied across the whole United States this was a small phenomenon.  The main mechanism of enforcement was the seizure and destruction of *property* by the police. They would bust up a speakeasy or dump the barrels of alcohol into the river. They'd also sometimes beat the people involved. But even when the club was full of German or Catholic immigrants or Jews or African Americans (all disproportionately targeted groups) it rarely led to long term incarceration. In a minority of raids they actually let the criminals simply walk away, often after some form of intimidation. Even when arrested they were usually not charged, or plead out, and released.  And these were the *most* fervent police enforcers. In New York, the police force had a large Irish Catholic contingent whose sympathies were wet. They often studiously ignored alcohol use. In fact, this appears to be the majority of police everywhere, such that the Federal government increasingly sought to coerce local cooperation from unsympathetic local policemen. (This attempt at coercion never quite seemed to reach Washington or investigating their wealthy friends, naturally. It mostly focused on groups like Germans, Catholics, Jews, and African Americans. Jews, Catholics, and Germans were particularly associated with drunkenness. And African Americans were just generally stereotyped as lazy and given to vice.)  More broadly, this question is projecting a modern situation into the past. Mass incarceration and its attendant social ills simply didn't exist for most of the 20th century, let alone the 19th century.  The US prison population has been slightly rising over time (roughly growing with population). But it roughly quintupled between 1980 and 2005, with most of that growth happening in the 1990s. Not only has the number of Americans incarcerated increased but their terms have gotten longer, leading to a greater proportion in long term vs short term detention. The current debate is only possible in a relatively modern world where a common tool of crime enforcement is long term incarceration. But that simply was in the future in the 1920s.  Large scale imprisonment is a modern and new phenomenon, not something with a long history. For example, in 1932 about 200,000 Americans were incarcerated. About half of those in short term detention of some kind or another. That was less than .2% of the population. Today we have about .8% of the population incarcerated and only about a third of them are in short term detention. Incarceration began to grow in the 1930s, began to shrink in the 1950s, then began to grow again in the 1960s to 1970s. Then it doubled between 1980 and 1990 and then doubled again between 1990 and 2000, representing the vast majority of growth. Its growth then slowed before it started to shrink in the mid 2000s. It's since continued to shrink. So we have a pretty secure time period for the explosive growth of mass incarceration: 1980 to 2000. You'll note that starts fifty years after Prohibition ended.  Mass arrests and large scale detention were an option in the late 20th century due to the growth of government power and a new political view of government that saw it as a provider of solutions to social problems. This was especially the case after the New Deal and Great Society. But those were in the future during Prohibition. The government of the 1920s lacked the judicial forces and police powers to do anything like the drug prohibition we have today. They lacked the courts, the judges, and the prosecutors. And they lacked the actual prisons and facilities. They also didn't have a view of themselves that implied such broad mandates.  These things would be built up in the 1930s through to modern day as government powers and state capacity grew. And the growth of crime in the 1960s along with the Great Society's promise to solve social ills led to the ideas that the government was supposed to prevent even low level crime. But again, this is all very much after Prohibition.  From *Smugglers, Bootleggers, and Scofflaws, Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State, Battling Demon Rum: The Struggle for a Dry America, 1800\u20131933, The Great War to the Great Depression, The Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Population Historical Statistics,* and *The Punishment Imperative*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":57948.0,"score_ratio":1.6538461538}
+{"post_id":"jtx04m","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Some states have legalized marijuana and are now having to make decisions about how to handle people in jail for marijuana convictions. What happened to moonshiners, rum runners & other intemperate folks in jail when Prohibition ended in 1933?","c_root_id_A":"gcanmqb","c_root_id_B":"gcaikmq","created_at_utc_A":1605391740,"created_at_utc_B":1605389402,"score_A":43,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"This is a boring answer, unfortunately. Prohibition's enforcement was relatively unlikely to incarcerate people. America was not yet used to arresting large groups of people or detaining them for long periods of time. This meant the number of people in jail for violating prohibition in 1933 was tiny. (So was the general incarcerated population, really.) The most generous count of people serving long term sentences for violating prohibition in 1933 is a few hundred people. And almost all of those people were serving time for what we'd call aggravated crimes. They'd been smuggling rum and opened fire on the police and killed an officer, for example. Their clemency was not a major goal of the legalization movement.  Prohibition enforcement, paradoxically, was lethargic in the courts even where it was vigorous on the street. And it wasn't always vigorous on the street. Even where it was, the norm was that large amounts of alcohol was seized and destroyed. Only a percentage of those led to arrests and a small percentage of those led to convictions. Most of the criminals were simply released or plead out. New York is fairly typical: of something like thirty thousand raids, about seven thousand led to arrests. Of those seven thousand raids leading to arrests, only seventeen led to convictions. This amounted to less than ten convictions per year and not all those convicted actually went to jail. The proportion was similar in most other major cities. And enforcement outside of the major cities was weak to non-existent with a few exceptions.  And it's not as if people weren't imbibing. To return to New York, there were at least twenty five thousand speakeasies and maybe as many as a hundred thousand. There were as many as hundred thousand permanent establishments engaged in lawbreaking. That doesn't include people imbibing at home, just professional establishments. And yet you had less than ten people a year being convicted and less than that being incarcerated. Even multiplied across the whole United States this was a small phenomenon.  The main mechanism of enforcement was the seizure and destruction of *property* by the police. They would bust up a speakeasy or dump the barrels of alcohol into the river. They'd also sometimes beat the people involved. But even when the club was full of German or Catholic immigrants or Jews or African Americans (all disproportionately targeted groups) it rarely led to long term incarceration. In a minority of raids they actually let the criminals simply walk away, often after some form of intimidation. Even when arrested they were usually not charged, or plead out, and released.  And these were the *most* fervent police enforcers. In New York, the police force had a large Irish Catholic contingent whose sympathies were wet. They often studiously ignored alcohol use. In fact, this appears to be the majority of police everywhere, such that the Federal government increasingly sought to coerce local cooperation from unsympathetic local policemen. (This attempt at coercion never quite seemed to reach Washington or investigating their wealthy friends, naturally. It mostly focused on groups like Germans, Catholics, Jews, and African Americans. Jews, Catholics, and Germans were particularly associated with drunkenness. And African Americans were just generally stereotyped as lazy and given to vice.)  More broadly, this question is projecting a modern situation into the past. Mass incarceration and its attendant social ills simply didn't exist for most of the 20th century, let alone the 19th century.  The US prison population has been slightly rising over time (roughly growing with population). But it roughly quintupled between 1980 and 2005, with most of that growth happening in the 1990s. Not only has the number of Americans incarcerated increased but their terms have gotten longer, leading to a greater proportion in long term vs short term detention. The current debate is only possible in a relatively modern world where a common tool of crime enforcement is long term incarceration. But that simply was in the future in the 1920s.  Large scale imprisonment is a modern and new phenomenon, not something with a long history. For example, in 1932 about 200,000 Americans were incarcerated. About half of those in short term detention of some kind or another. That was less than .2% of the population. Today we have about .8% of the population incarcerated and only about a third of them are in short term detention. Incarceration began to grow in the 1930s, began to shrink in the 1950s, then began to grow again in the 1960s to 1970s. Then it doubled between 1980 and 1990 and then doubled again between 1990 and 2000, representing the vast majority of growth. Its growth then slowed before it started to shrink in the mid 2000s. It's since continued to shrink. So we have a pretty secure time period for the explosive growth of mass incarceration: 1980 to 2000. You'll note that starts fifty years after Prohibition ended.  Mass arrests and large scale detention were an option in the late 20th century due to the growth of government power and a new political view of government that saw it as a provider of solutions to social problems. This was especially the case after the New Deal and Great Society. But those were in the future during Prohibition. The government of the 1920s lacked the judicial forces and police powers to do anything like the drug prohibition we have today. They lacked the courts, the judges, and the prosecutors. And they lacked the actual prisons and facilities. They also didn't have a view of themselves that implied such broad mandates.  These things would be built up in the 1930s through to modern day as government powers and state capacity grew. And the growth of crime in the 1960s along with the Great Society's promise to solve social ills led to the ideas that the government was supposed to prevent even low level crime. But again, this is all very much after Prohibition.  From *Smugglers, Bootleggers, and Scofflaws, Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State, Battling Demon Rum: The Struggle for a Dry America, 1800\u20131933, The Great War to the Great Depression, The Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Population Historical Statistics,* and *The Punishment Imperative*.","human_ref_B":"Well, at that point there probably weren't many of them locked up for very long, honestly! One of the major problems with prohibition was the lack of funding for enforcement of prohibition under the Volstead Act, and the level of enforcement varied greatly from region to region. In general, small towns were more likely to be strict on their enforcement of prohibition, and many counties chose to remain dry (some even to this day), so even though it was no longer a federal crime to make, drink, or sell alcohol, that doesn't mean it was necessarily decriminalized in certain areas in 1933. This means there wasn't like a floodgate of people suddenly locked up for things that weren't crimes anymore.   For some context, the federal Prohibition Bureau was formed in 1927 and was headed up by a prohibitionist lawyer from Ohio named John Kramer, but 6 months later he quit when he realized that the law would not, in fact, basically enforce itself as he had claimed it would, and his department was dramatically under-funded for the amount of work that his employees were expected to do. Prohibitionists essentially expected everyone to just obey and not drink at all, so when people continued to produce and consume booze they were like \\*surprised Pikachu face\\*.  This meant that the measly $10 million budget for the Prohibition Bureau in 1926 (out of the estimated $300 million actually required) left agents very underpaid - especially in more expensive cities- so agents were often very susceptible to taking bribes\/payoffs just to make ends meet. This meant that those who could afford to slip an officer some funds were not often arrested, so the \"big fish\" who made and distributed bootleg liquor weren't often nabbed and charged.  When FDR took office in 1932, he slashed the department's budget down to barely $2 million, so the funding was drying up even further before prohibition was finally repealed.  According to Richard Hanes in the early 1930s, \"Raids on speakeasies were rarely more than an annoyance, and even padlocking doors rarely kept speaks closed more than a day. Courts were overwhelmed with Prohibition cases, and the juries generally sided with the accused. As a result courts began to set aside certain days for bootleggers, moonshiners, smugglers, and speakeasy managers to come, plead guilty, pay a five or ten dollar fine, and go back to what they had been doing.\" So, essentially, by the end, the budget for finding and prosecuting folks was dried up, and people could get sprung from jail easily as long as they could pay their fairly small fines.   After prohibition was repealed there was a mad rush for liquor licenses, so those in the previously-illegal booze business were generally able to stay in their same field if they wanted to do so above board.    Sources (sorry they're not public links - I got these through my local library system's online databases):     \\- Prohibition Repealed 1920-1933. (2002). In R. C. Hanes & S. M. Hanes (Eds.), *Historic Events for Students: The Great Depression* (Vol. 3, pp. 1-32). Gale. https:\/\/link.gale.com\/apps\/doc\/CX3424800068\/UHIC?u=sirls\\_main&sid=UHIC&xid=5ea2ba25      \\- Prohibition Ends. (2001). In J. S. Baughman, V. Bondi, R. Layman, T. McConnell, & V. Tompkins (Eds.), *American Decades* (Vol. 4). Gale. https:\/\/link.gale.com\/apps\/doc\/CX3468301235\/GVRL?u=sirls\\_main&sid=GVRL&xid=1d8f4792        \\- \"The End of Prohibition \/ Nov. 18, 1933.\" *America*, vol. 220, no. 8, 15 Apr. 2019, p. 8+. *Gale In Context: U.S. History*, https:\/\/link.gale.com\/apps\/doc\/A584852808\/UHIC?u=sirls\\_main&sid=UHIC&xid=9d63bedd. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2338.0,"score_ratio":1.8695652174}
+{"post_id":"51l3ck","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Twenty years ago today, Tupac Shakur was shot and fatally wounded. At the time, it was implicated that the Notorious B.I.G. was involved in his death. What evidence do we have now? Was Biggie to blame?","c_root_id_A":"d7cxefj","c_root_id_B":"d7cxntq","created_at_utc_A":1473264071,"created_at_utc_B":1473264422,"score_A":95,"score_B":1623,"human_ref_A":"Similarly, was anything ever proven to any degree regarding Eazy E's death, viz. Suge allegedly injecting him with HIV?","human_ref_B":"The romanticism of the East Coast\/West Coast feud makes lots of people want to point at Biggie as responsible, but most of the evidence seems to point to the man 2Pac and Suge jumped in the hotel lobby, Orlando \"Baby Lane\" Anderson was responsible. His uncle, Keffe D, said as much in an interview with police] (http:\/\/www.laweekly.com\/news\/the-keffe-d-tapes-10-highlights-of-confession-from-gangster-who-says-sean-combs-hired-him-to-kill-tupac-2395421).   According to [LAbyrinth, Anderson was allegedly a member of the South Side Crips who had had issues with Suge Knight's Bloods-affiliated record label dating back to an incident at an LA mall in which Death Row associate Travon Lane had his DR medallion stolen in a Footlocker. Speculation claims that Puffy paid for this, as he wanted to use the chain in a Bad Boy video mocking DR, but if there's evidence that it was more than speculation, I've never seen it.   Additionally, it's fairly well documented that in the weeks following 2Pac's death there was a large scale gang war in LA, seeking retaliation for his death. MC Eiht, a longtime Compton rapper, has gone on record] (http:\/\/www.ballerstatus.com\/2016\/02\/03\/mc-eiht-says-tupacs-gang-affiliations-led-to-his-death\/) stating he believes it was 2Pac's gang affiliation (through Suge Knight) that led to his murder.   If you comb through his Death Row releases, they're full of references to Bloods, down to his repeated use of \"M.O.B.,\" a common Blood saying (Suge is also a known member of the Mob Pirus) and shout-outs to known Pirus ([Neckbone, Tray,Buntry).  That said, LAPD Detective Greg Kading wrote in his book Murder Rap that he believes Puffy commissioned Keffe D for the hit. It is also alleged that Biggie [paid $1 million and provided the gun] (http:\/\/www.mtv.com\/news\/1457346\/biggie-paid-gang-to-kill-tupac-report-says\/) that took out his rival.   There is further speculation that 2Pac was planning on leaving Death Row, which led to Suge Knight to order his death, but remember Knight was in the car when 2Pac was shot.   At the end of the day, no one really knows. Everyone involved is either dead or not talking.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":351.0,"score_ratio":17.0842105263}
+{"post_id":"rqau26","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why isn\u2019t the genocide of Native American\u2019s spoken of in the same vein as the Jewish Holocaust? As a subject, this wasn\u2019t brought up at all in my experience at school, and in general it isn\u2019t talked about even comparably as often as the Holocaust is when it comes to historical atrocities. I find this hard to explain given conservative estimates of the death toll of Native American is said to be roughly 12 million according to Russell Thornton, and vary significantly with a toll of 100 million documented by D.E Stannard, author of \u2018The American Holocaust\u2019, the reasonable conclusion seems to land at around 75 million lives lost between Columbus\u2019 arrival in 1492-1900, which works out to be close to 90% of the entire Native American population, with 5 million remaining today. Could someone please explain why, with a conservative estimate of twice as many lives lost, it isn\u2019t spoken of with the same condemnation as the Holocaust, or if you were educated on the subject differently to what I was.","c_root_id_A":"hq9thyd","c_root_id_B":"hqai7wy","created_at_utc_A":1640696309,"created_at_utc_B":1640708177,"score_A":1372,"score_B":2160,"human_ref_A":"As often happens, many of the removed comments are simply \"what happened to the comments\"? However, we've also removed a number of comments that reflect common misunderstandings around the genocide(s) of American Indians.   This message is not intended to provide all the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as genocide denialism in this regard, and provide a short list of introductory reading. Because this topic covers a large area of study, the actions of the United States will be highlighted. There is always more that can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point.   ##What is Genocide?  Since the conceptualization of the act of genocide, scholars have developed a variety of frameworks to evaluate instances that may be considered genocide. One of the more common frameworks is the definition and criteria implemented by the United Nations. The term \"genocide,\" as coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, was defined by the U.N. in 1948. The use of this term was further elaborated by the genocide convention.  Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:  1. The mental element, meaning the \"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such\", and 2. The physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called \"genocide.\"  Article II: In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:  * (a) Killing members of the group; * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  ##American Indian Genocides \u2013 Did they happen?  Since the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, typically signaled with the appearance of Columbus in 1492, Indigenous Peoples have experienced systematic oppression and extermination at the hands of colonial powers. These colonizing governments either organized or sponsored acts of genocide perpetrated by settlers, targeting Indigenous settlements for complete destruction; eliminating sources of food and access to life-sustaining resources; instituting child separation policies; and forcefully relocating Indigenous populations to often times inhospitable tracts of land, now known as \u201creservations.\u201d All of these acts constitute what scholars now recognize as genocide. The horrendous acts that occurred in the Americas were even an example proposed by Lemkin himself, where it is noted from his writings:  >Lemkin applied the term to a wide range of cases including many involving European colonial projects in Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and the Americas. A recent investigation of an unfinished manuscript for a global history of genocide Lemkin was writing in the late 1940s and early 1950s reveals an expansive view of what Lemkin termed a \u201cSpanish colonial genocide.\u201d He never began work on a projected chapter on \u201cThe Indians of North America,\u201d though his notes indicate that he was researching Indian removal, treaties, the California gold rush, and the Plains wars.  These actions took place over the entirety of the Americas, exacerbating the rapid depopulation of Indigenous Nations and communities. Exact figures of the population decline are inconclusive, giving us only estimates at best, with Pre-Columbian population numbers ranging anywhere from as low as 8 million to as high as ~100 million inhabitants across North, Central, and South America. What we do know is that in the United States, records indicate the American Indian population had dropped to approximately 250,000 by 1900. Despite any debate about population statistics, the historical records and narratives conclude that, at least according to the U.N. definition, genocide was committed.  ##Mental Element: Establishing Intent  In order for genocide to be committed, there must be reasonable evidence to establish an intent to commit what constitutes genocide. Through both word and action, we can see that colonial powers, such as the United States, did intend at times to exterminate American Indian populations, often with public support. Government officials, journalists, scholars, and public figures echoed societal sentiments regarding their desire to destroy Indians, either in reference to specific groups or the whole race.  >\u201dThis unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.\u201d  --Thomas Jefferson, 1813]( https:\/\/www.loc.gov\/resource\/mtj1.047_0147_0150\/?sp=3)  >\"That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected.\"  [--California Governor Peter Burnett, 1851  >\". . .these Indians will in the end be exterminated. They must soon be crushed - they will be exterminated before the onward march of the white man.\"  --U.S. Senator John Weller, 1852, page 17, citation 92  ##Physical Element: Acting with Purpose  **U.S. Army Policy of Killing Buffalo (Criterion C)**  In this post, it is explained how it was the intention and policy of the U.S. Army to kill the buffalo of America off in an attempt to subdue, and even exterminate, the Plains Indians.  **Sterilization (Criterion D)**  The Indian Health Service (IHS) is a federally run service for American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is responsible for providing proper health care for American Indians as established via the treaties and trust relationship between tribes and the U.S. Government. However, on November 6, 1976, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of an investigation that concluded that between 1973 and 1976, IHS performed 3,406 sterilizations on Native American women. Per capita, this figure would be equivalent to sterilizing 452,000 non-Native American women. Many of these sterilizations were conducted without the consent of the women being sterilized or under coercion.  **Boarding Schools (Criterion E)**  The systematic removal of Indian children from their parents and placement into boarding schools was a policy implemented by the United States meant to force American Indian children to assimilate into American culture,]( https:\/\/redd.it\/8zgozt) thus \u201c[killing] the Indian, [and saving] the man.\u201d These schools were operated by various entities, including the federal government and church\/missionary organizations. While constituting cultural genocide as well, American Indian children were beaten, neglected, and barred from practicing their cultures. Some children even died at these schools.  ##But What About the Diseases?  In the United States, a subtle state of denial exists regarding portions of this country's history. One of the biggest issues concerning the colonization of the Americas is whether or not this genocide was committed by the incoming colonists. And while the finer points of this subject are still being discussed, few academics would deny that acts of genocide were committed. However, there are those who vehemently attempt to refute conclusions made by experts and assert that no genocide occurred. These [\u201cmethods of denialism\u201d are important to recognize to avoid being manipulated by those who would see the historical narratives change for the worse.  One of the primary methods of denial is the over severity of diseases introduced into the Americas after the arrival of the colonizers, effectively turning these diseases into ethopoeic scapegoats responsible for the deaths of Indigenous Peoples. While it is true that disease was a huge component of the depopulation of the Americas, often resulting in up to a 95% mortality rate for many communities and meaning *some* communities endured more deaths from disease, these effects were greatly exacerbated by actions of colonization.  ##Further Reading  Though there is much information about this topic, this introductory list of books and resources provide ample evidence to attest the information presented here:  * *Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America* edited by Catherine Cameron, Paul Kelton, and Alan Swedlund * *American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492* by Russell Thornton * *Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873* by Brendan Lindsay * *Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur* by Ben Kiernan * *American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World* by David Stannard * *Myths of Conquest* by \/u\/anthropology_nerd * AskHistorians FAQ","human_ref_B":"Just to address this from a different perspective, ie why is the Holocaust considered unique, I will link to an answer by  u\/commiespaceinvader to the question \"When people discuss the Holocaust, why do they focus mainly on the killing of the 6 million Jews?\"]( https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/564gvm\/comment\/d8g92dz\/).  Specifically:  >\"In short the Western imagination of itself had experienced atrocities and horrors inflicted against political opponents, \"deviants\", and colonial subjects but it had never experienced that all it used to define itself as good and progressive \u2013 the modern state and its bureaucracy, industry, science, the police \u2013 was used to murder an entire group of European peoples.\"  It's old but I will also link to a [comment by u\/400-rabbits on Stannard, which adds a bit of complexity - there are multiple historic Holocausts and they are all unique, if interrelated.  One thing I will add in addition to those answers is that when one is comparing the Holocaust to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, you're dealing with vastly different things in terms of time and scale - it's not just a numbers game. When we are talking about indigenous peoples of the Americas, we are discussing hundreds of different groups, who had very different experiences at the hands of different actors. Which is to say it makes it hard to talk about a singular \"genocide\" - the answer from u\/EdHistory101 specifically focuses on the United States government in the 19th and 20th centuries, but that is part of a much larger history of conflict and dispossession of indigenous peoples lasting from the 1490s to literally this very moment, involving a vast array of actors. To be more comparable you'd probably need to compare the entire history of European anti-semitism from 1492 to the present.   The Holocaust itself is historically a much more concentrated event, involving one government as a prime mover (the NSDAP regime in Germany), which intentionally targeted Jews in Europe for industrialized mass killing, most of which took place over a three year period during the war (ETA a 2019 study found 25% of Holocaust victims were actually murdered in a three month period). Not only was this genocide extremely intentional and organized and planned to an exceptional level of detail, but Germany made it an overriding policy objective, even in its relations with friendly\/allied countries - there were even low-level discussions between German and Japanese officials about the possibility of murdering the 20,000 Jewish refugees in Shanghai (the Japanese refused).   However, even with that said I should point out via this thread that there is an ongoing historic debate at the moment as to how much white settlement of the Americas directly inspired Nazi policies and goals in Eastern Europe.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11868.0,"score_ratio":1.5743440233}
+{"post_id":"rqau26","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why isn\u2019t the genocide of Native American\u2019s spoken of in the same vein as the Jewish Holocaust? As a subject, this wasn\u2019t brought up at all in my experience at school, and in general it isn\u2019t talked about even comparably as often as the Holocaust is when it comes to historical atrocities. I find this hard to explain given conservative estimates of the death toll of Native American is said to be roughly 12 million according to Russell Thornton, and vary significantly with a toll of 100 million documented by D.E Stannard, author of \u2018The American Holocaust\u2019, the reasonable conclusion seems to land at around 75 million lives lost between Columbus\u2019 arrival in 1492-1900, which works out to be close to 90% of the entire Native American population, with 5 million remaining today. Could someone please explain why, with a conservative estimate of twice as many lives lost, it isn\u2019t spoken of with the same condemnation as the Holocaust, or if you were educated on the subject differently to what I was.","c_root_id_A":"hq9iyyg","c_root_id_B":"hqai7wy","created_at_utc_A":1640688719,"created_at_utc_B":1640708177,"score_A":633,"score_B":2160,"human_ref_A":"Hi there! You\u2019ve asked a question along the lines of \u2018why didn\u2019t I learn about X\u2019. We\u2019re happy to let this question stand, but there are a variety of reasons why you may find it hard to get a good answer to this question on \/r\/AskHistorians.  Firstly, school curricula and how they are taught vary strongly between different countries and even different states. Additionally, how they are taught is often influenced by teachers having to compromise on how much time they can spend on any given topic. More information on your location and level of education might be helpful to answer this question.  Secondly, we have noticed that these questions are often phrased to be about people's individual experiences but what they are really about is why a certain event is more prominent in popular narratives of history than others.  Instead of asking \"Why haven't I learned about event ...\", consider asking \"What importance do scholars assign to event ... in the context of such and such history?\" The latter question is often closer to what people actually want to know and is more likely to get a good answer from an expert. If you intend to ask the 'What importance do scholars assign to event X' question instead, let us know and we'll remove this question.  Thank you!","human_ref_B":"Just to address this from a different perspective, ie why is the Holocaust considered unique, I will link to an answer by  u\/commiespaceinvader to the question \"When people discuss the Holocaust, why do they focus mainly on the killing of the 6 million Jews?\"]( https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/564gvm\/comment\/d8g92dz\/).  Specifically:  >\"In short the Western imagination of itself had experienced atrocities and horrors inflicted against political opponents, \"deviants\", and colonial subjects but it had never experienced that all it used to define itself as good and progressive \u2013 the modern state and its bureaucracy, industry, science, the police \u2013 was used to murder an entire group of European peoples.\"  It's old but I will also link to a [comment by u\/400-rabbits on Stannard, which adds a bit of complexity - there are multiple historic Holocausts and they are all unique, if interrelated.  One thing I will add in addition to those answers is that when one is comparing the Holocaust to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, you're dealing with vastly different things in terms of time and scale - it's not just a numbers game. When we are talking about indigenous peoples of the Americas, we are discussing hundreds of different groups, who had very different experiences at the hands of different actors. Which is to say it makes it hard to talk about a singular \"genocide\" - the answer from u\/EdHistory101 specifically focuses on the United States government in the 19th and 20th centuries, but that is part of a much larger history of conflict and dispossession of indigenous peoples lasting from the 1490s to literally this very moment, involving a vast array of actors. To be more comparable you'd probably need to compare the entire history of European anti-semitism from 1492 to the present.   The Holocaust itself is historically a much more concentrated event, involving one government as a prime mover (the NSDAP regime in Germany), which intentionally targeted Jews in Europe for industrialized mass killing, most of which took place over a three year period during the war (ETA a 2019 study found 25% of Holocaust victims were actually murdered in a three month period). Not only was this genocide extremely intentional and organized and planned to an exceptional level of detail, but Germany made it an overriding policy objective, even in its relations with friendly\/allied countries - there were even low-level discussions between German and Japanese officials about the possibility of murdering the 20,000 Jewish refugees in Shanghai (the Japanese refused).   However, even with that said I should point out via this thread that there is an ongoing historic debate at the moment as to how much white settlement of the Americas directly inspired Nazi policies and goals in Eastern Europe.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19458.0,"score_ratio":3.4123222749}
+{"post_id":"rqau26","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why isn\u2019t the genocide of Native American\u2019s spoken of in the same vein as the Jewish Holocaust? As a subject, this wasn\u2019t brought up at all in my experience at school, and in general it isn\u2019t talked about even comparably as often as the Holocaust is when it comes to historical atrocities. I find this hard to explain given conservative estimates of the death toll of Native American is said to be roughly 12 million according to Russell Thornton, and vary significantly with a toll of 100 million documented by D.E Stannard, author of \u2018The American Holocaust\u2019, the reasonable conclusion seems to land at around 75 million lives lost between Columbus\u2019 arrival in 1492-1900, which works out to be close to 90% of the entire Native American population, with 5 million remaining today. Could someone please explain why, with a conservative estimate of twice as many lives lost, it isn\u2019t spoken of with the same condemnation as the Holocaust, or if you were educated on the subject differently to what I was.","c_root_id_A":"hqai7wy","c_root_id_B":"hq97oeh","created_at_utc_A":1640708177,"created_at_utc_B":1640679443,"score_A":2160,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Just to address this from a different perspective, ie why is the Holocaust considered unique, I will link to an answer by  u\/commiespaceinvader to the question \"When people discuss the Holocaust, why do they focus mainly on the killing of the 6 million Jews?\"]( https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/564gvm\/comment\/d8g92dz\/).  Specifically:  >\"In short the Western imagination of itself had experienced atrocities and horrors inflicted against political opponents, \"deviants\", and colonial subjects but it had never experienced that all it used to define itself as good and progressive \u2013 the modern state and its bureaucracy, industry, science, the police \u2013 was used to murder an entire group of European peoples.\"  It's old but I will also link to a [comment by u\/400-rabbits on Stannard, which adds a bit of complexity - there are multiple historic Holocausts and they are all unique, if interrelated.  One thing I will add in addition to those answers is that when one is comparing the Holocaust to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, you're dealing with vastly different things in terms of time and scale - it's not just a numbers game. When we are talking about indigenous peoples of the Americas, we are discussing hundreds of different groups, who had very different experiences at the hands of different actors. Which is to say it makes it hard to talk about a singular \"genocide\" - the answer from u\/EdHistory101 specifically focuses on the United States government in the 19th and 20th centuries, but that is part of a much larger history of conflict and dispossession of indigenous peoples lasting from the 1490s to literally this very moment, involving a vast array of actors. To be more comparable you'd probably need to compare the entire history of European anti-semitism from 1492 to the present.   The Holocaust itself is historically a much more concentrated event, involving one government as a prime mover (the NSDAP regime in Germany), which intentionally targeted Jews in Europe for industrialized mass killing, most of which took place over a three year period during the war (ETA a 2019 study found 25% of Holocaust victims were actually murdered in a three month period). Not only was this genocide extremely intentional and organized and planned to an exceptional level of detail, but Germany made it an overriding policy objective, even in its relations with friendly\/allied countries - there were even low-level discussions between German and Japanese officials about the possibility of murdering the 20,000 Jewish refugees in Shanghai (the Japanese refused).   However, even with that said I should point out via this thread that there is an ongoing historic debate at the moment as to how much white settlement of the Americas directly inspired Nazi policies and goals in Eastern Europe.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  #Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup**.  We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28734.0,"score_ratio":113.6842105263}
+{"post_id":"rqau26","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why isn\u2019t the genocide of Native American\u2019s spoken of in the same vein as the Jewish Holocaust? As a subject, this wasn\u2019t brought up at all in my experience at school, and in general it isn\u2019t talked about even comparably as often as the Holocaust is when it comes to historical atrocities. I find this hard to explain given conservative estimates of the death toll of Native American is said to be roughly 12 million according to Russell Thornton, and vary significantly with a toll of 100 million documented by D.E Stannard, author of \u2018The American Holocaust\u2019, the reasonable conclusion seems to land at around 75 million lives lost between Columbus\u2019 arrival in 1492-1900, which works out to be close to 90% of the entire Native American population, with 5 million remaining today. Could someone please explain why, with a conservative estimate of twice as many lives lost, it isn\u2019t spoken of with the same condemnation as the Holocaust, or if you were educated on the subject differently to what I was.","c_root_id_A":"hq9thyd","c_root_id_B":"hq9iyyg","created_at_utc_A":1640696309,"created_at_utc_B":1640688719,"score_A":1372,"score_B":633,"human_ref_A":"As often happens, many of the removed comments are simply \"what happened to the comments\"? However, we've also removed a number of comments that reflect common misunderstandings around the genocide(s) of American Indians.   This message is not intended to provide all the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as genocide denialism in this regard, and provide a short list of introductory reading. Because this topic covers a large area of study, the actions of the United States will be highlighted. There is always more that can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point.   ##What is Genocide?  Since the conceptualization of the act of genocide, scholars have developed a variety of frameworks to evaluate instances that may be considered genocide. One of the more common frameworks is the definition and criteria implemented by the United Nations. The term \"genocide,\" as coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, was defined by the U.N. in 1948. The use of this term was further elaborated by the genocide convention.  Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:  1. The mental element, meaning the \"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such\", and 2. The physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called \"genocide.\"  Article II: In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:  * (a) Killing members of the group; * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  ##American Indian Genocides \u2013 Did they happen?  Since the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, typically signaled with the appearance of Columbus in 1492, Indigenous Peoples have experienced systematic oppression and extermination at the hands of colonial powers. These colonizing governments either organized or sponsored acts of genocide perpetrated by settlers, targeting Indigenous settlements for complete destruction; eliminating sources of food and access to life-sustaining resources; instituting child separation policies; and forcefully relocating Indigenous populations to often times inhospitable tracts of land, now known as \u201creservations.\u201d All of these acts constitute what scholars now recognize as genocide. The horrendous acts that occurred in the Americas were even an example proposed by Lemkin himself, where it is noted from his writings:  >Lemkin applied the term to a wide range of cases including many involving European colonial projects in Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and the Americas. A recent investigation of an unfinished manuscript for a global history of genocide Lemkin was writing in the late 1940s and early 1950s reveals an expansive view of what Lemkin termed a \u201cSpanish colonial genocide.\u201d He never began work on a projected chapter on \u201cThe Indians of North America,\u201d though his notes indicate that he was researching Indian removal, treaties, the California gold rush, and the Plains wars.  These actions took place over the entirety of the Americas, exacerbating the rapid depopulation of Indigenous Nations and communities. Exact figures of the population decline are inconclusive, giving us only estimates at best, with Pre-Columbian population numbers ranging anywhere from as low as 8 million to as high as ~100 million inhabitants across North, Central, and South America. What we do know is that in the United States, records indicate the American Indian population had dropped to approximately 250,000 by 1900. Despite any debate about population statistics, the historical records and narratives conclude that, at least according to the U.N. definition, genocide was committed.  ##Mental Element: Establishing Intent  In order for genocide to be committed, there must be reasonable evidence to establish an intent to commit what constitutes genocide. Through both word and action, we can see that colonial powers, such as the United States, did intend at times to exterminate American Indian populations, often with public support. Government officials, journalists, scholars, and public figures echoed societal sentiments regarding their desire to destroy Indians, either in reference to specific groups or the whole race.  >\u201dThis unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.\u201d  --Thomas Jefferson, 1813]( https:\/\/www.loc.gov\/resource\/mtj1.047_0147_0150\/?sp=3)  >\"That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected.\"  [--California Governor Peter Burnett, 1851  >\". . .these Indians will in the end be exterminated. They must soon be crushed - they will be exterminated before the onward march of the white man.\"  --U.S. Senator John Weller, 1852, page 17, citation 92  ##Physical Element: Acting with Purpose  **U.S. Army Policy of Killing Buffalo (Criterion C)**  In this post, it is explained how it was the intention and policy of the U.S. Army to kill the buffalo of America off in an attempt to subdue, and even exterminate, the Plains Indians.  **Sterilization (Criterion D)**  The Indian Health Service (IHS) is a federally run service for American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is responsible for providing proper health care for American Indians as established via the treaties and trust relationship between tribes and the U.S. Government. However, on November 6, 1976, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of an investigation that concluded that between 1973 and 1976, IHS performed 3,406 sterilizations on Native American women. Per capita, this figure would be equivalent to sterilizing 452,000 non-Native American women. Many of these sterilizations were conducted without the consent of the women being sterilized or under coercion.  **Boarding Schools (Criterion E)**  The systematic removal of Indian children from their parents and placement into boarding schools was a policy implemented by the United States meant to force American Indian children to assimilate into American culture,]( https:\/\/redd.it\/8zgozt) thus \u201c[killing] the Indian, [and saving] the man.\u201d These schools were operated by various entities, including the federal government and church\/missionary organizations. While constituting cultural genocide as well, American Indian children were beaten, neglected, and barred from practicing their cultures. Some children even died at these schools.  ##But What About the Diseases?  In the United States, a subtle state of denial exists regarding portions of this country's history. One of the biggest issues concerning the colonization of the Americas is whether or not this genocide was committed by the incoming colonists. And while the finer points of this subject are still being discussed, few academics would deny that acts of genocide were committed. However, there are those who vehemently attempt to refute conclusions made by experts and assert that no genocide occurred. These [\u201cmethods of denialism\u201d are important to recognize to avoid being manipulated by those who would see the historical narratives change for the worse.  One of the primary methods of denial is the over severity of diseases introduced into the Americas after the arrival of the colonizers, effectively turning these diseases into ethopoeic scapegoats responsible for the deaths of Indigenous Peoples. While it is true that disease was a huge component of the depopulation of the Americas, often resulting in up to a 95% mortality rate for many communities and meaning *some* communities endured more deaths from disease, these effects were greatly exacerbated by actions of colonization.  ##Further Reading  Though there is much information about this topic, this introductory list of books and resources provide ample evidence to attest the information presented here:  * *Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America* edited by Catherine Cameron, Paul Kelton, and Alan Swedlund * *American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492* by Russell Thornton * *Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873* by Brendan Lindsay * *Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur* by Ben Kiernan * *American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World* by David Stannard * *Myths of Conquest* by \/u\/anthropology_nerd * AskHistorians FAQ","human_ref_B":"Hi there! You\u2019ve asked a question along the lines of \u2018why didn\u2019t I learn about X\u2019. We\u2019re happy to let this question stand, but there are a variety of reasons why you may find it hard to get a good answer to this question on \/r\/AskHistorians.  Firstly, school curricula and how they are taught vary strongly between different countries and even different states. Additionally, how they are taught is often influenced by teachers having to compromise on how much time they can spend on any given topic. More information on your location and level of education might be helpful to answer this question.  Secondly, we have noticed that these questions are often phrased to be about people's individual experiences but what they are really about is why a certain event is more prominent in popular narratives of history than others.  Instead of asking \"Why haven't I learned about event ...\", consider asking \"What importance do scholars assign to event ... in the context of such and such history?\" The latter question is often closer to what people actually want to know and is more likely to get a good answer from an expert. If you intend to ask the 'What importance do scholars assign to event X' question instead, let us know and we'll remove this question.  Thank you!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7590.0,"score_ratio":2.1674565561}
+{"post_id":"rqau26","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why isn\u2019t the genocide of Native American\u2019s spoken of in the same vein as the Jewish Holocaust? As a subject, this wasn\u2019t brought up at all in my experience at school, and in general it isn\u2019t talked about even comparably as often as the Holocaust is when it comes to historical atrocities. I find this hard to explain given conservative estimates of the death toll of Native American is said to be roughly 12 million according to Russell Thornton, and vary significantly with a toll of 100 million documented by D.E Stannard, author of \u2018The American Holocaust\u2019, the reasonable conclusion seems to land at around 75 million lives lost between Columbus\u2019 arrival in 1492-1900, which works out to be close to 90% of the entire Native American population, with 5 million remaining today. Could someone please explain why, with a conservative estimate of twice as many lives lost, it isn\u2019t spoken of with the same condemnation as the Holocaust, or if you were educated on the subject differently to what I was.","c_root_id_A":"hq9thyd","c_root_id_B":"hq97oeh","created_at_utc_A":1640696309,"created_at_utc_B":1640679443,"score_A":1372,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"As often happens, many of the removed comments are simply \"what happened to the comments\"? However, we've also removed a number of comments that reflect common misunderstandings around the genocide(s) of American Indians.   This message is not intended to provide all the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as genocide denialism in this regard, and provide a short list of introductory reading. Because this topic covers a large area of study, the actions of the United States will be highlighted. There is always more that can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point.   ##What is Genocide?  Since the conceptualization of the act of genocide, scholars have developed a variety of frameworks to evaluate instances that may be considered genocide. One of the more common frameworks is the definition and criteria implemented by the United Nations. The term \"genocide,\" as coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, was defined by the U.N. in 1948. The use of this term was further elaborated by the genocide convention.  Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:  1. The mental element, meaning the \"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such\", and 2. The physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called \"genocide.\"  Article II: In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:  * (a) Killing members of the group; * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  ##American Indian Genocides \u2013 Did they happen?  Since the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, typically signaled with the appearance of Columbus in 1492, Indigenous Peoples have experienced systematic oppression and extermination at the hands of colonial powers. These colonizing governments either organized or sponsored acts of genocide perpetrated by settlers, targeting Indigenous settlements for complete destruction; eliminating sources of food and access to life-sustaining resources; instituting child separation policies; and forcefully relocating Indigenous populations to often times inhospitable tracts of land, now known as \u201creservations.\u201d All of these acts constitute what scholars now recognize as genocide. The horrendous acts that occurred in the Americas were even an example proposed by Lemkin himself, where it is noted from his writings:  >Lemkin applied the term to a wide range of cases including many involving European colonial projects in Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and the Americas. A recent investigation of an unfinished manuscript for a global history of genocide Lemkin was writing in the late 1940s and early 1950s reveals an expansive view of what Lemkin termed a \u201cSpanish colonial genocide.\u201d He never began work on a projected chapter on \u201cThe Indians of North America,\u201d though his notes indicate that he was researching Indian removal, treaties, the California gold rush, and the Plains wars.  These actions took place over the entirety of the Americas, exacerbating the rapid depopulation of Indigenous Nations and communities. Exact figures of the population decline are inconclusive, giving us only estimates at best, with Pre-Columbian population numbers ranging anywhere from as low as 8 million to as high as ~100 million inhabitants across North, Central, and South America. What we do know is that in the United States, records indicate the American Indian population had dropped to approximately 250,000 by 1900. Despite any debate about population statistics, the historical records and narratives conclude that, at least according to the U.N. definition, genocide was committed.  ##Mental Element: Establishing Intent  In order for genocide to be committed, there must be reasonable evidence to establish an intent to commit what constitutes genocide. Through both word and action, we can see that colonial powers, such as the United States, did intend at times to exterminate American Indian populations, often with public support. Government officials, journalists, scholars, and public figures echoed societal sentiments regarding their desire to destroy Indians, either in reference to specific groups or the whole race.  >\u201dThis unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.\u201d  --Thomas Jefferson, 1813]( https:\/\/www.loc.gov\/resource\/mtj1.047_0147_0150\/?sp=3)  >\"That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected.\"  [--California Governor Peter Burnett, 1851  >\". . .these Indians will in the end be exterminated. They must soon be crushed - they will be exterminated before the onward march of the white man.\"  --U.S. Senator John Weller, 1852, page 17, citation 92  ##Physical Element: Acting with Purpose  **U.S. Army Policy of Killing Buffalo (Criterion C)**  In this post, it is explained how it was the intention and policy of the U.S. Army to kill the buffalo of America off in an attempt to subdue, and even exterminate, the Plains Indians.  **Sterilization (Criterion D)**  The Indian Health Service (IHS) is a federally run service for American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is responsible for providing proper health care for American Indians as established via the treaties and trust relationship between tribes and the U.S. Government. However, on November 6, 1976, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of an investigation that concluded that between 1973 and 1976, IHS performed 3,406 sterilizations on Native American women. Per capita, this figure would be equivalent to sterilizing 452,000 non-Native American women. Many of these sterilizations were conducted without the consent of the women being sterilized or under coercion.  **Boarding Schools (Criterion E)**  The systematic removal of Indian children from their parents and placement into boarding schools was a policy implemented by the United States meant to force American Indian children to assimilate into American culture,]( https:\/\/redd.it\/8zgozt) thus \u201c[killing] the Indian, [and saving] the man.\u201d These schools were operated by various entities, including the federal government and church\/missionary organizations. While constituting cultural genocide as well, American Indian children were beaten, neglected, and barred from practicing their cultures. Some children even died at these schools.  ##But What About the Diseases?  In the United States, a subtle state of denial exists regarding portions of this country's history. One of the biggest issues concerning the colonization of the Americas is whether or not this genocide was committed by the incoming colonists. And while the finer points of this subject are still being discussed, few academics would deny that acts of genocide were committed. However, there are those who vehemently attempt to refute conclusions made by experts and assert that no genocide occurred. These [\u201cmethods of denialism\u201d are important to recognize to avoid being manipulated by those who would see the historical narratives change for the worse.  One of the primary methods of denial is the over severity of diseases introduced into the Americas after the arrival of the colonizers, effectively turning these diseases into ethopoeic scapegoats responsible for the deaths of Indigenous Peoples. While it is true that disease was a huge component of the depopulation of the Americas, often resulting in up to a 95% mortality rate for many communities and meaning *some* communities endured more deaths from disease, these effects were greatly exacerbated by actions of colonization.  ##Further Reading  Though there is much information about this topic, this introductory list of books and resources provide ample evidence to attest the information presented here:  * *Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America* edited by Catherine Cameron, Paul Kelton, and Alan Swedlund * *American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492* by Russell Thornton * *Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873* by Brendan Lindsay * *Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur* by Ben Kiernan * *American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World* by David Stannard * *Myths of Conquest* by \/u\/anthropology_nerd * AskHistorians FAQ","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  #Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup**.  We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16866.0,"score_ratio":72.2105263158}
+{"post_id":"rqau26","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why isn\u2019t the genocide of Native American\u2019s spoken of in the same vein as the Jewish Holocaust? As a subject, this wasn\u2019t brought up at all in my experience at school, and in general it isn\u2019t talked about even comparably as often as the Holocaust is when it comes to historical atrocities. I find this hard to explain given conservative estimates of the death toll of Native American is said to be roughly 12 million according to Russell Thornton, and vary significantly with a toll of 100 million documented by D.E Stannard, author of \u2018The American Holocaust\u2019, the reasonable conclusion seems to land at around 75 million lives lost between Columbus\u2019 arrival in 1492-1900, which works out to be close to 90% of the entire Native American population, with 5 million remaining today. Could someone please explain why, with a conservative estimate of twice as many lives lost, it isn\u2019t spoken of with the same condemnation as the Holocaust, or if you were educated on the subject differently to what I was.","c_root_id_A":"hq9iyyg","c_root_id_B":"hq97oeh","created_at_utc_A":1640688719,"created_at_utc_B":1640679443,"score_A":633,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Hi there! You\u2019ve asked a question along the lines of \u2018why didn\u2019t I learn about X\u2019. We\u2019re happy to let this question stand, but there are a variety of reasons why you may find it hard to get a good answer to this question on \/r\/AskHistorians.  Firstly, school curricula and how they are taught vary strongly between different countries and even different states. Additionally, how they are taught is often influenced by teachers having to compromise on how much time they can spend on any given topic. More information on your location and level of education might be helpful to answer this question.  Secondly, we have noticed that these questions are often phrased to be about people's individual experiences but what they are really about is why a certain event is more prominent in popular narratives of history than others.  Instead of asking \"Why haven't I learned about event ...\", consider asking \"What importance do scholars assign to event ... in the context of such and such history?\" The latter question is often closer to what people actually want to know and is more likely to get a good answer from an expert. If you intend to ask the 'What importance do scholars assign to event X' question instead, let us know and we'll remove this question.  Thank you!","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  #Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup**.  We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9276.0,"score_ratio":33.3157894737}
+{"post_id":"lqn29w","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Why did the US Government name its states after Native American tribes it was actively trying to wipe out? This has always seemed odd to me that US states (Illinois, Wyoming, Dakota, etc.) were named after the people the government was committing an act of genocide on. What is the reason for that?","c_root_id_A":"gojmpvy","c_root_id_B":"gokwxaa","created_at_utc_A":1614138225,"created_at_utc_B":1614173977,"score_A":137,"score_B":315,"human_ref_A":"Is it possible to get a list of all the boarding schools that took in Native Americans? Also is there any record of what they were taught to \u201cassimilate\/kill off\u201d their Indian culture?","human_ref_B":"This is an interesting question, and I was really hoping to see someone answer it fully. Being a mod, I have the unfortunate privilege of being able to see the removed comments, and while there are attempts to explain 'This is the origin of X state's name', it is unfortunate that no one really made an attempt to engage with what is *being asked*, that is to say, not simply \"*Why is Massachusetts called Massachusetts?*\" (and for which there are thousands of answers out there for the various locales from state level on down in this country) but more specifically \"*What does calling it Massachusetts say about the relationship between the white colonizers and the Massachusett people whose name is used?*\" I was hesitant to provide any response, because I don't have a *direct* answer, and was hoping someone would be able to talk specifically about *place* names in the United States in such terms. Thus I didn't post anything yesterday since I didn't want to dissuade someone from giving a deeper answer specifically about the physical geography and the legacy of indigenous place names in the American lexicon.   But being the next day and the question dropping off soon still unanswered, I can speak on the next level up about the connection between white American culture and \"The Idea of the Indian\", as it can be termed, which is in brief sum about how Americans adopted the symbolism of the original peoples and gave it its own meaning, often in a rather perverse way where it quite explicitly is found in ways that are intended to reflect a *white* nativist doctrine which of course entirely separates who is really reflected in those images from how they are being used. This is *not* an uncommon thing to find when looking at the culture of colonizers, something which I've written about before with New Zealand for instance, although of course it is a phenomenon which manifests itself in different ways in different places.  In the United States specifically I've written about this a few times previously, which I'll link here and provide some brief annotation on. I would again note that I *don't* talk about place names, and for that I really hope someone is still able to weigh in.   But in this first answer I talk extensively about how in colonial period and the early United States indigenous imagery was co-opted into symbols of American liberty. We can see this most famously in the Boston Tea Party, as well as reflected in American coinage which is a large focus of the answer. This trend elevated the *image* of the \"Indian\" into the heights of the American Idea, but entirely for white purposes. It leaned into certain, specific stereotypes about the native cultures while at the same time decrying them as savages and working to wipe them out. Importantly, and perhaps the best *direct* parallel to *this* question, is that while doing so, they used these concepts taken from the *actual* native peoples to craft a nativist identity for white Americans, an implicit absolving of their crimes to boot. It was now *their* symbols and *their* identity because *they* were \"Native\".  I also pivot to the late 19th and early 20th centuries by which point the native peoples had been subjugated and forced into reservation life, and for most white Americans were an amorphous concept from the history books, or dime-store novels, resulting in a shifting 'Idea of the Indian' which reflected an idealized vision of masculinity, martial prowess, and rugged outdoorsmanship.   I build off of that in this second answer which specifically focuses on how those values came to be reflected in white society through the lens of the Scouting movement, and how while there was a *veneer* of respect, it was one which was entirely on white terms, and a respect for a specific stereotype that was in many ways simply a construction of the white imagination, and which saw the ultimate achievement as being the white man who was more \"Indian\" than the \"Indian\", the highest pantheon being figures like Davey Crocket or Daniel Boone, who could take those skills and perform them even better due to their supposed superior whiteness.  So again, I would caution that I've only offered a partial view here. It speaks to the place that the \"Idea of the Indian\" held within white American society, and hopefully goes a long way to helping you understand how that society was able to bridge the cognitive dissonance of using indigenous symbolism so extensively while at the same time practicing sustained campaigns of genocide against them for centuries, but there is absolutely more to this story which is beyond by ken, so I would leave it to others to build off that and *specifically* tie in discussion of that discourse with the physical geography itself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35752.0,"score_ratio":2.299270073}
+{"post_id":"e01esa","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Given that Pre-Islamic Arabia was a very women-friendly and sexually \"liberal\" society, what is the source of Islam's extremely puritanical culture? In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens.   The Qur'an partially mentions some of this (like the female gods, decrying them) and urges Muslim women not to emulate the women of the time of ignorance in their bedizenment, with the Tafsirs pointing out to pre-Islamic Arabian women dressing in a skimpy manner and without modesty. **How come that Islam, which developed against this backdrop, came to be such a puritanical religion in which any sexual or romantic affection before marriage is heavily frowned upon, and in which women have to cover themselves partially or fully almost all the time?**","c_root_id_A":"f8cr3zo","c_root_id_B":"f8cthsu","created_at_utc_A":1574467016,"created_at_utc_B":1574468888,"score_A":406,"score_B":1116,"human_ref_A":"I think you're vastly overstating Pre-Islamic Arabia's \"very\" women-friendly and sexually liberal society.   > In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens.   Looking back at Hoyland it seems these thing are weren't as ubiquitous as you make it seem. He mostly cites only one or two sources for each claim. How common or prevalent these things were remains unseen. The time period was long enough and pre-Islamic society diverse enough where we cannot take these things as representative.   > women could marry multiple men  Hoyland says;   > Diversity in marriage customs is also evident in the degree to which monogamy, polygyny (one man many wives) and polyandry (one woman many husbands) all crop up in our sources.   Hoyland then goes on to quote a source saying polyandry was practiced as fraternal polyandry and brothers would share a wife.   > Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages  Hoyland says;  > While  descent  through  the  male  line  would  seem  to  have  been the norm in pre-Islamic Arabia, we are occasionally given hints of matrilineal arrangements.  The problem with discussing pre-Islamic Arabia is that there just aren't that many sources let alone sources about women, to give insight on how most women lived. So it becomes difficult to make any kind of judgment about how \"liberal\" pre-Islamic society was. Even Hoyland's book only discusses women in society for six pages and mostly only discusses the things you mentioned here. Hoyland's book does not give a rigorous enough discussion to make any kind of judgement on the \"liberalness\" of pre-Islamic Arabia. The things discussed do not in and of themselves indicate a women-friendly or sexually liberal society. These things can still exist in a patriarchal and misogynist society. Hoyland also mentions that women were encountered \"first and foremost as wives and mothers.\" Not to mention they may not have been as ubiquitous as the book suggests.   One of the largest sources for information on pre-Islamic Arabia come from Islamic sources themselves. However Islamic sources are not charitable to the position of women in pre-Islamic Arabia and characterized the time as a time of ignorance and barbarism. For example sources mention things like bride kidnapping, forced marriage, marriage by inheritance, female infanticide, forced prostitution etc. Islamic sources saw Islam as elevating the position of position of women in Arabia and giving them rights like the right to divorce, the right to consent to marriage, right to a bride-price, etc. Early Muslims who had known both pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Arabia commented on the positive turn Islam had given women in terms of women's status in society.   So we actually don't know very much what it was actually like for women in pre-Islamic Arabia and cannot make judgements about how \"liberal\" or \"women-friendly\" it actually was. There simply isn't enough historical information to make this kind of judgment.","human_ref_B":"Hey!  So this has a couple of different parts that I hope to address.  I can't give a super specific answer, but will try to touch on a number of facets you could ask follow-up questions about.  I'm pulling some from previous answers that I have written, but much of this is also new.  A great book on this topic is Leila Ahmed's book *Women and Gender in Islam*, which I will heavily use below.  # Part 1 \u2013 Quick Note on Veiling Itself  Because you specifically mentioned it, I wanted to start with a small section on veiling itself.  Veiling was common practice in multiple pre-Islamic societies across the Middle East.  In Assyrian culture wearing a veil separated between a 'respectable' woman and those who were 'up for grabs', so to say.  Upper class women, concubines accompanying those women, and former \"sacred prostitutes\" all had to wear it whereas normal prostitutes and slaves were forbidden from veiling themselves, even so far as being under threat of flogging or having their ears cut off.  Ahmed then writes that this practice spread throughout the upper-class Mediterranean world - from the Levant through to Persia - and also crossed religious lines appearing in Byzantine Christian societies.  Here, Ahmed gives the example of a 10th century Byzantine patriarch who wrote that he only allowed his daughter to go out \"veiled and suitable chaperoned\".  She also notes the reasoning, separating the respectable from the rabble, remains constant even in these other societies.    However, that is not to say that veiling was necessarily widespread in Arabia itself.  Women of the *jahilyya* pre-Islamic period did not normally don a veil. This of course varied from city to countryside, with cities being more likely to veil.  Overall, nowhere was the veil common to the extent of places like neighboring Syria and Palestine.  As you noted in your question, sexual relations in Arabia were more open than in those other societies, with both polygamy and polyandry being present.   Through Muhammad's entire life, the only women who were regularly veiled or secluded were his wives. Through successful revelations received by Muhammad, the practice of veiling and seclusion took hold among them, getting to the point where the phrasing \"she took the veil\" became synonymous to \"she became a wife of Muhammad\".  Various impetuses pushed Muhammad towards these rulings.  For example, it was after he became annoyed with guests staying too long chatting with his wives after dinner that the Sura 33 was revealed, within which verse 54 details that one should only speak to Muhammad's wives from behind a curtain. The word he uses for curtain is *\u1e25ij\u0101b*.  Most westerners associate the word *hijab* with some sort of head-wrap of veil, but it also literally can mean 'veil' in the sense of a curtain.  Verse 59 then gives the commandment to women to \"bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused.\"  This is allegedly in response to the \"hypocrites\", mere nominal converts to Islam, harassing Muslim women and claiming to have thought they were slaves.  Finally, I should note that the later second Caliph, Omar, was a proponent of seclusion of women and veiling and actively pushed Muhammad towards this position.  # Part 2 \u2013 The evolution of the Woman\u2019s place  This is what I suspect to be the more interesting section \u2013 why did Islam develop the way it did, when women played such major roles in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times?  In the *jahilyya*, and within early Islam, women contributed in a number of facets of life.  Women were soothsayers and prophetesses such as Sajah, a Christian woman of the Ban\u016b Tam\u012bm who led a force of over 4,000 along with Musaylimah, \u201cThe Liar\u201d, in rebellion against the nascent Muslim state.  Like the previous sentence indicates, they were also involved in warfare. They were not only poets, telling stories of the battles and engaging in ritualistic pre-battle exchanges of insults, but also warriors themselves. Umm \u2018Umara fought at a number of battles alongside men, eventually losing her hand at the Battle of \u2018Uqraba in 634.  Women were heavily involved in early Islamic religious life, providing the many of the *hadith* that came to guide religious life.  It was common for them to remarry, showing there to be a lack of stigma against non-virgins, and often they brought significant wealth to these relationships (Muhammad\u2019s first wife, Khadija, was one such widow.  15 years his senior, she was rich enough to allow Muhammad to not have to work, allowing him to instead focus on his spiritual teachings).   #**So why did this begin to change?**  The changes actually started before the spread of Islam, as merchants in urban Arabian cities were increasingly exposed to the norms and cultures of lands with much more rigid gender roles.  This can be seen as an explanation as to why it was the cities, not the countryside, that first adopted veiling.  However, what brought the changes into hyperdrive was the rapid expansion of the early Islamic Empire.  Not only did this bring increased contact with these foreign cultures, but it also brought an influx of slaves, diminishing the bargaining power of even Arab-born women.   The conquests brought untold wealth to the Arabs.  Even regular soldiers were able to afford slaves, houses, and concubines.  Accordingly, women lost one of their original bargaining chips \u2013 the wealth they brought to marriages.  Further, as a condition for surrendering and keeping their place, many Persian and Sassanian nobles converted to Islam. They kept, however, their original cultures.  One of the features that developed around this time was the harem, with a multitude of women being walled off for rich and powerful men, guarded only by Eunuchs.  With easy access to sex slaves, Ahmed argues that the line between \u201cwoman\u201d and \u201cobject\u201d started to blur.  Men did not need to put up with the demands stipulated by Arab women\u2019s wedding contracts when they had access to sex elsewhere.  Women faced increasingly strict restrictions and were treated increasingly poorly.  Some elite men even went so far as to lament the fact that they had to marry their daughters, as their standards of living would so dramatically fall.  Ahmed included the following poem in her book, written from one noble man to another on the occasion of his daughter\u2019s death.  This did not come from a sense of general misogyny, that daughters were worthless, but rather from the degradations and humiliations their daughters were liable to face.   > To Abu Hasan I offer condolences.   > At times of disaster and catastrophe   > God multiplies rewards for the patient.   > To be patient in misery   > Is equivalent to giving thanks for a gift.   > Among the blessings of God undoubtedly   > Is the preservation of sons   > And the death of daughters.  But cultural and economic changes are only a portion of the story.  Also in play was the religious framework that marriage operated within. Islamic law works through a local judge, a *Qadi*, issuing a ruling on a specific case so that it is in line with religious teachings (we have to note that there was no separation between the illegal and the immoral, but rather they were the one and the same).  However, while the Qur\u2019an protected women\u2019s rights in a number of areas, judges often interpreted these not as legally binding rules, but rather as binding only upon the individual\u2019s conscience.  So, a man would not be legally bound to treat his 4 wives fairly, even if that is a stipulation within the Qur\u2019an itself. There was, in essence, the loss of many Qur\u2019anic provisions that could protect women.  The 11th century also brought the *Closing of the Gates of Ijtihad*.  That is, Islamic jurisprudence reached a point where they (allegedly) decided that there had been sufficient rulings in the past that any questions which need an answer were answerable, and it is was longer necessary to use independent reasoning to come to new solutions (for more on this, see my answere [here]( https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/7vynzv\/when_and_why_did_muslim_countries_stop_using_the\/dtwak37\/))  This in essence froze many Islamic teachings. There are 4 main schools of Sunni Islamic thought, and at the point of the closing of the gates of Ijtihad, only the Maliki school allowed for women to obtain a divorce on the grounds of desertion or cruelty. Meanwhile, only the Hanafi school fully enforced marriage contracts that would bind a man to monogamy.  While before the closing of these gates a judge could, theoretically, use his own reasoning to analogize and come to a new ruling, they were now largely bound to *taqlid*, imitation of the past. So, these doctrines, along with countless others controlling women\u2019s lives, ceased to develop at the same speed as before.  That is not to say that women were completely locked out, as one could effectively \u201cshop\u201d between the different schools of thought for the most favorable ruling.  There is much, much more one could write on this topic, but I unfortunately have work that I have to do.  I hope this can help begin to answer your question, and if you have follow-ups I\u2019ll try to respond if possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1872.0,"score_ratio":2.7487684729}
+{"post_id":"e01esa","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Given that Pre-Islamic Arabia was a very women-friendly and sexually \"liberal\" society, what is the source of Islam's extremely puritanical culture? In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens.   The Qur'an partially mentions some of this (like the female gods, decrying them) and urges Muslim women not to emulate the women of the time of ignorance in their bedizenment, with the Tafsirs pointing out to pre-Islamic Arabian women dressing in a skimpy manner and without modesty. **How come that Islam, which developed against this backdrop, came to be such a puritanical religion in which any sexual or romantic affection before marriage is heavily frowned upon, and in which women have to cover themselves partially or fully almost all the time?**","c_root_id_A":"f8b9yli","c_root_id_B":"f8cthsu","created_at_utc_A":1574431538,"created_at_utc_B":1574468888,"score_A":14,"score_B":1116,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to be written, which takes time. Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot**, using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Hey!  So this has a couple of different parts that I hope to address.  I can't give a super specific answer, but will try to touch on a number of facets you could ask follow-up questions about.  I'm pulling some from previous answers that I have written, but much of this is also new.  A great book on this topic is Leila Ahmed's book *Women and Gender in Islam*, which I will heavily use below.  # Part 1 \u2013 Quick Note on Veiling Itself  Because you specifically mentioned it, I wanted to start with a small section on veiling itself.  Veiling was common practice in multiple pre-Islamic societies across the Middle East.  In Assyrian culture wearing a veil separated between a 'respectable' woman and those who were 'up for grabs', so to say.  Upper class women, concubines accompanying those women, and former \"sacred prostitutes\" all had to wear it whereas normal prostitutes and slaves were forbidden from veiling themselves, even so far as being under threat of flogging or having their ears cut off.  Ahmed then writes that this practice spread throughout the upper-class Mediterranean world - from the Levant through to Persia - and also crossed religious lines appearing in Byzantine Christian societies.  Here, Ahmed gives the example of a 10th century Byzantine patriarch who wrote that he only allowed his daughter to go out \"veiled and suitable chaperoned\".  She also notes the reasoning, separating the respectable from the rabble, remains constant even in these other societies.    However, that is not to say that veiling was necessarily widespread in Arabia itself.  Women of the *jahilyya* pre-Islamic period did not normally don a veil. This of course varied from city to countryside, with cities being more likely to veil.  Overall, nowhere was the veil common to the extent of places like neighboring Syria and Palestine.  As you noted in your question, sexual relations in Arabia were more open than in those other societies, with both polygamy and polyandry being present.   Through Muhammad's entire life, the only women who were regularly veiled or secluded were his wives. Through successful revelations received by Muhammad, the practice of veiling and seclusion took hold among them, getting to the point where the phrasing \"she took the veil\" became synonymous to \"she became a wife of Muhammad\".  Various impetuses pushed Muhammad towards these rulings.  For example, it was after he became annoyed with guests staying too long chatting with his wives after dinner that the Sura 33 was revealed, within which verse 54 details that one should only speak to Muhammad's wives from behind a curtain. The word he uses for curtain is *\u1e25ij\u0101b*.  Most westerners associate the word *hijab* with some sort of head-wrap of veil, but it also literally can mean 'veil' in the sense of a curtain.  Verse 59 then gives the commandment to women to \"bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused.\"  This is allegedly in response to the \"hypocrites\", mere nominal converts to Islam, harassing Muslim women and claiming to have thought they were slaves.  Finally, I should note that the later second Caliph, Omar, was a proponent of seclusion of women and veiling and actively pushed Muhammad towards this position.  # Part 2 \u2013 The evolution of the Woman\u2019s place  This is what I suspect to be the more interesting section \u2013 why did Islam develop the way it did, when women played such major roles in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times?  In the *jahilyya*, and within early Islam, women contributed in a number of facets of life.  Women were soothsayers and prophetesses such as Sajah, a Christian woman of the Ban\u016b Tam\u012bm who led a force of over 4,000 along with Musaylimah, \u201cThe Liar\u201d, in rebellion against the nascent Muslim state.  Like the previous sentence indicates, they were also involved in warfare. They were not only poets, telling stories of the battles and engaging in ritualistic pre-battle exchanges of insults, but also warriors themselves. Umm \u2018Umara fought at a number of battles alongside men, eventually losing her hand at the Battle of \u2018Uqraba in 634.  Women were heavily involved in early Islamic religious life, providing the many of the *hadith* that came to guide religious life.  It was common for them to remarry, showing there to be a lack of stigma against non-virgins, and often they brought significant wealth to these relationships (Muhammad\u2019s first wife, Khadija, was one such widow.  15 years his senior, she was rich enough to allow Muhammad to not have to work, allowing him to instead focus on his spiritual teachings).   #**So why did this begin to change?**  The changes actually started before the spread of Islam, as merchants in urban Arabian cities were increasingly exposed to the norms and cultures of lands with much more rigid gender roles.  This can be seen as an explanation as to why it was the cities, not the countryside, that first adopted veiling.  However, what brought the changes into hyperdrive was the rapid expansion of the early Islamic Empire.  Not only did this bring increased contact with these foreign cultures, but it also brought an influx of slaves, diminishing the bargaining power of even Arab-born women.   The conquests brought untold wealth to the Arabs.  Even regular soldiers were able to afford slaves, houses, and concubines.  Accordingly, women lost one of their original bargaining chips \u2013 the wealth they brought to marriages.  Further, as a condition for surrendering and keeping their place, many Persian and Sassanian nobles converted to Islam. They kept, however, their original cultures.  One of the features that developed around this time was the harem, with a multitude of women being walled off for rich and powerful men, guarded only by Eunuchs.  With easy access to sex slaves, Ahmed argues that the line between \u201cwoman\u201d and \u201cobject\u201d started to blur.  Men did not need to put up with the demands stipulated by Arab women\u2019s wedding contracts when they had access to sex elsewhere.  Women faced increasingly strict restrictions and were treated increasingly poorly.  Some elite men even went so far as to lament the fact that they had to marry their daughters, as their standards of living would so dramatically fall.  Ahmed included the following poem in her book, written from one noble man to another on the occasion of his daughter\u2019s death.  This did not come from a sense of general misogyny, that daughters were worthless, but rather from the degradations and humiliations their daughters were liable to face.   > To Abu Hasan I offer condolences.   > At times of disaster and catastrophe   > God multiplies rewards for the patient.   > To be patient in misery   > Is equivalent to giving thanks for a gift.   > Among the blessings of God undoubtedly   > Is the preservation of sons   > And the death of daughters.  But cultural and economic changes are only a portion of the story.  Also in play was the religious framework that marriage operated within. Islamic law works through a local judge, a *Qadi*, issuing a ruling on a specific case so that it is in line with religious teachings (we have to note that there was no separation between the illegal and the immoral, but rather they were the one and the same).  However, while the Qur\u2019an protected women\u2019s rights in a number of areas, judges often interpreted these not as legally binding rules, but rather as binding only upon the individual\u2019s conscience.  So, a man would not be legally bound to treat his 4 wives fairly, even if that is a stipulation within the Qur\u2019an itself. There was, in essence, the loss of many Qur\u2019anic provisions that could protect women.  The 11th century also brought the *Closing of the Gates of Ijtihad*.  That is, Islamic jurisprudence reached a point where they (allegedly) decided that there had been sufficient rulings in the past that any questions which need an answer were answerable, and it is was longer necessary to use independent reasoning to come to new solutions (for more on this, see my answere [here]( https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/7vynzv\/when_and_why_did_muslim_countries_stop_using_the\/dtwak37\/))  This in essence froze many Islamic teachings. There are 4 main schools of Sunni Islamic thought, and at the point of the closing of the gates of Ijtihad, only the Maliki school allowed for women to obtain a divorce on the grounds of desertion or cruelty. Meanwhile, only the Hanafi school fully enforced marriage contracts that would bind a man to monogamy.  While before the closing of these gates a judge could, theoretically, use his own reasoning to analogize and come to a new ruling, they were now largely bound to *taqlid*, imitation of the past. So, these doctrines, along with countless others controlling women\u2019s lives, ceased to develop at the same speed as before.  That is not to say that women were completely locked out, as one could effectively \u201cshop\u201d between the different schools of thought for the most favorable ruling.  There is much, much more one could write on this topic, but I unfortunately have work that I have to do.  I hope this can help begin to answer your question, and if you have follow-ups I\u2019ll try to respond if possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37350.0,"score_ratio":79.7142857143}
+{"post_id":"e01esa","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Given that Pre-Islamic Arabia was a very women-friendly and sexually \"liberal\" society, what is the source of Islam's extremely puritanical culture? In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens.   The Qur'an partially mentions some of this (like the female gods, decrying them) and urges Muslim women not to emulate the women of the time of ignorance in their bedizenment, with the Tafsirs pointing out to pre-Islamic Arabian women dressing in a skimpy manner and without modesty. **How come that Islam, which developed against this backdrop, came to be such a puritanical religion in which any sexual or romantic affection before marriage is heavily frowned upon, and in which women have to cover themselves partially or fully almost all the time?**","c_root_id_A":"f8b9yli","c_root_id_B":"f8cr3zo","created_at_utc_A":1574431538,"created_at_utc_B":1574467016,"score_A":14,"score_B":406,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to be written, which takes time. Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot**, using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"I think you're vastly overstating Pre-Islamic Arabia's \"very\" women-friendly and sexually liberal society.   > In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens.   Looking back at Hoyland it seems these thing are weren't as ubiquitous as you make it seem. He mostly cites only one or two sources for each claim. How common or prevalent these things were remains unseen. The time period was long enough and pre-Islamic society diverse enough where we cannot take these things as representative.   > women could marry multiple men  Hoyland says;   > Diversity in marriage customs is also evident in the degree to which monogamy, polygyny (one man many wives) and polyandry (one woman many husbands) all crop up in our sources.   Hoyland then goes on to quote a source saying polyandry was practiced as fraternal polyandry and brothers would share a wife.   > Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages  Hoyland says;  > While  descent  through  the  male  line  would  seem  to  have  been the norm in pre-Islamic Arabia, we are occasionally given hints of matrilineal arrangements.  The problem with discussing pre-Islamic Arabia is that there just aren't that many sources let alone sources about women, to give insight on how most women lived. So it becomes difficult to make any kind of judgment about how \"liberal\" pre-Islamic society was. Even Hoyland's book only discusses women in society for six pages and mostly only discusses the things you mentioned here. Hoyland's book does not give a rigorous enough discussion to make any kind of judgement on the \"liberalness\" of pre-Islamic Arabia. The things discussed do not in and of themselves indicate a women-friendly or sexually liberal society. These things can still exist in a patriarchal and misogynist society. Hoyland also mentions that women were encountered \"first and foremost as wives and mothers.\" Not to mention they may not have been as ubiquitous as the book suggests.   One of the largest sources for information on pre-Islamic Arabia come from Islamic sources themselves. However Islamic sources are not charitable to the position of women in pre-Islamic Arabia and characterized the time as a time of ignorance and barbarism. For example sources mention things like bride kidnapping, forced marriage, marriage by inheritance, female infanticide, forced prostitution etc. Islamic sources saw Islam as elevating the position of position of women in Arabia and giving them rights like the right to divorce, the right to consent to marriage, right to a bride-price, etc. Early Muslims who had known both pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Arabia commented on the positive turn Islam had given women in terms of women's status in society.   So we actually don't know very much what it was actually like for women in pre-Islamic Arabia and cannot make judgements about how \"liberal\" or \"women-friendly\" it actually was. There simply isn't enough historical information to make this kind of judgment.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35478.0,"score_ratio":29.0}
+{"post_id":"e01esa","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Given that Pre-Islamic Arabia was a very women-friendly and sexually \"liberal\" society, what is the source of Islam's extremely puritanical culture? In Robert G. Holyland's Arabia and the Arabs, various historical sources are mentioned that tell us pre-Islamic Arabian culture was one in which women could marry multiple men, advertise for mercenary husbands when they wanted children, had the right to dismiss their husbands when they wanted, enjoyed significant financial independence, with Arab tribes sometimes having matrilinear lineages, female gods, and queens.   The Qur'an partially mentions some of this (like the female gods, decrying them) and urges Muslim women not to emulate the women of the time of ignorance in their bedizenment, with the Tafsirs pointing out to pre-Islamic Arabian women dressing in a skimpy manner and without modesty. **How come that Islam, which developed against this backdrop, came to be such a puritanical religion in which any sexual or romantic affection before marriage is heavily frowned upon, and in which women have to cover themselves partially or fully almost all the time?**","c_root_id_A":"f8b9yli","c_root_id_B":"f8tckbn","created_at_utc_A":1574431538,"created_at_utc_B":1574800552,"score_A":14,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.  We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to be written, which takes time. Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot**, using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!   *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"The most comprehensive answer above has given you a good idea of the role of women in early Islamic society. I also wanted to give a few examples of other interesting situations in Arabic culture\/law in terms of women.  There's a hadith from the Sahih Bukhari that deals with the matter of Thabit ibn Qais's divorce from his wife Jamilah. I'll post it in full here:   \"Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to the Prophet and said, \"O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for defects in his character or his religion, but I, being a Muslim, dislike to behave in un-Islamic manner (if I remain with him).\" On that Allah's Apostle said (to her), \"Will you give back the garden which your husband has given you (as Mahr*)?\" She said, \"Yes.\" Then the Prophet said to Thabit, \"O Thabit! Accept your garden, and divorce her once.\"  *Mahr here means dowry.  Basically this hadith said that Thabit's wife was able to procure a divorce thanks to an agreement between herself and her husband. She gives back her dowry and they are divorced. This is an example of *khul,* which is a type of divorce that's often called mutual agreement. I think it's important though that Muhammad *tells* Thabit that he has to divorce her, and also that her divorce is phrased as a way for her to maintain her religiosity. She will be a better Muslim as a result of her divorce!  Translation of the Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 63 (Divorce), hadith 197. From SearchTruth.com.  Another kind of divorce was called talaq, which is probably the most famous form of Islamic divorce to westerners in the form of \"triple talaq,\" when a husband repeats three times that he wants to divorce his wife.  It appears in another hadith (185) when a man divorces his adulterous wife: \"Then he pronounced his decision to divorce her thrice before Allah's Apostle ordered him to do so.\" Talaq was generally seen as a reprehensible way to divorce someone.  As for the marriage itself. Judith E Tucker suggests that consent was an important component to the marriage contract, called the nikah, even in the case if she were married off by a guardian. Obviously, consent can be a dubious issue when pressure from a guardian is involved, but in the sources it encourages guardians to obtain consent. Sometimes that consent could include silence, because silence would indicate embarrassment at how much someone wanted it. You can see how we might be critical of this idea. In any case, these only applied to adult women. Pre-pubescent children could be married off by their fathers without obtaining this consent.  On the other hand, widows or \"non-virgins\" could be choosier. A professor of mine once encouraged the female students in our seminar to marry an old man so that he would die and they would get to be widows, the most comfortable position for a woman in patriarchal society. What he was getting at here was that a widow has essentially 'done their part' by marrying. Widows needed to give explicit consent to a marriage.  The public role of women was also controversial. While there are many prominent female figures in the history of Islam, like Muhammad's wife Aisha herself or the Sufi saint Rabi'a, the question of the acceptability of women in various roles has been answered differently by different scholars. Some, especially early on, argued that women could be imams.   The issue of veiling is similarly contested.   Now, head coverings are far from exclusive to Islam. Many Irish people of a certain generation could talk about women wearing headscarves to Mass, and many Orthodox Jewish women today cover their hair or wear wigs when out in public. It's a common religious idea that women should go covered. But we're talking about Islam here and not Judaism or Christianity, and particularly early Islam.  Different schools (and there are four main schools in Islam, called madhab) argued that women should conduct themselves differently. Some said that women's entire bodies were awra, which is basically a way of saying private parts, and that they should therefore cover themselves entirely. Others said that women could go uncovered and have hands and legs relatively bared. Unsurprisingly, the parts of a woman that non-related men could see also correlated to a woman's ability to participate in wider society. Many women held property, participated in commerce and the market, etc.  Citation:  Tucker, Judith E. Women, Family, and Gender in Islamic Law. Cambridge University Press, n.d.  Finally I'd like to share a story that I think is interesting and noteworthy, if not directly related to the question at hand. The 1001 Nights includes a story called *The Lady and her Five Suitors.* The gist of the story is as follows: a woman is conducting an affair with a man who gets thrown in the clink. In order to get him released, she claims that he's her brother and tries to entice various important figures-- judges\/qadi, a wazir, even the king-- into letting him free. In the process she seduces them and traps each one in turn in a cabinet, where they eventually can't hold their bladders and pee all over themselves. The story is obviously a satire and isn't reflective of 'real life', whatever that means; it's intended to make the big people look small and show that they can be duped by even a simple adulterous woman. But she is depicted as the hero of the story despite the fact that her aim is to free her lover from prison after he gets in a fight! So socially unacceptable women still appear in literary texts as heroes. The aim of the story is obviously primarily to diminish the high, who the story portrays as being undeserving of their high position, and the woman is used as a way of shaming them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":369014.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286}
+{"post_id":"gntlr8","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How did the late Romans just forget how to make concrete?! It\u2019s baffling to me that a civilisation could just forget something so basic and useful, I mean, in an entire empire of millions of people, nobody had an old family recipe from their parents? Nobody had it written down?! Like, I understand it was a time of great upheaval, and people had bigger things to worry about, but still, it\u2019s like if people nowadays forgot how to make plastic, it\u2019s crazy","c_root_id_A":"frc9cc9","c_root_id_B":"frbx2e0","created_at_utc_A":1590067641,"created_at_utc_B":1590058236,"score_A":3558,"score_B":398,"human_ref_A":"I've had the pleasure of talking about Roman concrete several times on AskHistorians. This is an edited and slightly expanded version of an older answer:  Building techniques never die. They just become irrelevant...  First, some background on Roman concrete. Concrete is best understood as a type of mortar. Mortar (the stuff that holds courses of bricks or blocks together) is typically composed of water, sand, and lime. There are variations - the Chinese, famously, made mortar by mixing lime with sticky rice - but in the Classical Mediterranean, the water, sand, and lime formula was always standard.  Roman concrete differed from Roman mortar by virtue of its \"secret ingredient\" - the volcanic ash known as pozzolana, which was used in place of regular sand. This was really just a case of good geological luck on the Romans' part: Rome happened to be located near large deposits of pozzolana (later, even larger deposits would be discovered on the Bay of Naples). Roman masons quickly discovered that mortar made with pozzolana was much stronger that mortar made with regular sand. And so concrete was born.  It should be noted here that not all Roman concrete was made with pozzolana. Most Italian concrete was, and pozzolana was occasionally shipped to (coastal) cities in other parts of the Empire (Herod the Great had a batch brought all the way to Caesarea in modern Israel). But there were deposits of volcanic ash with similar properties in the provinces (above all in the Greek islands). Roman builders eventually discovered, moreover, that a fairly good concrete could be made by using crushed terracotta in place of pozzolana.  Contrary to what you might think, the Romans were seldom adventurous builders. Roman architects received no formal training, and had no way of mathematically modeling forces or stresses or other things likely to cause the collapse of buildings and careers. As a result, they tended to be very conservative in their use of building materials. At first, they only used concrete to save time when building thick walls: instead of making the wall of building four or five brick courses thick, they simply built brick facings and filled the interior of the wall with a mixture of rubble and concrete.  Sometime in the first century BCE, the Romans discovered that concrete made with pozzolana could harden underwater - in fact, thanks to chemical reactions the Romans knew nothing about, saltwater actually strengthened the material, forming nearly unbreakable mineral bonds. So in the waning days of the Republic, Romans began to build \"artificial harbors\" like the famous example at Caesarea Maritima. But the great days of concrete architecture still lay ahead.  Only in the mid-first century CE, under the stimulus of imperial funding and imperial demands, did concrete begin to be used to create the spectacular vaults and domes that are the greatest achievement of Roman architecture. The revolutionary moment came in the reign of Nero, when the architects Severus and Celer (about whom we know nothing) created an impressive series of concrete rooms for Nero's infamously decadent Golden House. These represented the culmination of nearly a century of experimenting with vaults, primarily in the large, imperially-sponsored bath buildings. Once Severus and Celer showed what concrete could do, the creative floodgates, for the first time in Roman architectural history, were truly open.  The next century and a half witnessed the construction of the most famous Roman monuments: the Colosseum (supported by a colossal concrete foundation), the Pantheon (crowned by a spectacular concrete dome), the Baths of Caracalla (roofed by an awesome series of concrete vaults and domes), the Basilica of Maxentius in the Roman Forum (likewise vaulted) and so on.  Concrete was also used in the provinces, but always on a much smaller scale. The basic reason was simple: the Roman emperors, by an incredible margin the wealthiest men in the Empire, seldom sponsored building projects outside Rome. In large provincial cities like Alexandria or Antioch or Ephesus, very impressive building projects were undertaken. But these were financed by the benefactions of wealthy citizens (often working in concert); and provincial notables, for all their wealth, could never create anything on the scale of the concrete-crowned projects in Rome. As a result, provincial concrete tended to be used more conservatively. This was not solely a matter of scale - in the Greek east, for example, a well-established tradition of fine masonry ensured that stone, not concrete, was often used in domes - but without imperially-sponsored scale or imperially-sponsored funding, the use of concrete had a fairly limited scope.  Once the emperors stopped paying for large-scale construction projects, concrete largely reverted to what it had been before the Roman architectural revolution: a useful filler for thick walls. Roman concrete was not forgotten in the early middle ages, at least not in Byzantium: Procopius (*Buildings*, 1.11-18-20) mentions Justinian using Roman hydraulic concrete to build a new harbor in Constantinople. But after this, aside from a few mentions in Isidore of Seville's *Etymologies* (e.g. 15.8.1), concrete virtually vanishes from the literary record.  The domes of Justinian's Haghia Sophia, the last great product of Roman engineering, were made of brick bedded in concrete. But after Justinian, the troubles that overtook the Eastern Empire (like those that had destroyed the imperial order in the west a century earlier) virtually ended monumental building for centuries. And in those centuries, concrete vaults and domes became, like so much else across the former Roman world, mementos of a vanished past.  On the techniques of laying and modeling Roman concrete, I refer you to my video on the Pantheon.","human_ref_B":"There's a nice comprehensive answer from u\/toldinstone to be found here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9405.0,"score_ratio":8.9396984925}
+{"post_id":"g3xezf","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How do we know that ancient Greeks\/Scandinavians\/Egyptians\/etc. believed in their gods, and that it wasn't just a collection of universally known fictional characters a la the Looney Tunes, with poems and theme parks dedicated to them?","c_root_id_A":"fnuuosl","c_root_id_B":"fnupbuh","created_at_utc_A":1587271563,"created_at_utc_B":1587267646,"score_A":1724,"score_B":153,"human_ref_A":"How do we know what people in the ancient world believed?  We read their literature, as well as we know how, and so far as it still exists. We excavate their cities and sanctuaries, and interpret them as carefully as we can. And then we try to shore the literary fragments against the ruins, and extrapolate a world. Can we know what individuals thought? Unless they were kind enough to write it down for us (and their jottings survived), no. But to the extent that the literature and the archaeological remains seem to agree, and to the extent that our cross-cultural models allow us to understand them, we can usually form a picture, however hazy, of practice and belief in an ancient society.   As devoted readers of this sub, you know all this already. I just felt like pontificating. For a little more substance, let's turn, all too briefly, to the Greeks and Romans.   Two blanket statements. First, virtually all Greeks and Romans believed in their gods. Second, belief in the gods did not necessarily translate to a literal understanding of the traditional myths about those gods.   Greek religion and Roman religion - to use conventional shorthands for what were actually loose families of affiliated but distinctive local practices - were focused on practice, rather than belief. The gods, in other words, were assumed to be much more interested in what their worshipers did for them than in what their worshipers thought them. This meant, in effect, that the act of sacrifice was the ultimate statement of belief: gratifying the gods with burnt offerings (or libations, etc.) was at once a prudent insurance policy and an effective profession of faith. It might be tempting to imagine (by analogy with modern religious holidays) that traditional religious festivals in the classical world eventually became more or less formalities - a chance for everybody to kick back, watch a little drama, and enjoy a bit of barbecued ox. For some Greeks and Romans, they may well have become so. But the mere fact that sacrifices continued regularly, century after century, in so many ancient cities suggests that the great majority took them quite seriously: the gods were real, and had to be placated. To this can be added the vast body of evidence for personal devotion to the gods - family altars, ex voto offerings, dedications at shrines, etc., etc. And to that we may add the testimonials provided by our  literary sources, which establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the great majority of Greeks and Romans assumed that the gods were very real.   None of this means, of course, that they took the myths seriously. As early as the sixth century BC, Greek philosophers and public intellectuals began to criticize the myths. Some of the more radical thinkers of the Classical period theorized that the myths were actually dimly-remembered episodes from ancient history, and that the gods had originally been human kings and inventors. Others speculated that the gods and the myths had been deliberately invented in the distant past as a means of political control. Similar strands of criticism are visible in Stoic philosophy (which treated the myths as allegories), in Epicurean philosophy (which treated the myths as dangerous fables), and in the general intellectual milieu of the Roman imperial era (see, for example, the splendid satires of Lucian). It seems clear that most educated Greeks and Romans really did regard the myths as a matter of cultural literacy, not literal truth. But their disdain for the myths was motivated largely by a desire to disassociate them from the gods, in whom most of them still believed. The myths, it was thought, were unworthy of the gods, and the gods undeserving of the myths foisted upon them by tradition.   I could cite various passages from ancient authors in support of all this; but frankly, I'm tired. The point, in any case, needs no belaboring. In certain contexts, many Greeks and Romans were perfectly comfortable mocking the gods of myth - take Dionysus in Aristophanes' Frogs, or Zeus in any of Lucian's dialogues. There were even \"theme parks\" of a sort, in the case of Ilium, a major tourist destination on what was thought to be the site of Homer's Troy (more on such tourism here). But for most Greeks and Romans (with the exception of those wretched atheistic Epicureans), the gods were real. Take the emperor Julian's heartfelt (if tedious) hymn to Cybele, or Apuleius' paean to Isis, or Aelius Aristides' praises of Ascelpius, or even - at the beginning of classical literature - Odysseus' relationship with Athena. The Greeks and Romans didn't always take their gods seriously. But they never - quite - reduced them to cartoon characters.","human_ref_B":"While there is always more to learn on this topic and we welcome new answers, in the meantime, you can check out this answer by u\/DarthPositus, these answers by u\/mythoplokos and u\/Astrogator, and this answer by u\/EdmundAgonistes, which addressed similar questions and may include useful information.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3917.0,"score_ratio":11.2679738562}
+{"post_id":"kvjoji","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Why did pizza have the entire delivery market locked down for so long before everyone else jumped on?","c_root_id_A":"giznr4x","c_root_id_B":"gizgopw","created_at_utc_A":1610450698,"created_at_utc_B":1610443559,"score_A":4639,"score_B":450,"human_ref_A":"there are two major facts that led to pizza becoming THE dish to be ordered via telephone and delivered to the home.     After World War II, the telephone networks saw rapid expansion and more efficient telephone sets, such as the model 500 telephone in the United States, were developed that permitted larger local networks centered around central offices. A breakthrough new technology was the introduction of Touch-Tone signaling using push-button telephones by American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) in 1963.      While, at the same time  an estimated 600,000 of Italians arrived in America in the decades following the war. As was, and still is a regular occurrence for immigrants, a large number of them ended up working in the food industry, often opening inexpensive restaurants serving Italian food.     Which was a fortuitous choice, because not long before, the American veterans of campaigns in Italy returned home, with a taste for Italian food already developed.     As it were, first inexpensive and proliferated telephones, and the influx of cheap, tasty Italian food was a match made in heaven. The startup family restaurants ran by Italian immigrants could not compete with established food industry, could not afford rent on big floors required for a major restaurant to sit enough clients to support themselves, But they could deliver the food to the homes of their patrons; both to other Italian-Americans, as well as a growing number of other ethnicities as well.      This, in turn, worked well with an increased demand for ready-made food, required due to an increasing percentage of women joining the workforce and thus unable to cook at home.     Now, this part was easy to answer, but why PIZZA of all the possible Italian dishes?     There is no definite answer, as usual for matters of taste and preference. I would approach it from a perspective on not a historian, but an archaeologist of technology.     Pizza, at its most basic, is simply a flat-bread with cheap toppings. Flat bread is by far the most popular dish in the world, eaten in various forms by virtually every culture known to historians, but especially popular among Mediterranean cultures. It is very cheap, calories-dense, does not spoil easily, easy to transport, share and cut, and can be eaten with anything.   We know it as pita, naan, flatcakes, or chatapouri, but its pizza that manages to be both cheap, and \"luxurious\" looking enough to be sellable to strangers who might be not familiar with it. It requires no rare ingredients, the procedure of making it is easy, and about the only non standard piece of equipment needed is a wide oven. It is also easily stackable and transportable, which was a non trivial matter to delivery men in 1950s automobiles and bike delivery.         Candeloro, Dominic. \"Suburban Italians\"  in; *Ethnic Chicago*    Fischer, Claude  *America calling: A social history of the telephone*    Liz Barrett , Pizza, A Slice of American History\"   Turim, Gayle. \"A Slice of History: Pizza Through the Ages","human_ref_B":"This requires agreement that Pizza is indeed the \"primary\" delivery food. I'm really not sure that it is outside certain cultures and I think we'd have to frame the question in recent US history to make that premise true.  Historically we know that Roman towns would often have numerous thermopolia, places that served hot food, and there's no reason to think that food wasn't being delivered to customers from them. Indeed it would be harder to think of reasons why food *wouldn't* be delivered from them. You might say \"*Aha! Pizza!*\" at this point but unfortunately it seems that what we Moderns think of as a pizza probably wasn't something you could buy 2,000 years ago. Maybe even 200 years ago (*Mattozi 2015*).  We know that within those last 200 years the number of food deliveries has burgeoned across the world. On the Indian subcontinent the system of *dabawallahs*, fully organised since the end of the 19th century, delivery an eye-watering number of meal tins per day (*Roncaglia 2013*). We know that Korea has a history of noodle delivery dating back to the mid-1700s (*Hwang Yun-seok* *c. 1768*), something which became widespread during the 19th century (*Dae\u00a0Young\u00a0Kwon, 2019*)  So although we can't definitively pin the first food deliveries on the Romans we know that widespread food deliveries were happening long *long* before a pizza that we'd recognise existed (*Alcock 2006*), we know that long before Pizza delivery became common in the USA food delivery was widespread in India and Korea (and likely many more places), and we can be pretty sure that the majority of those foodstuffs weren't pizza - although Korea has embraced Western food quite robustly in the last 40 years.  All this leads to an entirely different question: what makes you think that \"*pizza had the entire delivery market locked down*\"?  ​  *Alcock JP, 2006 Food in the Ancient World*  *Dae Young Kwon, 2019, Diet in Korea*  *Mattozzi A, 2015, Inventing the Pizzeria: A History of Pizza Making in Naples*  *Roncaglia S, 2013, Feeding the City: Work and Food Culture of the Mumbai Dabbawalas*  ​  *Edited to remove reference to another answer which has since been removed*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7139.0,"score_ratio":10.3088888889}
+{"post_id":"bxi6a9","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How did Joan of Arc -- an illiterate 16 year old woman -- convince an army to follow her?","c_root_id_A":"eq77j97","c_root_id_B":"eq7woes","created_at_utc_A":1559841878,"created_at_utc_B":1559854551,"score_A":486,"score_B":958,"human_ref_A":"This reply by \/u\/sunagainstgold is a start while we wait for an answer.","human_ref_B":"With much thanks to \/u\/Pytheastic (go upvote!), I'd like to write an answer more focused on this specific question. :)  The simple answer is that Joan had the support of the king, but that's pretty much running a shell company on my part. If I had to sum things up, I would say \"religion and prophecy,\" but that also is not very interesting in and of itself.  **Joan as Holy Woman**  From Joan's own testimony at her trial, it is easily apparent that she was deeply immersed in the religious culture of her time. The saints most important to her are the most popular ones, she's right with the new trend in angels, she's sold on the rising importance of devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus.  This is important because Joan fits firmly in the context of the early 15th century as a holy woman and prophet. Her visions and auditions anchor her in a tradition going back to the mid-12th century of women who used the message that they spoke and acted based on direct revelation from God.   In Joan's time, *some* people are starting to question the validity of holy women's claims. The initial questions themselves, though in some ways the culmination of a longer trend, are highly political as a result of the Avignon papacy and (especially) the Great Schism (ca1378-1415). In other words, they are very much tied to ecclesiastical politics.  On the ground level, what we find is much more ongoing confidence in women's revelations. 14th century saints and visionaries Catherine of Siena and especially Birgitta of Sweden are *all the rage*. People even start attributing to Birgitta texts that she didn't write; she's that famous and popular even among the literate classes. Birgitta (and Pseudo-Birgitta) becomes especially well-known for two things that transcend the literacy barrier: prophecy and a set of prayers.  Not everyone, but a whole lot of people, took Joan absolutely seriously as conveying divine messages directly. In very particular, Charles VII was raised in an environment where his parents firmly believed in the prophetic powers of holy women. Charles VI had given audience to Jeanne-Marie de Maill\u00e9; and Isabeau, to Marie Robine (a peasant, by the way).   And this was, of course, the key issue at her initial and nullification (rehabilitation) trials: were Joan's fake or real; demonic or divine...according to the political beliefs of the judge or witness. For a demonstration, turn to no less a contemporary authority than French \"theologian &c\" Jean Gerson (uh...he was Really Important; roll with it), who is infamously on the record as opposing the legitimacy of holy women...but wrote dramatically in support of Joan.  **Joan and Wonders**  Kelly DeVries, who is basically *the* authority on Joan as a soldier and commander, stresses the importance of religion in the accounts of Joan's contemporary supporters as well as her own (*Joan of Arc: A Military Leader*, but especially \"A Woman as a Leader of Men\" in *Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc*, which is, well, about this question's precise topic). He's right, although his account is based on Joan's full career, including her victories. Which, again, is a liiiittle bit of a cop-out.  I want to go back to the 15th century mindset again, to look at the overall supernatural cosmology of the era. Well into the early modern era, there's no real divide between what we would call \"religion\" and \"magic.\" (Indeed, \"religion\" doesn't even have our meaning until the 15th century.) As with belief in revelations from God, people live in a world of wonders and miracles and saints and supernatural creatures. But as seen with growing concern with witchcraft and questions about holy women's sincerity, the boundaries are just starting to be sketched out by some people.  This is especially apparent in Joan's case. The wonders associated with her don't really have a division in what she relates about other people's support of her. They *do* have a divide in the mindset of her interrogators--and, because Joan is frakking *awesome*, she knows exactly what they're doing and keeps pace. (Seriously, read Dan Hobbins' translation *The Trial of Joan of Arc*. She's great.)  A big one is Joan's knowledge of and then the discovery of \"her sword\" in a church dedicated to one of France's most important saints. The finding of a blessed object has major precursors in the Middle Ages, especially associated with the Crusades. In the 15th century, that was more important than ever. The *physical reality* of objects was critical to how people saw the world and religion in a way it wasn't earlier. Second, the cult of relics and saints was, you guessed it, critical in a way it hadn't been earlier. (Think of Mark Twain's remark about there being more shards of the Holy Cross in the world--in the 19th century still!--than there could have been in the actual cross.)  According to Joan herself, people also told stories about a prophecy they associated with her and a tree\/forest near her home in Domremy. But in her own words, what people said to her about this was just linked to her performing wonders. This probably included a miraculous power to heal, which was also heavily tied to holy women\/living saints in late Middle Ages. (There are stories about men, women, and children all trying to touch Joan, which seems suspiciously, I don't know, *biblical*. And yes, at a time when there was much more preaching of the Bible directly.)   The tree was associated with fairies and local children performed May Crowning-type playing\/ritual activities around it, although Joan insists she never believed any of it and never engaged in a lot of the behaviors her judges asked her about. Of course, they lie WILDLY when they write up the articles of condemnation. On one hand, they say Joan admitted to various things when she categorically had not. On the other, though, they exaggerate the various behaviors and beliefs they had asked her about earlier. And, unsurprisingly, they exaggerate according to particular patterns that align with the question of fake or real, demonic or divine.  So people associated Joan with the general performance of miracles and wonders.  **Hans B\u00f6hm**  Okay, obviously a man, obviously German, and not obviously a few decades after Joan. However, B\u00f6hm is a crucial parallel for a few reasons. Even venturing further into the very slowly increasing fear of witches, B\u00f6hm--a shepherd from Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg--essentially launched an entire revolt against unjust conditions based on his own prophecies and visions of Mary.  People were ready to heed prophecy that called to them--and did.  **Conclusion**  Joan was awesome; she promoted her awesomeness; she did so in a way that grew out of the religious culture in which she lived and believed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12673.0,"score_ratio":1.9711934156}
+{"post_id":"anyb9n","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be hit by repeated accusations of socialism or communist during the implementation of the New Deal . But what did actual Communists and Socialists think of the New Deal?","c_root_id_A":"efxkdbj","c_root_id_B":"efxnl1p","created_at_utc_A":1549527383,"created_at_utc_B":1549533045,"score_A":40,"score_B":235,"human_ref_A":"While we wait for a quality answer that follows the rules, there is a solid answer by \/u\/kieslowskifan from 11 months ago answering if the USSR (and the Nazis) viewed the New Deal as socialist.","human_ref_B":"Follow-up question: How did the Soviet Union view the New Deal? Did they see it as a step towards communism?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5662.0,"score_ratio":5.875}
+{"post_id":"anyb9n","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be hit by repeated accusations of socialism or communist during the implementation of the New Deal . But what did actual Communists and Socialists think of the New Deal?","c_root_id_A":"efy0qip","c_root_id_B":"efxkdbj","created_at_utc_A":1549549665,"created_at_utc_B":1549527383,"score_A":79,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"As u\/crying-child notes, the Left wasn't a monolith. The Socialist Party was particularly contentious - with divides between labor and academy, reformers and militants, and the like. It's also worth noting that the New Deal was so successful that it managed to attract a lot of moderates and intellectuals on the Left towards the Democrats, who tired of the contentiousness between the Old Guard and the younger Militants. But we can look at it the New Deal through the eyes of some of the Socialist Party's leaders - like perennial presidential candidate (and former Presbyterian minister\/Social Gospel proponent) Norman Thomas.  Thomas believed that the New Deal put through a weaker version of nearly the entire Socialist Party of America's platform. He also believed the New Deal got more done than he probably could have, and in a very short period of time. And Thomas respected this, thinking that although it was \"hopelessly inadequate\" it was a start in a good direction and even conceded that were Thomas president, he would have used his first hundred days in the same way Roosevelt did. He, and other Labor leaders like Abraham Cahan honestly considered making Roosevelt a kind of honorary member of the Socialist party - if only he would consider nationalizing banking and coal-mining.  Thomas had a two big complaints about the New Deal, though. First, predictably, that it wasn't radical enough. It was ameliorative, but it didn't actually address the core philosophical and ethical problems of America. The New Deal for all its benefits preserved and protected capitalism, albeit in more of a state-capitalism form that many feared was similar to fascism. And second (and this betrayed part of why the Old Guard socialists, particularly in the Midwest really distrusted him) - the New Deal did not empower people of color. Roosevelt's administration, and the New Deal program maintained the unjust racial status quo - in particular within the agricultural aspects of the New Deal.   So from Thomas' perspective, the New Deal was really a mixed bag. It did a lot of what Thomas really wanted to do. In fact, it did more than Thomas could have possibly done for the poor. It also didn't do enough, and its blindspots were very concerning. In the end, Thomas (erroneously) blamed the New Deal's successes for the collapse of the Socialist Party. That might be part of the truth, but it's certainly not the whole of it.  Source: Bernard Johnpoll *Pacifist's Progress: Norman Thomas and the decline of American socialism* (Quadrangle Books, Chicago: 1970) 87, 101-105, 172-174, 289","human_ref_B":"While we wait for a quality answer that follows the rules, there is a solid answer by \/u\/kieslowskifan from 11 months ago answering if the USSR (and the Nazis) viewed the New Deal as socialist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22282.0,"score_ratio":1.975}
+{"post_id":"8y4tl4","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Back in Ancient Greece homosexuality was allowed. During the 17th century people had sex quite freely. Why is it that during the Victorian times, that suddenly changed and sex was deemed a very private affair? And why was homosexuality made illegal? Homosexuality was fine, then during the Victorian era it was considered worse than murder. During the 17th century people would have had sex in rooms with children present, whereas Victorians wouldn't even want to look at each other naked even when married. These days you're bigoted for being against homosexuality. What exactly is the reason for these changes? Why were the Victorians so different to previous time periods? Surely if they were told it was okay and natural, that would continue would it not?","c_root_id_A":"e28qbjo","c_root_id_B":"e28nz0f","created_at_utc_A":1531378732,"created_at_utc_B":1531374892,"score_A":1647,"score_B":130,"human_ref_A":"**Part I: Morality and the Victorian Family**  Someone else with expertise in that area will have to address the Ancient Greek side of things, but I can tackle the Victorians. Your question is based on a common misconception about the Victorian period, so I\u2019m going to spend some time debunking that misconception and then try to explain why perfectly reasonable people believe it.   The Victorian period did not represent a sudden rupture from the past with regards to sexuality. Same sex desire and homosexuality and sex outside of marriage were taboo to differing degrees in different times and places in Western culture for centuries. The Victorians did not just up and decide that sex was bad outside of nowhere.   However, this is not to say that the Victorians didn\u2019t differ from the generations immediately preceding them in some ways. One important development of the Victorian period was its heavy emphasis on domesticity. For the Victorians, the home and the family were paramount, the basis of the superior British civilization. The home was an oasis protected from the harsh outside world, a place of comfort where you can rest with your loved ones. Note that this ideal of the home and the family is not so different from how we as a culture think of homes and families today. However, for the Victorians, this idea of the home carried with it a hierarchy, with the husband and father as the head of house, the wife and mother as caretaker of the home (the \"Angel in the House,\" as one famous poem called it), both working to bring up well-adjusted, successful children.  Of course, people before the Victorians had homes and families and valued these things highly. The Victorians didn\u2019t invent the family. What shifted was the importance of the family as a social category that needed to be protected and conceptions of public vs private life. On one hand, the nineteenth century saw, for respectable middle class people, the home was a private sphere, secluded from the world and with significantly more privacy within the home than had been available in previous centuries. Privacy has its own earlier history and development that other users can speak to better than me; for our purposes it\u2019s enough to say that the domestic sphere was supposed to be private.   I say this with the caveat that I\u2019m describing middle class people here; the working classes often lived in very different conditions. This cult of domesticity was very much a phenomenon of the middle class, who set themselves up as the upright, respectable contrast to the stereotypical image of the profligate and licentious aristocrat that had been promoted in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century as the rake or the libertine.   However, there is a contradiction in the Victorian family in that domesticity was also often the subject of public performance. We can argue that this phenomenon is reflected best at the top of society with Queen Victoria herself. Victoria navigated the contradiction of being a woman monarch. Women are supposed to be the Angel in the House, master of the private sphere, not involved in public life. To reconcile this, Victoria made a public performance of being the nation's exemplary mother\u2014utterly devoted to her husband and many, many children. Victoria and Albert were a model of Victorian domestic life, but this model was also very publicly performed.","human_ref_B":"Hey there,  If you've come to the thread and are wondering why there's no answer yet: we have found that it takes an average of 9 hours for a good answer to appear on a popular thread - properly researching and writing an answer takes time. Additionally, it's late at night on the East Coast of the US at the moment, which means that plenty of the historians interested in this topic might already be asleep.   In other words, patience, good people. If you want to be reminded to look at this thread later, please see this really awesome Roundtable post for a list of ways. And if you're wondering why Reddit never shows you an AskHistorians thread with answers, consider sorting your Reddit home feed by 'Hot' rather than 'Best' - 'Best' seems to give precedence to newer posts (which are less likely to have an answer on this subreddit, of course) and threads you haven't already looked at (e.g., it'll show you something else next time you log in, even if this thread is still getting lots of upvotes because there's an actual answer now).  If you're wondering what's in the 28 removed comments at the time of writing, the majority of it is people saying things like \"I want to know the answer to this question or some other related question, in which case start a new thread!]\", \"what happened to all the removed comments?\" or making a tossed off one sentence answer that doesn't meet our standards, like \"CHRISTIANS!\". None of this comes close to meeting the standards in [our subreddit rules. There are also three posts we've removed because they're more substantial than these, but largely or entirely focus on sexuality in Ancient Greece (and thus don't answer the question about the Victorian era that OP is clearly interested in). All of these comments get removed on \/r\/AskHistorians because the huge majority of our subscribers really do want accurate, comprehensive, in-depth historical answers based on good historical practice and high-quality sources. It's amazing how many downvotes and reports an obvious shitpost can attract on a popular thread on \/r\/AskHistorians within minutes, thanks to our readers (if you see it, report it!)   On \/r\/AskHistorians, we want people answering questions to be able to explain not just what the basic facts are according to academic research, but why we know that these basic facts are right, and to put those basic facts into context. This is why we encourage the use of primary and secondary sources in answering questions, rather than tertiary sources like Wikipedia, podcasts and textbooks.  In other words, on \/r\/AskHistorians, we'd rather have no answer than bad attempts at answers. By removing the short, quick, bad answers that would otherwise crowd them out, the well-researched in-depth answers (that take people time to research and write) are more likely to be seen (see this graph for more detail). The downside to this is that we have to remove a lot of shitposts and comments wondering what happened to the removed comments. The upside is that our contributors consistently post amazing stuff to \/r\/AskHistorians (which we collate the best of every week in our Sunday Digest), and daily on our Twitter. Alternatively, if you want to discuss history without these constraints, \/r\/history or \/r\/askhistory might be more appropriate subreddits for you than \/r\/AskHistorians.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3840.0,"score_ratio":12.6692307692}
+{"post_id":"lpeeqs","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Why do Communist societies that we've seen tend toward authoritarianism and dictatorial-style arrangements? First off, I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge on this topic, and want to note that I almost asked this in \/r\/NoStupidQuestions but decided an educated answer would be better than a flamewar. And before anyone says it, sure, maybe prehistoric tribes can be labelled \"communist\" and maybe didn't operate this way, but I am referring to the myriad 20th century communist countries that made up the \"second World\".   It's hard to get a clear answer without devolving into \"communism bad\" \"no, communism good\". From what I can tell, it's not necessarily required for a communist state to have a single authoritarian leader, yet all real-world examples I can think of had very consolidated power arrangements into a single position? There are free-market dictatorships and free-market republics, but it seems that any Communist state went down an authoritarian route of some kind-- Stalin, Tito, Mao, Castro? I'm familiar with the concept of the Vanguard of the Revolution, but surely this is not the only way to proceed forward?  Some hypotheses I've had on the matter include:   * Maybe I'm saturated in propaganda from an American public school system and actually the dictatorish nature of Communist societies I'd heard about is exaggerated\/didn't hear about the examples where this didn't happen?   * Or, if it was accurate, it was a \"fruit of the poisoned tree\" situation, where since the Soviets went down a dictatorial Stalinist path and assisted the other communist countries in setting up, they imprinted this system onto them as well?   * There's also an issue of post-revolution political disarray generally giving rise to tyrants, which, when combined with Communism often being instated via revolution, yields a high risk of a tyrant seizing power.  Am I feeling around on the right path, or am I way off the mark?","c_root_id_A":"gobm6jf","c_root_id_B":"gobv2ft","created_at_utc_A":1613983839,"created_at_utc_B":1613992186,"score_A":548,"score_B":2270,"human_ref_A":"Hello!  This question has been asked before.   \/u\/Finger_Trapz answered Why did Communism almost always lead to dictatorships?  This does not preclude anyone from adding more.","human_ref_B":"There is no single accepted answer among academic historians or even among leftists. As one might expect, for such a politically charged and relevant question it becomes *really* difficult to separate history proper from politics.   One reasonable way to approach the question is to look at what the leaders of the revolution thought and how they preceived or justified authoritarianism. It's also important to understand their political experience and context.   A good starting point I think is the late 19th century, when the Second International, an association of primarily Marxist parties across Europe, suffered an internal crisis between *reformists* and *revolutionists*. At that point, the revolutionary character of Marxism was not yet agreed upon among its followers, and within the parties reformist Marxists tended to hold sway. Unlike modern social democrats, these reformists still (if only nominally) held the ultimate goal of overcoming capitalism; the major disagreement was if this could be achieved by working entirely within the bourgeois state. This question of reform or revolution is discussed with some more historical context in the revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg's eponymous pamphlet, written at the height of this conflict. Eduard Bernstein's works give the reformist perspective.  (As an aside, Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionist in Germany and Poland who collaborated extensively with Lenin. She would later disagree tactically with Lenin during the Russian revolution but, as I believe, they had no fundamental doctrinal differences-- one can expect that Luxemburg's comments about reform and revolution are broadly the same as Lenin's)  As Europe approached the First World War, the reformist tendency within socialist parties would deepen and even take on a nationalistic character. By then, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) had become the dominant socialist party within Europe, having achieved significant labor reforms and boasting a membership in the millions. This, combined with the threat of invasion from a deeply reactionary Russia, compelled German reformists to associate socialism with German patriotism, and national defense with the defense of socialism (ironically, a similar trend would occur in France *against* Germany, which many Frenchmen perceived as a reactionary threat against their republic). Revolutionists, on the other hand, tended to have an internationalist outlook, believing that only an international revolution against imperialist warfare could defend socialism.  When WW1 broke out at last, the SPD (and most other European parties) voted in favor of war, beginning a period of *Burgfriedenspolitik* wherein the SPD abstained from strikes and other subversive activities against the war effort. The revolutionists and few reformists who disagreed with this policy splintered away from the SPD into the Independent SPD, the Spartacist League, and eventually the German Communist Party. Notably, Lenin's party in Russia also opposed war by majority, foreshadowing the dominance of revolutionists in the upcoming struggle.  This is all to say that the events leading up to WW1 and the Russian revolution precipitated huge, seemingly irreconciliable divisions between the reformist and revolutionist factions of the European socialists. This conflict would take on its most bloody form in the 1918-19 Spartacus uprising at the end of the German revolution: once in power, the now wholly reformist SPD would brutally crush their revolutionist counterparts as they attempted to establish worker's states. Remember again that these were former comrades who, decades ago, would have relied on each other's cooperation.  So what does this have to do with authoritarianism in Russia? The leaders of the Russian revolution were internationalists, and had counted on the victory of the German revolutionaries and, hence, the victory of a sweeping revolution across the world. The hope was that, since Germany was among the foremost industrial powers of the world, it could provide material necessities and alleviate the stresses of war, in turn allowing for demilitarization and democratization across both Germany and Russia. This didn't happen-- again, the German revolutionaries were massacred by reformists. It's possible that the Bolsheviks miscalculated, or simply that the Bolsheviks had no other choice but to push forward and *hope* that Germany would turn around. Probably both. In any case, the ascendant Bolsheviks were left in a very, *very* difficult situation: they were in charge of a war-weary nation with hostile states (particularly now Germany) on all sides and powerful counterrevolutionaries within. Realistically there was only one thing they could do besides capitulate-- dig in, and use the full power of the state to survive for as long as possible.  Rosa Luxemburg summarizes this impasse pretty well in The Russian Tragedy (which is short but extremely useful in understanding the attitudes of communists at the time -- a must read!):  > The awkward position that the Bolsheviks are in today, however, is, together with most of their mistakes, a consequence of basic insolubility of the problem posed to them by the international, above all the *German*, proletariat. To carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist revolution in a single country surrounded by reactionary imperialist rule and in the fury of the bloodiest world war in human history \u2013 that is squaring the circle. Any socialist party would have to fail in this task and perish \u2013 whether or not it made self-renunciation the guiding star of its policies. ... **Such is the false logic of the objective situation: any socialist party that came to power in Russia today must pursue the wrong tactics so long as it, as part of the international proletarian army, is left in the lurch by the main body of this army.**  As an example of \"wrong tactics,\" Trotsky discusses in a report that the early Soviet worker's militia could not confront the vastly better-equipped and better-trained German army, nor even the relatively more experienced armies under White control. As a result, Trotsky was compelled to professionalize the army, institute harsh drafts, and even incorporate captured White officers at gunpoint just to win the civil war. Both he and Lenin recognized that these measures were counter to the principles of the revolution but were nonetheless necessary if the revolution were to survive at all.  As we now know, neither Germany nor any comparably industrialized country underwent a successful communist revolution. The Soviets would remain isolated long after Lenin's death, and Stalin would further entrench authoritarianism-- what started as emergency measures became standard procedure when the emergency never went away. (EDIT: This part feels a bit insufficient. I don't want to attribute the entrenchment of authoritarianism as something unique to Stalin as a person -- it was likely a combination of broad social forces and personality. I might point to the rising nationalism in Marxist reformists are an analogous process, but this would require a more detailed treatment of Stalin I am not really prepared to make.)  For subsequent revolutions, the \"fruit from a poisoned tree\" situation you described is sort of right-- these revolutions drew explicitly from Lenin's revolutionary measures and, sometimes less explicitly, from Stalin's entrenchment. One might even say that they were all part of a single, broader revolution, and can't be treated as isolated cases. Later on certain countries like Cambodia and North Korea would spin off on their own and abandon communism even in name, but since they faced the same problems of political isolation, they had at least an excuse to remain authoritarian.   It's probably not true that failure was inevitable, which would ignore the later history of Trotskyism and other oppositional forces in, most notably, the USSR and the China. But I don't want to spin off into counterfactuals-- things *could* have happened differently, but they didn't, and that's the question you're asking.  In summary:  * Pre-WW1 politics caused a deep rift between reformist and revolutionary factions in European socialism  * This led to the (short-term) success of the Russian revolution and the failure of the German revolution, as reformists were much more powerful in the latter country  * Without German support, the Russian Bolsheviks had to enact emergency authoritarian measures to remain afloat  * Later, the static international situation allowed authoritarianism to be entrenched  * Future revolutions would emulate the Bolsheviks and in turn face the same problems of political isolation  Note again that this is just a single perspective, taking into account mostly primary sources from the leaders of the Russian and German revolutions. Still, this is an important point of view I think, and the one I'm most familiar with.  Further reading:  * Luxemburg's The Russian Tragedy, which discusses the Bolsheviks' policies in relation to the German socialists  * Luxemburg's The Crisis of German Social Democracy which goes in depth about the division and irreconciliability of factions within the SPD  * The Military Writings of Trotsky, for a deeper look into the Russian Civil War  * Lenin's The State and Revolution, key to understanding the place of democracy in Lenin's ideology","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8347.0,"score_ratio":4.1423357664}
+{"post_id":"50za6j","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"In the movie Seven Samurai, a character accuses the samurai (all of them, as a caste of society) of destroying villages, raping women, and stealing from poor farmers. Samurai are usually portrayed as lawful -- is there any legitimacy to this accusation?","c_root_id_A":"d788pa2","c_root_id_B":"d788fci","created_at_utc_A":1472927578,"created_at_utc_B":1472927154,"score_A":3602,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"Yes, absolutely.  To begin with, don't forget that the romanticized Western image of samurai as hyper honor focused warrior monk types is pure exoticism with no real historic backing.   More to the point, like with the knights of Europe, while there was an official ideal of honor it was more prescriptive than descriptive and when you have a large group of heavily armed men some are going to be scumbags.  Further, \"samurai\" simply meant \"person from the caste permitted to carry weapons\", towards the end of the Tokugawa period (1600-1868) a great many samurai class men had no real weapon training, a minimal pension from the government, and generally survived by running up debts which were nullified every few years by government edict.   The Seven Samurai takes place earlier, in the Sengoku period (aka the Warring States Period), at a time of chaos and general confusion.  There was no centralized government, no rule beyond what the local warlord decreed and could enforce, and samurai (again, meaning \"people who carried weapons\", not \"super highly trained and deeply honorable warrior monk types\") were thugs enforcing the will of their local warlord, which usually meant stealing whatever they could from the peasants and calling it taxes.  Or, worse, they were ronin.  When a warlord was defeated his soldiers (samurai) often just wandered off and turned to banditry to survive. There's a lot of mythology and several stories involving deeply honorable ronin seeking adventure and vengeance for the people who betrayed their lords, but mostly in real life they were just armed and trained men who took whatever they could from the people least likely to fight back.  You might check out State of War, it's more about the somewhat earlier times than the Sengoku period, but most of what it covers applies to the later periods as well.  For an interesting, often funny, first hand, primary source, account of daily life for a poor man of samurai class during the mid Tokugawa period check Musui's Story, it's a very quick read, an autobiography written by Musui himself, who lived a quite disreputable life and busts a lot of myths of the noble honorable samurai.  TL;DR: even at the best of times, samurai were just soldiers, and historically soldiers weren't what you'd call very nice.  In the worse times they were just bandits.  The idea of samurai as super honorable warriors is just a myth.","human_ref_B":"Ancillary question: I've often heard that during some periods samurai had right of life and death over peasants and could essentially kill them for whatever cause. Was that ever true or is that an exaggeration?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":424.0,"score_ratio":112.5625}
+{"post_id":"50za6j","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"In the movie Seven Samurai, a character accuses the samurai (all of them, as a caste of society) of destroying villages, raping women, and stealing from poor farmers. Samurai are usually portrayed as lawful -- is there any legitimacy to this accusation?","c_root_id_A":"d788fci","c_root_id_B":"d78af10","created_at_utc_A":1472927154,"created_at_utc_B":1472930310,"score_A":32,"score_B":352,"human_ref_A":"Ancillary question: I've often heard that during some periods samurai had right of life and death over peasants and could essentially kill them for whatever cause. Was that ever true or is that an exaggeration?","human_ref_B":"Oh yeah, there's plenty of legitimacy to this accusation. It might even be closer to the truth.  William Wayne Farris quotes Paul Varley in describing the samurai as \"extravagant, rambunctious, and lawless.\" Taken from *Japan to 1600*:  >As social upstarts, samurai were \"extravagant, rambunctious, and lawless.\" Having no sense of good breeding, they gambled and spent all their time partying, drinking, and engaging loose women. Legislation promulgated in 1336 tried to curb such behavior, but to little avail. Born in 1306, Sasaki served first the Hojo and then Go-Daigo. In 1335, he switched sides again and adhered to Takauji. For his service, he was named a daimyo, and ironically, helped to write the vey law codes that he came to flout so freely. In 1340, for example, when Sasaki was throwing one of his many parties, he and his followers admired some maple trees on an excursion, so much so that they ripped the branches off the trees. The garden happened to belong to a temple headed by the brother of a retired emperor, and his servants beat the branch gatherers. When Sasaki heard about the thrashing, he led three hundred mounted soldiers back to the temple and set it on fire. The priests demanded Sasaki's head, but the Ashikaga merely ordered him into exile. On the day when he left for distant parts, Sasaki placed three hundred members of his family and retainer band in an entourage showing off the latest in martial finery, including quivers covered in rabbit skin. They brought along quantities of sumptuous food and had courtesans waiting at every inn along the exile route. It became a pleasure excursion, not the punishment for a grave crime.  Well that's just an example of a lawless samurai (and his equally lawless samurai retainers). What about pillaging, raping, and burning?  >In particular, the armies provisioning techniques inflicted considerable hardship on the populace at large. Between 1335 and 1386 there were at least seventy-one incidents of arson and harvests stolen by armies in the field. In one particularly egregious case, in Mino in 1340, samurai \"attacked residences, stole the rice and other grain laid aside as seed, so that the peasants fled and there was no cultivation going on.\"  The above is from the Northern and Southern Courts period, but similar records exist back in the Genpei War and also the Sengoku. The term in Japanese for this kind of raiding of civilians is \u4e71\u59a8\u53d6\u308a (ranboudori) or \u4e71\u53d6\u308a (randori). Japanese lords (or really, lords all over the world at this point) simply did not have the ability to fully supply their armies, especially with food, and so allowed or even commanded their men to just take it from the countryside. The warriors pillaged, raped, burnt, and sold people into slavery.  In the Sengoku, at least part of the reason for many daimyos' expeditions was to prevent hungry and restless samurai from eating the daimyos' own food and pillaging their own domain, and instead profit from doing it to others. For example:  >Pillage, arson, and rape took place from one end of the archipelago to the other. In western Honshu, the Mori left behind a legacy of glory arising from an annual cycle of devestation. Their armies plundered fields during the spring planting, mowed down wheat crops and interfered with farmers during the busy summer, stole the harvest in the fall, and broke into granaries, burned peasant homes, and left their victims to freeze or starve to death in the winter. At Hineno Estate in the Kinai, soldiers repeatedly burned residences, raped women, kidnapped and pressed unsuspecting cultivators into service, and pilfered peasants'personal belongings, tools, and livestock. Just west of the Kanto, Takeda Shingen was among the most creative in profiting from the war-capturing the enemy's women, children, and disabled and offering them for sale back to their relatives. Shingen's brand of war-profiteering shattered families and undoubtedly resulted in the death of many captives, even as it fed his war machine.  Even my personal favourite Sengoku daimyo, Uesugi Kenshin, despite a reputation as one of the most honourable daimyos, did this. Fujiki Hisashi noted in *\u96d1\u5175\u305f\u3061\u306e\u6226\u5834 \u4e2d\u4e16\u306e\u50ad\u5175\u3068\u5974\u96b7\u72e9* (The Battlefield of Common Soldiers-Mercenaries and Slavers of the Middle Ages) that Kenshin's frequent eastward campaigns turned many places in Kanto into living hell. Just goes to show that, like the knights of Europe, whatever supposed honour the samurai had did not extend to commoners.  Kuroda Nagamasa ordered screens to be painted of the Siege\/Battle of Osaka in 1615. The screen depicting the aftermath of the fall of the castle shows the absolute chaos as the people tried to run and escape the absolute slaughter. Stephen Turnbull in his work on the Siege of Osaka quotes the letter of Richard Cocks:  >Also we have had great troubles and wars in Japan since our arrival, which hath put us to much pains and charges in sending up and down to save our goods, and yet for all that some is lost and burned, two great cities being burned to the ground, each one of them being almost as big as London and not one house is left standing, the one called Osaka and the other Sakai; and, as is reported, above 300,000 men have lost their lives on the one part and other.  Things were so bad that many villages and commoners came together in armed groups and fortified their villages to resist. At any point they could, they got back at the samurai, finding small bands and assaulting, killing them, called \u843d\u3061\u6b66\u8005\u72e9\u308a (ochimushagari). Even big names fell victim to these bands, most famously Akechi Mitsuhide getting killed on the retreat from his defeat at Yamazaki. Some villages and bands came together under the banner of Ikko buddhism, and some even grew to such sizes they kicked out the daimyos all together ruled their own domains.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3156.0,"score_ratio":11.0}
+{"post_id":"50za6j","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"In the movie Seven Samurai, a character accuses the samurai (all of them, as a caste of society) of destroying villages, raping women, and stealing from poor farmers. Samurai are usually portrayed as lawful -- is there any legitimacy to this accusation?","c_root_id_A":"d788fci","c_root_id_B":"d78b6dg","created_at_utc_A":1472927154,"created_at_utc_B":1472931528,"score_A":32,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"Ancillary question: I've often heard that during some periods samurai had right of life and death over peasants and could essentially kill them for whatever cause. Was that ever true or is that an exaggeration?","human_ref_B":"The idea of Bushid\u014d, \"the way of the warrior\", and its connection to chivalry, honor, etc., that is popping up in the answers to this question seems flawed.  Bushid\u014d is a relatively modern concept centuries removed from when samurai were actually involved in wars.  Bushido became a widely accepted idea in the Japanese national consciousness when a Japanese Quaker, with no background in history,named Inaz\u014d Nitobe wrote *Bushido: The Soul of Japan* (1899).  If you read the introduction it becomes apparent that he wrote the book out of a sense of inferiority to Western society and hoped to create an idea of something inherently Japanese that is of equal standing with the west.  He writes \"I have tried to illustrate whatever points I have made with parallel examples from European history and literature.\"  He then proceeds to create Bushid\u014d by choosing stories without any historical veracity or analysis of the historical context of these stories.  He then frames these stories in terms of Western philosophy and history.   You can see how flawed Inaz\u014d understanding of the history of the samurai is throughout the whole work.  One of my favorite chapters is \"The Sword the Soul of the Samurai\" in which he declares \"When Mahomet proclaimed that \"the sword is the key of Heaven and of Hell.\" he only echoed a Japanese sentiment.\"  Of course the problem with this is that the idea of the sword being the main weapon of the samurai only came about after the samurai had ended their wars and entered an era of relative peace during the 16th century.  When samurai basically became bureaucrats they increasingly focused on idealizing the symbol of their power, the sword that they alone were allowed to carry.  If you look at the first codes that Tokugawa laid down about samurai and the aristocracy, there is no mention of focusing on swords.  In fact, it mentions horse riding and archery as being important parts of being a samurai.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4374.0,"score_ratio":2.28125}
+{"post_id":"7imnp3","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"In the Netflix series \"Godless\", we meet a family of Norwegians all the way out in the American frontier in the 1800s. What would make a family from so far away go to such a far distance, especially in such an unbuilt land?","c_root_id_A":"dqzugbv","c_root_id_B":"dr04i4s","created_at_utc_A":1512826956,"created_at_utc_B":1512841360,"score_A":20,"score_B":1033,"human_ref_A":"Pretty much the same things that drove immigrants from other countries:  overpopulation, famine, religious persecution, and the promise of free land.  The first Norwegian settlers were a group of six families who came to the US in 1825 seeking a haven from the official Norwegian state church.  After a difficult crossing they arrived, destitute, in New York and (aided by local Quakers) eventually settled up state.  Because they were arrived in an undersized single-masted sloop unsuitable for the Atlantic crossing, they caused a local sensation and were called \"sloopers\".    Word of the sloopers' success reached other disaffected Norwegians back in Norway, and many became enamored of the idea of immigration, particular after some emigrants returned to Norway (sponsored by financial concerns in the US) to speak publicly about the opportunities in the United States:  > A farmer from Houston County, Minnesota, returned on a visit the winter of '70-'71. He infected half the population in that district with what was called the America fever, and I who was then the most susceptible caught the fever in its most virulent form. No more amusement of any kind, only brooding on how to get away to America. It was like a desperate case of homesickness reversed.   Additionally, in the late 1860s, famine, unemployment, and the lack of open land for farming, all encouraged many Norwegians to consider immigration.  The Homestead Act of 1862 gave free land to settlers in the United States who developed it for at least five years.  From 1825 to 1925, about 800,000 Norwegians immigrants are recorded, with many settling in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.  Many Scandinavians did eventually migrate to the Pacific Northwest.  An 1870 survey reported 65 Norwegians in Washington Territory and 47 in Oregon.  A much larger number migrated west after cross-country railroads were established in the 1880s, with more than 150,000 Scandinavians settling there between 1890 and 1910.    The depiction of Norwegians in typical \"wild west\" territories like New Mexico in the 1880s (the setting for *Godless*) is probably creative speculation, but not unlikely.  Some 22 Norwegian Mormon families did migrate to Utah from Fox River, Illinois in 1849, with other converts coming later, from both the US and from Norway.  It's not clear how many moved from Utah to other parts of the country after that, but it's reasonable to assume that, like so many others, *some* Scandinavians came to the infamous *boomtowns* seeking their fortunes.  Sources:  * http:\/\/ocp.hul.harvard.edu\/immigration\/scandinavian.html * https:\/\/www.loc.gov\/teachers\/classroommaterials\/presentationsandactivities\/presentations\/immigration\/scandinavian3.html * https:\/\/oregonhistoryproject.org\/articles\/historical-records\/scandinavian-immigration\/ * http:\/\/historytogo.utah.gov\/people\/ethnic_cultures\/the_peoples_of_utah\/scandinaviansaga.html","human_ref_B":"Hi,  This is by no means an area I am an expert in. However, that being said, I will attempt to answer in general about European immigration to the United States in the 19th century because I've been teaching subjects like this for nearly a decade. This answer is general and wide-ranging and not an in-depth look at Norwegians as immigrants, per se. Think of it as a Freshman-level survey lecture. One final disclaimer that, I think, fits with any question about historical motivations and actions; \"It's complicated.\"  With those out of the way, let's delve a little into the phenomena of American migration and the immigrant story as a whole:  * Immigration to the United States was the product of \"boosterism\"  Basically, both officials from the US government and citizens alike 'sold' life in the United States as a golden opportunity. Mind you, this was not unique to the United States itself; the [British government used to advertise owning farms and land and opportunity in Canada] (http:\/\/data2.collectionscanada.ca\/e\/e350\/e008748903-v8.jpg) to the swelling populations of the 19th century. In fact, some have argued that ['transportation'] (http:\/\/www.australia.gov.au\/about-australia\/australian-story\/convicts-and-the-british-colonies) to Australia was also a release valve for excess population. Essentially, there was a wide-ranging 'sales' pitch to draw Europeans (and Asians) to \"The West\" (a vague, wide term that includes many places we would not think of as 'western' today.)   A good example of this sales pitch, though coming at the tail end of the 19th century, is the adventuresome [\"dime novels\"] (https:\/\/blogs.baylor.edu\/texascollection\/2013\/08\/13\/dime-novels-the-rise-of-the-american-hero\/) which, tall tales aside, painted the West as an empty land ready for exploitation. Newspaper reporters and fiction writers alike jumped upon the bandwagon of these tales because appetite for them in Europe pretty much guaranteed newspaper sales (and writers' incomes). Moreover, and perhaps more famously, [\"Buffalo Bill's Wild West Shows\"] (https:\/\/centerofthewest.org\/learn\/western-essays\/wild-west-shows\/) romanticized America to the European market; America was a place where a man could prove his manliness through near-mythical deeds! He was immensely popular and his act performed for Queen Victoria and the Pope by the end of the 19th century.   Can't imagine getting swept up in the fever of a new land? Well, imagine if a newssite broke the story of a previously-unknown continent that was 'empty' and ready for settling. A place where you could start a new life with a new name and a new identity. How many 21st century Americans themselves would leap at the chance to abandon debt, shitty credit scores, acrimonious politics, social inequality, economic disparity, and the banal evils of corporate life for an opportunity for adventure and excitement?  Add to this stories of immigrants who 'made it' in the USA - people like [Levi Strauss] (https:\/\/www.biography.com\/people\/levi-strauss-9496989), [Andrew Carnegie] (https:\/\/www.biography.com\/people\/andrew-carnegie-9238756), and [Adolphus Busch] (https:\/\/shsmo.org\/historicmissourians\/name\/b\/busch\/) - and you have a powerful incentive to risk literally everything in a voyage to the USA and traversing unknown regions of a dangerous continent.  * Free land\/cheap land is better than expensive land\/hereditary land.  Unlike Europe, the Canadian\/American West had lots of 'unused' land, according to boosters (please know it certianly wasn't \"empty\" nor \"unused\" but that's a different conversation). This goes hand-in-hand with the above point; it was a tradition in North America to offer cheap or free land to entice Europeans over to the New World, but these (such as the Headright acts in 1600s Virginia) were met with mixed results. The difference between 1600 and 1800 boils down to changes in agriculture and medicine in Europe which led to higher populations and over-crowding of the land and cities. This, in turn, led to high land and property prices (as well as taxes) for new families, meaning many people's dreams of having their own farm\/land\/business would always be a 'dream.'  Comparatively, the US government offered free land periodically through things like the Homestead Act of 1862 which opened up millions of acres of land for a pittance in order to get European (read \"White Europeans\" from North and West Europe) and American presences in the region; this would lead to settled farmers producing food and forcing out the Native Americans whose land it really was (though the US gov't conveniently neglected to tell Europeans as such). About 1.5 million homesteaders, not all of whom were US citizens by birth, took up the offer of free or nearly-free land during the lifetime of the Act and its 'spin offs' (smaller, more regional acts that hoped to have the same draw) continued well into the 20th century, drawing people to places like Nebraska. Best of all, taxes - if they existed at all in the region - were miniscule compared to Europe. Free land and no taxes? Sign me up, right?  So, Europeans had a choice; stay and maybe scrape enough together to maybe afford some land or sell pretty much everything and take a gamble on snagging some 'free' land.  * Europeans were politically convulsed  While not quite as applicable to Scandinavians, most of Europe at the time was going through some pretty scary political, social, and economic upheavals that made staying in Europe in the mid-19th century particularly dicey. German, Italian, Irish, Polish, and many other Europeans were faced with [political revolution, unemployment, and literal starvation] (http:\/\/www.ushistory.org\/us\/25f.asp) in the mid-19th century. The option then was to stay and maybe die or to take a gamble and maybe live. A good example is the Potato Blight which most famously affected the Irish (leading to over half the population dying or fleeing to foreign shores), but Germany and Belgium were also affected deeply, especially the poor and working class whose diet was extremely dependent upon the humble spud. Comparatively, with the exception of 1860 to 1865, the United States seemed relatively stable and prosperous.  Stay and die or move and live (probably)? Which would you choose?  * Relatives and community were already here in some cases.  Only a relative few immigrants 'blazed the trail' so to speak. Many were enticed to come to the USA by relatives and friends who had gone before. Immigrant communities - speaking their mother tongue primarily (or exclusively) - were common in the \"West.\" Many frontier cities had newspapers and laws passed in the mother tongue, despite being in the USA. Why? Comfort and familiarity. Immigrants banded together in order to look out for each other and provide a sense of continuity and 'normalcy' to their new lives. Larger communities drew more people and made possible more success stories. Usually, more immigrants settled relatively stable areas and only the truly desperate or foolhardy settled 'frontiers.'  I like your term \"unbuilt\"; the immigrant experience allows the newcomer to craft a world closer to their liking. It gave immigrants agency in crafting their future; a world that had all the good stuff of the homeland and all the stuff they liked about the new place. This is something they could never really have done even in the most liberal of European countries. Interestingly, the act of \"building\" reinforced cooperation and community while, ironically, perpetuating the myth of rugged individualism and made the transition from settled Europe to 'unbuilt' USA more palatable and less scary.  In conclusion, there are a LOT of reasons why a Norwegian would come out to the badlands of the West and persevere in the face of such hardships. But a combination of sales pitch, free land, a desire to remake the world as you see fit, and the lure of 'making it' all combine into a rather powerful impulse to \"go to such a far distance.\"  Sources:  *Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People* by Alan Brinkley 2014  *Immigrant America: A Portrait* by Alejandro Portes et. al 2006  *Norwegians and Swedes In America: Friends and Neighbors* Ed by Philip Anderson et. al. 2012  *Immigrants in the American Civil War* History channel, American History in Film database, 2008  [The Buffalo Bill Center of the West] (https:\/\/centerofthewest.org\/)  [Library of Congress: The Homestead Act] (https:\/\/www.loc.gov\/item\/today-in-history\/may-20)  EDIT: Spelling mistakes here and there (how did you guys let me get away with that?)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14404.0,"score_ratio":51.65}
+{"post_id":"7imnp3","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"In the Netflix series \"Godless\", we meet a family of Norwegians all the way out in the American frontier in the 1800s. What would make a family from so far away go to such a far distance, especially in such an unbuilt land?","c_root_id_A":"dqzugbv","c_root_id_B":"dr0b71j","created_at_utc_A":1512826956,"created_at_utc_B":1512849652,"score_A":20,"score_B":333,"human_ref_A":"Pretty much the same things that drove immigrants from other countries:  overpopulation, famine, religious persecution, and the promise of free land.  The first Norwegian settlers were a group of six families who came to the US in 1825 seeking a haven from the official Norwegian state church.  After a difficult crossing they arrived, destitute, in New York and (aided by local Quakers) eventually settled up state.  Because they were arrived in an undersized single-masted sloop unsuitable for the Atlantic crossing, they caused a local sensation and were called \"sloopers\".    Word of the sloopers' success reached other disaffected Norwegians back in Norway, and many became enamored of the idea of immigration, particular after some emigrants returned to Norway (sponsored by financial concerns in the US) to speak publicly about the opportunities in the United States:  > A farmer from Houston County, Minnesota, returned on a visit the winter of '70-'71. He infected half the population in that district with what was called the America fever, and I who was then the most susceptible caught the fever in its most virulent form. No more amusement of any kind, only brooding on how to get away to America. It was like a desperate case of homesickness reversed.   Additionally, in the late 1860s, famine, unemployment, and the lack of open land for farming, all encouraged many Norwegians to consider immigration.  The Homestead Act of 1862 gave free land to settlers in the United States who developed it for at least five years.  From 1825 to 1925, about 800,000 Norwegians immigrants are recorded, with many settling in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.  Many Scandinavians did eventually migrate to the Pacific Northwest.  An 1870 survey reported 65 Norwegians in Washington Territory and 47 in Oregon.  A much larger number migrated west after cross-country railroads were established in the 1880s, with more than 150,000 Scandinavians settling there between 1890 and 1910.    The depiction of Norwegians in typical \"wild west\" territories like New Mexico in the 1880s (the setting for *Godless*) is probably creative speculation, but not unlikely.  Some 22 Norwegian Mormon families did migrate to Utah from Fox River, Illinois in 1849, with other converts coming later, from both the US and from Norway.  It's not clear how many moved from Utah to other parts of the country after that, but it's reasonable to assume that, like so many others, *some* Scandinavians came to the infamous *boomtowns* seeking their fortunes.  Sources:  * http:\/\/ocp.hul.harvard.edu\/immigration\/scandinavian.html * https:\/\/www.loc.gov\/teachers\/classroommaterials\/presentationsandactivities\/presentations\/immigration\/scandinavian3.html * https:\/\/oregonhistoryproject.org\/articles\/historical-records\/scandinavian-immigration\/ * http:\/\/historytogo.utah.gov\/people\/ethnic_cultures\/the_peoples_of_utah\/scandinaviansaga.html","human_ref_B":"Norwegian Immigration in the 19th century is actually one of my research focuses and I published an honors thesis on the topic especially pertaining to the western-most edge of what is now the Midwest (the Dakotas and Nebraska). Which is rather specific so excuse me for the wall of text here, but it's not every day I get an opportunity to explain! So, if your question is on the subject of the settling of the frontier in the later 1800s, u\/VetMichael 's post is fantastic, but if you are interested in Norwegians specifically I would add that that migration was a bit of a departure from the typical pattern of the time and was largely done by choice rather than desperation, which is a major reason for the larger rural norwegian-american population. These immigrants were often not as destitute upon arrival that they were pulled into military service, industrial work, or indentured servitude as was common for groups like the Irish, but instead were able to strike out to actually collect their homestead land.  This migration was during one of the largest migrations in human history and the exodus from Norway was astounding, Norway occupied the second highest emigration per capita before 1910, behind only Ireland, and a full one tenth of the population had relocated to the Americas during the 1880s. Norway was, during the nineteenth century, a rural nation, but nevertheless boasted a level of economic development beyond the average for Europe at that time and by the middle of the century local government was common. It is in this climate however that the seeds for the massive exoduses from Norway to America are found. In 1814 only 10% of the Norwegian population enjoyed suffrage, the nation was democratic in name only, while the rest of Western Europe gained self-governance the Norwegian citizenry had very little power.  Dissatisfaction with this situation grew, this feeling, however, did not precipitate in a migration as it often did in other nations at the time. Instead, the migrations began in earnest only after (between 1884 and 1900) the Norwegian government became parliamentary (previously it had been answerable to the king in Sweden) and the economy grew by more than 50%.  This is the first indication that this migration was not due to a political pressure beyond the powers of the immigrants, but instead due to something altogether different.   It would seem, from the timing of these major events in Norwegian history, that rather than the mounting of oppression acting as a push factor in Norwegian emigration it was the sudden influx of freedom and democracy that facilitated, in part, the migration from Norway. It is necessary to think of the presence democracy in a more broad fashion than a simple dualistic approach of democratic or not when considering the effects of political situations on phenomena as dynamic as emigration and immigration.  This being borne in mind, one cannot attribute the mass emigration from Norway solely to the development of a more democratic government. It is very likely, however, that the (relatively) sudden development of Norwegian control over Norwegian affairs, being a radical restructuring of the Norwegian state, caused Norwegians to look with more interest at the systems similar to their new one. This would lead them to look, naturally toward the United States, by this point small numbers of Norwegians had already made the voyage across the Atlantic and had sent thousands of letters home causing people in every part of Norway to measure their own nation\u2019s success ad democratizing against the idealized depiction of the United States their relatives provided.  With there being no irresistible agent of social change pushing for the leaving of Norway in the way of economic downturns, famines, or political repression it seems necessary to look for another factor. This missing factor must be able to link the previously discussed factors and culminate in a compelling reason for the massive spikes in emigration from Norway between 1865 and 1910. More generally it should be seen as singular that people should so suddenly depart a homeland that had been, like the rest of Europe, stagnant in terms of large movements of people for the previous eight centuries.  Unlike the rest of Europe, however, land ownership was much more common in Norway but one\u2019s status was, still, traditionally measured in land ownership and this land was parceled out in inheritance. By the nineteenth century, however, land ownership had become increasingly rare with only the very wealthiest Norwegians holding any land. In this system most inland and rural Norwegians were forced to make their livings as cotters and laborers, together referred to as husmenn. This arrangement, coupled with the undeveloped nature of Norway\u2019s infrastructure and trade systems caused a proverbial ceiling to develop, keeping un-landed Norwegians from accruing any wealth or status either in land or commerce.  While this situation is not by any means desirable, it would not necessitate the undertaking of the expensive and dangerous venture of travelling to the United States for reasons of survival, but rather to gain status and pride. This arrangement and problem affected, almost solely, the rural poor of the interior of Norway, but rather than the energy from the divide between landed and un-landed resulting in violence or reform, as might typically be expected in a society in which most of the population does not hold property, the energy was instead directed toward an exodus of the un-landed.  The assertion that the pull of available land, and therefore status, is corroborated by their tendency, during the same period as the exodus to America, to migrate northward to occupy the unclaimed northern segments of Norway without regard for their inhospitable nature.   The one element that is characteristic of the massive emigration from Norway at the close of the nineteenth century is \u201cchain migrations\u201d. These are large emigrations from regions that are sparked by the departure of a few members of a group who then entice their friends and family to follow suite. It is in this aspect of the migration from Norway that the effects of a globalizing world are most clearly seen. From 1865 to 1910 untold number of letters were sent between the United States and Norway, those from the United States, like with many other immigrant groups, idealized their new homeland and made a concerted effort to attract their loved ones to follow them.  It is also here, in the discussion of what has been termed \u201cchain migration\u201d, that the distinction between immigration and migration becomes important and it becomes clear that the term \u201cmigration\u201d, in reference to the immigration of Norwegians, the term is a misnomer. In this case it should, in reality be termed \u201cchain immigration\u201d or \u201cchain emigration\u201d depending on one\u2019s perspective, this is because when the Norwegian immigrants arrived in the United States the overwhelming majority were intending to stay, and the only migrating they would do once in the country would be westward.  With the number of push factors previously discussed it took only, the simple pull factor of a flood of letters extolling the virtues of America to spark \u201cAmerica Fever\u201d through the whole of Norway, but particularly in the areas with the least mobility in the interior of the nation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22696.0,"score_ratio":16.65}
+{"post_id":"7imnp3","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"In the Netflix series \"Godless\", we meet a family of Norwegians all the way out in the American frontier in the 1800s. What would make a family from so far away go to such a far distance, especially in such an unbuilt land?","c_root_id_A":"dqzugbv","c_root_id_B":"dr0clll","created_at_utc_A":1512826956,"created_at_utc_B":1512851445,"score_A":20,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"Pretty much the same things that drove immigrants from other countries:  overpopulation, famine, religious persecution, and the promise of free land.  The first Norwegian settlers were a group of six families who came to the US in 1825 seeking a haven from the official Norwegian state church.  After a difficult crossing they arrived, destitute, in New York and (aided by local Quakers) eventually settled up state.  Because they were arrived in an undersized single-masted sloop unsuitable for the Atlantic crossing, they caused a local sensation and were called \"sloopers\".    Word of the sloopers' success reached other disaffected Norwegians back in Norway, and many became enamored of the idea of immigration, particular after some emigrants returned to Norway (sponsored by financial concerns in the US) to speak publicly about the opportunities in the United States:  > A farmer from Houston County, Minnesota, returned on a visit the winter of '70-'71. He infected half the population in that district with what was called the America fever, and I who was then the most susceptible caught the fever in its most virulent form. No more amusement of any kind, only brooding on how to get away to America. It was like a desperate case of homesickness reversed.   Additionally, in the late 1860s, famine, unemployment, and the lack of open land for farming, all encouraged many Norwegians to consider immigration.  The Homestead Act of 1862 gave free land to settlers in the United States who developed it for at least five years.  From 1825 to 1925, about 800,000 Norwegians immigrants are recorded, with many settling in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.  Many Scandinavians did eventually migrate to the Pacific Northwest.  An 1870 survey reported 65 Norwegians in Washington Territory and 47 in Oregon.  A much larger number migrated west after cross-country railroads were established in the 1880s, with more than 150,000 Scandinavians settling there between 1890 and 1910.    The depiction of Norwegians in typical \"wild west\" territories like New Mexico in the 1880s (the setting for *Godless*) is probably creative speculation, but not unlikely.  Some 22 Norwegian Mormon families did migrate to Utah from Fox River, Illinois in 1849, with other converts coming later, from both the US and from Norway.  It's not clear how many moved from Utah to other parts of the country after that, but it's reasonable to assume that, like so many others, *some* Scandinavians came to the infamous *boomtowns* seeking their fortunes.  Sources:  * http:\/\/ocp.hul.harvard.edu\/immigration\/scandinavian.html * https:\/\/www.loc.gov\/teachers\/classroommaterials\/presentationsandactivities\/presentations\/immigration\/scandinavian3.html * https:\/\/oregonhistoryproject.org\/articles\/historical-records\/scandinavian-immigration\/ * http:\/\/historytogo.utah.gov\/people\/ethnic_cultures\/the_peoples_of_utah\/scandinaviansaga.html","human_ref_B":"A few thoughts to add to the excellent answer by \/u\/VetMichael ...  The term \"American frontier\" is problematic here since it conjures different things for different people. Most Scandinavian immigrants of the late nineteenth century settled that narrow, ever moving transition zone that existed in the \"next section over\" that was available for sale or homesteading. It was hardly the wild, wide-open frontier at the time. Rather it was a few miles to the west of fairly established settlement. As the century - and the next - unfolded, available land generally decreased in quality as opportunity shifted from the rich farmlands of Iowa and Minnesota to the more challenging land of the Dakotas and Nebraska, where soil wasn't as rich and rainfall was less reliable. Still, this was damn good land. One should not underestimate the hardship - and hard work. But immigrants rarely traveled alone; chain migration caused friends, relatives and others from the same community to settle nearby, and so the shock of moving to a new continent could be lessened.  Immigration studies typically talk about the factors that \"pushed\" and \"pulled\" people into making the giant effort to move. Lack of opportunity (in the form of land, jobs, etc.), the stifling nature of traditional society and politics, and other factors contributed to what \"pushed\" people to leave their homes. The \"pull\" of perceived opportunities - cheap\/free land and\/or jobs, and perceived freedoms attracted people to North America.  Also, it is easy to see this as purely a matter of farmer and would-be farmers coming to North America, but one shouldn't discount the Nordic settlement of places such as the Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where copper mines offers employment. And there were, in general, a lot of jobs with higher pay than one might hope for in Scandinavia.  A nice fictionalized account of Norwegian immigration to the Dakotas can be found in Ole Edvart R\u00f8lvaag's 1924-1925 classic, Giants in the Earth (Norwegian: Verdens Gr\u00f8de), set in the 1870s. Life wasn't easy, but one could count on the idea that all one's labor was for oneself as one built a home for the future - and future generations.  edit: Since writing this, I note also the excellent post by \/u\/Jtjens - well done!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24489.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
+{"post_id":"7ol7t5","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Transvestism and especially \"Ladyboys\" are strongly associated with South-East and East Asian culture and cities like Bangkok and Tokyo. When did this trope start and how old is it? I know it's a stereotype but when and how did it start? Is it primarily a Western viewpoint? What is the relationship between these cultures and gender bending practices like crossdressing in the early and premodern period?","c_root_id_A":"dsaq4i8","c_root_id_B":"dsarm15","created_at_utc_A":1515284558,"created_at_utc_B":1515286119,"score_A":38,"score_B":1022,"human_ref_A":"Hello everyone,   If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of \/r\/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the rules, as we don't want to have to warn you further.  Of course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or \/r\/all and see only removed], but we ask for your patience and understanding. Great content is produced on this subreddit every day though, and we hope that while you wait, you will check out places they are featured, including [Twitter, the Sunday Digest, the Monthly \"Best Of\" feature, and now, Facebook. It is very rare that a decent answer doesn't result in due time, so please do come check back on this thread in a few hours. If you think you might forget, send a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot, and it will ensure you don't!  Finally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, we ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!","human_ref_B":"Since I'm on break I'll give a go at answering when and how this stereotype started, specifically how Thai cinema has contributed to acceptance of trans individuals in Thailand. However, I'd like to note that I'm not Thai, and I'm sure others have a better understanding of this topic than I do.    In Thailand, the most commonly used word to refer for a male-to-female trans person is a kathoey. For the purposes of this post, I'll refer to Thai MTF trans individuals as kathoeys, though in reality this is a broader term that can also refer to effeminate gay men, and also despite the fact that most Thai transwomen refer to themselves simply as \"phuying\" (women).   As in the US (and much of the world) transgenderism has not always been an altogether mainstream topic in Thailand. Still the country is 95% Buddhist, a religion which has no specific laws surrounding transgenderism, and as a result, sex reassignment surgeries had begun being performed in Thailand starting in 1975. However, in the first half of the 20th century, there was still a degree of stigma surrounding kathoeys for a variety of reasons. The first movies surrounding kathoeys were released in the 1980's, and reflected this in their depiction of kathoeys as depressed, tragic characters. Perhaps the first mainstream movie that portrayed kathoeys was *The Last Song,* a 1985 movie about a kathoey cabaret performer who falls in love with a man who eventually leaves her for a biological woman, leading to her suicide. Though in *The Last Song* the kathoey identity is portrayed negatively, the movie began a trend of mainstream sympathy for kathoeys. More 1980's movies centered around kathoeys followed *The Last Song*, generally presenting kathoeys as tragic characters suffering from bad karma.   In 1996, a northern Thai volleyball team made up of mainly kathoeys won the Thai national volleyball tournament. Though they were banned from representing Thailand internationally, the 2000 movie *Iron Ladies* dramatizing their journey became the highest grossing domestic Thai movie until that point. This film likely marked a turning point in Thai cinema as kathoeys began stop being viewed solely as sympathetic, tragic characters.  This is all relevant because representation of kathoeys in Thai media has helped to socially destigmatize transgenderism in Thailand relative to other Asian countries. Thailand's relaxed stance on both prostitution and SRS has made the country a destination for both trans individuals and sex tourists from the US. It is especially appealing because few other countries allow such easy access to gender affirming surgery, especially at such a low price point. This real influx of tourists has spurred depictions of Thailand in the US media as a destination for individuals seeking the the Thai kathoey community and the medical industry that has supported it.     Sources:   * Chokrungvaranont, Prayuth et al. \u201cThe Development of Sex Reassignment Surgery in Thailand: A Social Perspective.\u201d The Scientific World Journal 2014 (2014): 182981. PMC. Web.   * \u00dcnaldi, Serhat. \u201cBack in the Spotlight: The Cinematic Regime of Representation of Kathoeys and Gay Men in Thailand.\u201d Queer Bangkok: 21st Century Markets, Media, and Rights, edited by Peter A. Jackson, Hong Kong University Press, 2011, pp. 59\u201380. JSTOR, www.jstor.org\/stable\/j.ctt1xwdfx.8.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1561.0,"score_ratio":26.8947368421}
+{"post_id":"7ol7t5","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Transvestism and especially \"Ladyboys\" are strongly associated with South-East and East Asian culture and cities like Bangkok and Tokyo. When did this trope start and how old is it? I know it's a stereotype but when and how did it start? Is it primarily a Western viewpoint? What is the relationship between these cultures and gender bending practices like crossdressing in the early and premodern period?","c_root_id_A":"dsav5s3","c_root_id_B":"dsaq4i8","created_at_utc_A":1515290190,"created_at_utc_B":1515284558,"score_A":967,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"Michael Peletz\u2019s book *Gender Pluralism in Southeast Asia since Early Modern Times* is basically tailor-made to answer your question.   While staying very focused on the trail of evidence specific to each society\/state he investigates (some from the Austronesian islands and then Burma and Thailand from mainland southeast Asia), Peletz agrees with earlier scholarship that shared geographic\/climatological context and millennia of contact among themselves and with \u201cfringe\u201d states (India, China, Japan) have led to a certain porousness of cultural features even amidst awesome diversity. Practices of and attitudes towards gender pluralism are one of the most interesting areas to compare and contrast. Examining Southeast Asia as a region of individual societies is especially useful for this thread because pre\/early 20th century Thailand is very under-studied with respect to gender and sexuality.  Peletz discusses gender pluralism in southeast Asian societies in several successive stages: pre\/early-European contact (through the early 20th century); the era of state formation and European colonialism (18th-20th centuries); and globalization\/entrenchment of capitalism and European-style modernity (mid-20th century). For the earliest stage, it\u2019s important to be aware, many of his sources are 19th\/early 20th-century European travelers and ethnographers. (There is additional material from several of the states and Portuguese, especially, explorers going back to the 14th and 16th centuries respectively). However, through comparisions among societies and by examining both change and continuity over the late 19th to mid-20th century sources, Peletz says he is confident that he can discuss genuinely \u201cearly modern\u201d gender pluralism.  The most important clarification to make is that we are primarily talking about *gender* here, not sexuality or sexual orientation. Tamara Loos makes this point much more strongly than Peletz, but I think it\u2019s an important one. The early modern and modern West foregrounds sexuality and emphasizes hetero-*sexual* relations as the central axis of gender\/sexuality; early modern Southeast Asian societies focused on hetero-*gender* (and cisgender) lifestyle and relationships.  In early modern Southeast Asian societies, ideas of gender arose out of\/with a cosmological concept of the gendered sacred: the divine encompassed both female and male (and agender, in some origin myths). That is to say, there was real power in both female and male\/femininity and masculinity. Our information about gender pluralism comes mostly from a religious context, in fact. The Bugis of South Sulawesi provide the best-known example of the most common form of gender pluralism. One class of their sacral priesthood is called the *bissu*. In the early modern era\u2014it\u2019s attested by both Sulawesi and Portuguese sources from the 16th century on\u2014the *bissu* included normatively gendered female-assigned priests as well as male-assigned priests who *reassigned* themselves as cisgender female.   In a hybrid local belief system with elements of Islam, Buddhism, and indigenous Austronesian religion, the *bissu* served as royal priests and guardians of their sacred texts. Transgender *bissu* adopted normatively-female clothing and mannerisms. They also set themselves up as women in society\u2014most critically, as wives. European writers made the immediate leap to sex, denouncing the trans *bissu* as sodomites. My point here isn\u2019t to say whether or not homo-*sexual* relationships occurred in any given hetero-*gender* couple; the point is that for the early modern Bugis, that question was, well, beside the point.  While the *bissu* and their counterparts were permanent, lifelong transitions, it\u2019s interesting to observe temporary transgender adoption as well. In 19th century Aceh, there were competitions of religious and literary knowledge between teams from mosques and madrasas from neighboring villages. A key player on each team was the *sadati*--a \u201cdancing boy\u201d who adopted the dress and manner of a young woman for the course of the contest. European ethnographers documented homo-sexual relations among the members of a given team; interestingly, this included both homo-gender and hetero-gender relationships.  I\u2019ve concentrated on the Bugis out of Peletz\u2019s examples because there is also documented, accepted gender-crossing outside a religious context. Both *calabai* (men reassigned as women) and\u2014somewhat unusually--*calatai* (women reassigned as men) crossed the gender boundary for the duration of their lives. Grandiose-minded imperialist James Brook in 1848 noted:  > The strangest custom I observed is, that some men dress like women, and some women like men; not occasionally, but all their lives, devoting themselves to the occupations and pursuits of their adopted sex. In the case of the males, it seems that the parents of a boy, upon perceiving in him certain effeminacies of habit and appearance, are induced thereby to present him to one of the rajahs, by whom he is received.  The really interesting thing to me is that despite the insinuations we might read into this, Brook is careful to distance this gender transgression from sexual transgression: becoming a calabai does not mean one engages in homosexual behavior. Now, he\u2019s making a point about what he sees as the horrors of the Ottoman Empire as much as promoting the Bugis here, so I\u2019m not sure how far we should take that part at face value. What\u2019s more interesting, especially given the existence of calatai as well as calabai, is Brooks\u2019 recognition of an overall good status for women in Bugis society. He is particularly impressed by women\u2019s roles in government and the lack of prostitution.  Our self-appointed white rajah (no, really) isn\u2019t the only one concerned with prostitution in relation to gender and gender pluralism. In the later chapters of his book, Peletz turns to the reasons for Southeast Asia\u2019s mid-20th century shift towards opprobrium against homosexuality that partially brought gender-crossing down with it. One of the biggest causes he finds is a marked drop in the status of women and femininity. The commodification of sex into prostitution, including through Western military presence and sex tourism, might give some individual women a sense of empowerment over their own circumstances but has *overall* helped drive the objectification of women. While the *bissu* and counterparts found increased sacred power in blending their born-maleness with lived-femaleness, the power of femaleness declined markedly.  The changing role of religion in Austronesian and peninsular societies, too, has played a factor. The more organic and cosmological rooting of spirituality has been overwritten by the \u201crationalization\u201d of beliefs (expressed as doctrine\/facts to learn).  And finally, as in the West, political centralization, state formation, and the rise of capitalism were powered by the drive for rigidity, order, social stratification, *normativity*.   But most important, Peletz stresses, these processes have by no means been complete. The work of individual activists as well as the dyed-in inheritance from centuries or millennia of gender pluralism have helped modern southeast Asian cultures maintain at least an ambivalence towards trans people and culture in the face of military dictatorship, outside imperialism, and religious fundamentalism.","human_ref_B":"Hello everyone,   If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of \/r\/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the rules, as we don't want to have to warn you further.  Of course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or \/r\/all and see only removed], but we ask for your patience and understanding. Great content is produced on this subreddit every day though, and we hope that while you wait, you will check out places they are featured, including [Twitter, the Sunday Digest, the Monthly \"Best Of\" feature, and now, Facebook. It is very rare that a decent answer doesn't result in due time, so please do come check back on this thread in a few hours. If you think you might forget, send a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot, and it will ensure you don't!  Finally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, we ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5632.0,"score_ratio":25.4473684211}
+{"post_id":"h8lntp","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm a tailor in Regency London and Sir Richard Dastardly, a rakish baronet, is ignoring my bills. How would I as a small business owner deal with this? I've taught a reasonable amount of Victorian and some Regency literature and have casually read a decent amount of non academic history of the Victorian and Regency eras. A common trope I've seen is of a rakish character or a spendthrift couple running up huge debts with various vendors (especially tailors) and basically just not paying. Sometimes the character is shown as dying in penury but at other times they just seem to carry on in the same style as always, just ignoring or stringing along the vendors who provide their goods and services. What's more this seems to be seen as if not typical at least not unusual.  Was this sort of casual attitude toward payment for goods and services on the part of the upper classes an actual thing?","c_root_id_A":"fut2x9n","c_root_id_B":"fusyko6","created_at_utc_A":1592148516,"created_at_utc_B":1592145961,"score_A":586,"score_B":111,"human_ref_A":"As a small business owner, you would have recourse for dealing with deadbeat customers. A guy like Pip or Rawdon Crawley wouldn't be allowed to fleece you forever, unless you let them--and if Sir Richard Dastardly was rich enough, sometimes you would just let it slide for a little bit. If they \"paid you in exposure\" and sent their (possibly more solvent) friends to you to buy suits or dresses, you might let it slide for a little while, just to be neighborly and keep the peace. But if you were doing House of Worth work for pawnshop pay, you'd eventually get fed up. You'd start sending duns\/debt collectors to knock on their door, hoping the annoyance and potential shame would convince them to pony up. At this point, he might contract with a moneylender for a promissory note; the lender would pay you and charge Dastardly interest, and Dastardly would be out of your hair.  If your debtor doesn't find a way to pay you, your next step is prosecution. You want Sir Richard to actually show up for the trial, so you bring legal action against him and pay a shilling for an arrest warrant. A sheriff's officer serves the warrant and will take Sir Richard Dastardly to a sponging house. There, you have some time to settle or you'll end up on trial\/in jail.  If it gets to trial, and Dastardly is found to be a debtor, they stick him in jail. You can't just take his stuff, however, not yet -- he still has to decide to pay you, by selling his own stuff or borrowing money from family and friends. Rawdon Crawley never gets to this point, but a number of Dickens characters did. Usually, if you ended up in debtor's prison, you were already poor--not a Sir Richard Dastardly. Typically, a person with a title would have resources: they could sell land, a horse, beg Auntie for cash, or marry some wealthy heiress. If you were poor and in debtor's prison, you did have some light at the end of the tunnel: you could still ply certain trades from within prison, and you could eventually hope to get out. But it was miserable and difficult to drag oneself out of that debt hole. (Imprisonment for debt was abolished in 1869.)  Now, as to your question, \"Did they care?\" I think they cared about as much as we do. Victorians were a little more moralistic than we are now in that they were generally more likely to judge their neighbors as \"bad\" than put the circumstance ahead of their judgment -- but a lot of their attitudes are similar to today's. Being a serial debtor was more personal to the Victorians than it is to us, because there were, with the possible exception of the East India Company, no giant faceless monolithic companies to which you would owe money. You'd owe money to Bob the tailor and Joe the greengrocer, guys who lived probably within a few miles' radius of your own house, not to MasterCard. No one goes hungry if you don't pay MasterCard, but a Victorian person refusing to make good on his debts was literally taking money away from his neighbors, which was a bad look. Tongues would start wagging when the debt collectors came knocking, and a Sir Richard type might find himself not invited to as many parties as before. If he had romantic prospects, they could dry up: the father of a young lady isn't going to want his daughter hooking up with a spendthrift who'll end up in prison and will be unable or unwilling to provide for his family. If he's part of a gentleman's club, depending on how bad his money woes are (and whether or not all the other men in his club have similar attitudes towards money), he could find himself kicked out.   There were jerks, con men, liars, and people who had \"f-you\" amounts of money where they could gleefully skip town on Bob the Tailor and not care. There were no credit scores in the time period, but all you had was your name. If you developed a reputation as a sketchball, tailors wouldn't want to do work for you on credit anymore--no matter who you were. Tailors for the most part couldn't afford to give their work away for free. You'd have to pay cash. If you had cash, this wouldn't actually be a big deal, which is why a lot of wealthier people might only care about their debts insofar as their reputation could be affected. If Bob didn't want to play ball anymore, they'd just pay Bob the cash and get credit from some other poor slob. If you didn't have cash, this would be a serious issue for you. Some \"wealthy\" people didn't actually have \"ready money,\" only large fixed assets like land or houses, which they would then have to mortgage or sell if they'd tanked their reputation\/credit, or who were known to be out of money even if they'd never had a debt problem. Like today, a lot of \"rich people\" were cash-poor, and kept an appearance of wealth by leveraging what they did have to get more.  (Sources I looked at to write this: \"What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew,\" by Daniel Pool; \"The Victorian City\" by Judith Flanders; \"Vanity Fair\" by William Makepeace Thackeray.)  EDIT: I corrected the naming. While \u201cSir Dastardly\u201d sounded like a very interesting person to me, and is more descriptive of his character, the commenter below is right\u2014it\u2019s Sir Richard (Sir Dick if ya nasty).","human_ref_B":"I answered a similar question (from the debtor's point of view) a while back, which you might find useful: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/7hau5e\/in\\_poldark\\_18th\\_century\\_lenders\\_are\\_able\\_to\\_call\/dqrq0iw?utm\\_source=share&utm\\_medium=web2x","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2555.0,"score_ratio":5.2792792793}
+{"post_id":"h8lntp","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm a tailor in Regency London and Sir Richard Dastardly, a rakish baronet, is ignoring my bills. How would I as a small business owner deal with this? I've taught a reasonable amount of Victorian and some Regency literature and have casually read a decent amount of non academic history of the Victorian and Regency eras. A common trope I've seen is of a rakish character or a spendthrift couple running up huge debts with various vendors (especially tailors) and basically just not paying. Sometimes the character is shown as dying in penury but at other times they just seem to carry on in the same style as always, just ignoring or stringing along the vendors who provide their goods and services. What's more this seems to be seen as if not typical at least not unusual.  Was this sort of casual attitude toward payment for goods and services on the part of the upper classes an actual thing?","c_root_id_A":"fusyko6","c_root_id_B":"fut4h9q","created_at_utc_A":1592145961,"created_at_utc_B":1592149394,"score_A":111,"score_B":284,"human_ref_A":"I answered a similar question (from the debtor's point of view) a while back, which you might find useful: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/7hau5e\/in\\_poldark\\_18th\\_century\\_lenders\\_are\\_able\\_to\\_call\/dqrq0iw?utm\\_source=share&utm\\_medium=web2x","human_ref_B":"In 1896 Lady Randolph Churchill received a letter from her son in which he described the state of his finances as \u201cdamned poor\u201d. As a cornet in the smart (if flashy) 4th Hussars then stationed on tour in Bangalore, Churchill quickly found himself burdened by the standard of living expected by the regiment. As a junior officer, his annual salary amounted to approximately \u00a3120 per annum. This was not enough to pay his mess bills, that is, the cost of the lavish entertaining that all officers were expected to contribute towards on an equal footing, nor did it cover any of the other exorbitant costs that officers were expected to pay while on service. The initial cost that Churchill incurred upon joining the army was enormous:  >Yet an incoming officer had a huge burden of both initial and on-going expenses. He had to pay for his own uniforms, civilian clothing, cases, swords, saddlery, spurs and other equipment, clothes for his personal servant, the furniture and decoration for his quarters, and various subscriptions for the regiment the officers\u2019 mess and special events. To these were added mess bills for food and drink, the cost of two\u2026 chargers and whatever polo ponies he required. Even after his aunt [The Duchess of Marlborough]\u2026 bought one charger for him at \u00a3200, Churchill calculated **the initial cost of equipping himself at \u00a3653**.  While Churchill can somewhat be blamed for selecting a regiment with a particularly aristocratic mess, in truth many contemporaries of his class were increasingly concerned at the large amount of money that young officers were expected to spend beyond their annual income regardless of their regiment. Indeed, in the same year in which Churchill wrote his mother, he also had to witness two of his fellow junior officers bullied out of the regiment for their inability to pay. They had annual private incomes of \u00a3300 and \u00a3500 each. The matter was so severe, so ludicrous, that the incident was brought forth and debated in the House of Commons resulting in the Akers-Douglas Committee, which declared after much opposition that the private contributions of officers had reached a level where it was harming the officer corps: they found infantry officers could expect to spend anywhere between \u00a3150 and \u00a3250 per annum and cavalry officers somewhere in between \u00a3400 and \u00a3700. Even Queen Victoria was surprised to learn that a junior officer in one of the elite guards regiments required an income of at least \u00a31,000 to participate in regimental life, more often somewhere in between \u00a31,200 and \u00a31,500 on average.  In comparison, a 1901 census found that the average worker in Britain made \u00a343 a year. A lower middle-class professional such as a clerk was expected to make somewhere in between \u00a3150 to \u00a3200. A rich man would make \u00a31,000. The extraordinarily rich, however, were deemed to have an annual income of over \u00a310,000 per annum with a large house in London and a second in the country.  But unlike our modern system of consistent returns, this would not always be a constant revenue stream.  It was generally expected that merchants would extend credit for their goods and services and that, occasionally, this business would have to be structured on layaway. Certain merchants like grocers (cheesemongers, butchers, etc.) and wine merchants generally expected payment at the end of the calendar month. However, tailors and the like often had to wait much longer, in part due to the expense of the item. These larger bills would be paid, assuming some level of fiscal responsibility, at the end of the year or whenever a man with unsteady income knew he would be in possession of a large sum of money. In the interim, or when there was no option but to pay immediately, there were loans, often charged at exorbitant rates in order to justify the risk of the proposition. In the event that the bill was pressing, loans could even be made on an individual\u2019s inheritance as collateral.  Bankers were therefore a frequent partner in the lives of many well-to-do people, although they were often (rightfully) viewed with some skepticism by their patrons. Lady Randolph Churchill\u2019s healthy income of \u00a35,000 a year was initially viewed as more than sufficient for her small family -- Winston and his brother Jack were her only dependents -- but her acquisition and renovation of a large Paris apartment, nominally to save money as Paris was judged cheaper to live than London, had only gotten her into inadvertent debt. Her financial counsel was likewise compromised, in part because her estate was so legally complex and bound by (then) sophisticated financial instruments. Reconsolidation was therefore an almost ruinous task that saw Lady Randolph flee back to England in order to live in a well-appointed country house north of London. She reported her early expenses as thus in 1896:  >Out of \u00a32,700 a year, \u00a3800 goes to you two boys, \u00a3410 for house rent and stables, which leave me about \u00a31,500 for everything -- taxes, servants, stables, food, dress, travelling & now I have to pay interest in money borrowed  The Churchills would struggle between paying their bills and incurring new ones for the rest of their lives.  But what to do about a rakish gentleman? This question plagued tradesmen to no end. In some cases, the pretention of merchants who classified themselves as members of the \u201ccarriage trade\u201d protected them from classes who could be classified as risky, but certainly there was always the debtor\u2019s prison and lawsuits. Peers were far more notorious for skipping their bills than any other class, but the bankruptcy of the Duke of Newcastle in 1869 finally brought public outrage regarding the impossibility of imprisoning peers (but not baronets) while members of the body public could be arrested and imprisoned for financial mismanagement. The case was important because the duke, who had been living in France to escape his creditors, was under immense pressure to return to Britain after accruing an astounding \u00a3230,000 in debts. At the end of the day, a merchant simply had to accept that some bills for small(er) goods and services would simply go unpaid: it was good business to be perceived as the preferred choice of aristocrats and capitalists, even better if such cases brought some notoriety in exchange for little loss.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3433.0,"score_ratio":2.5585585586}
+{"post_id":"fdd6ia","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"In ww1, when a trench was hit with mustard gas, did that temporarily solve its lice and rat problems? I figured since everything that breathes and doesnt have a respirator suffocates when trenches are flooded with mustard gas or other chemical weapons, it might kill all the rats and lice in the trench. Was this the case?","c_root_id_A":"fjhk3gh","c_root_id_B":"fjhk4ho","created_at_utc_A":1583349661,"created_at_utc_B":1583349677,"score_A":176,"score_B":1708,"human_ref_A":"Mustard gas, chlorine, and phosgene were three of the most common gases used. Note that while chlorine and phosgene do have the suffocation effect you mention, mustard gas is actually a blistering agent - and it's actually not even a gas, although inhaling the vapors could cause pulmonary edema in addition to first and second degree burns...the effects of mustard gas, in other words, were not suffocation per se.   With regard to the effects of chemical warfare on the rats and lice in the trenches, there's some anecdotes among combat memoires that suggest an overall limited or unnoticeable effect on population (again - this is anecdotal). For example, in *With a Machine Gun to Cambrai* (I use this example in particular because coincidentally, Cambrai marked the first use of a mustard agent by the Allies), George Coppard, serving with the British across several major battles in France during 1916-1917, noted that \"What happened to the rats under heavy shell-fire was a mystery, but their powers of survival kept place with each new weapon, including poison gas.\" It should be noted that the day in, day out dealing with rats could have an effect on the anecdotal observations of soldiers who may have simply not noticed a slight reduction in rat population after a gas attack.   With regard to lice, one thing to bear in mind is that any protective equipment meant to entirely cover the body and clothing would have protected the lice as well. This situation applies to a mustard agent, which in part is designed to soak through clothing, blistering and burning the skin and ensuring the victim would inhale noxious vapor from the chemical soaked into his clothes. So...if you protect the clothing, skin and hair, you're protecting the home of the lice. I can speak to the rat issue more than lice, though.   Realize that the purpose of mustard gas was not to kill, but incapacitate. Only 1% of exposure cases in WW1 were lethal. But mustard agent settles (heavier than air) and sticks around (for weeks), and continues to cause bad effects if one comes into contact with it after the initial attack. In fact, as the war progressed, higher and higher concentrations of mustard agent were used in combination with aerosols (since, again, mustard agent is not a gas) to cause soldiers to abandon certain areas of line - however, these would not be reoccupied by the attackers...this is an example of area denial. It's very likely that in the areas that were heavily attacked, whether or not the rat population was affected would be unnoticed by soldiers since they'd have evacuated that section of line, and rerouted accordingly. Their new space would look particularly inviting to the rats that evacuated with them.   Okay, so what about rats that stuck around after an attack?   With regard to a nominal amount of mustard gas in the environment, a 1975 study found that \"No deaths attributable to sulfur mustard were noted in mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, or dogs exposed to 0.1 mg\/m3 (0.015 ppm) of sulfur mustard vapor, 6.5 hours\/day, 5 days\/week, for up to 1 year (McNamara et al. 1975).\" So simply being around the trenches after most of the chemical dissipated had likely no effect on the rat population. The same study found a small likelihood of chronic keratitis in that population, which would affect rat vision. This study also found some effects in birth rate and mutations, but this is essentially null considering the over all birth rate for rats in the trenches (producing upwards of 900 offspring per year per couple). Again, we're only talking about the impact of low levels of exposure over time.   The oral LD50 for rats is 17 mg\/kg (LD50 is the median lethal dose). That's what the concentration would need to be if, for example, a rat were to chomp down on a blown off decomposing hand in a trench. Acute exposure (environmental) to 2.5mg per day could take 10 days to death, though...so this should give a bit of a range in understanding how much a rat could take before dying. Also, up to 15.5mg could be applied to the skin according to a 1994 study with only moderate blistering. What does this mean? A rat can withstand a fair amount of environmental exposure that would not affect breeding, but direct ingestion would be more likely to cause death.   I'm not going to go much further into the various effects, but here's a CDC source for further research: link.   I've taken more of a deep dive into mustard agent, but note that phosgene was the primary killer (85%) of gases used in WWI. Chlorine killed much faster, but phosgene was used primarily. Both would have a severe effect on rats, would would not be able to withstand anywhere close to an LD50 for humans for either gas. In the German attacks on British troops at Hulluch in April 1916, using a mixture of both phosgene and chlorine, rats were seen fleeing German trenches prior to the attack - the assumption was that this was due to leaky cylinders (the Germans had stored nearly 7,500 cylinders along the line to produce two major gas cloud attacks).   Bottom line - yes, rats could be affected by all three of the major gases (I'm excluding tear gas, which was used more frequently earlier in the war but is clearly not meant to kill or deny area access). However, the population would not likely be locally affected enough for a noticeable difference by soldiers.   The one reason a soldier would notice an immediate dissipation of the local rat population would be during an aerial bombardment, in which rats always seemed to disappear. This is by no means anecdotal, and was observed on a widespread basis throughout the war.","human_ref_B":"Mustard gas is certainly lethal to rats, not to mention other small critters that inhabited the hellish landscape of the front. Plenty of data exists on *exactly* what mustard gas, not to mention just about any other hazardous chemical, will do to a rat as they of course are often the laboratory subjects for tests to determine exactly that, not to mention countless other unfortunate creatures like mice, pigs, dogs, horses, and so on. The super short summary though if we cut to the chase for the LD50 of mustard gas, as that was the one you mentioned (although  I presume you are interested more in WWI chemical warfare than *mustard gas*, so will also speak more generally about the former's impact), it is as follows:  Species | Route | LD50 (mg\/kg) ---|---|--- Human | Oral | 0.7 Human | Dermal | 100 Rat | Oral | 17 Rat | Dermal | 5  Other gases too, of course, were tested on rats and other animals, both during and long after the war. In a report from 1917 by the British Chemical Warfare Medical Committee, we see several examples of this:  >Field experiments have shown that a rat and rabbit placed about five yards from, and to leeward of, a bomb  containing phosgene were found dead within eight minutes after its  explosion. Control animals similarly situated to windward died after  several hours. Other controls, in which shells filled with water instead  of toxic substances were used, have shown that the concussion must  not be regarded as a cause of death.   >Similar results have been obtained in laboratory experiments at  Cambridge and elsewhere. Mice exposed to a high concentration of  phosgene in a small closed chamber may die during the third minute.   The rats knew the danger the gas posed too. One of the warnings of an incoming attack for the soldiers in the trenches would be the fuzzy stampede as the rats which had been inhabiting No Mans Land fled in front of the oncoming clouds that drifted towards the trench, their squeaks of terror amplifying the official alarms. The aftermath would see the carcasses of rats strewn about, as well as other small mammals and avian life that had been eking out a survival there, or was forced into the trench of course, such as horses of dogs. A British study done in the wake of the war noted of one German attack carried out in early 1916, believed to be a mix of chlorine and phosgene:  >Grass and other vegetation were turned yellow by the gas as far back as 1 ,200 yds. from the front line. Rats were killed in the trenches in large numbers. Eleven cows, twenty-three calves, one horse, one pig, and fifteen hens were  killed in the fields behind the lines by gas, and a number of other cattle and pigs showed signs of being affected by the gas.  Speaking of a different attack, a British officer described the image of the rats much more vividly when he wrote of what a gas attack did to them:  >The trenches swarmed with rats, big rats, small rats, grey rats, tall rats in every stage of gas poisoning! Some were sucrrying along scarcely affected while others were slowly dragging themselves about trying to find a corner in which to die. A most horrid sight - but very good riddance.  Good riddance indeed, as the rats were considered quite a scourge of the trench, and soldiers found that one of the few things that had *any* impact on their presence was the enemy, whether gas as above, or the explosions of artillery or grenades sending them scurrying away. It wasn't exactly a good trade-off, all in all though, since as made clear enough, even a gas attack could hardly be counted on to result in total lethality, and the ever common presence of heavenly conditions was sure to bring new rats in short order, likely a large contribution to literally millions of causalities in the war from the diseases they so easily spread.  After the war, men who had gained experience in chemical warfare in the war likely remembered the devastation that their weaponry had wrought on the local fauna, and in the 1920s attempts were made to 'pacify' gas warfare and introduce it as the newest way to protect crops from vermin and pests. The US Chemical Warfare Service conducted several tests in conjunction with the government on the promise that it offered \"the quickest and surest method in attacking crop destroying pests, whether ground squirrels, gopher, blackbird, crows, buzzard, rats, or grasshopper\".   Tests specifically aimed at rats were conducted in 1920 in the Gulf, in hopes of containing bubonic plague, and early reports claimed to be a rousing success with the use of a mixture of phosgene and chlorine gas. But testing in a contained 900 sq. foot area isn't the same as wide application, and the transition never was successfully made. Overall, such attempts to reapply chemical warfare to the civilian world showed that results were at best contained to the test conditions or short-lived, and in some cases quite counterproductive.  One attempt at tent caterpillar extermination found that it was killing the plants too. Other gasses were found to be ineffective, and the ones that worked best were of course the ones that were worst for humans as well. And the most desired target, the boll weevil, proved to be impervious to whatever was thrown its way as it simply could survive without breathing. Nevertheless it did help lay the groundwork for research that would eventually lead to more successful pesticides, even if not from the Chemical Warfare Service.  Now, as for lice, I would on the whole have to defer to someone else to note if there was any impact. I can make some guesses, but I wouldn't want to speculate. I would simply note that there is some very promising titled material in the National Archives which seem to be undigitized in the Records of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, especially \"*Report on Experiments Conducted on October 16, 1918, Testing the Effect of Certain Toxic Gases on Body Lice and Their Eggs*\" in Record Group 7.  **Sources**  Brantz, Dorothee. \"Environments of Death\" in *War and the Environment: Military Destruction in the Modern Age*, edited by Charles E. Closmann. Texas A&M University Press, 2009.  Cook, Tim. *No Place to Run: The Canadian Corps and Gas Warfare in the First World War*. UBC Press, 2011.  Faith, Thomas. *Behind the Gas Mask: The U.S. Chemical Warfare Service in War and Peace*. University of Illinois Press, 2014.  Gupta, Ramesh. *Veterinary Toxicology: Basic and Clinical Principles*. Elsevier, 2011.  MacPherson, W.G.,  Herringham, W.P., Elliott, T.R., & Balfour, A. eds. *Medical Services: Diseases of the War, Vol. II*. His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1923.  Medical Research Committee, *Reports of the Chemical Warfare Medical Committee of the Medical Research Committee: No. 1*, Physiology (War) Committee of the Royal Society. 1918.  Russell, Edmund. *War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring*. Cambridge University Press, 2001.  \u201cWar on Rats with Poison Gas.\u201d *Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering* 23, no. 11 (September 15, 1920): 543.  Young, Leslie. \"Observations on the Effects of Mustard Gas on the Rat\". *Canadian Journal of Research*, 1947, 25e (3), 141-151  ETA: A few more quotations to add a bit more color.  Also, don't miss \/u\/voidoid's piece here in the thread which is a nice complement.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16.0,"score_ratio":9.7045454545}
+{"post_id":"312inc","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"At Noon EDT (1600 UTC), further \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians submissions will start being removed. Existing threads are still open for posting. Hello everyone,   In about ten minutes, we will be cutting any further submissions to \/r\/AskHistorians that don't conform to our non-April Fools requirements, as we want to start transitioning things back to normal. However, you may continue the festivities in existing threads posted before the deadline!  Additionally, for those who have asked, we will be compiling a list of threads and make it available soon. We have been quite in awe of the turn out and enthusiasm for this, so thanks to everyone who has helped make it work, both by asking and answering questions!","c_root_id_A":"cpxwp91","c_root_id_B":"cpxww30","created_at_utc_A":1427904000,"created_at_utc_B":1427904320,"score_A":37,"score_B":67,"human_ref_A":"This has been a blast! We'll begin compiling soon. Please direct future inquiries\/subscriptions to \/r\/AskScienceFiction! :)","human_ref_B":"I went to a date and time map and have discovered that it is midnight April 2 precisely nowhere in the world now--it is currently Thursday April 2 at 6:00 AM in New Zealand and Wednesday April 1 at 5:00 AM on Midway.  However, I could not help but notice that I could not find any time zone listing for Illuminati underground bases.  I'm just asking questions here.  EDIT: Speaking of questions, I appear to have the official last posted fantasy thread, which is probably the proudest achievement of my life.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":320.0,"score_ratio":1.8108108108}
+{"post_id":"312inc","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"At Noon EDT (1600 UTC), further \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians submissions will start being removed. Existing threads are still open for posting. Hello everyone,   In about ten minutes, we will be cutting any further submissions to \/r\/AskHistorians that don't conform to our non-April Fools requirements, as we want to start transitioning things back to normal. However, you may continue the festivities in existing threads posted before the deadline!  Additionally, for those who have asked, we will be compiling a list of threads and make it available soon. We have been quite in awe of the turn out and enthusiasm for this, so thanks to everyone who has helped make it work, both by asking and answering questions!","c_root_id_A":"cpxxek0","c_root_id_B":"cpxzxfc","created_at_utc_A":1427905175,"created_at_utc_B":1427909682,"score_A":15,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Quick q: will the answered ones get an April Fools tag at least?","human_ref_B":"I think this has been my favorite AH-AF extravaganza yet!  I don't want to see this kind of thing happening here every day, but is there any possibility of some sort of irregular, single-thread-contained feature that could include more questions and comments of this sort?  They could even be limited to certain fandoms\/universes to prevent things getting out of hand - so \"History of the Galactic Empire\" or \"History of Westeros\" or something.  There seems to be so much appreciation for what everyone's been doing here, and so many requests for more of it; this might be a good way to approach that.  Whatever you end up doing, though, this was really great.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4507.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
+{"post_id":"312inc","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"At Noon EDT (1600 UTC), further \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians submissions will start being removed. Existing threads are still open for posting. Hello everyone,   In about ten minutes, we will be cutting any further submissions to \/r\/AskHistorians that don't conform to our non-April Fools requirements, as we want to start transitioning things back to normal. However, you may continue the festivities in existing threads posted before the deadline!  Additionally, for those who have asked, we will be compiling a list of threads and make it available soon. We have been quite in awe of the turn out and enthusiasm for this, so thanks to everyone who has helped make it work, both by asking and answering questions!","c_root_id_A":"cpxzxfc","c_root_id_B":"cpxzkwi","created_at_utc_A":1427909682,"created_at_utc_B":1427909124,"score_A":16,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I think this has been my favorite AH-AF extravaganza yet!  I don't want to see this kind of thing happening here every day, but is there any possibility of some sort of irregular, single-thread-contained feature that could include more questions and comments of this sort?  They could even be limited to certain fandoms\/universes to prevent things getting out of hand - so \"History of the Galactic Empire\" or \"History of Westeros\" or something.  There seems to be so much appreciation for what everyone's been doing here, and so many requests for more of it; this might be a good way to approach that.  Whatever you end up doing, though, this was really great.","human_ref_B":"Thanks to everyone that contributed!!!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":558.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"312inc","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"At Noon EDT (1600 UTC), further \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians submissions will start being removed. Existing threads are still open for posting. Hello everyone,   In about ten minutes, we will be cutting any further submissions to \/r\/AskHistorians that don't conform to our non-April Fools requirements, as we want to start transitioning things back to normal. However, you may continue the festivities in existing threads posted before the deadline!  Additionally, for those who have asked, we will be compiling a list of threads and make it available soon. We have been quite in awe of the turn out and enthusiasm for this, so thanks to everyone who has helped make it work, both by asking and answering questions!","c_root_id_A":"cpy4cs5","c_root_id_B":"cpy30x6","created_at_utc_A":1427916921,"created_at_utc_B":1427914678,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It was great, but now... MY EYES! IT BURNS!","human_ref_B":"We've missed you, fun police.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2243.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
+{"post_id":"312inc","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"At Noon EDT (1600 UTC), further \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians submissions will start being removed. Existing threads are still open for posting. Hello everyone,   In about ten minutes, we will be cutting any further submissions to \/r\/AskHistorians that don't conform to our non-April Fools requirements, as we want to start transitioning things back to normal. However, you may continue the festivities in existing threads posted before the deadline!  Additionally, for those who have asked, we will be compiling a list of threads and make it available soon. We have been quite in awe of the turn out and enthusiasm for this, so thanks to everyone who has helped make it work, both by asking and answering questions!","c_root_id_A":"cpy4cs5","c_root_id_B":"cpxzkwi","created_at_utc_A":1427916921,"created_at_utc_B":1427909124,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It was great, but now... MY EYES! IT BURNS!","human_ref_B":"Thanks to everyone that contributed!!!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7797.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"312inc","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"At Noon EDT (1600 UTC), further \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians submissions will start being removed. Existing threads are still open for posting. Hello everyone,   In about ten minutes, we will be cutting any further submissions to \/r\/AskHistorians that don't conform to our non-April Fools requirements, as we want to start transitioning things back to normal. However, you may continue the festivities in existing threads posted before the deadline!  Additionally, for those who have asked, we will be compiling a list of threads and make it available soon. We have been quite in awe of the turn out and enthusiasm for this, so thanks to everyone who has helped make it work, both by asking and answering questions!","c_root_id_A":"cpxzkwi","c_root_id_B":"cpy30x6","created_at_utc_A":1427909124,"created_at_utc_B":1427914678,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Thanks to everyone that contributed!!!","human_ref_B":"We've missed you, fun police.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5554.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"e6kvox","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What to do with a US vet's personal WW2 photo collection, which includes photos of WW2 German soldiers (while they were alive) that he got when he captured their camera (after his own tank knocked their Panther out and they were killed) and he then developed their pictures when he got home? A friend's father was a in a Tank Destroyer in Europe in WW2. His operational areas were incredible. D-day, Operation Goodwood, Huertgen Forest, crossing Bridge at Remagen while it stood, Liberating Nordhausen, right up to the Oder River at war's end. Because he was in the vehicle, he took his own photos throughout, throwing exposed rolls in a bag. All were developed when he got home. All beautifully sharp and pristine snapshots now rest in an old album.   TLDR: The short question is, the family has asked me, a WW2 enthusiast friend, to make recommendations on what they should do with it?  They have made their copies, and want the originals to \"go to some museum and be preserved.\" I applauded their instincts, and now seek input on choices to recommend. So that's the broad question, and thx in advance for input.  Now for other detail mentioned in my hopefully attention-getting headline...and a more narrow question, but one I think is more fascinating to consider. About 10 years ago, while this amazing vet was alive, I asked to meet him and talk. I knew he was \"in a tank in WW2\" but apparently that is most all he really ever said. No details to his family even, as well as my dad, who was his close friend.  After some careful prep, he opened up to me and brought out his album. I recorded hours of interviews. The album was incredible. But he didn't understand its significance. It IS significant. All the battles I mentioned are covered, except DDay is light (he was 6th wave, Utah Beach).  All pics incredible, but some are jaw-dropping. The scenes at Nordhausen -- his unit was there w\/in 24 hours after liberation -- are proof positive of the horrors, and the death, of the slave laborers in that system. The standing bridge at Remagen pics are among the best I have ever seen.   But my jaw fell most when, turning a page, I saw four clearly German soldiers posing with smiles in front of an operational Panther tank. They were in their all black wool unis; the Panther's unit insignia is clearly identifiable. Then more photos followed of these same soldiers, in casual and battlefield photos. The men are clearly facially identifiable. I asked the man what are these? In his standard gruff, but totally matter-of-fact way, he said, \"Oh just some Krauts.\"    I asked, but why do you have them??  He shrugged, and explained. The next page showed a knocked out Panther. It was the same one. He said he took the camera off a dead crewman. He said he \"liked it\" and it had film left, so he shot the rest of the roll, then put it in his bag with all his others to be developed when he got home.  And that's how these smiling German tankers are in a US Army vet's photo album from 1944.  Sadly, literally within weeks of these sessions, after I left to start editing the tapes and thinking of what to recommend happen to this album, the man passed. (A responder I know attended the EMT call to the local senior home. The vet dropped with a heart attack. As he lay on the floor, his last words were: \"The f\\*\\*\\*ing Nazis didn't kill me, and this won't either.\" This, from a man who *never* spoke openly about his service -- after 60+ years, the thing at the top of his mind as he lay dying was the war. Just incredibly telling.)   After that, the family -- living distantly -- did not want to take the issue up, and I didn't force it. Now, flash ahead years later. They have reached out and asked the question I posed above.  But I have another one. Does anyone have input on whether it would be worth it to try and ID those German soldiers? To try, perhaps, to return them to the families? If so, how would I start that (without going to Germany)? I have the battle diary of the US unit (Tank Destroyer 899). I am fairly certain where the tank kill occurred. The Panther photos are clear.  I think the idea has a chance. But I am intimidated on where and how to start.  The family does not appear to be interested in this angle. I believe I could get their agreement, but wouldn't want to try to convince them unless I have a realistic plan.   So that's it. Another TLDR. Two questions. What org is best to preserve and value an incredible collection of WW2 soldier personal photos of the European theatre from 1944-45? And, is there a legit interest, and path for success, in returning to their families the photos taken by German soldiers, who later died in the war, that were ultimately developed by the soldier who created this album?  Thanks for considering!!","c_root_id_A":"f9sr3vb","c_root_id_B":"f9srkxh","created_at_utc_A":1575598536,"created_at_utc_B":1575598868,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I would also pose this question here:  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/GermanWW2photos\/","human_ref_B":"Might try The National WWII Museum in New Orleans. they have a phone number you can call to ask about artifact donations  504-528-1944 x 515  Its nice museum I spent a good part of  day wandering around in it last time I was in NOLA","labels":0,"seconds_difference":332.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"yhukp3","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Why was marriage important to ancient and medieval alliances? Political alliances in large parts of the world during the ancient and medieval periods (and metal ages) were often sealed with marriages. I am struggling to understand why this was important - how does being married to someone's relative make a king less likely to attack them, or more likely to support them during a war? Especially during a period when women held little political power in their own right and a substantial portion of marriages were basically loveless?  Would these alliances have been weaker in the absence of a marriage? Why? Didn't people break them when convenient all the time anyway?  (I know the institution is different depending on region and age. Please, feel free to answer with regards to whichever historical periods you have the most familiarity with. I expect there are some common threads).  A similar question has been asked previously, but appears to be from before the current rules and standards on content moderation were put into effect. The answers have lots of good information, but didn't quite get to the heart of question.","c_root_id_A":"iui84g6","c_root_id_B":"iuhia69","created_at_utc_A":1667228871,"created_at_utc_B":1667216104,"score_A":25,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"As \/u\/mimicofmodes and \/u\/somecrazynerd explained, alliances would absolutely be weaker without marriages. We in fact have people of the time tell us this: the Tokugawa, through marriage alliances, were able to grab enough allies to win control of Japan in 1600. So they included in their first set of laws issued in 1615 to all other daimy\u014ds that there would be no marriages between warrior families without the Sh\u014dgun's approval (the Tokugawa themselves violated the same edict left in Hideyoshi's will). And in case someone important thought it didn't apply to them, in 1635 the law was clarified to include not only daimy\u014ds but their immediate retainers and division heads. They were that scared marriage alliances would form power blocks to make a mess of things.  I would also like to add some things not mentioned in their great answers to the question linked above: the marriage also acted as a fantastic insurance policy.  First, if the alliance really were going to be broken, likely family correspondences would offer the earliest warnings. A famous, albeit apocryphal, story has Nobunaga's sister Oichi warning him his brother-in-law had betrayed him by sending Nobunaga a sack of beans tied up on both sides. While apocryphal, it's not improbable that Oichi did send Nobunaga some sort of warning. Even if not, we have another example Takeda Shingen's daughter-in-law was from the Imagawa clan. When Shingen decided he would backstab the Imagawa, his son supposedly plotted to assassinate him. Shingen had forced his son to divorce his daughter-in-law, strip his son of the position as heir to the clan, and execute a few ranking vassals. The poor young man was placed under house arrest for two years in a temple where he died. So while in this case the marriage alliance was not successful, consider the length to which the son was willing to defy his father to try to hold it together tells us the marriage definitely strengthened ties. Having no doubt heard about the entire thing and the death of his brother-in-law, the Imagawa daimy\u014d requested Shingen send him back his sister, which Shingen complied. Only over a year later did Shingen invade the Imagawa. So the entire ordeal gave the Imagawa at least three years of warning. They still lost but it's not the marriage's fault.  Second, *even if* things do come to war with one side getting beat, your family\/in-laws would likely offer mercy or beg for mercy on your behalf. In his rise to power in central Asia, Timor pardoned most Amirs whom he had a marriage alliance with but later came to blows. Likewise, in my area to use one of countless examples, the H\u014dj\u014d clan went up against Hideyoshi and lost Hideyoshi basically ordered the clan's complete destruction, but the life of the final H\u014dj\u014d daimy\u014d Ujinao was spared because he was the son-in-law of Tokugawa Ieyasu as the H\u014dj\u014d and the Tokugawa had a marriage alliance and Ieyasu begged for Ujinao's life to Hideyoshi. Ujinao's punishment was decreased to taking his buddhist vows to become a monk, and within a few years he was pardoned and became a daimy\u014d again (albeit with a tiny fief).  Third, marriages themselves were insurance policies through the ties they create. In 1600 when the M\u014dri\/Ishida side were going to war with the Tokugawa, the Sanada were caught in the middle because they had marriage alliances with both sides. What the Sanada did was decide to \"split\" in two, have a mock fight among themselves, and when the dust settled between the others the half that sided with the winners begged for mercy on behalf of the half that sided with the losers. In this case it was successful, but even if it wasn't at least half the family would have survived with their political powers intact (the winning half was given the realm of the loosing half, so no net change). And to be sure the Sanada weren't the only one to pull this trick.  Finally, even if all else fails, and the family is completely destroyed by the alliance breaking, hopefully the blood will live on through the son\/daughter's offspring.  Note this is just about the strength of the alliance itself, and nothing about the familial ties and inheritance opportunities marriages create.  Also saying a substantial portion of marriages were loveless is likely a false modern bias. There are plenty of loveless marriages today and I see no proof there were proportionally more in history. Even if true, we have *plenty* of accounts and evidence of loving marriages.","human_ref_B":"There have been some more recent answers on this, see for instance this by u\/mimicofmodes and this by u\/somecrazynerd","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12767.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"5tsanz","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why are the former states of the Confederacy now some of the most fervently patriotic in the US, and when did that change? Anyone who's driven around the American South has seen the \"Confederate flag\" somewhere, often hanging or flying near an American flag. Much of Southern culture and identity seems to be focused around patriotism, even while people espouse \"Lost Cause\" ideology. How did this region go from insurrection to fervent patriotism, and how have those two ideas been reconciled so completely in many peoples' minds?","c_root_id_A":"ddorxlc","c_root_id_B":"ddp286m","created_at_utc_A":1486996155,"created_at_utc_B":1487009067,"score_A":138,"score_B":723,"human_ref_A":"This might be more of an \/r\/AskAnthropology question?","human_ref_B":"This is not an answer to your question as such but you may wish to examine closely the language you're using and determine if you mean \"nationalism\" or \"patriotism\" and what, if any, distinction exists between the two. I raise this question because the focus on the primacy of the state vs that of national culture and identity changes the nature of the conflict you're addressing.   I'd also argue that this may not be the most suitable sub for this question as notions of patriotism and national identity are socially constructed and our modern viewpoint presupposes a modern definition of both, which necessarily falls within the 20 year blackout zone.   That said, you're probably asking two questions - how the Lost Cause is compatible with American Patriotism and how southern culture came to be seen as more authentically American (regionally or nationally) than, say, Eastern or Western or Southwestern culture.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12912.0,"score_ratio":5.2391304348}
+{"post_id":"5tsanz","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why are the former states of the Confederacy now some of the most fervently patriotic in the US, and when did that change? Anyone who's driven around the American South has seen the \"Confederate flag\" somewhere, often hanging or flying near an American flag. Much of Southern culture and identity seems to be focused around patriotism, even while people espouse \"Lost Cause\" ideology. How did this region go from insurrection to fervent patriotism, and how have those two ideas been reconciled so completely in many peoples' minds?","c_root_id_A":"ddp9644","c_root_id_B":"ddorxlc","created_at_utc_A":1487016918,"created_at_utc_B":1486996155,"score_A":516,"score_B":138,"human_ref_A":"Great question, and I think there's some unpacking to be done before I start tackling it.  First, patriotism is a really subjective issue. As a *Washington Post* blogger noted in 2016, \"Patriotism is an inherently difficult thing to quantify. It means different things to different people, certainly. Which makes measuring it an inherently flawed exercise.\"   Of course, that hasn't stopped folks from trying.  When we talk about American patriotism, it's difficult to get into people's minds. We're left to examine expressions of external, physical action. That's why the study linked above uses things like military enlistment, voter participation and similar factors.   When we talk about the American South in history, we can do the same thing. One really fascinating way to examine the issue is by looking at **Fourth of July celebrations in the American South.** These are physical manifestations of patriotism (regardless of definition), and they're good data points to study.  One of the most famous (and extreme) examples can be found in Vicksburg, ~~Tennessee~~ Mississippi, whose Confederate defenders surrendered to the Union Army of Ulysses S. Grant on July 4, 1863. That coincidence, coupled with deep Southern sectionalist beliefs, meant the city didn't formally celebrate the Fourth of July again until 1945, when it was caught up in patriotic fervor with the end of World War II.  As I said, Vicksburg was an extreme example. **Most Southern towns and cities celebrated the Fourth of July in 1919, following the end of World War I.**   Paul Quigley, a historian of the American South, has written repeatedly on the tug-of-war between sectionalism and nationalism in the South during the antebellum period. His paper \"Independence Day Dilemmas in the American South, 1848-1865\" was published in the May 2009 issue of *The Journal of Southern History*, and he subsequently expanded upon that topic with a standalone book.   One of the more interesting sources he cites (and one unfortunately available to me) is a 1987 master's thesis entitled \"The Transformation of the Fourth of July in South Carolina, 1850 to 1919\" that goes into depth about how many South Carolinians balked at celebrating the Fourth of July until World War I. For the latter part of the 19th century, their *sectionalism* trumped their *patriotism.*  World War I (and to a lesser extent World War II and the Spanish-American War) forced Southerners to choose whether that remained so. If they valued their identity as Southerners more than Americans, they likely would not enlist in the U.S. military. If they valued their identity as Americans, they would enlist, and they did do so.  This matches the trend toward homogenization and away from regionalism that we see in the latter part of the 20th century. In 1976, John Shelton Reed performed a famous study in which he tracked and mapped the prevalence of the words \"Dixie\" and \"Southern\" in business names as indicators of sectionalism. That study was repeated in 2010, and in \" Declining Dixie: Regional Identification in the Modern American South,\" the authors from Western Carolina University found \"that the instances of 'Dixie' have dropped precipitously, although identification with the word 'Southern' has remained more constant, providing evidence of a trend we term re-southernization. We also find that the relative number of blacks in the population provides the most consistent explanation of regional identity.\"","human_ref_B":"This might be more of an \/r\/AskAnthropology question?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20763.0,"score_ratio":3.7391304348}
+{"post_id":"fdilwf","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Announcing the Best of February Award Winners! Another month is in the books, and the votes have been tallied.  For the month of February, the '*Flairs Choice*' falls upon \/u\/coeurdelionne who wowed with their response to \"Geoffrey of Monmouth first writes about King Arthur as an historical personage. To what extent did people during the middle ages think Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were real historical figures? When did that perception begin to change?\"  The '*Users Choice*' in turn goes \/u\/textandtrowel, who sallied forth on \"Is black vikings a thing?\".  For this month's *'Dark Horse'* award, which is given to the combined vote for best answer by a non-flaired user, goes to newcomer \/u\/huianxin, who towered over the competition responding to \"Of the top 20 tallest statues in the world, 15 depict a Buddha or are Buddhist in nature. How did a religion typically associated with aeseticism and impermanence come to produce such ostentatious art?\".   The *'Greatest Question'* award, bestowed by the mods for a question we find to be unique, insightful, or highlighting a less trafficked topic this month saw the team drawn to \"Can anyone tell me about African-American sailors on whaling ships in the early nineteenth century?\", which was asked by \/u\/cnzmur, and wonderfully answered by \/u\/Stalking_Goat.  Finally, our double-teamed *'Excellence in Flairdom'* award for February goes to \/u\/aquatermain and \/u\/Libertat! They have been a positive, prominent, and persistent presence in the panel population for a long time now. Whether or not you've read one of their answers directly, you've benefited from the overall atmosphere they help create. Thanks for being so terrific, Libertat and aquatermain!  As always, congrats to our very worthy winners, and thank you to everyone else who has contributed here, whether with thought-provoking questions or fascinating answers. And if this month you want to flag some stand-out posts that you read here for potential nomination, don't forget to post them in our Sunday Digest!   For a list of past winners, check them out here!","c_root_id_A":"fjibp6y","c_root_id_B":"fjhxezz","created_at_utc_A":1583364223,"created_at_utc_B":1583356827,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Wow, \"Dark Horse\" haha, thank you to everyone that read and enjoyed my writeup! Special thanks to the mods as well for all the work they put in and coordinating with me to help produce a better answer, and congratulations to all the other winners and writers.   Cheers to all for making this an academically comprehensive, unique, interesting, and special sub!","human_ref_B":"Thank you so much for this honor. As always, being able to be part of such an amazing community is both a privilege and a pleasure, as is the case for every contribution I'm able to make. Bonus points for being featured with **the** \/u\/Libertat! I can't believe my luck.  Congratulations to my fellow winners!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7396.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0oiyw8","c_root_id_B":"e0or05p","created_at_utc_A":1529009447,"created_at_utc_B":1529017032,"score_A":402,"score_B":882,"human_ref_A":"The TL;DR is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him ~~drink~~ ask insightful and interesting questions.  I'm the guy who, I say without reservation, has stared at more questions in this subreddit than literally anyone else, and my rough estimate is that at least 25 percent of the questions in the subreddit go unanswered simply because they are tedious for some reason or other (I can break \"tedious\" into a number of sub-categories, of course).  But what can we do about that? Not all that much, unfortunately. We occasionally make posts like this one which help lay out how to ask better questions, but let's be honest, the audience for META threads like that are the users who already do. Its preaching to the converted.  Our aim and mission is public history outreach. To connect lay people who are wondering with knowledgeable folks who can answer, and that means ensuring that the bar to asking in the first place isn't particularly high. The simple fact is that often people just don't know how to ask their question. Asking good questions is a *skill*. Pre-exisiting knowledge can also be of great help. As such, while it can sometimes be frustrating, and there never is a day where I don't see a half-dozen questions that make me internally groan, we limit the restrictions on questions to things that help us moderate effectively, and try, for the most part, not to police them in a way that punishes the user simply for not knowing enough in the first place. And sometimes the question that made me groan still gets someone who writes an incredible answer for it, although it might have taken a bit more reading between the lines to figure out what was really being asked.  So the short of it is... yes, we could remove the \"profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality\", but it means one of several things, the two broadest options being either that it means the mod team needs to spend a lot of time helping people restate their questions, or that a large number of people simply are frustrated by having their questions removed because we *don't* help them rework them. Neither is a very palatable option.  Edit: I would just throw in here a quote from Carl Sagan that is a good unofficial motto of our approach here:  >There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question","human_ref_B":"I myself am amazed at how many times I look at a thread thinking it's a stupid question, and go into it and find answers that not only blow me away, but show me just how much I didn't know about what I thought was basic knowledge.  I know Georgy Zhukov already quotes Carl Sagan's \"There are no dumb questions\", but I really think that's the best way to go about it. I can understand if someone doesn't want to answer it, but I wouldn't want to see them deleted or cut out. Many of the 'stupid' questions really are people who just don't understand something enough to make the question better.  I also don't think any of us can realistically make the questions better. Those of us who are worried about it already know, and on an open internet forum like this there will always be people who come and go and don't pay attention to something like that. I think it's fine for someone in the thread to ask for a bit of clarifying information, as long as their not to rude about it, and that would help things.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7585.0,"score_ratio":2.1940298507}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0oiza3","c_root_id_B":"e0or05p","created_at_utc_A":1529009457,"created_at_utc_B":1529017032,"score_A":140,"score_B":882,"human_ref_A":">the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions  Er... squandered *how?* To my knowledge, there's no obligation for anyone to answer anything, here. Flaired users, mods, and other experts are all capable of determining how they choose to spend their time, and if a given question isn't interesting to them, they can pass right on by like everyone else does. I'm not sure how \"resources are squandered\" by a post simply sitting unanswered, or being linked back to a previous answer that covers the same ground.   I trust in the experts here to make their own decisions about how they invest their time in researching and writing answers, even if those answers are in response to questions that you deem unworthy of them.   Frankly, this suggestion is a bit presumptuous and seems to directly contradict the mission of \/r\/AskHistorians. It sounds like you're looking for interactions with people you deem intellectual enough to deserve the opportunity to learn - which is something this sub was neither designed nor intended to provide.   From the AH rules, emphasis mine: >Please note that **there is no such thing as a stupid question.** As long as it falls within the guidelines here, feel free to ask it, even if you think it's obvious. And, if you see a question which looks stupid or obvious, remember that everyone comes to learning at their own time; we're not all born experts.","human_ref_B":"I myself am amazed at how many times I look at a thread thinking it's a stupid question, and go into it and find answers that not only blow me away, but show me just how much I didn't know about what I thought was basic knowledge.  I know Georgy Zhukov already quotes Carl Sagan's \"There are no dumb questions\", but I really think that's the best way to go about it. I can understand if someone doesn't want to answer it, but I wouldn't want to see them deleted or cut out. Many of the 'stupid' questions really are people who just don't understand something enough to make the question better.  I also don't think any of us can realistically make the questions better. Those of us who are worried about it already know, and on an open internet forum like this there will always be people who come and go and don't pay attention to something like that. I think it's fine for someone in the thread to ask for a bit of clarifying information, as long as their not to rude about it, and that would help things.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7575.0,"score_ratio":6.3}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0olkvm","c_root_id_B":"e0or05p","created_at_utc_A":1529011804,"created_at_utc_B":1529017032,"score_A":20,"score_B":882,"human_ref_A":"I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.    Contrast this with r\/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.    I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.    Edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"I myself am amazed at how many times I look at a thread thinking it's a stupid question, and go into it and find answers that not only blow me away, but show me just how much I didn't know about what I thought was basic knowledge.  I know Georgy Zhukov already quotes Carl Sagan's \"There are no dumb questions\", but I really think that's the best way to go about it. I can understand if someone doesn't want to answer it, but I wouldn't want to see them deleted or cut out. Many of the 'stupid' questions really are people who just don't understand something enough to make the question better.  I also don't think any of us can realistically make the questions better. Those of us who are worried about it already know, and on an open internet forum like this there will always be people who come and go and don't pay attention to something like that. I think it's fine for someone in the thread to ask for a bit of clarifying information, as long as their not to rude about it, and that would help things.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5228.0,"score_ratio":44.1}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0oiza3","c_root_id_B":"e0otuz2","created_at_utc_A":1529009457,"created_at_utc_B":1529020111,"score_A":140,"score_B":188,"human_ref_A":">the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions  Er... squandered *how?* To my knowledge, there's no obligation for anyone to answer anything, here. Flaired users, mods, and other experts are all capable of determining how they choose to spend their time, and if a given question isn't interesting to them, they can pass right on by like everyone else does. I'm not sure how \"resources are squandered\" by a post simply sitting unanswered, or being linked back to a previous answer that covers the same ground.   I trust in the experts here to make their own decisions about how they invest their time in researching and writing answers, even if those answers are in response to questions that you deem unworthy of them.   Frankly, this suggestion is a bit presumptuous and seems to directly contradict the mission of \/r\/AskHistorians. It sounds like you're looking for interactions with people you deem intellectual enough to deserve the opportunity to learn - which is something this sub was neither designed nor intended to provide.   From the AH rules, emphasis mine: >Please note that **there is no such thing as a stupid question.** As long as it falls within the guidelines here, feel free to ask it, even if you think it's obvious. And, if you see a question which looks stupid or obvious, remember that everyone comes to learning at their own time; we're not all born experts.","human_ref_B":"Isn't the whole point of this subreddit to help educate people?  It seems a bit against the spirit of the whole thing if the 'educated' think that if people aren't already educated enough then they should just not ask questions.  hell, I've got a degree and I wouldn't know how  to ask an 'educated' question in this thread, for me history is a hobby or a passion, but it isn't something i have formal education about. Hence my coming here to learn from the pros.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10654.0,"score_ratio":1.3428571429}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0olkvm","c_root_id_B":"e0otuz2","created_at_utc_A":1529011804,"created_at_utc_B":1529020111,"score_A":20,"score_B":188,"human_ref_A":"I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.    Contrast this with r\/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.    I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.    Edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"Isn't the whole point of this subreddit to help educate people?  It seems a bit against the spirit of the whole thing if the 'educated' think that if people aren't already educated enough then they should just not ask questions.  hell, I've got a degree and I wouldn't know how  to ask an 'educated' question in this thread, for me history is a hobby or a passion, but it isn't something i have formal education about. Hence my coming here to learn from the pros.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8307.0,"score_ratio":9.4}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p9dvw","c_root_id_B":"e0p7g0o","created_at_utc_A":1529038376,"created_at_utc_B":1529035728,"score_A":64,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"No offense, but this question rubs me the wrong way.  Specifically, it comes across as haughty and condescending IMO.  I mean sure, some of the questions asked here may not be of the highest \"quality\" (whatever that means), but do we expect every interaction in this sub to me a socratic seminar?  I am by no means an expert in the field, just a lurker who frequents this sub, but I was always under the impression that actual historians\/experts would be happy that the laymen are taking interest in their field of expertise.  If that is not the case, then sure, go ahead and start moderating the questions asked on this sub, but I'd imagine the consequence of such an action would be a decline in activity overall.","human_ref_B":"So you want to regulate people's curiosity? That's a battle you're not going to win. What's wrong with the verified historians answering what they can, and not answering what they can't, i.e. the status quo?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2648.0,"score_ratio":1.5238095238}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p9dvw","c_root_id_B":"e0oxdsf","created_at_utc_A":1529038376,"created_at_utc_B":1529024007,"score_A":64,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"No offense, but this question rubs me the wrong way.  Specifically, it comes across as haughty and condescending IMO.  I mean sure, some of the questions asked here may not be of the highest \"quality\" (whatever that means), but do we expect every interaction in this sub to me a socratic seminar?  I am by no means an expert in the field, just a lurker who frequents this sub, but I was always under the impression that actual historians\/experts would be happy that the laymen are taking interest in their field of expertise.  If that is not the case, then sure, go ahead and start moderating the questions asked on this sub, but I'd imagine the consequence of such an action would be a decline in activity overall.","human_ref_B":"Can you provide an example of what you would like?  Note: others are free to respond.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14369.0,"score_ratio":1.8823529412}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p07ls","c_root_id_B":"e0p9dvw","created_at_utc_A":1529027156,"created_at_utc_B":1529038376,"score_A":23,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"This is a social media platform open to all, are you really that surprised that the questions aren't up to the same standards as the answers ? It seems like you'd be better off with a separate website where only educated people and the like are welcome (I know this sounds snarky, in a \"feck off elsewhere then\" type, it's not!)  I love this sub because I've learned just *so so much* on random topics I never even thought about. From the broad to the precise, I've learned more than I ever did in education. Which isn't saying much, because I never finished high school..but still..  I think the openness on questions is amazing, as the hard working historians here are free to answer it if they want. Maybe they're having a shitty day and feel more picky, not wanting to deal with questions that they view as trite and stupid. Maybe they're having a particularly awesome day and feel like spreading some knowledge on topics that otherwise get ignored.","human_ref_B":"No offense, but this question rubs me the wrong way.  Specifically, it comes across as haughty and condescending IMO.  I mean sure, some of the questions asked here may not be of the highest \"quality\" (whatever that means), but do we expect every interaction in this sub to me a socratic seminar?  I am by no means an expert in the field, just a lurker who frequents this sub, but I was always under the impression that actual historians\/experts would be happy that the laymen are taking interest in their field of expertise.  If that is not the case, then sure, go ahead and start moderating the questions asked on this sub, but I'd imagine the consequence of such an action would be a decline in activity overall.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11220.0,"score_ratio":2.7826086957}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p9dvw","c_root_id_B":"e0olkvm","created_at_utc_A":1529038376,"created_at_utc_B":1529011804,"score_A":64,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"No offense, but this question rubs me the wrong way.  Specifically, it comes across as haughty and condescending IMO.  I mean sure, some of the questions asked here may not be of the highest \"quality\" (whatever that means), but do we expect every interaction in this sub to me a socratic seminar?  I am by no means an expert in the field, just a lurker who frequents this sub, but I was always under the impression that actual historians\/experts would be happy that the laymen are taking interest in their field of expertise.  If that is not the case, then sure, go ahead and start moderating the questions asked on this sub, but I'd imagine the consequence of such an action would be a decline in activity overall.","human_ref_B":"I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.    Contrast this with r\/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.    I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.    Edit: grammar","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26572.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p0sc5","c_root_id_B":"e0p9dvw","created_at_utc_A":1529027791,"created_at_utc_B":1529038376,"score_A":14,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"Ha!  You guys should see Quora!  Compared to that den of iniquity and ignorance, the questions here are positively Einsteinian!  Here's a question that gets asked *at least* once a week:  \"What was the best tank in WWII, and it's obviously the Tiger, right?\" (1).  Once a week, swear to god.  And that's an *above average question*, too.  Let's don't even get started with what the political questions are like.  Just say no.  So, carry on, ladies and gentlemen, carry on.   .............  (1) Of course not, you moron, it's the Sherman.","human_ref_B":"No offense, but this question rubs me the wrong way.  Specifically, it comes across as haughty and condescending IMO.  I mean sure, some of the questions asked here may not be of the highest \"quality\" (whatever that means), but do we expect every interaction in this sub to me a socratic seminar?  I am by no means an expert in the field, just a lurker who frequents this sub, but I was always under the impression that actual historians\/experts would be happy that the laymen are taking interest in their field of expertise.  If that is not the case, then sure, go ahead and start moderating the questions asked on this sub, but I'd imagine the consequence of such an action would be a decline in activity overall.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10585.0,"score_ratio":4.5714285714}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0ox4w4","c_root_id_B":"e0p9dvw","created_at_utc_A":1529023728,"created_at_utc_B":1529038376,"score_A":8,"score_B":64,"human_ref_A":"I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers \"noise\" can simply be skipped.  OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as *meta-answers*. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, \"What religion were <some people 'way back when>?\" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do *not* get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking \"what religion\" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.  Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.","human_ref_B":"No offense, but this question rubs me the wrong way.  Specifically, it comes across as haughty and condescending IMO.  I mean sure, some of the questions asked here may not be of the highest \"quality\" (whatever that means), but do we expect every interaction in this sub to me a socratic seminar?  I am by no means an expert in the field, just a lurker who frequents this sub, but I was always under the impression that actual historians\/experts would be happy that the laymen are taking interest in their field of expertise.  If that is not the case, then sure, go ahead and start moderating the questions asked on this sub, but I'd imagine the consequence of such an action would be a decline in activity overall.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14648.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p7g0o","c_root_id_B":"e0oxdsf","created_at_utc_A":1529035728,"created_at_utc_B":1529024007,"score_A":42,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"So you want to regulate people's curiosity? That's a battle you're not going to win. What's wrong with the verified historians answering what they can, and not answering what they can't, i.e. the status quo?","human_ref_B":"Can you provide an example of what you would like?  Note: others are free to respond.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11721.0,"score_ratio":1.2352941176}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p07ls","c_root_id_B":"e0p7g0o","created_at_utc_A":1529027156,"created_at_utc_B":1529035728,"score_A":23,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"This is a social media platform open to all, are you really that surprised that the questions aren't up to the same standards as the answers ? It seems like you'd be better off with a separate website where only educated people and the like are welcome (I know this sounds snarky, in a \"feck off elsewhere then\" type, it's not!)  I love this sub because I've learned just *so so much* on random topics I never even thought about. From the broad to the precise, I've learned more than I ever did in education. Which isn't saying much, because I never finished high school..but still..  I think the openness on questions is amazing, as the hard working historians here are free to answer it if they want. Maybe they're having a shitty day and feel more picky, not wanting to deal with questions that they view as trite and stupid. Maybe they're having a particularly awesome day and feel like spreading some knowledge on topics that otherwise get ignored.","human_ref_B":"So you want to regulate people's curiosity? That's a battle you're not going to win. What's wrong with the verified historians answering what they can, and not answering what they can't, i.e. the status quo?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8572.0,"score_ratio":1.8260869565}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0olkvm","c_root_id_B":"e0p7g0o","created_at_utc_A":1529011804,"created_at_utc_B":1529035728,"score_A":20,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.    Contrast this with r\/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.    I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.    Edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"So you want to regulate people's curiosity? That's a battle you're not going to win. What's wrong with the verified historians answering what they can, and not answering what they can't, i.e. the status quo?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23924.0,"score_ratio":2.1}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p7g0o","c_root_id_B":"e0p0sc5","created_at_utc_A":1529035728,"created_at_utc_B":1529027791,"score_A":42,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"So you want to regulate people's curiosity? That's a battle you're not going to win. What's wrong with the verified historians answering what they can, and not answering what they can't, i.e. the status quo?","human_ref_B":"Ha!  You guys should see Quora!  Compared to that den of iniquity and ignorance, the questions here are positively Einsteinian!  Here's a question that gets asked *at least* once a week:  \"What was the best tank in WWII, and it's obviously the Tiger, right?\" (1).  Once a week, swear to god.  And that's an *above average question*, too.  Let's don't even get started with what the political questions are like.  Just say no.  So, carry on, ladies and gentlemen, carry on.   .............  (1) Of course not, you moron, it's the Sherman.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7937.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p7g0o","c_root_id_B":"e0ox4w4","created_at_utc_A":1529035728,"created_at_utc_B":1529023728,"score_A":42,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"So you want to regulate people's curiosity? That's a battle you're not going to win. What's wrong with the verified historians answering what they can, and not answering what they can't, i.e. the status quo?","human_ref_B":"I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers \"noise\" can simply be skipped.  OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as *meta-answers*. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, \"What religion were <some people 'way back when>?\" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do *not* get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking \"what religion\" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.  Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12000.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0oxdsf","c_root_id_B":"e0pabu5","created_at_utc_A":1529024007,"created_at_utc_B":1529039751,"score_A":34,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Can you provide an example of what you would like?  Note: others are free to respond.","human_ref_B":"You come across as an... elitist of some sort. Remember, this is askhistorians, not historiansask. That means you'll get laypeople asking ridiculous questions, and if you are a historian you are here to educate them. If someone asks an obviously ridiculous question like \"why don't people like Hitler\", then you tell them why. If you ignore their \"cry for knowledge\", then why, as a historian, are you here if not to educate people?  See, my gripe with people who expect so much from everyone is just that, not everyone is nearly as smart as you are to even make a good question. A proper lad would answer with \"I'm not sure I understand your question, did you mean [so and so]?\", until the question is clear so you can answer it. If you ignore a question just because it's too simple or something then you certainly are not helping your case. If you help teach people instead of moderating them you will be able to reach out with the knowledge you and the rest of you historians possess to more people. Once again, more often than not you have laymen asking questions, and some of might be very young and new to this world, and you just want to ignore them instead of teaching them? It sets the precedence for what kind of person you are (to be a little harsh).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15744.0,"score_ratio":1.0294117647}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0pabu5","c_root_id_B":"e0p07ls","created_at_utc_A":1529039751,"created_at_utc_B":1529027156,"score_A":35,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"You come across as an... elitist of some sort. Remember, this is askhistorians, not historiansask. That means you'll get laypeople asking ridiculous questions, and if you are a historian you are here to educate them. If someone asks an obviously ridiculous question like \"why don't people like Hitler\", then you tell them why. If you ignore their \"cry for knowledge\", then why, as a historian, are you here if not to educate people?  See, my gripe with people who expect so much from everyone is just that, not everyone is nearly as smart as you are to even make a good question. A proper lad would answer with \"I'm not sure I understand your question, did you mean [so and so]?\", until the question is clear so you can answer it. If you ignore a question just because it's too simple or something then you certainly are not helping your case. If you help teach people instead of moderating them you will be able to reach out with the knowledge you and the rest of you historians possess to more people. Once again, more often than not you have laymen asking questions, and some of might be very young and new to this world, and you just want to ignore them instead of teaching them? It sets the precedence for what kind of person you are (to be a little harsh).","human_ref_B":"This is a social media platform open to all, are you really that surprised that the questions aren't up to the same standards as the answers ? It seems like you'd be better off with a separate website where only educated people and the like are welcome (I know this sounds snarky, in a \"feck off elsewhere then\" type, it's not!)  I love this sub because I've learned just *so so much* on random topics I never even thought about. From the broad to the precise, I've learned more than I ever did in education. Which isn't saying much, because I never finished high school..but still..  I think the openness on questions is amazing, as the hard working historians here are free to answer it if they want. Maybe they're having a shitty day and feel more picky, not wanting to deal with questions that they view as trite and stupid. Maybe they're having a particularly awesome day and feel like spreading some knowledge on topics that otherwise get ignored.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12595.0,"score_ratio":1.5217391304}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0olkvm","c_root_id_B":"e0pabu5","created_at_utc_A":1529011804,"created_at_utc_B":1529039751,"score_A":20,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.    Contrast this with r\/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.    I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.    Edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"You come across as an... elitist of some sort. Remember, this is askhistorians, not historiansask. That means you'll get laypeople asking ridiculous questions, and if you are a historian you are here to educate them. If someone asks an obviously ridiculous question like \"why don't people like Hitler\", then you tell them why. If you ignore their \"cry for knowledge\", then why, as a historian, are you here if not to educate people?  See, my gripe with people who expect so much from everyone is just that, not everyone is nearly as smart as you are to even make a good question. A proper lad would answer with \"I'm not sure I understand your question, did you mean [so and so]?\", until the question is clear so you can answer it. If you ignore a question just because it's too simple or something then you certainly are not helping your case. If you help teach people instead of moderating them you will be able to reach out with the knowledge you and the rest of you historians possess to more people. Once again, more often than not you have laymen asking questions, and some of might be very young and new to this world, and you just want to ignore them instead of teaching them? It sets the precedence for what kind of person you are (to be a little harsh).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27947.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0pabu5","c_root_id_B":"e0p0sc5","created_at_utc_A":1529039751,"created_at_utc_B":1529027791,"score_A":35,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"You come across as an... elitist of some sort. Remember, this is askhistorians, not historiansask. That means you'll get laypeople asking ridiculous questions, and if you are a historian you are here to educate them. If someone asks an obviously ridiculous question like \"why don't people like Hitler\", then you tell them why. If you ignore their \"cry for knowledge\", then why, as a historian, are you here if not to educate people?  See, my gripe with people who expect so much from everyone is just that, not everyone is nearly as smart as you are to even make a good question. A proper lad would answer with \"I'm not sure I understand your question, did you mean [so and so]?\", until the question is clear so you can answer it. If you ignore a question just because it's too simple or something then you certainly are not helping your case. If you help teach people instead of moderating them you will be able to reach out with the knowledge you and the rest of you historians possess to more people. Once again, more often than not you have laymen asking questions, and some of might be very young and new to this world, and you just want to ignore them instead of teaching them? It sets the precedence for what kind of person you are (to be a little harsh).","human_ref_B":"Ha!  You guys should see Quora!  Compared to that den of iniquity and ignorance, the questions here are positively Einsteinian!  Here's a question that gets asked *at least* once a week:  \"What was the best tank in WWII, and it's obviously the Tiger, right?\" (1).  Once a week, swear to god.  And that's an *above average question*, too.  Let's don't even get started with what the political questions are like.  Just say no.  So, carry on, ladies and gentlemen, carry on.   .............  (1) Of course not, you moron, it's the Sherman.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11960.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0pabu5","c_root_id_B":"e0ox4w4","created_at_utc_A":1529039751,"created_at_utc_B":1529023728,"score_A":35,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"You come across as an... elitist of some sort. Remember, this is askhistorians, not historiansask. That means you'll get laypeople asking ridiculous questions, and if you are a historian you are here to educate them. If someone asks an obviously ridiculous question like \"why don't people like Hitler\", then you tell them why. If you ignore their \"cry for knowledge\", then why, as a historian, are you here if not to educate people?  See, my gripe with people who expect so much from everyone is just that, not everyone is nearly as smart as you are to even make a good question. A proper lad would answer with \"I'm not sure I understand your question, did you mean [so and so]?\", until the question is clear so you can answer it. If you ignore a question just because it's too simple or something then you certainly are not helping your case. If you help teach people instead of moderating them you will be able to reach out with the knowledge you and the rest of you historians possess to more people. Once again, more often than not you have laymen asking questions, and some of might be very young and new to this world, and you just want to ignore them instead of teaching them? It sets the precedence for what kind of person you are (to be a little harsh).","human_ref_B":"I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers \"noise\" can simply be skipped.  OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as *meta-answers*. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, \"What religion were <some people 'way back when>?\" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do *not* get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking \"what religion\" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.  Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16023.0,"score_ratio":4.375}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0olkvm","c_root_id_B":"e0oxdsf","created_at_utc_A":1529011804,"created_at_utc_B":1529024007,"score_A":20,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.    Contrast this with r\/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.    I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.    Edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"Can you provide an example of what you would like?  Note: others are free to respond.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12203.0,"score_ratio":1.7}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0ox4w4","c_root_id_B":"e0oxdsf","created_at_utc_A":1529023728,"created_at_utc_B":1529024007,"score_A":8,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers \"noise\" can simply be skipped.  OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as *meta-answers*. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, \"What religion were <some people 'way back when>?\" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do *not* get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking \"what religion\" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.  Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.","human_ref_B":"Can you provide an example of what you would like?  Note: others are free to respond.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":279.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0olkvm","c_root_id_B":"e0p07ls","created_at_utc_A":1529011804,"created_at_utc_B":1529027156,"score_A":20,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.    Contrast this with r\/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.    I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.    Edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"This is a social media platform open to all, are you really that surprised that the questions aren't up to the same standards as the answers ? It seems like you'd be better off with a separate website where only educated people and the like are welcome (I know this sounds snarky, in a \"feck off elsewhere then\" type, it's not!)  I love this sub because I've learned just *so so much* on random topics I never even thought about. From the broad to the precise, I've learned more than I ever did in education. Which isn't saying much, because I never finished high school..but still..  I think the openness on questions is amazing, as the hard working historians here are free to answer it if they want. Maybe they're having a shitty day and feel more picky, not wanting to deal with questions that they view as trite and stupid. Maybe they're having a particularly awesome day and feel like spreading some knowledge on topics that otherwise get ignored.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15352.0,"score_ratio":1.15}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0p07ls","c_root_id_B":"e0ox4w4","created_at_utc_A":1529027156,"created_at_utc_B":1529023728,"score_A":23,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"This is a social media platform open to all, are you really that surprised that the questions aren't up to the same standards as the answers ? It seems like you'd be better off with a separate website where only educated people and the like are welcome (I know this sounds snarky, in a \"feck off elsewhere then\" type, it's not!)  I love this sub because I've learned just *so so much* on random topics I never even thought about. From the broad to the precise, I've learned more than I ever did in education. Which isn't saying much, because I never finished high school..but still..  I think the openness on questions is amazing, as the hard working historians here are free to answer it if they want. Maybe they're having a shitty day and feel more picky, not wanting to deal with questions that they view as trite and stupid. Maybe they're having a particularly awesome day and feel like spreading some knowledge on topics that otherwise get ignored.","human_ref_B":"I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers \"noise\" can simply be skipped.  OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as *meta-answers*. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, \"What religion were <some people 'way back when>?\" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do *not* get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking \"what religion\" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.  Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3428.0,"score_ratio":2.875}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0ox4w4","c_root_id_B":"e0p0sc5","created_at_utc_A":1529023728,"created_at_utc_B":1529027791,"score_A":8,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers \"noise\" can simply be skipped.  OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as *meta-answers*. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, \"What religion were <some people 'way back when>?\" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do *not* get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking \"what religion\" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.  Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.","human_ref_B":"Ha!  You guys should see Quora!  Compared to that den of iniquity and ignorance, the questions here are positively Einsteinian!  Here's a question that gets asked *at least* once a week:  \"What was the best tank in WWII, and it's obviously the Tiger, right?\" (1).  Once a week, swear to god.  And that's an *above average question*, too.  Let's don't even get started with what the political questions are like.  Just say no.  So, carry on, ladies and gentlemen, carry on.   .............  (1) Of course not, you moron, it's the Sherman.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4063.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"8r50yv","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"[META] The answers on Ask Historians are often excellent, but the questions are frequently...not good, to be kind. What can be done to improve the quality of inquiry? Not to be too harsh (err, actually ...to be harsh) it has bothered me for some time that the some of the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions which dominate the volume. Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality. While Reddit rests on the silicon valley fever-dream of popular voting causing the cream to rise, in reality subject matter or rote recognition often dominates over incisive inquiry that prompts real novel research and discussion. The SASQ threads are a hall-of-fame for evidence that the majority of the audience neither understands the scope of questions they are asking, nor how to prompt the response they are interested in coherently.  In an ideal world, gently educating your audience in order to inquire more effectively would be a possible solution, but given the amplitude of work I have no doubt AH already consumes in regards to moderation and operationg, hardly reasonable. It would seem to me that simply tightening the standards on allowable questions in some regards would help to alleviate the lopsided signal:noise ratio, while also raising the level of discourse.","c_root_id_A":"e0ox4w4","c_root_id_B":"e0pagxd","created_at_utc_A":1529023728,"created_at_utc_B":1529039964,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers \"noise\" can simply be skipped.  OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as *meta-answers*. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, \"What religion were <some people 'way back when>?\" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do *not* get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking \"what religion\" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.  Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.","human_ref_B":"Why not have a TellHistory subreddit where all you excellent historians can just tell us peons the stuff you think we should be asking, and answering it?  I'm serious, I'd sub.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16236.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3ff6x","c_root_id_B":"fm3818y","created_at_utc_A":1585721694,"created_at_utc_B":1585715340,"score_A":206,"score_B":147,"human_ref_A":"YTA Look, Thomas Becket warned you that if you appointed him Archbishop, you and he would become bitter enemies. You can't act surprised that what he predicted came true. And it makes sense. You were friends with Becket because he was extremely competent and good at his job. He wasn't going to accept a promotion and start being corrupt and bad at his job, now was he?   The way that power works is that you have to act in ways that consolidate your power. As Chancellor, palling with the king, eating drinking and making merry, and wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove made Becket powerful, and made you like to hang out with him. Archbishops don't consolidate their power by doing those things. They consolidate their power by advancing the goals of the church against the crown, being all pious and boring, and using the church monies and influence for the goals of the church. By installing Becket into the position of Archbishop, you stuck a knife into the heart of your friendship.  Also, look, dude, you're the king of England, not some hillbilly running a Tiger zoo. You have to be careful with what you say. Plenty of people will want to butter you up any way they can, and if you keep talking about wanting someone dead, that person is liable to wind up dead. At the end of the day, the buck stops at your throne, and you have to take responsibility for what happens in your kingdom.  And by the way, your wife is a boss. She responded to the King of France divorcing her by marrying his rival, the King of England, and bringing her properties to the English crown. Tread carefully there, because she does not play to lose.","human_ref_B":"Pfft. NTA. I mean, these people are just asking so much of you. What are they doing for YOU? I mean, you're the one who was chosen by God and the church. It isn't your fault those knights got a little into the murder hobo life. And you definitely deserve a younger, better wife. Think of the line of succession!  And don't get me started on your kids. Kids these days just ask for the world and expect not to work for it. If you give them everything they want, they'll grow up spoiled!  Good luck!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6354.0,"score_ratio":1.4013605442}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm38v2i","c_root_id_B":"fm3ff6x","created_at_utc_A":1585715991,"created_at_utc_B":1585721694,"score_A":52,"score_B":206,"human_ref_A":"I mean. NTA. Technically, you didn't order him to be murdered. AND you're fully right to be upset that he's using his new position that YOU granted him against YOU. Also your family sounds like a real sack of d-cks, no offence.  Wishing you all the best bud. Please update us as to how it all works out. ;)","human_ref_B":"YTA Look, Thomas Becket warned you that if you appointed him Archbishop, you and he would become bitter enemies. You can't act surprised that what he predicted came true. And it makes sense. You were friends with Becket because he was extremely competent and good at his job. He wasn't going to accept a promotion and start being corrupt and bad at his job, now was he?   The way that power works is that you have to act in ways that consolidate your power. As Chancellor, palling with the king, eating drinking and making merry, and wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove made Becket powerful, and made you like to hang out with him. Archbishops don't consolidate their power by doing those things. They consolidate their power by advancing the goals of the church against the crown, being all pious and boring, and using the church monies and influence for the goals of the church. By installing Becket into the position of Archbishop, you stuck a knife into the heart of your friendship.  Also, look, dude, you're the king of England, not some hillbilly running a Tiger zoo. You have to be careful with what you say. Plenty of people will want to butter you up any way they can, and if you keep talking about wanting someone dead, that person is liable to wind up dead. At the end of the day, the buck stops at your throne, and you have to take responsibility for what happens in your kingdom.  And by the way, your wife is a boss. She responded to the King of France divorcing her by marrying his rival, the King of England, and bringing her properties to the English crown. Tread carefully there, because she does not play to lose.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5703.0,"score_ratio":3.9615384615}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3ff6x","c_root_id_B":"fm37uz6","created_at_utc_A":1585721694,"created_at_utc_B":1585715198,"score_A":206,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"YTA Look, Thomas Becket warned you that if you appointed him Archbishop, you and he would become bitter enemies. You can't act surprised that what he predicted came true. And it makes sense. You were friends with Becket because he was extremely competent and good at his job. He wasn't going to accept a promotion and start being corrupt and bad at his job, now was he?   The way that power works is that you have to act in ways that consolidate your power. As Chancellor, palling with the king, eating drinking and making merry, and wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove made Becket powerful, and made you like to hang out with him. Archbishops don't consolidate their power by doing those things. They consolidate their power by advancing the goals of the church against the crown, being all pious and boring, and using the church monies and influence for the goals of the church. By installing Becket into the position of Archbishop, you stuck a knife into the heart of your friendship.  Also, look, dude, you're the king of England, not some hillbilly running a Tiger zoo. You have to be careful with what you say. Plenty of people will want to butter you up any way they can, and if you keep talking about wanting someone dead, that person is liable to wind up dead. At the end of the day, the buck stops at your throne, and you have to take responsibility for what happens in your kingdom.  And by the way, your wife is a boss. She responded to the King of France divorcing her by marrying his rival, the King of England, and bringing her properties to the English crown. Tread carefully there, because she does not play to lose.","human_ref_B":"NTA GLORY TO THE CROWN P.s. is that bishop position still open?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6496.0,"score_ratio":6.6451612903}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3ff6x","c_root_id_B":"fm3a8ej","created_at_utc_A":1585721694,"created_at_utc_B":1585717090,"score_A":206,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"YTA Look, Thomas Becket warned you that if you appointed him Archbishop, you and he would become bitter enemies. You can't act surprised that what he predicted came true. And it makes sense. You were friends with Becket because he was extremely competent and good at his job. He wasn't going to accept a promotion and start being corrupt and bad at his job, now was he?   The way that power works is that you have to act in ways that consolidate your power. As Chancellor, palling with the king, eating drinking and making merry, and wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove made Becket powerful, and made you like to hang out with him. Archbishops don't consolidate their power by doing those things. They consolidate their power by advancing the goals of the church against the crown, being all pious and boring, and using the church monies and influence for the goals of the church. By installing Becket into the position of Archbishop, you stuck a knife into the heart of your friendship.  Also, look, dude, you're the king of England, not some hillbilly running a Tiger zoo. You have to be careful with what you say. Plenty of people will want to butter you up any way they can, and if you keep talking about wanting someone dead, that person is liable to wind up dead. At the end of the day, the buck stops at your throne, and you have to take responsibility for what happens in your kingdom.  And by the way, your wife is a boss. She responded to the King of France divorcing her by marrying his rival, the King of England, and bringing her properties to the English crown. Tread carefully there, because she does not play to lose.","human_ref_B":"NTA. Not your fault those knights can't read sarcasm. And the sons need to learn the hard way how to gain a kingdom, just like (I presume) you did.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4604.0,"score_ratio":13.7333333333}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37dob","c_root_id_B":"fm3ff6x","created_at_utc_A":1585714821,"created_at_utc_B":1585721694,"score_A":5,"score_B":206,"human_ref_A":"YTA","human_ref_B":"YTA Look, Thomas Becket warned you that if you appointed him Archbishop, you and he would become bitter enemies. You can't act surprised that what he predicted came true. And it makes sense. You were friends with Becket because he was extremely competent and good at his job. He wasn't going to accept a promotion and start being corrupt and bad at his job, now was he?   The way that power works is that you have to act in ways that consolidate your power. As Chancellor, palling with the king, eating drinking and making merry, and wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove made Becket powerful, and made you like to hang out with him. Archbishops don't consolidate their power by doing those things. They consolidate their power by advancing the goals of the church against the crown, being all pious and boring, and using the church monies and influence for the goals of the church. By installing Becket into the position of Archbishop, you stuck a knife into the heart of your friendship.  Also, look, dude, you're the king of England, not some hillbilly running a Tiger zoo. You have to be careful with what you say. Plenty of people will want to butter you up any way they can, and if you keep talking about wanting someone dead, that person is liable to wind up dead. At the end of the day, the buck stops at your throne, and you have to take responsibility for what happens in your kingdom.  And by the way, your wife is a boss. She responded to the King of France divorcing her by marrying his rival, the King of England, and bringing her properties to the English crown. Tread carefully there, because she does not play to lose.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6873.0,"score_ratio":41.2}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3818y","c_root_id_B":"fm3kmp1","created_at_utc_A":1585715340,"created_at_utc_B":1585726881,"score_A":147,"score_B":177,"human_ref_A":"Pfft. NTA. I mean, these people are just asking so much of you. What are they doing for YOU? I mean, you're the one who was chosen by God and the church. It isn't your fault those knights got a little into the murder hobo life. And you definitely deserve a younger, better wife. Think of the line of succession!  And don't get me started on your kids. Kids these days just ask for the world and expect not to work for it. If you give them everything they want, they'll grow up spoiled!  Good luck!","human_ref_B":"Gently ESH, your Majesty. In my youth (14M), I would not presume to advise someone of your age, but I feel that everyone has a duty to speak truth to power. People do have a responsibility to be loyal to their rightful ruler, and it was low and base of your own family to stab you in the back like that. At the same time, a king also has a responsibility to make the best decisions for his kingdom. I understand you need to continue to have your kingdom to make the best decisions for it, but at the same time, you need honest advisors. I'm good friends with one of your sons (16M), and when I talked to him, it sounded like he doesn't hate you, he just feels that with all this killing and imprisoning, it's hard for anyone to talk to you honestly. Consider releasing your wife, pardoning your elder sons, making sure no more priests are murdered, and asking your younger son (7M) not to be such an annoying pest following his Royal Highness (16M) and I (14M) around when we're trying to get some archery practice in.  Your subject always,  Sir Robin, Heir apparent to the Earl of Locksley","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11541.0,"score_ratio":1.2040816327}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm38v2i","c_root_id_B":"fm3kmp1","created_at_utc_A":1585715991,"created_at_utc_B":1585726881,"score_A":52,"score_B":177,"human_ref_A":"I mean. NTA. Technically, you didn't order him to be murdered. AND you're fully right to be upset that he's using his new position that YOU granted him against YOU. Also your family sounds like a real sack of d-cks, no offence.  Wishing you all the best bud. Please update us as to how it all works out. ;)","human_ref_B":"Gently ESH, your Majesty. In my youth (14M), I would not presume to advise someone of your age, but I feel that everyone has a duty to speak truth to power. People do have a responsibility to be loyal to their rightful ruler, and it was low and base of your own family to stab you in the back like that. At the same time, a king also has a responsibility to make the best decisions for his kingdom. I understand you need to continue to have your kingdom to make the best decisions for it, but at the same time, you need honest advisors. I'm good friends with one of your sons (16M), and when I talked to him, it sounded like he doesn't hate you, he just feels that with all this killing and imprisoning, it's hard for anyone to talk to you honestly. Consider releasing your wife, pardoning your elder sons, making sure no more priests are murdered, and asking your younger son (7M) not to be such an annoying pest following his Royal Highness (16M) and I (14M) around when we're trying to get some archery practice in.  Your subject always,  Sir Robin, Heir apparent to the Earl of Locksley","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10890.0,"score_ratio":3.4038461538}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3kmp1","c_root_id_B":"fm37uz6","created_at_utc_A":1585726881,"created_at_utc_B":1585715198,"score_A":177,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Gently ESH, your Majesty. In my youth (14M), I would not presume to advise someone of your age, but I feel that everyone has a duty to speak truth to power. People do have a responsibility to be loyal to their rightful ruler, and it was low and base of your own family to stab you in the back like that. At the same time, a king also has a responsibility to make the best decisions for his kingdom. I understand you need to continue to have your kingdom to make the best decisions for it, but at the same time, you need honest advisors. I'm good friends with one of your sons (16M), and when I talked to him, it sounded like he doesn't hate you, he just feels that with all this killing and imprisoning, it's hard for anyone to talk to you honestly. Consider releasing your wife, pardoning your elder sons, making sure no more priests are murdered, and asking your younger son (7M) not to be such an annoying pest following his Royal Highness (16M) and I (14M) around when we're trying to get some archery practice in.  Your subject always,  Sir Robin, Heir apparent to the Earl of Locksley","human_ref_B":"NTA GLORY TO THE CROWN P.s. is that bishop position still open?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11683.0,"score_ratio":5.7096774194}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3a8ej","c_root_id_B":"fm3kmp1","created_at_utc_A":1585717090,"created_at_utc_B":1585726881,"score_A":15,"score_B":177,"human_ref_A":"NTA. Not your fault those knights can't read sarcasm. And the sons need to learn the hard way how to gain a kingdom, just like (I presume) you did.","human_ref_B":"Gently ESH, your Majesty. In my youth (14M), I would not presume to advise someone of your age, but I feel that everyone has a duty to speak truth to power. People do have a responsibility to be loyal to their rightful ruler, and it was low and base of your own family to stab you in the back like that. At the same time, a king also has a responsibility to make the best decisions for his kingdom. I understand you need to continue to have your kingdom to make the best decisions for it, but at the same time, you need honest advisors. I'm good friends with one of your sons (16M), and when I talked to him, it sounded like he doesn't hate you, he just feels that with all this killing and imprisoning, it's hard for anyone to talk to you honestly. Consider releasing your wife, pardoning your elder sons, making sure no more priests are murdered, and asking your younger son (7M) not to be such an annoying pest following his Royal Highness (16M) and I (14M) around when we're trying to get some archery practice in.  Your subject always,  Sir Robin, Heir apparent to the Earl of Locksley","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9791.0,"score_ratio":11.8}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3kmp1","c_root_id_B":"fm37dob","created_at_utc_A":1585726881,"created_at_utc_B":1585714821,"score_A":177,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Gently ESH, your Majesty. In my youth (14M), I would not presume to advise someone of your age, but I feel that everyone has a duty to speak truth to power. People do have a responsibility to be loyal to their rightful ruler, and it was low and base of your own family to stab you in the back like that. At the same time, a king also has a responsibility to make the best decisions for his kingdom. I understand you need to continue to have your kingdom to make the best decisions for it, but at the same time, you need honest advisors. I'm good friends with one of your sons (16M), and when I talked to him, it sounded like he doesn't hate you, he just feels that with all this killing and imprisoning, it's hard for anyone to talk to you honestly. Consider releasing your wife, pardoning your elder sons, making sure no more priests are murdered, and asking your younger son (7M) not to be such an annoying pest following his Royal Highness (16M) and I (14M) around when we're trying to get some archery practice in.  Your subject always,  Sir Robin, Heir apparent to the Earl of Locksley","human_ref_B":"YTA","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12060.0,"score_ratio":35.4}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3818y","c_root_id_B":"fm37uz6","created_at_utc_A":1585715340,"created_at_utc_B":1585715198,"score_A":147,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Pfft. NTA. I mean, these people are just asking so much of you. What are they doing for YOU? I mean, you're the one who was chosen by God and the church. It isn't your fault those knights got a little into the murder hobo life. And you definitely deserve a younger, better wife. Think of the line of succession!  And don't get me started on your kids. Kids these days just ask for the world and expect not to work for it. If you give them everything they want, they'll grow up spoiled!  Good luck!","human_ref_B":"NTA GLORY TO THE CROWN P.s. is that bishop position still open?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":142.0,"score_ratio":4.7419354839}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37dob","c_root_id_B":"fm3818y","created_at_utc_A":1585714821,"created_at_utc_B":1585715340,"score_A":5,"score_B":147,"human_ref_A":"YTA","human_ref_B":"Pfft. NTA. I mean, these people are just asking so much of you. What are they doing for YOU? I mean, you're the one who was chosen by God and the church. It isn't your fault those knights got a little into the murder hobo life. And you definitely deserve a younger, better wife. Think of the line of succession!  And don't get me started on your kids. Kids these days just ask for the world and expect not to work for it. If you give them everything they want, they'll grow up spoiled!  Good luck!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":519.0,"score_ratio":29.4}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3mg60","c_root_id_B":"fm38v2i","created_at_utc_A":1585728800,"created_at_utc_B":1585715991,"score_A":54,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"YTA, because a real king wouldn't care about any of this. Like, you're  the KING bro just give yourself a divorce if you have to. Seize all  church property if they get upset. There's so much you could actually be  doing right now to fix this situation but I guess reddit gotta reddit lmao","human_ref_B":"I mean. NTA. Technically, you didn't order him to be murdered. AND you're fully right to be upset that he's using his new position that YOU granted him against YOU. Also your family sounds like a real sack of d-cks, no offence.  Wishing you all the best bud. Please update us as to how it all works out. ;)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12809.0,"score_ratio":1.0384615385}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm38v2i","c_root_id_B":"fm37uz6","created_at_utc_A":1585715991,"created_at_utc_B":1585715198,"score_A":52,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I mean. NTA. Technically, you didn't order him to be murdered. AND you're fully right to be upset that he's using his new position that YOU granted him against YOU. Also your family sounds like a real sack of d-cks, no offence.  Wishing you all the best bud. Please update us as to how it all works out. ;)","human_ref_B":"NTA GLORY TO THE CROWN P.s. is that bishop position still open?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":793.0,"score_ratio":1.6774193548}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm38v2i","c_root_id_B":"fm37dob","created_at_utc_A":1585715991,"created_at_utc_B":1585714821,"score_A":52,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I mean. NTA. Technically, you didn't order him to be murdered. AND you're fully right to be upset that he's using his new position that YOU granted him against YOU. Also your family sounds like a real sack of d-cks, no offence.  Wishing you all the best bud. Please update us as to how it all works out. ;)","human_ref_B":"YTA","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1170.0,"score_ratio":10.4}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37uz6","c_root_id_B":"fm3mg60","created_at_utc_A":1585715198,"created_at_utc_B":1585728800,"score_A":31,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"NTA GLORY TO THE CROWN P.s. is that bishop position still open?","human_ref_B":"YTA, because a real king wouldn't care about any of this. Like, you're  the KING bro just give yourself a divorce if you have to. Seize all  church property if they get upset. There's so much you could actually be  doing right now to fix this situation but I guess reddit gotta reddit lmao","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13602.0,"score_ratio":1.7419354839}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3a8ej","c_root_id_B":"fm3mg60","created_at_utc_A":1585717090,"created_at_utc_B":1585728800,"score_A":15,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"NTA. Not your fault those knights can't read sarcasm. And the sons need to learn the hard way how to gain a kingdom, just like (I presume) you did.","human_ref_B":"YTA, because a real king wouldn't care about any of this. Like, you're  the KING bro just give yourself a divorce if you have to. Seize all  church property if they get upset. There's so much you could actually be  doing right now to fix this situation but I guess reddit gotta reddit lmao","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11710.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3mg60","c_root_id_B":"fm37dob","created_at_utc_A":1585728800,"created_at_utc_B":1585714821,"score_A":54,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"YTA, because a real king wouldn't care about any of this. Like, you're  the KING bro just give yourself a divorce if you have to. Seize all  church property if they get upset. There's so much you could actually be  doing right now to fix this situation but I guess reddit gotta reddit lmao","human_ref_B":"YTA","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13979.0,"score_ratio":10.8}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37dob","c_root_id_B":"fm37uz6","created_at_utc_A":1585714821,"created_at_utc_B":1585715198,"score_A":5,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"YTA","human_ref_B":"NTA GLORY TO THE CROWN P.s. is that bishop position still open?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":377.0,"score_ratio":6.2}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3a8ej","c_root_id_B":"fm3r07n","created_at_utc_A":1585717090,"created_at_utc_B":1585733718,"score_A":15,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"NTA. Not your fault those knights can't read sarcasm. And the sons need to learn the hard way how to gain a kingdom, just like (I presume) you did.","human_ref_B":"INFO Did you know that your wife (51F) is currently offering your side-piece (25F) her choice between a cup of poison and a dagger for her extrajudicial execution?  Don't worry about Scotland so much.  You might want to pay attention to that agenda of Tigern\u00e1n M\u00f3r Ua Ruairc, because honestly, I know that your youngest son, the 7M, needs a place to govern because otherwise he won't get a marriage alliance, having no land on offer, but Ireland may be a bit tough to deal with regularly, over the next 900 years or so.  The Scots will buck a bit but you have wealth and French alliances I'd advise you not to squander on bullshit, especially when they're bitching about the damn Sassenach.  Also, YTA.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16628.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3mj1l","c_root_id_B":"fm3r07n","created_at_utc_A":1585728883,"created_at_utc_B":1585733718,"score_A":9,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"NTA. This guy seems pretty turbulent AT BEST","human_ref_B":"INFO Did you know that your wife (51F) is currently offering your side-piece (25F) her choice between a cup of poison and a dagger for her extrajudicial execution?  Don't worry about Scotland so much.  You might want to pay attention to that agenda of Tigern\u00e1n M\u00f3r Ua Ruairc, because honestly, I know that your youngest son, the 7M, needs a place to govern because otherwise he won't get a marriage alliance, having no land on offer, but Ireland may be a bit tough to deal with regularly, over the next 900 years or so.  The Scots will buck a bit but you have wealth and French alliances I'd advise you not to squander on bullshit, especially when they're bitching about the damn Sassenach.  Also, YTA.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4835.0,"score_ratio":2.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37dob","c_root_id_B":"fm3r07n","created_at_utc_A":1585714821,"created_at_utc_B":1585733718,"score_A":5,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"YTA","human_ref_B":"INFO Did you know that your wife (51F) is currently offering your side-piece (25F) her choice between a cup of poison and a dagger for her extrajudicial execution?  Don't worry about Scotland so much.  You might want to pay attention to that agenda of Tigern\u00e1n M\u00f3r Ua Ruairc, because honestly, I know that your youngest son, the 7M, needs a place to govern because otherwise he won't get a marriage alliance, having no land on offer, but Ireland may be a bit tough to deal with regularly, over the next 900 years or so.  The Scots will buck a bit but you have wealth and French alliances I'd advise you not to squander on bullshit, especially when they're bitching about the damn Sassenach.  Also, YTA.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18897.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3wnc4","c_root_id_B":"fm3a8ej","created_at_utc_A":1585739704,"created_at_utc_B":1585717090,"score_A":19,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"YTA for cheating on your wife.  You should have left if you were that unhappy.  There is never an acceptable excuse for cheating (even if she was cheating on you with y'alls son, two wrongs don't make a right).  You also sound very abusive towards your wife by imprisoning her.  While I understand how you feel betrayed by former BFF putting a hit out on him is not ok.  Use better judgement when you pick someone for something like that.  BFFs rarely make good partner's in the long run.  You're not an AH for not giving your sons every little thing they want.  It's bad to spoil children like that and can cause serious issues for other people when they won't give into your sons' demands.","human_ref_B":"NTA. Not your fault those knights can't read sarcasm. And the sons need to learn the hard way how to gain a kingdom, just like (I presume) you did.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22614.0,"score_ratio":1.2666666667}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3mj1l","c_root_id_B":"fm3wnc4","created_at_utc_A":1585728883,"created_at_utc_B":1585739704,"score_A":9,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"NTA. This guy seems pretty turbulent AT BEST","human_ref_B":"YTA for cheating on your wife.  You should have left if you were that unhappy.  There is never an acceptable excuse for cheating (even if she was cheating on you with y'alls son, two wrongs don't make a right).  You also sound very abusive towards your wife by imprisoning her.  While I understand how you feel betrayed by former BFF putting a hit out on him is not ok.  Use better judgement when you pick someone for something like that.  BFFs rarely make good partner's in the long run.  You're not an AH for not giving your sons every little thing they want.  It's bad to spoil children like that and can cause serious issues for other people when they won't give into your sons' demands.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10821.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3wnc4","c_root_id_B":"fm37dob","created_at_utc_A":1585739704,"created_at_utc_B":1585714821,"score_A":19,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"YTA for cheating on your wife.  You should have left if you were that unhappy.  There is never an acceptable excuse for cheating (even if she was cheating on you with y'alls son, two wrongs don't make a right).  You also sound very abusive towards your wife by imprisoning her.  While I understand how you feel betrayed by former BFF putting a hit out on him is not ok.  Use better judgement when you pick someone for something like that.  BFFs rarely make good partner's in the long run.  You're not an AH for not giving your sons every little thing they want.  It's bad to spoil children like that and can cause serious issues for other people when they won't give into your sons' demands.","human_ref_B":"YTA","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24883.0,"score_ratio":3.8}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3a8ej","c_root_id_B":"fm37dob","created_at_utc_A":1585717090,"created_at_utc_B":1585714821,"score_A":15,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"NTA. Not your fault those knights can't read sarcasm. And the sons need to learn the hard way how to gain a kingdom, just like (I presume) you did.","human_ref_B":"YTA","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2269.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm4imwl","c_root_id_B":"fm40jcb","created_at_utc_A":1585754860,"created_at_utc_B":1585743219,"score_A":14,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"NTA- No way, man. Needy relatives and upjumped priests are the downfall of a dynasty. My descendants and I had to *accidentally* \\*wink\\* remove a lot of meddlesome priests. Before you give them the pointy hat they're all, 'Yes Your Imperial Highness, I will act for the good of the realm.' But the moment they can't legally have sex they get all weird and start caring about things like 'souls' and 'tithes.'  Like, dude. I put you there specifically so that I don't have to deal with some asshat who only cares about souls and tithes.","human_ref_B":"NTA  In fact you were too soft.  Your friend obviously betrayed you. You let him be a priest to control the temple, so he should've listened. Frankly you should've ordered his execution.  And of course you should see other women, especially if they're hot and come from good families. Frankly you should've imprisoned your son since it sounds like he kept nagging you for an estate. That would've taught him to obey his father. And prevent him from making the first move like I did when I teamed up with my father's ally to exile him, which sounds like he might be trying to do.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11641.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm4imwl","c_root_id_B":"fm3mj1l","created_at_utc_A":1585754860,"created_at_utc_B":1585728883,"score_A":14,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"NTA- No way, man. Needy relatives and upjumped priests are the downfall of a dynasty. My descendants and I had to *accidentally* \\*wink\\* remove a lot of meddlesome priests. Before you give them the pointy hat they're all, 'Yes Your Imperial Highness, I will act for the good of the realm.' But the moment they can't legally have sex they get all weird and start caring about things like 'souls' and 'tithes.'  Like, dude. I put you there specifically so that I don't have to deal with some asshat who only cares about souls and tithes.","human_ref_B":"NTA. This guy seems pretty turbulent AT BEST","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25977.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm47x73","c_root_id_B":"fm4imwl","created_at_utc_A":1585748616,"created_at_utc_B":1585754860,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"YTA, your majesty. Maybe you get angry and say things you don't mean, but you're the king. You're responsible for the behavior of your underlings and minions. Those knights legitimately believe that murdering the Archbishop was what you wanted, and they did it in the expectation of your favor and rewards. Hell, you called them \"drones and traitors!\" What is a leal and honorable vassal supposed to think in that situation?","human_ref_B":"NTA- No way, man. Needy relatives and upjumped priests are the downfall of a dynasty. My descendants and I had to *accidentally* \\*wink\\* remove a lot of meddlesome priests. Before you give them the pointy hat they're all, 'Yes Your Imperial Highness, I will act for the good of the realm.' But the moment they can't legally have sex they get all weird and start caring about things like 'souls' and 'tithes.'  Like, dude. I put you there specifically so that I don't have to deal with some asshat who only cares about souls and tithes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6244.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37dob","c_root_id_B":"fm4imwl","created_at_utc_A":1585714821,"created_at_utc_B":1585754860,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"YTA","human_ref_B":"NTA- No way, man. Needy relatives and upjumped priests are the downfall of a dynasty. My descendants and I had to *accidentally* \\*wink\\* remove a lot of meddlesome priests. Before you give them the pointy hat they're all, 'Yes Your Imperial Highness, I will act for the good of the realm.' But the moment they can't legally have sex they get all weird and start caring about things like 'souls' and 'tithes.'  Like, dude. I put you there specifically so that I don't have to deal with some asshat who only cares about souls and tithes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40039.0,"score_ratio":2.8}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3mj1l","c_root_id_B":"fm40jcb","created_at_utc_A":1585728883,"created_at_utc_B":1585743219,"score_A":9,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"NTA. This guy seems pretty turbulent AT BEST","human_ref_B":"NTA  In fact you were too soft.  Your friend obviously betrayed you. You let him be a priest to control the temple, so he should've listened. Frankly you should've ordered his execution.  And of course you should see other women, especially if they're hot and come from good families. Frankly you should've imprisoned your son since it sounds like he kept nagging you for an estate. That would've taught him to obey his father. And prevent him from making the first move like I did when I teamed up with my father's ally to exile him, which sounds like he might be trying to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14336.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37dob","c_root_id_B":"fm40jcb","created_at_utc_A":1585714821,"created_at_utc_B":1585743219,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"YTA","human_ref_B":"NTA  In fact you were too soft.  Your friend obviously betrayed you. You let him be a priest to control the temple, so he should've listened. Frankly you should've ordered his execution.  And of course you should see other women, especially if they're hot and come from good families. Frankly you should've imprisoned your son since it sounds like he kept nagging you for an estate. That would've taught him to obey his father. And prevent him from making the first move like I did when I teamed up with my father's ally to exile him, which sounds like he might be trying to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28398.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm3mj1l","c_root_id_B":"fm37dob","created_at_utc_A":1585728883,"created_at_utc_B":1585714821,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"NTA. This guy seems pretty turbulent AT BEST","human_ref_B":"YTA","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14062.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
+{"post_id":"fsre7s","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"AITA for accidentally putting a hit out on my best friend, imprisoning my wife, and not giving my sons every little thing they want? I (40M) and my wife (51F) have four sons(18, 16, 15, and 7) and three daughters (17, 11, and 8). I also have a son (21M) from a previous relationship. My wife brought substantial property into our marriage, and I want to keep as much of it as possible.   Until recently, my best friend (51?M), business partner and all-around confidante and partner-in-crime, had gotten along great. And then I decided to promote him to become Archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that things would stay the same. He and I would be as thick as thieves, and we could effectively rule England, Normandy, Anjou, Brittany and Aquitaine together, and everything would be great! We had previously been working to acquire more land and income for the English crown by leaving bishoprics vacant and collecting on the revenues, but as soon as he was named Archbishop, was suddenly not on my side anymore. He suddenly wanted secular clerks tried in church courts instead of secular courts, and declared that funds I had given him AS A LOAN were actually GIFTS! This is someone I trusted! I trusted him to educate my son and heir!   I tried to let him off easy. When I summoned the Bishops to Clarendon, I tried to give him a way out, and let him compromise, but he refused. I was forced to point out that his own spending as Chancellor was completely contrary to his current position on clerical spending practices. He was okay with it before I promoted him! And now that I've given him the status and power I thought he wanted, he's using it against me!!!   So anyways, he fled to France because obviously he couldn't defend himself against me. Then he goes and starts excommunicating my other advisers and some of my other bishops! Then he wrote to the Pope and they threatened to place all of England under interdict! Imagine that, no weddings, no absolution, no burials... I couldn't have that, so I had to negotiate with the bloody coward. Then, as he's returning to England, he excommunicates MORE of my Bishops! I was at dinner when I heard, so I said to the room \"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!\"   Now, I was just angry. Anybody who knows me, knows that I can get angry and that I say things I don't mean. But four of my knights, some of whom had worked for my late brother (28M), whose marriage to the richest single girl in England had been blocked by this meddlesome priest, went to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop! I didn't ORDER them to do it. I didn't hold a sword to their throat and make them go do it. But people are saying it's my fault!   Now, three years later, after I did my penance, I thought everything was alright. I met a hot, younger woman (25F) and have been seeing her on the side since my wife is getting on in years and spends most of her time at her summer house in the South with our second son (16M). Now, our eldest (18M) keeps begging me for some estates of his own to govern. But he's irresponsible with money, and would rather fight in tournaments than learn the business of ruling. And my mother always said it was better to keep your falcons begging for scraps than to keep them well fed. So I keep telling him no. His older half-brother (21M) doesn't ask for anything!   But then I hear he's run off to his mother's place, and that they're all on their way to Paris to meet with my eldest son's father-in-law (who also happens to by my wife's ex-husband) to plot a war against me! They say that I have forfeited the crown when I had the Archbishop of Canterbury murdered! Again, I didn't order it. Some of my men captured my wife, and I have her imprisoned to make sure my sons behave, but I hear they're taking up arms against me and several of my nobles are following suit.  Did I put a hit out on my best friend? Is my wife mad about the other woman? Should I have given into my sons' constant requests for money? AITA?   TL;DR: My best friend betrayed me, and I got angry. Some of my men killed him in my name. My wife and sons are rebelling. AITA?   Edit: Oh, I also just got a message saying that the King of Scotland is invading too, great.","c_root_id_A":"fm37dob","c_root_id_B":"fm47x73","created_at_utc_A":1585714821,"created_at_utc_B":1585748616,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"YTA","human_ref_B":"YTA, your majesty. Maybe you get angry and say things you don't mean, but you're the king. You're responsible for the behavior of your underlings and minions. Those knights legitimately believe that murdering the Archbishop was what you wanted, and they did it in the expectation of your favor and rewards. Hell, you called them \"drones and traitors!\" What is a leal and honorable vassal supposed to think in that situation?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33795.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"6l6jjr","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Announcing Best of June Awards The votes are in!  For the third month in a row, we again have a unanimous vote from both flairs and users. This month the top spot goes to \/u\/bloodswan for answering \"What is the origin and development of the footnote(1)?\".  The combined votes of flairs and users for second place then goes to \/u\/ancienthistory for \"When looking for pulp publications on the Nazis, almost all magazines make a point about being \"for men\" \u2013 does that mean they were merely pornographic or is there a deeper significance (in genre e.g.) behind that?\".  And finally, the Dark Horse Award, for the highest voted contribution from a non-flair had a clear edge to \/u\/kayelar, for \"Why has Country Music remained so white? What cultural and industry forces kept the genre that so willingly borrowed from blues, gospel, norte\u00f1o, and mariachi so completely dominated by white artists and tied to white identity?\".  So as always, a big congratulations to the winners, and a big thanks to everyone who contributed to the subreddit in the past month! Also a reminder, if you want to nominate answers for the monthly awards, the best way to do so is to submit your favorite posts every week to the Sunday Digest!  For a list of past winners, check out this Wiki page!","c_root_id_A":"djrqh5a","c_root_id_B":"djrufr0","created_at_utc_A":1499184708,"created_at_utc_B":1499189593,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Congrats! I liked all of those answers, especially the footnote one by \/u\/bloodswan .","human_ref_B":"Wow, thank you all so much! Was pretty surprised to see this notification this morning.   And congratulations to the other winners and nominees. There were some very impressive answers this past month.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4885.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
+{"post_id":"zh3nit","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"I am a viking during the height of Danish raiding in the west, I am a Veteran of several raids and know how to fight well, my neighbours farm appeals to me, I know is not much of a fighter, could I challenge him to a holmgang for it? And would I be assured a victory in such a fight over a weaker opponent, or would he be allowed a champion to fight for him?   And how would my peers feel about my blatant grab for more wealth? And my local chieftain?","c_root_id_A":"izo2aho","c_root_id_B":"izq2ers","created_at_utc_A":1670686875,"created_at_utc_B":1670717521,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"You may be interesting in this answer from u\/glasgallow. They talk about the social aspects\/ repercussions to the sort of scenario you're asking about. From their answer, it seems like there wouldn't be anything to stop you per se, but you might face retaliation from the wider community.","human_ref_B":"Tl;dr: OP probably overestimates the importance of the alleged practice of *holmgang* (dueling) in the judicial process or the settlement of conflict in general in Viking Age and medieval Scandinavia.   +++  Sorry for the really, really late response.   >......during the height of Danish raiding in the west    Sorry again, I'm not sure about when OP exactly means to specify alone in this sentence.   In the late 9th century? Or, around the turn of the millennium (so-called \"Late\/ Second Viking Age)?    If the former is indeed the case, the situation would have been much closer to that of Iceland, discussed by \/u\/glasgallow and linked by \/u\/BookQueen13 below. It was not until the middle of the 10th century that now Denmark saw somewhat stable, unified (and supra-local) polity in form of Jelling dynasty after the collapse of the Godfred-Horik dynasty around the middle of the 9th century.     On the other hand, if OP ('s supposed war veteran) lived under the reigns of the Jelling rulers like Svend Forkbeard or Cnut the Great, he (as a war veteran, I primarily regard the Dane in question as \"him\" in order not to go into the details on the woman's legal capacity in Viking Age and Medieval Danish laws) might get interfered by the superior authority beyond the local society level like these kings.    Another possibly (and most probably) problematic premise in OP's question is the assumption that he the Dane ex-Viking] could use press his claim by resorting almost solely to the practice of *holmgang* with ease there either in the late 9th century or in the 10\/11th centuries.    The study of conflict settlement in medieval Europe (including Scandinavia and Iceland) has advanced greatly especially since 1970s, with help of the anthropological approach as well as feud study, initiated early in the 20th century by Otto Brunner. From their point of view, the use of violence and the judicial process were not dichotomous (mutually exclusive), but often complemented each other to reach an agreement between both parties involved with - that now we regard as an primary goal of a series of conflicts.    As for the social meaning of not unlimited\/ ritual use of violence in early medieval society (though not in Viking Age Scandinavia in a narrow sense), I also recommend you to check \/u\/EndOfTheWorldGuy's recent post in: [Was the need to go to great lengths to defend ones honor as vain as we perceive it today in our modern times? How important was it to gain and protect honor besides the obvious reasons of ego?.   Another trend since 1970s that has affected the alleged importance of *holmgang*, or the legal text recorded later on medieval parchments in general, is a revisionism in the character of medieval Scandinavian law books (codes). These law texts had often been regarded as a residue (or at least including residue layer) of the Viking Age society and sometimes used for the comparative analysis to reconstruct the distant past, but now more and more scholars got used to analyze them primarily as the product of a social change in later times, especially the High Middle Ages when these texts were codified (, though a few scholars has countered this revisionist trend further now).   The majority of study on the *holmgang* had been published until 1970s - thus belonged to the older (now dated) approach of conflict settlement as well as the legal culture of the Viking Age Scandinavia. In other words, less and less scholars are now not so sure about the possibility that Viking Age Scandinavians actually practiced *holmgang* to settle the conflict widely, exact as specified in one of High Medieval Swedish lawbooks as well as some sagas of the Icelanders.   Aside from these two changing trend of research as well as the essential primary texts, however, we mainly have two more problems to take OP's case into consideration:    1. As Vogt remarks, we have not so ideal- or very limited amount of primary sources for the study on the judicial practice in Medieval Denmark. Almost no court record is extant until the end of the 14th century, and almost no record of judgement for whole the Middle Ages (prior to the Reformation in Denmark in 1536) (Vogt 2014: 185f.).   1. While medieval Danes almost certainly knew the concept of *holmgang* itself, we rely mainly on one specific person - Saxo Grammaticus for Viking Age Denmark. 13th century lawbooks don't explicitly refer to the *holmgang* as a judicial practice at all.    +++    Then, what Saxo (about 1200) says about the *holmgang*, or exactly speaking, its abolition?    Saxo mentions duels across the first half of his work (legendary pre-history part), but not so much in his latter, history (10th\/ 11th century onward) part. He actually mentions its abolition twice, in somewhat contradictory manners:    1. At the time of conversion of King Svend Forkbeard by Poppo's ordeal (around the turn of the millennium) (Saxo, X-xl-4, in: Christiansen trans. 1980: 21): \".....The Danes abolished the custom of judicial duelling, and that decreed that various cases should be settled by this kind of ordeal.\"   1. For the second time, Saxo ascribes the total eradication of the practice of judicial combats under the reign of King Harald Hen (r. 1074\/76-80), as he comments as following (Saxo XI-x-7, in: Christiansen trans. 1980: 72): \"For it seems to posterity that law-disputes are better settled by swearing than by steel.\"    For me, these accounts suggest that Saxo certainly regarded the trial \"by steel\" (judicial combat) somewhat as archaic way of settlement, but we cannot know the details of former practices only based on these accounts alone.    +++    Provincial codes from the 13th century generally specify the testimony with oath by the respected person in the district as a means to settle the problem, and I wonder whether similar way could have also been taken before in some cases.   To give an example, *The Law of Jutland (1241 CE)* stipulates on the boundaries between the field as following:    >\"If men disagree about boundaries between fields, then men of truth of the district shall mark it with stakes or with stones and thereafter swear at that place where there is disagreement that they have done it rightly. If it is both on the boundary between fields and between districts that they disagree, then four from one district and four from the other districts, those that live closest, shall decide and swear according to what they know most truthfully they have done it right, and then make it public at the assembly. But if there is any memory that it had been sworn to before, and any man is alive of those who swore, then it shall not be sworn to again. But if there is no memory that it had been sworn to before, and the king will have the boundaries settled by riding, then it will also fully stand; however, he must not come without notice so that it is secret to some of those who are parties in the dispute. It is safer that the boundary between the fields be sworn to than ridden, the those know best who live the closest.....(*The Law of Jutland*, II-21, English translation is taken from: [Tamm & Vogt trans. 2016: 261f.].\"     If similar system was applied to the conflict settlement for OP's case, the personal connection either with local or with the external political authority must have played an important role - since the king should also appoint \"men of truth\" (*The Law of Jutland*, II-1~4, Tamm & Vogt trans. 2016: 258). Before the royal appoint became norm, it is also likely that such a role should have been played by the local elders or possibly the chieftain (perhaps on behalf of the king).      +++    On the other hand, surprisingly enough, it was not until the almost end of the Middle Ages that not only the nobles, but also the peasants sometimes employ the violence as a means to push their claim against their peers (that is to say, peasant vs peasant) in medieval kingdom of Denmark. Denmark did not have a unified kingdom-wide law code like Norway, and the monopoly of violence by the kingship did not easily achieved in practice, researchars argues.    There have been some excellent scholarships on such \"bondefejde\", so if OP can read Danish, [Fenger 1971] can be recommended as the classic of the topic.       References:    * Tamm, Ditlev & Helle Vogt (ed. & trans.). *The Danish Medieval Laws: The Laws of Scania, Zealand & Jutland.* London: Routledge, 2016.  * Christiansen, Eric (trans.). *Saxo Grammaticus Book X-XVI, vol. 1: Book X, XI, XII, and XIII.* London: BAR International, 1980.     +++  * Andersen, Per. *Studier i dansk proceshistorie: Tiden indtil Danske Lov 1683.* K\u00f8benhavn: Jurist- og \u00d8konomiforbundets Forlag, 2010.    * Ciklamini, Marlene. \u201cTHE OLD ICELANDIC DUEL.\u201d *Scandinavian Studies* 35, no. 3 (1963): 175\u201394. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/40916463. * Fenger, Ole. *Fejde og mandebod*. K\u00f8benhavn: Lindthardt & Ringhof, 1971.  * ________. *Gammeldansk ret.* K\u00f8benhavn: Centrum, 1983.   * Ingesman, Per et alii (red.). *Middelalderens Danmark: Kultur og samfund fra trosskifte til reformation.* K\u00f8benhavn: Gad, 2001.   * Netterstr\u00f8m, Jeppe B. \"Bondefejder i Danmark 1450-1650.\" I: *Feider og fred i nordisk middelalder*, red. Erik Opsahl, ss. 35-72. Oslo: Unipub, 2007.   * ________. \"Feud in Late Medieval and Early Modern Denmark.\" In: *Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe*, ed. Jeppe B. Netterstr\u00f8m & Bj\u00f8rn Poulsen, pp. 175-87. Aarhus: Aarhus UP, 2010.     * Vogt, Helle. \"Danish Penal Law in the Middle Ages: Cases of Homicide and Wounding.\" In: *New Approaches to Early Law in Scandinavia*, ed. Stefan Brink & Lisa Collinson, pp. 185-200. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30646.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"x2vmwm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"In the early 14th century, Mansa Musa recounted a story of his predecessor disappearing on an attempt to cross the Atlantic with thousands of ships. If such an expedition did happen, what would the Malian ships have looked like? I'm not so much asking about the veracity of the story here; I understand that we have virtually no records about it and aren't even sure of the identity of the mansa in question. However, I've had a hard time learning much about any West African ships of the time beyond river canoes that seem ill-suited to even think of going out in to open ocean (though that's \"seem ill-suited\" to my eye, which is very much an ignorant one on the matter of sailing). If any exploration of the Atlantic was conducted by Mali around this time, what would the ships be like?","c_root_id_A":"imnm04r","c_root_id_B":"imnks2c","created_at_utc_A":1662037944,"created_at_utc_B":1662037372,"score_A":459,"score_B":52,"human_ref_A":"The Mali Empire was primarily concentrated along the highlands of Mandeland (located in contemporary Republic of Guinea and southern Republic of Mali) and along the Niger River Valley, with its downstream border being somewhere between the cities of Kawkaw (modern Gao) and Kukiya (modern Bentiya). At its heyday, the Mali reached the distant lands of some saharan cities (like Walata, Essouk\/Tadmakka and Takedda) all the way to the Atlantic Coast, between the Senegal and Gambia rivers.     With that data in mind, we can proceed to investigate the watercourses the Malians would be familiar with and figure out the boats they used to navigate them. Namely, they were familiar with the slow waters of major rivers (Niger, Senegal and Gambia) and with the coast of modern day Senegambia. Sadly, we lack direct sources about what types of boats were available at that time (14th century) in that particular area (River valleys and Senegambian coast). However, we do have a lot of accounts from european traders from the 16th century onwards, and those are quite useful.     European traders, sailing along the Senegambian coast, quickly found africans (wolofs, serers, mandinkas, bizagos and others) using canoes - some quite large, that could transport cattle - to navigate the ocean. Those canoes lacked sails and depended on the strength of rowers to get somewhere. The fact that the Cape Verde islands (about 600 kilometers from the coast) were uninhabited prior to the arrival of european sailors is strong evidence that the local african canoes didn't get very far into the open sea, prefering coastal areas.     Those canoes were mostly made out a single tree and quite effective at their purpose (i.e. navigate around the coast and into river estuaries), but sometimes more diverse materials would be used.     In the larger and calmer rivers inland, canoes were used as well, but also bigger boats made out of several pieces of wood, capable of carrying lots of people and animals. They, however, also lacked proper sails and relied on people (either rowing or pushing against the riverbed with paddles) or simply the gentle currents of the river.     TL;DR: Basically canoes and boats that lacked sails and, despite their occasional large size, lacked the proper resistance to sustain damage caused by waves or fight sea currents. They wouldn't get far and, in the odd occasion that they did, the boats would be at the mercy of the ocean.","human_ref_B":"This has been asked multiple times, searching for 'mansa musa atlantic' yields for example this topic with a nice answer by \/u\/MansaMontezuma","labels":1,"seconds_difference":572.0,"score_ratio":8.8269230769}
+{"post_id":"u74afm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How did Christianity move from a belief that heaven was a holding tank until resurrection to eternal reward in heaven? From this recent thread: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/u68xuh\/before_desegregation_did_people_believe_that\/  > In the early colonial period, Protestants in America and Europe wondered whether race would even exist in Heaven. They mostly agreed that Heaven was a kind of temporary holding tank for souls, which would receive new, perfected bodies at the end of history.   How did that belief change into the modern view that people who die and go to heaven will stay in heaven eternally?","c_root_id_A":"i5dqzyn","c_root_id_B":"i5dw8pu","created_at_utc_A":1650395704,"created_at_utc_B":1650397561,"score_A":44,"score_B":343,"human_ref_A":"A lot could be added to address shifts that have happened in the past five hundred years, but \/u\/AndrewSshi's responses to a question about the origin of indulgences as a practice covers how beliefs around heaven developed in the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity. That post is here.","human_ref_B":">How did that belief change into the modern view that people who die and go to heaven will stay in heaven eternally?  Both beliefs have existed simultaneously since ancient times and survive today. Let's start with a look into the origin of the former. When the Israelites were exiled from Palestine by Babylon in the 6th century BCE, returning to that land became a major theme in their scriptures. This is the purpose of Ezekiel's vision of the Valley Of Dry Bones, in which God shows the prophet many dead bodies being returned to their living state and explains that Israel will be restored just so.   After the exile, many exilic biblical passages were reinterpreted as Israel's historical context changed, and in the face of oppression many Jews began to view Ezekiel's vision as a prophecy of a literal, bodily resurrection at the end of time, divine justice for the suffering they faced in life. We see this view in the book of 2 Maccabees (which FYI isn't considered canon by protestants) written in the second century BCE. The author recounts the oppression the Jews faced under the brutal Antiochus Epiphanes, who outlawed Jewish practices under pain of death. In the story, a mother and her seven sons bravely choose to be burned alive rather than renounce their faith, comforted by the knowledge that they will be resurrected to eternal life while Antiochus and his men rot in the ground.   A few centuries later we see a retelling of the same event in the book of 4 Maccabees, but this time the family is reassured not that they will be bodily resurrected, but that their souls will be immediately gathered to God, and that  >We, through this severe suffering and endurance, shall have the prize of virtue and shall be with God, on whose account we suffer; but you, because of your bloodthirstiness toward us, will deservedly undergo from the divine justice eternal torment by fire. (4 Mac 9:8-9)  For this author it is the soul that matters rather than the body, and since God is eternal, so is his judgment, immediate and everlasting. (The irony of the influence of Platonic philosophy on this author's account of a resistance against Greek culture is apparently lost on him.)   The persecution under Antiochus is the same situation that gave rise to apocalyptic literature like the book of Daniel (2nd century BCE), in which the author assures his reader that God will send \"one like a son of man\" to bring divine destruction onto the ruler and usher in the bodily resurrection and judgment immediately after his death (Daniel 11:45-12:2). The early Christians adapted this framework to Jesus. They believed he was Daniel's \"son of man\" who intervened to conquer death and sin and that his resurrection was the \"first fruits\" of the general resurrection soon to come (1 Corinthians 15:20).  Many believers changed their minds from belief in the resurrection to the belief in immediate spiritual judgment simply because God's physical intervention into history (known as the Kingdom Of God) and ushering in of the resurrection never came. We can see this even in the gospel of Luke, when Jesus tells the man being crucified next to him \"today you will be with me in Paradise.\" The evangelist even tells his readers not to expect the Kingdom Of God to come, but rather know that it resides inside them (Luke 17:21). Compare this to the other gospels in which Jesus assures his followers that the earthly Kingdom Of God is soon to come indeed (Matthew 24:30-34).  Plenty of Christians today believe in a synthesis of both immediate spiritual judgment and a bodily resurrection at the end of time. This belief goes back to the book of 4 Ezra, in which the eponymous Israelite leader is told by an angel that spiritual torment and paradise begin immediately after death, but that there is also a coming bodily resurrection, at which point the righteous will enjoy everlasting life and the wicked will finally be destroyed forever.   Source: Dr. Bart Ehrman's *Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1857.0,"score_ratio":7.7954545455}
+{"post_id":"33myml","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Why did Tolkien's work become so influential for the fantasy genre at the time that it did? I know he's influential. I know generally how he influenced the genre, thanks to this thread. But I guess I'm interested in the timing of it. Why *then*, at that very moment? What was the historical climate that enabled him to become so influential?  Also, if anyone can suggest rigorous and synthetic academic articles\/books to me on the history\/development of fantasy literature in the past century (whether around Tolkien or otherwise), I'd very much appreciate it. I've been searching, but everything I've seen either lacks rigor or scale.  Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"cqmtz08","c_root_id_B":"cqmzqn6","created_at_utc_A":1429848210,"created_at_utc_B":1429865679,"score_A":10,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"If you don't get an answer, try \/r\/AskLiteraryStudies","human_ref_B":"Tolkien's works were borderline transgressive when they were released. I don't have the time to dig into a lot of the details at the moment, but consider a few things:  First, the reasons for popularity. They're good stories with interesting characters, many complex themes, and interesting settings and events. There's a lot of the classic \"hero's journey\" elements and mythological elements, those stories have always been popular. Tolkien studied the Norse sagas and epics so a lot of those materials and that form of story telling ended up in his books.  Second, the romanticism. Tolkien's works harken back to the 19th century romantic period, with a clear favoritism shown for nature and peacefulness over industry and violence. This was out of fashion by the mid 20th century, and even looked down upon. Romantics were viewed as empty headed and fantasy fiction was viewed as escapism. Remember that the society into which Tolkien's works were released was the same one that the counter culture movement rebelled against. In Tolkien's world you have people such as the Hobbits who are not especially industrious and in fact could be regarded as lazy. As Tolkien put it they \"valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold\", and he lauded them for it fairly explicitly in his books. That very much ran counter to the prevailing zeitgeist in the developed world of the time. But it resonated strongly with the counter culture movement which included elements such as \"hippyism\" which shared that sentiment.  Third, the religious aspects. The mid-20th century in the US and even in Europe was still an era where religion had a supremely powerful place in culture and society. On its face, Tolkien's works are strictly blasphemous against Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They describe a world where there is no God of the bible, a world with a different god, a different creation mythos, a different people, and so on. This is more transgressive than it may seem because it's not just a rejection of, say, Christian orthodoxy along the lines of \"hey, here's this world and it doesn't even have God in it, and it's not a big deal that it doesn't\". More than that, because it rests on its own creation mythos, its own deep historical narrative (which religions had traditionally taken on as one of their \"core competencies\"), its own world, its own laws of nature, it serves as a tool for intellectually deconstructing established religions. One can look at the toy mythology of The Lord of the Rings and easily make comparisons to, say, Christianity, and in so doing come to the realization that Christian mythos could just as easily be the work of man rather than divine revealed truth.  Again, the counter culture movement of the '60s and '70s were also on the track of deconstructing institutions that relied heavily on dogma and orthodoxy, especially religions, so these ideas resonated strongly with them.  Embracing Tolkien's works became not just about the quality of the story, it became a political statement. A rejection of the insistence of \"the man\" to buckle down, get a boring job, put away toys and escapism, and become a cog in the great socio-economic machine of the times. And a rejection of the power structures that supported (or were perceived to support) petty warfare, inequality, greed, industrialization at the cost of nature, religious doctrine, and so on. During the '60s and '70s graffiti or personal paraphernalia (such as buttons) proclaiming \"Frodo Lives!\" served as one of many shibboleths for the hippie\/counter culture movement. Those simple words were seen as a stirring rejection of establishment ideals and power.  And fourth, the detail. Tolkien's world had a depth and complexity that was far beyond the average story. Part of the lure of the stories is their setting, a fully fleshed out world with its own mythos and thousands of years of civilizational history. Tolkien created a deep backstory which creates a palpable richness around every element of the tale. Gandalf's sword, for example, is not just any sword, it's a sword with a name and a six millenia history stretching back to the war against Morgoth (who used to be Sauron's master) when it was wielded by a legendary Elven king. Similarly, Frodo's Phial given to him by Galadriel was filled with water from a fountain that held the light of Earendil's star, a story of incredible depth and complexity which Frodo and Sam allude to in various comments from time to time. And that sort of depth is indicative of the story as a whole. Everything and everyone everywhere has a history, it makes the world feel more interesting and more real, providing a degree of verisimilitude to the characters, peoples, and places. That depth and breadth enabled an entire realm of conversation about Tolkien's works beyond merely the story and its meaning. One could discuss the various races or peoples of the books and delve into the details or minutiae of them. One thing that sets apart great literature from merely good literature is that great literature is typically not just one story tied up in a tidy package, it's a whole gamut of ideas, concepts, events, and creations which serve as the kernel of potentially very open ended discussions and thoughts. In Tolkien's works there were a great many such kernels. As such, it inspired a great many people to tell their own stories using similar themes, elements, or settings. Dungeons & Dragons, for example, was set firmly in a Tolkien-inspired world. A world populated by dragons, elves, dwarves, wizards, hobbits (later renamed halflings), and so on. A world where a typical adventure involves a story line that very closely mirrors either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings (a diverse band of adventurers goes on a grand trip, crawls through ancient caverns and dungeons, fights goblins, trolls, dragons, and evil wizards, and so on).  Tolkien's world, characters, story, and themes resonated with a group of people in a way that other contemporary literature did not. And the depth of detail made it a suitable kernel for a great many derivative works as well as helped maintain a momentum of enthusiasm in the work. It also served as a calling card for the counter-culture movement which helped to increase its profile and popularity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17469.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
+{"post_id":"5dtdbx","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"did the Aztecs understand where the Spanish were from? were they incredulous of the notion of lands and people on the other side of the ocean?","c_root_id_A":"da7r384","c_root_id_B":"da7wb0t","created_at_utc_A":1479611412,"created_at_utc_B":1479621351,"score_A":70,"score_B":299,"human_ref_A":"Follow up: Did they know that the Earth was round? What were their beliefs about the universe?","human_ref_B":"This depends onwhat you mean by where and also when you are asking.   So we know that native accounts (recorded about 30 years after the conquest) imply that some of the aztecs thought the Spanish might be gods. Yet, most scholars believe that this is likely a later addition which was meant to explain how Moctezuma (one of the most successful emperors of the Aztecs) could have been defeated. The Spanish sources from the 1520s do not contain such references and only later Spanish sources pick it up. Although certain aspects of the Spanish arrival could loosely map on to Aztec myths of a god returning, I believe it stretches the imagination that such a belief could be held for any length of time, and the Spanish were in near constant contact with native peoples for months before the main military phase of the conquest began.  Second, where did the Aztecs think they came from. Well, the Spanish told them, Castile. We know the earliest name given to the Spanish was Castilteca, meaning 'people from Castile'. This also tends to suggest that the Aztecs saw the Spanish as people not gods because they rendered them using the same forms as they would any other new people group they encountered. This is not surprising. We know the Aztecs had trading connections with groups far flung from central mexico and would have had no cultural barrier to understanding that people could be from locations vastly distant. The Spanish were certainly the first to come from over the ocean, but other than that they were just another group.    See: *Victors and Vanquished*   *Mesoamerican Voices*  *Nahuas after the Conquest*  *Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9939.0,"score_ratio":4.2714285714}
+{"post_id":"1ajfpg","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"how common were young people who behaved in a stereotypically hippie like way (I.E travling, free love, drug taking) in 1970 America?","c_root_id_A":"c8y5u3t","c_root_id_B":"c8y2a4j","created_at_utc_A":1363654455,"created_at_utc_B":1363644297,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"History isn't always great at telling you \"how common\" something was across a whole country.  There were some hippies, and there were some squares as well.  However, the General Social Survey started in 1972.  I'm not going to go through the whole question list now (there are thousands questions, but it's searchable--however, not every question was asked every year), but it's all publicly available.  It's meant to be downloaded and used with a statistics package (like R, SPSS, Stata, which makes doing more complex things possible), but there is an online thing where you can mess around with it for free with no experience needed in statistics.  Okay, so on the right side you want Row: to be the variable you're interested in, for Column: put \"age\" (so you can separate \"young people\" from \"old people\"), and for Selection Filter(s) put \"year(1973)\" (or any year you want after 1972).  Two good variables to start with (remember, just type these in to \"Row:\") are GRASS (\"Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?\") and ANTIWAR (\"Have you ever taken part in.... (c) An anti-war demonstration?\").  Since I assume many of the readers are lazy, here's .jpegs of the output for 1973 for those two questions.  **Probably about 15-20% of young people in 1973 had participated in an anti-war protest, but probably about 35-50% thought that marijuana should be legal** (notice there's a lot of random variation in the numbers because we're dealing with small sample sizes).  To get at other questions (like attitudes towards sex), you can explore yourself.  I don't think they actually asked about drug use for a few more year but they might have already been asking at this point--there are a lot of questions to explore and I've mainly just used this to look at religion, and generally use this to look at the last 20 years, not the last 40.  You can play around with this.  For example, you can put \"year(1973-1978);age(18-25)\" under \"Selection Filter(s)\" if you want to just get a picture of \"young adults\" in the mid seventies.  Or you can search through the questions for ones about other topics you're interested in.  But honestly, though this is slightly after you're interested in (1973 instead of 1970), it's maybe the best place to get an idea of \"how common\" something was in that era.","human_ref_B":"In Canada in 1970 it was quite common to see young people who were hippie like. It wasn't mainstream but certainly common place. After expo67,young canadians saw what the rest of the world had to offer and took to travelling abroad and embracing the lifestyle. Some of us continue it to this day,albeit with clean clothes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10158.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"1ajfpg","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"how common were young people who behaved in a stereotypically hippie like way (I.E travling, free love, drug taking) in 1970 America?","c_root_id_A":"c8y5u3t","c_root_id_B":"c8y5knz","created_at_utc_A":1363654455,"created_at_utc_B":1363653728,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"History isn't always great at telling you \"how common\" something was across a whole country.  There were some hippies, and there were some squares as well.  However, the General Social Survey started in 1972.  I'm not going to go through the whole question list now (there are thousands questions, but it's searchable--however, not every question was asked every year), but it's all publicly available.  It's meant to be downloaded and used with a statistics package (like R, SPSS, Stata, which makes doing more complex things possible), but there is an online thing where you can mess around with it for free with no experience needed in statistics.  Okay, so on the right side you want Row: to be the variable you're interested in, for Column: put \"age\" (so you can separate \"young people\" from \"old people\"), and for Selection Filter(s) put \"year(1973)\" (or any year you want after 1972).  Two good variables to start with (remember, just type these in to \"Row:\") are GRASS (\"Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?\") and ANTIWAR (\"Have you ever taken part in.... (c) An anti-war demonstration?\").  Since I assume many of the readers are lazy, here's .jpegs of the output for 1973 for those two questions.  **Probably about 15-20% of young people in 1973 had participated in an anti-war protest, but probably about 35-50% thought that marijuana should be legal** (notice there's a lot of random variation in the numbers because we're dealing with small sample sizes).  To get at other questions (like attitudes towards sex), you can explore yourself.  I don't think they actually asked about drug use for a few more year but they might have already been asking at this point--there are a lot of questions to explore and I've mainly just used this to look at religion, and generally use this to look at the last 20 years, not the last 40.  You can play around with this.  For example, you can put \"year(1973-1978);age(18-25)\" under \"Selection Filter(s)\" if you want to just get a picture of \"young adults\" in the mid seventies.  Or you can search through the questions for ones about other topics you're interested in.  But honestly, though this is slightly after you're interested in (1973 instead of 1970), it's maybe the best place to get an idea of \"how common\" something was in that era.","human_ref_B":"I'm curious as to *how* this would be answered.  What would you research?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":727.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
+{"post_id":"1ajfpg","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"how common were young people who behaved in a stereotypically hippie like way (I.E travling, free love, drug taking) in 1970 America?","c_root_id_A":"c8y5knz","c_root_id_B":"c8y2a4j","created_at_utc_A":1363653728,"created_at_utc_B":1363644297,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm curious as to *how* this would be answered.  What would you research?","human_ref_B":"In Canada in 1970 it was quite common to see young people who were hippie like. It wasn't mainstream but certainly common place. After expo67,young canadians saw what the rest of the world had to offer and took to travelling abroad and embracing the lifestyle. Some of us continue it to this day,albeit with clean clothes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9431.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp0tsx","c_root_id_B":"fmowh4r","created_at_utc_A":1586272239,"created_at_utc_B":1586269843,"score_A":19,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Doris Kearns Goodwin made a big splash with *Team of Rivals*, trying to peg Lincoln's political genius in part to his foresight in creating, well, the title for his cabinets. Was it that unique though? Looking at early American politics, that first decade or so seems to be as cantankerous a group as one could have, putting Hamilton and Jefferson together! Do you see Lincoln as really that unique and 'changing the mold' of what the cabinet looked like during the Early Republic, or was there a lot of clashing personalities in the early days too?","human_ref_B":"Hi! Thanks for coming here to answer our questions. Knowing nothing about the first cabinet, I have to ask - was there fierce competition to these positions, once they were created?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2396.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmowh4r","c_root_id_B":"fmp1mtp","created_at_utc_A":1586269843,"created_at_utc_B":1586272687,"score_A":9,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Hi! Thanks for coming here to answer our questions. Knowing nothing about the first cabinet, I have to ask - was there fierce competition to these positions, once they were created?","human_ref_B":"I'm sure a lot of AskHistorians readers are familiar with the idea \"Team of Rivals\" and the musical Hamilton's portrayal of Hamilton and Jefferson's disagreements. How did Washington handle intense disagreements within his cabinet and did he see these debates as a positive? Did it effect how often he sought advice from the cabinet as a collective versus individual conversations?  While I'm here- do you want to plug any of your digital work?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2844.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp1ip6","c_root_id_B":"fmowh4r","created_at_utc_A":1586272624,"created_at_utc_B":1586269843,"score_A":16,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"When Adams took over as president from Washington, did he keep the same cabinet structure? If so, did he keep any of Washington's cabinet members?","human_ref_B":"Hi! Thanks for coming here to answer our questions. Knowing nothing about the first cabinet, I have to ask - was there fierce competition to these positions, once they were created?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2781.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp4egk","c_root_id_B":"fmowh4r","created_at_utc_A":1586274225,"created_at_utc_B":1586269843,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"What were the Convention's grounds for rejecting the idea of a cabinet? As the Washington presidency progressed, did opponents continue to use these critiques, or did the opposition use different talking points over time?","human_ref_B":"Hi! Thanks for coming here to answer our questions. Knowing nothing about the first cabinet, I have to ask - was there fierce competition to these positions, once they were created?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4382.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp4egk","c_root_id_B":"fmp26qu","created_at_utc_A":1586274225,"created_at_utc_B":1586272999,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"What were the Convention's grounds for rejecting the idea of a cabinet? As the Washington presidency progressed, did opponents continue to use these critiques, or did the opposition use different talking points over time?","human_ref_B":"I was reading an old Yellow Fever article by Martin S. Pernick and he called Knox, \"Hamilton's tool\". I wonder what was their real relationship? And Knox's with Jefferson?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1226.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpc2k2","c_root_id_B":"fmowh4r","created_at_utc_A":1586278173,"created_at_utc_B":1586269843,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I understand Washington mostly leaned on Hamilton's policies and had a somewhat Federalist mindset\/policy, but was there anything Jefferson made strides in that Washington implemented into his policy that were directly counter-intuitive to Hamilton's goals?","human_ref_B":"Hi! Thanks for coming here to answer our questions. Knowing nothing about the first cabinet, I have to ask - was there fierce competition to these positions, once they were created?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8330.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpc2k2","c_root_id_B":"fmp26qu","created_at_utc_A":1586278173,"created_at_utc_B":1586272999,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I understand Washington mostly leaned on Hamilton's policies and had a somewhat Federalist mindset\/policy, but was there anything Jefferson made strides in that Washington implemented into his policy that were directly counter-intuitive to Hamilton's goals?","human_ref_B":"I was reading an old Yellow Fever article by Martin S. Pernick and he called Knox, \"Hamilton's tool\". I wonder what was their real relationship? And Knox's with Jefferson?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5174.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp8a7v","c_root_id_B":"fmpc2k2","created_at_utc_A":1586276274,"created_at_utc_B":1586278173,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Hello Dr, thank you greatly for this fascinating AMA! I had no idea the cabinet meetings were an evolution of Washington's council of war. Was there much inspiration from various European councils or cabinets, or was there a real push to purposely differentiate them?  Separately, did this mean the future cabinets had a very military feel to them? Or did that change relatively quickly?","human_ref_B":"I understand Washington mostly leaned on Hamilton's policies and had a somewhat Federalist mindset\/policy, but was there anything Jefferson made strides in that Washington implemented into his policy that were directly counter-intuitive to Hamilton's goals?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1899.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpc2k2","c_root_id_B":"fmp9xw2","created_at_utc_A":1586278173,"created_at_utc_B":1586277118,"score_A":10,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I understand Washington mostly leaned on Hamilton's policies and had a somewhat Federalist mindset\/policy, but was there anything Jefferson made strides in that Washington implemented into his policy that were directly counter-intuitive to Hamilton's goals?","human_ref_B":">\tThe U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea.  What was the convention\u2019s plan to handle the duties the cabinet wound up taking? Back then it certainly was a lot less than there is now\u2014seems like it was around five or so people\u2014but in writing the constitution, was the president expected to do *everything*?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1055.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp69cy","c_root_id_B":"fmpc2k2","created_at_utc_A":1586275214,"created_at_utc_B":1586278173,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Probably a far reaching question but as Washington noticed factions developing as a result of his cabinet members and their allies do you think he would have liked to take the Trump approach and just fire those with whom he couldn't work with or get on board with something? This wasn't the case but what do you think Washington would think of this strategy?","human_ref_B":"I understand Washington mostly leaned on Hamilton's policies and had a somewhat Federalist mindset\/policy, but was there anything Jefferson made strides in that Washington implemented into his policy that were directly counter-intuitive to Hamilton's goals?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2959.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp6f1l","c_root_id_B":"fmpc2k2","created_at_utc_A":1586275296,"created_at_utc_B":1586278173,"score_A":5,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"If it took Washington two and a half years to call his first cabinet meeting, how involved was he with each department before this? Was he in fairly frequent correspondence with his secretaries or was he mostly just a figurehead?","human_ref_B":"I understand Washington mostly leaned on Hamilton's policies and had a somewhat Federalist mindset\/policy, but was there anything Jefferson made strides in that Washington implemented into his policy that were directly counter-intuitive to Hamilton's goals?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2877.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpc2k2","c_root_id_B":"fmpawur","created_at_utc_A":1586278173,"created_at_utc_B":1586277604,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I understand Washington mostly leaned on Hamilton's policies and had a somewhat Federalist mindset\/policy, but was there anything Jefferson made strides in that Washington implemented into his policy that were directly counter-intuitive to Hamilton's goals?","human_ref_B":"What would you most like to tell us that no one ever asks about?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":569.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp69cy","c_root_id_B":"fmp8a7v","created_at_utc_A":1586275214,"created_at_utc_B":1586276274,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Probably a far reaching question but as Washington noticed factions developing as a result of his cabinet members and their allies do you think he would have liked to take the Trump approach and just fire those with whom he couldn't work with or get on board with something? This wasn't the case but what do you think Washington would think of this strategy?","human_ref_B":"Hello Dr, thank you greatly for this fascinating AMA! I had no idea the cabinet meetings were an evolution of Washington's council of war. Was there much inspiration from various European councils or cabinets, or was there a real push to purposely differentiate them?  Separately, did this mean the future cabinets had a very military feel to them? Or did that change relatively quickly?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1060.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp6f1l","c_root_id_B":"fmp8a7v","created_at_utc_A":1586275296,"created_at_utc_B":1586276274,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If it took Washington two and a half years to call his first cabinet meeting, how involved was he with each department before this? Was he in fairly frequent correspondence with his secretaries or was he mostly just a figurehead?","human_ref_B":"Hello Dr, thank you greatly for this fascinating AMA! I had no idea the cabinet meetings were an evolution of Washington's council of war. Was there much inspiration from various European councils or cabinets, or was there a real push to purposely differentiate them?  Separately, did this mean the future cabinets had a very military feel to them? Or did that change relatively quickly?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":978.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp69cy","c_root_id_B":"fmp9xw2","created_at_utc_A":1586275214,"created_at_utc_B":1586277118,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Probably a far reaching question but as Washington noticed factions developing as a result of his cabinet members and their allies do you think he would have liked to take the Trump approach and just fire those with whom he couldn't work with or get on board with something? This wasn't the case but what do you think Washington would think of this strategy?","human_ref_B":">\tThe U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea.  What was the convention\u2019s plan to handle the duties the cabinet wound up taking? Back then it certainly was a lot less than there is now\u2014seems like it was around five or so people\u2014but in writing the constitution, was the president expected to do *everything*?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1904.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp9xw2","c_root_id_B":"fmp6f1l","created_at_utc_A":1586277118,"created_at_utc_B":1586275296,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">\tThe U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea.  What was the convention\u2019s plan to handle the duties the cabinet wound up taking? Back then it certainly was a lot less than there is now\u2014seems like it was around five or so people\u2014but in writing the constitution, was the president expected to do *everything*?","human_ref_B":"If it took Washington two and a half years to call his first cabinet meeting, how involved was he with each department before this? Was he in fairly frequent correspondence with his secretaries or was he mostly just a figurehead?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1822.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp69cy","c_root_id_B":"fmpetnc","created_at_utc_A":1586275214,"created_at_utc_B":1586279568,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Probably a far reaching question but as Washington noticed factions developing as a result of his cabinet members and their allies do you think he would have liked to take the Trump approach and just fire those with whom he couldn't work with or get on board with something? This wasn't the case but what do you think Washington would think of this strategy?","human_ref_B":"What was the relationship between Washington and his VP Adams really like? Given that the Cabinet seems to have been more important to Washington in terms of seeking advice, was he personally disinclined to ask Adams for his opinion? Or did he view the VP office as effectively non-executive due to the Senate President title?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4354.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpetnc","c_root_id_B":"fmp6f1l","created_at_utc_A":1586279568,"created_at_utc_B":1586275296,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What was the relationship between Washington and his VP Adams really like? Given that the Cabinet seems to have been more important to Washington in terms of seeking advice, was he personally disinclined to ask Adams for his opinion? Or did he view the VP office as effectively non-executive due to the Senate President title?","human_ref_B":"If it took Washington two and a half years to call his first cabinet meeting, how involved was he with each department before this? Was he in fairly frequent correspondence with his secretaries or was he mostly just a figurehead?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4272.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpetnc","c_root_id_B":"fmpawur","created_at_utc_A":1586279568,"created_at_utc_B":1586277604,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What was the relationship between Washington and his VP Adams really like? Given that the Cabinet seems to have been more important to Washington in terms of seeking advice, was he personally disinclined to ask Adams for his opinion? Or did he view the VP office as effectively non-executive due to the Senate President title?","human_ref_B":"What would you most like to tell us that no one ever asks about?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1964.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmp6f1l","c_root_id_B":"fmp69cy","created_at_utc_A":1586275296,"created_at_utc_B":1586275214,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If it took Washington two and a half years to call his first cabinet meeting, how involved was he with each department before this? Was he in fairly frequent correspondence with his secretaries or was he mostly just a figurehead?","human_ref_B":"Probably a far reaching question but as Washington noticed factions developing as a result of his cabinet members and their allies do you think he would have liked to take the Trump approach and just fire those with whom he couldn't work with or get on board with something? This wasn't the case but what do you think Washington would think of this strategy?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":82.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpf25c","c_root_id_B":"fmpgm3m","created_at_utc_A":1586279688,"created_at_utc_B":1586280475,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The cabinet has grown over the years. What serves as the impetus for a president to add a department to the Cabinet? Obviously 9\/11 and DHS is an extenuating circumstance, but I remember Obama wanted to add the SBA to the cabinet. How often and why does something like that happen?","human_ref_B":"In high school history class, I\u2019m sure a lot of us heard about Andrew Jackson\u2019s informal \u201ckitchen cabinet,\u201d which was just a bunch of advisors without portfolio, which doesn\u2019t sound that different from the original Cabinet, minus the without portfolio bit. Even through to today we hear a lot about informal advisors who have a great deal of influence with a President.  What in between Washington and Jackson caused the transition to having an \u201cofficial\u201d Cabinet and an informal one that sounds pretty similar to the original idea of the Cabinet as Washington envisioned it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":787.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpf3wl","c_root_id_B":"fmpgm3m","created_at_utc_A":1586279714,"created_at_utc_B":1586280475,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Thanks for doing this! Washington is often said to have opposed party politics but didn\u2019t he act as a de facto party leader, opposed by Jefferson and Madison? Did American voters (fond of Washington) identify as Federalist or can the term not be applied to the masses?","human_ref_B":"In high school history class, I\u2019m sure a lot of us heard about Andrew Jackson\u2019s informal \u201ckitchen cabinet,\u201d which was just a bunch of advisors without portfolio, which doesn\u2019t sound that different from the original Cabinet, minus the without portfolio bit. Even through to today we hear a lot about informal advisors who have a great deal of influence with a President.  What in between Washington and Jackson caused the transition to having an \u201cofficial\u201d Cabinet and an informal one that sounds pretty similar to the original idea of the Cabinet as Washington envisioned it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":761.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpf25c","c_root_id_B":"fmpk5rx","created_at_utc_A":1586279688,"created_at_utc_B":1586282280,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The cabinet has grown over the years. What serves as the impetus for a president to add a department to the Cabinet? Obviously 9\/11 and DHS is an extenuating circumstance, but I remember Obama wanted to add the SBA to the cabinet. How often and why does something like that happen?","human_ref_B":"What was your favorite source found during your research?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2592.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"fwl1wm","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Where does the president's cabinet come from? I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, here to discuss my new book 'The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution' and early Presidential history, AMA!  **The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet\u2014the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?**  On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries\u2014Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph\u2014for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.  Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges\u2014and finding congressional help lacking\u2014Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president\u2019s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.  *The Cabinet* reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington\u2019s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.","c_root_id_A":"fmpk5rx","c_root_id_B":"fmpf3wl","created_at_utc_A":1586282280,"created_at_utc_B":1586279714,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What was your favorite source found during your research?","human_ref_B":"Thanks for doing this! Washington is often said to have opposed party politics but didn\u2019t he act as a de facto party leader, opposed by Jefferson and Madison? Did American voters (fond of Washington) identify as Federalist or can the term not be applied to the masses?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2566.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
+{"post_id":"a0fg7a","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"After playing a ton of Red Dead Redemption, I began to wonder; how often did \"outlaws\" in the \"Wild West\" commit murder without being caught or, more specifically, without being identified?","c_root_id_A":"eai0iit","c_root_id_B":"eai9p86","created_at_utc_A":1543238690,"created_at_utc_B":1543247478,"score_A":328,"score_B":788,"human_ref_A":"\"Mr Elm11, In your four years as AskHistorians moderator, how many comments have you removed?\"   \"Removed, or killed?\"   \"Let us restrict it to killed so that we may have a manageable figure.\"  Alrghty folks, y'all know the drill. Or, well, most of you. And these parts don't take too kindly to slow learners, for y'all who are new in town. To make it out here on \/r\/AskHistorians, you've gotta be tough. You've gotta be the best of the best. You'll be dusting up with sources, shooting it out with citations.  You'll be doing... tbh you'll be doing a whole bunch of stuff a lot less cool than actual Red Dead Redemption stuff 'cause as awesome as history is I'll never be Clint Eastwood or John Wayne ~~except the alcoholism~~.    Good answers take time to arrive, folks. Please be patient and respect that a volunteer is giving up their expertise and hours of their day to educate y'all for free out of the goodness of their heart. Answers here are a privilege, not an entitlement. Popular questions [almost always get one](\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/7s66yf\/a_statistical_look_at_askhistorians_in_2017_part_i\/), and we don't tolerate commentors who whinge or shitpost about removed comments and create the very problem they're griping about. Consider yourselves warned.   In the meantime, save the thread or ask the RemindMe Bot to check on it in 24 hours. Sit back, relax, and go back to playing video-games while you wait.","human_ref_B":"So there are two answers to this, of a sort. The first is that the idea of violence in the American West is very different in reality than it is as portrayed in popular media. I've written elsewhere about the most popular visual representation of this, the 'duel at high noon', which is almost entirely absent from the historical record despite being the climactic showdown of countless dime novels and films, but looking more broadly too, while that isn't to say the West *wasn't* violent, it certainly wasn't lawless. Historiography since the 1970s or so has mostly pushed back against the idea of the \"Wild, Wild West\", even if the public mind hasn't, and continues to relish the image.   In any case though, body counts get exaggerated in the retelling, and that is assuming the best of intentions. Much of Dodge City's infamous reputation was created from whole cloth by Stuart Lake who did a supposedly \"as-told-to\" autiobiography of Wyatt Earp which quotes liberally from primary sources that never existed to describe dozens of deaths that never happened, while in reality its \"wild days\" were limited to the first year or so of settlement. Similarly Montana Territory was claimed to have over 100 murders by the editor Thomas Dimsdale, but the reality is often much duller. Scholarly assessment of the period substantiates eight in that time frame. Similarly, take a place such as Deadwood, a well known locale for its lack of any actual law enforcement during its initial settlement and most famously represented in the show of the same name... which only experienced 4 murders in that first year of settlement-without-law enforcement - possibly less than a single episode of the show, although it has been ages since I watched it. Returning to Dodge city though, when one year the city experienced a total of 5 murders, this was heralded as a \"civic disaster\", the highest total the city experienced aside from its first year of habitation in 1872 when the entirety of its wild reputation was earned, with slightly over a dozen homicides of all types (murder, self-defense, manslaughter).  Now to be sure, looking at raw numbers tells only half the tale, and it is homicide rates can tell us another side. 5 deaths in a population of 600 is a much bigger deal than a population of 6 million, after all, but as they say, it is pretty easy to lie with statistics. If I told you that the homicide rate in Dodge City was 100.4 per 100,000 (the US was 5.3 per 100,000 in 2016 for comparison) in 1880, that would seem shocking... but if I told you a single person was murdered that year, it would seem considerably less so! The population that year was only 996, and the death of Henry Heck at the hands of John Gill was the sole difference between a murder rate of 0 and 100. This is quite important in understanding how murder was viewed in the period, as the difference in *rates* seems high, but was likely quite unconcerning to the population when it was a difference of only one, two, or maybe three people.  Now to be sure, this doesn't exactly answer your question, but I preface all of this to say that when we are talking about murder in the American West, we're talking about very small numbers. A sheriff in many towns might never even have to draw his gun in his career, and even in a \"violent\" place like Dodge City, the coroner was being called out a few times per year. Lawmen would be much more likely to be hunting down horse thieves and cattle rustlers, which happened at a great deal high rate. Dykstra's \"Quantifying the Wild West\" and \"To Live and Die in Dodge City\" are both useful for a good deal more statistical analysis stuff, which is interesting, but not what we need to dive into here.  Now, let us say that someone has been murdered. The location isn't terribly important, but let's follow the case of Lincoln County, Nebraska as that is what I have sources on, although this is really quite equally applicable to most settled areas, lawmen and legal systems being present and generally followed in any town or city of any noticeable size.   Anyways, for starters, often the sheriff or his deputies needed to do next to nothing when someone was killed, not because of the evidence, but because they would turn themselves in. Claims of justification or self-defense were fairly common, the law about it permissive, and assuming prosecutors even thought to go through with it, juries were not unsympathetic. In the strange perspective of the West, murder wasn't even seen as the worst crime - horse thieves often enjoyed worse sentences - and *how* one dealt with the killing, presenting their actions as honorable and correct, could go a long way. Will Hale, for instance, murdered several people in 1870s Texas, the first a man who hat been cheating at cards, and then following that his brothers when they attempted to exact their revenge. The first killing was likely unjustified by the law, but prosecutors didn't feel it worth going after, and the latter ones were considered self-defense so given a pass as well.  Especially if there were no witnesses, a homicide committed in private could be presented as the killer was able to justify it, but even with several, if the victim 'had it coming' prosecutorial discretion would often let it slide and leave many murders unindicted. Only a total of four murders in Lincoln County during the 1870-1900 period actually proved to require real investigation by law enforcement, lacking witnesses to name a suspect, and these perhaps speak to the core of your question here.  The most interesting case is that of the murder of Kate Manning, killed at her land claim in 1871, a very clear execution by single gunshot. A sheriff and deputy were called and found footprints which they took plaster molds of. Comparison with suspects showed that her own brother, Peter, matched due to a deformity of the foot and he was brought to trial. What is important here is that he was found not guilty. Maintaining his innocence, we can easily presume that the jury didn't find a brother visiting his sister to be compelling enough evidence to go beyond 'reasonable doubt', although my efforts to find the trial documents for State v. Manning failed so we can't say for certain (Records are here just presumably not digitized). In 1871, Loyal Bly was found murdered but a lack of an clues at the scene meant there was nothing to go on. A more successful case, regarding the death of a cowboy, was solved when the murderer turned out to be a fellow cowboy he had worked with and not gotten along with.  To in short there, how would you get away with murder in the \"Wild West\"? Don't have any witnesses, and don't be the person with the most motive. Circumstantial evidence could, at least in the case of Manning, be explained away, and if there was nothing at the scene of the crime at all, it would likely be a dead end for investigation, especially lacking modern forensics. Lacking clues the only real avenue was checking to see \"Who might have wanted them dead?\" and if you weren't that person, you probably could get away with it scott free.   A side note of course can be made here, namely that the courts themselves and the court of public opinion were different beasts. Attempts to lynch suspects before trials were not unheard of, especially if the victim was popular, young, or female. Manning was nearly subjected to one for instance, and it was common to move the venue of a trial, both for the safety of the accused lest a mob conspire to take him, and also to ensure a more impartial jury. So in any case, the point here is that even if you might be \"Not Guilty\" by standards of the court, being caught at all could have its dangers no matter your confidence in acquittal. But the larger picture, really, should be that murders weren't that common, and real \"Who Dunnits\" were quite few and far between.  **Sources**  Dykstra, Robert R. \"Quantifying the Wild West: The Problematic Statistics of Frontier Violence\" *Western Historical Quarterly* 40 (Autumn 2009): 321-347  -- \"To Live and Die in Dodge City: Body Counts, Law and Order, and the Case of Kansas v. Gill\". in *Lethal Imagination: Violence and Brutality in American History*, edited by Michael Bellesiles. NYU Press, 1999.  Ellis, Mark R.. *Law and Order in Buffalo Bill's Country: Legal Culture and Community on the Great Plains, 1867-1910.* University of Nebraska Press, 2007.   Moore, Jacqueline. \"\u201cThem's Fighting Words\u201d: Violence, Masculinity, and the Texas Cowboy in the Late Nineteenth Century\" *The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era* 13:1 (Jan. 2014) 28-55  Slotkin, Richard. *Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America* (New York, 1992): *An incredible work which looks at the myth of the American West and how it hs been perpetuated and reshaped through the generations relative to what is going on *then*.  Udall S., Dykstra R.,  Bellesiles M., Marks P., Nobles G., \"How the West Got Wild: American Media and Frontier Violence - A Roundtable\" *Western Historical Quarterly* 31:3, 2000. 277-295","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8788.0,"score_ratio":2.4024390244}
+{"post_id":"a0fg7a","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"After playing a ton of Red Dead Redemption, I began to wonder; how often did \"outlaws\" in the \"Wild West\" commit murder without being caught or, more specifically, without being identified?","c_root_id_A":"eahteqk","c_root_id_B":"eai9p86","created_at_utc_A":1543225627,"created_at_utc_B":1543247478,"score_A":262,"score_B":788,"human_ref_A":"Follow on question: How often did rural sheriff's carry out capital sentences with no courts\/appeals?","human_ref_B":"So there are two answers to this, of a sort. The first is that the idea of violence in the American West is very different in reality than it is as portrayed in popular media. I've written elsewhere about the most popular visual representation of this, the 'duel at high noon', which is almost entirely absent from the historical record despite being the climactic showdown of countless dime novels and films, but looking more broadly too, while that isn't to say the West *wasn't* violent, it certainly wasn't lawless. Historiography since the 1970s or so has mostly pushed back against the idea of the \"Wild, Wild West\", even if the public mind hasn't, and continues to relish the image.   In any case though, body counts get exaggerated in the retelling, and that is assuming the best of intentions. Much of Dodge City's infamous reputation was created from whole cloth by Stuart Lake who did a supposedly \"as-told-to\" autiobiography of Wyatt Earp which quotes liberally from primary sources that never existed to describe dozens of deaths that never happened, while in reality its \"wild days\" were limited to the first year or so of settlement. Similarly Montana Territory was claimed to have over 100 murders by the editor Thomas Dimsdale, but the reality is often much duller. Scholarly assessment of the period substantiates eight in that time frame. Similarly, take a place such as Deadwood, a well known locale for its lack of any actual law enforcement during its initial settlement and most famously represented in the show of the same name... which only experienced 4 murders in that first year of settlement-without-law enforcement - possibly less than a single episode of the show, although it has been ages since I watched it. Returning to Dodge city though, when one year the city experienced a total of 5 murders, this was heralded as a \"civic disaster\", the highest total the city experienced aside from its first year of habitation in 1872 when the entirety of its wild reputation was earned, with slightly over a dozen homicides of all types (murder, self-defense, manslaughter).  Now to be sure, looking at raw numbers tells only half the tale, and it is homicide rates can tell us another side. 5 deaths in a population of 600 is a much bigger deal than a population of 6 million, after all, but as they say, it is pretty easy to lie with statistics. If I told you that the homicide rate in Dodge City was 100.4 per 100,000 (the US was 5.3 per 100,000 in 2016 for comparison) in 1880, that would seem shocking... but if I told you a single person was murdered that year, it would seem considerably less so! The population that year was only 996, and the death of Henry Heck at the hands of John Gill was the sole difference between a murder rate of 0 and 100. This is quite important in understanding how murder was viewed in the period, as the difference in *rates* seems high, but was likely quite unconcerning to the population when it was a difference of only one, two, or maybe three people.  Now to be sure, this doesn't exactly answer your question, but I preface all of this to say that when we are talking about murder in the American West, we're talking about very small numbers. A sheriff in many towns might never even have to draw his gun in his career, and even in a \"violent\" place like Dodge City, the coroner was being called out a few times per year. Lawmen would be much more likely to be hunting down horse thieves and cattle rustlers, which happened at a great deal high rate. Dykstra's \"Quantifying the Wild West\" and \"To Live and Die in Dodge City\" are both useful for a good deal more statistical analysis stuff, which is interesting, but not what we need to dive into here.  Now, let us say that someone has been murdered. The location isn't terribly important, but let's follow the case of Lincoln County, Nebraska as that is what I have sources on, although this is really quite equally applicable to most settled areas, lawmen and legal systems being present and generally followed in any town or city of any noticeable size.   Anyways, for starters, often the sheriff or his deputies needed to do next to nothing when someone was killed, not because of the evidence, but because they would turn themselves in. Claims of justification or self-defense were fairly common, the law about it permissive, and assuming prosecutors even thought to go through with it, juries were not unsympathetic. In the strange perspective of the West, murder wasn't even seen as the worst crime - horse thieves often enjoyed worse sentences - and *how* one dealt with the killing, presenting their actions as honorable and correct, could go a long way. Will Hale, for instance, murdered several people in 1870s Texas, the first a man who hat been cheating at cards, and then following that his brothers when they attempted to exact their revenge. The first killing was likely unjustified by the law, but prosecutors didn't feel it worth going after, and the latter ones were considered self-defense so given a pass as well.  Especially if there were no witnesses, a homicide committed in private could be presented as the killer was able to justify it, but even with several, if the victim 'had it coming' prosecutorial discretion would often let it slide and leave many murders unindicted. Only a total of four murders in Lincoln County during the 1870-1900 period actually proved to require real investigation by law enforcement, lacking witnesses to name a suspect, and these perhaps speak to the core of your question here.  The most interesting case is that of the murder of Kate Manning, killed at her land claim in 1871, a very clear execution by single gunshot. A sheriff and deputy were called and found footprints which they took plaster molds of. Comparison with suspects showed that her own brother, Peter, matched due to a deformity of the foot and he was brought to trial. What is important here is that he was found not guilty. Maintaining his innocence, we can easily presume that the jury didn't find a brother visiting his sister to be compelling enough evidence to go beyond 'reasonable doubt', although my efforts to find the trial documents for State v. Manning failed so we can't say for certain (Records are here just presumably not digitized). In 1871, Loyal Bly was found murdered but a lack of an clues at the scene meant there was nothing to go on. A more successful case, regarding the death of a cowboy, was solved when the murderer turned out to be a fellow cowboy he had worked with and not gotten along with.  To in short there, how would you get away with murder in the \"Wild West\"? Don't have any witnesses, and don't be the person with the most motive. Circumstantial evidence could, at least in the case of Manning, be explained away, and if there was nothing at the scene of the crime at all, it would likely be a dead end for investigation, especially lacking modern forensics. Lacking clues the only real avenue was checking to see \"Who might have wanted them dead?\" and if you weren't that person, you probably could get away with it scott free.   A side note of course can be made here, namely that the courts themselves and the court of public opinion were different beasts. Attempts to lynch suspects before trials were not unheard of, especially if the victim was popular, young, or female. Manning was nearly subjected to one for instance, and it was common to move the venue of a trial, both for the safety of the accused lest a mob conspire to take him, and also to ensure a more impartial jury. So in any case, the point here is that even if you might be \"Not Guilty\" by standards of the court, being caught at all could have its dangers no matter your confidence in acquittal. But the larger picture, really, should be that murders weren't that common, and real \"Who Dunnits\" were quite few and far between.  **Sources**  Dykstra, Robert R. \"Quantifying the Wild West: The Problematic Statistics of Frontier Violence\" *Western Historical Quarterly* 40 (Autumn 2009): 321-347  -- \"To Live and Die in Dodge City: Body Counts, Law and Order, and the Case of Kansas v. Gill\". in *Lethal Imagination: Violence and Brutality in American History*, edited by Michael Bellesiles. NYU Press, 1999.  Ellis, Mark R.. *Law and Order in Buffalo Bill's Country: Legal Culture and Community on the Great Plains, 1867-1910.* University of Nebraska Press, 2007.   Moore, Jacqueline. \"\u201cThem's Fighting Words\u201d: Violence, Masculinity, and the Texas Cowboy in the Late Nineteenth Century\" *The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era* 13:1 (Jan. 2014) 28-55  Slotkin, Richard. *Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America* (New York, 1992): *An incredible work which looks at the myth of the American West and how it hs been perpetuated and reshaped through the generations relative to what is going on *then*.  Udall S., Dykstra R.,  Bellesiles M., Marks P., Nobles G., \"How the West Got Wild: American Media and Frontier Violence - A Roundtable\" *Western Historical Quarterly* 31:3, 2000. 277-295","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21851.0,"score_ratio":3.0076335878}
+{"post_id":"a0fg7a","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"After playing a ton of Red Dead Redemption, I began to wonder; how often did \"outlaws\" in the \"Wild West\" commit murder without being caught or, more specifically, without being identified?","c_root_id_A":"eahteqk","c_root_id_B":"eai0iit","created_at_utc_A":1543225627,"created_at_utc_B":1543238690,"score_A":262,"score_B":328,"human_ref_A":"Follow on question: How often did rural sheriff's carry out capital sentences with no courts\/appeals?","human_ref_B":"\"Mr Elm11, In your four years as AskHistorians moderator, how many comments have you removed?\"   \"Removed, or killed?\"   \"Let us restrict it to killed so that we may have a manageable figure.\"  Alrghty folks, y'all know the drill. Or, well, most of you. And these parts don't take too kindly to slow learners, for y'all who are new in town. To make it out here on \/r\/AskHistorians, you've gotta be tough. You've gotta be the best of the best. You'll be dusting up with sources, shooting it out with citations.  You'll be doing... tbh you'll be doing a whole bunch of stuff a lot less cool than actual Red Dead Redemption stuff 'cause as awesome as history is I'll never be Clint Eastwood or John Wayne ~~except the alcoholism~~.    Good answers take time to arrive, folks. Please be patient and respect that a volunteer is giving up their expertise and hours of their day to educate y'all for free out of the goodness of their heart. Answers here are a privilege, not an entitlement. Popular questions [almost always get one](\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/7s66yf\/a_statistical_look_at_askhistorians_in_2017_part_i\/), and we don't tolerate commentors who whinge or shitpost about removed comments and create the very problem they're griping about. Consider yourselves warned.   In the meantime, save the thread or ask the RemindMe Bot to check on it in 24 hours. Sit back, relax, and go back to playing video-games while you wait.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13063.0,"score_ratio":1.2519083969}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd83odk","c_root_id_B":"cd83gnz","created_at_utc_A":1383754607,"created_at_utc_B":1383754082,"score_A":196,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"Hooray!  this is something I can answer.  Partially...  In Europe, it was still clocks, belltower clocks.  The reason that there were so many belltowers in cities hundreds of years ago was that you couldn't afford a clock and you still needed to be places at a certain time, work, meetings social arrangements, exact time was becoming an issue, so you had clocks with bells on them, directing the pace of the cities.  At the more significant times, often more bells would ring.  Bells would stay silent during general sleeping hours.  Source: Boorstien's The Discoverers.  The other big answer, when exact time was less important was sunlight.  Leave your shutters, blinds, and curtains open.  Check when you wake up.  Blue spectrum shifted light occurs around sunrise and sunset, and wakes you up, this is why you may feel a bit drowsy at noon.  This is still effective in blind individuals, but not in individuals that have lost their eyes.  Source:  I am a diagnosed insomniac, and have done a lot of research into this matter.  It should be relatively easy to look up.","human_ref_B":"This is a very specific example that pertains only Muslims during Ramadan, but is an example of a professional acting as an alarm-clock for a whole neighborhood (and they still exist in some parts of the Islamic World today).   During Ramadan, Muslims are required to fast from sunrise to sundown, or more specifically, from the prayer at sunrise to the prayer at sunset  (I feel the need to clarify this because for many Muslim expats now, particularly in far-northern countries like Scotland, the dawn prayer can be standardized if Ramadan falls during a time that makes its schedule very, very different, especially in places where the sun never *really* sets)   Sorry for that long-winded clarification. Anyway, to help Muslims get up before the morning prayer in time to eat the morning meal Suhuur (\u0633\u062d\u0648\u0631) the Musaharati roughly meaning the Suhuur-announcer (but really just an active participle of the word Suhuur) would go through the streets of Muslim neighborhoods banging on a drum and yelling to the community various messages, during the first few days of Ramadan one such yell was \"Awake, oh faster and praise Allah. Welcome to you Ramadan, month of forgiveness.\"   The Musaharati has disappeared from some communities today unfortunately replaced by alarm-clocks, although apparently in Mecca his role has been taken over by a cannon, which I find quite cool.   Though it does get to your Q OP of how people could get up without a modern alarm clock for something as vital as a pre-fast meal, if you missed it, no food till Iftar after sundown. And considering that Suhuur traditionally takes place at 2am, I find a man yelling out my name (though apparently this was only done for the boys\/men in the community) would be very helpful.   Some reading about Musaharati: http:\/\/www.saudigazette.com.sa\/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=2009082848103  http:\/\/www.touregypt.net\/featurestories\/misaharaty.htm  Also, if this has you at all interested here is a clip from the Egyptian singer Sayed Mekawy who created a character of the Musaharati which was wildly popular at the time and can still be seen during Ramadan http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=I8w_Awta-6M","labels":1,"seconds_difference":525.0,"score_ratio":2.2790697674}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd83odk","c_root_id_B":"cd831se","created_at_utc_A":1383754607,"created_at_utc_B":1383753050,"score_A":196,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"Hooray!  this is something I can answer.  Partially...  In Europe, it was still clocks, belltower clocks.  The reason that there were so many belltowers in cities hundreds of years ago was that you couldn't afford a clock and you still needed to be places at a certain time, work, meetings social arrangements, exact time was becoming an issue, so you had clocks with bells on them, directing the pace of the cities.  At the more significant times, often more bells would ring.  Bells would stay silent during general sleeping hours.  Source: Boorstien's The Discoverers.  The other big answer, when exact time was less important was sunlight.  Leave your shutters, blinds, and curtains open.  Check when you wake up.  Blue spectrum shifted light occurs around sunrise and sunset, and wakes you up, this is why you may feel a bit drowsy at noon.  This is still effective in blind individuals, but not in individuals that have lost their eyes.  Source:  I am a diagnosed insomniac, and have done a lot of research into this matter.  It should be relatively easy to look up.","human_ref_B":"Is there any historical basis for the notion that native North Americans would drink an amount of water before going to bed sufficient to make sure they had to urinate at roughly the time they needed to get up?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1557.0,"score_ratio":6.5333333333}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd83odk","c_root_id_B":"cd822da","created_at_utc_A":1383754607,"created_at_utc_B":1383750544,"score_A":196,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Hooray!  this is something I can answer.  Partially...  In Europe, it was still clocks, belltower clocks.  The reason that there were so many belltowers in cities hundreds of years ago was that you couldn't afford a clock and you still needed to be places at a certain time, work, meetings social arrangements, exact time was becoming an issue, so you had clocks with bells on them, directing the pace of the cities.  At the more significant times, often more bells would ring.  Bells would stay silent during general sleeping hours.  Source: Boorstien's The Discoverers.  The other big answer, when exact time was less important was sunlight.  Leave your shutters, blinds, and curtains open.  Check when you wake up.  Blue spectrum shifted light occurs around sunrise and sunset, and wakes you up, this is why you may feel a bit drowsy at noon.  This is still effective in blind individuals, but not in individuals that have lost their eyes.  Source:  I am a diagnosed insomniac, and have done a lot of research into this matter.  It should be relatively easy to look up.","human_ref_B":"see this thread from a while ago: http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskReddit\/comments\/18o28r\/how_did_people_wake_up_at_designated_times_before\/  The most insightful comment for me was that there used to be profession called *knocker-up*, a person who would wake people up for a living. See here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4063.0,"score_ratio":8.1666666667}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd83gnz","c_root_id_B":"cd831se","created_at_utc_A":1383754082,"created_at_utc_B":1383753050,"score_A":86,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"This is a very specific example that pertains only Muslims during Ramadan, but is an example of a professional acting as an alarm-clock for a whole neighborhood (and they still exist in some parts of the Islamic World today).   During Ramadan, Muslims are required to fast from sunrise to sundown, or more specifically, from the prayer at sunrise to the prayer at sunset  (I feel the need to clarify this because for many Muslim expats now, particularly in far-northern countries like Scotland, the dawn prayer can be standardized if Ramadan falls during a time that makes its schedule very, very different, especially in places where the sun never *really* sets)   Sorry for that long-winded clarification. Anyway, to help Muslims get up before the morning prayer in time to eat the morning meal Suhuur (\u0633\u062d\u0648\u0631) the Musaharati roughly meaning the Suhuur-announcer (but really just an active participle of the word Suhuur) would go through the streets of Muslim neighborhoods banging on a drum and yelling to the community various messages, during the first few days of Ramadan one such yell was \"Awake, oh faster and praise Allah. Welcome to you Ramadan, month of forgiveness.\"   The Musaharati has disappeared from some communities today unfortunately replaced by alarm-clocks, although apparently in Mecca his role has been taken over by a cannon, which I find quite cool.   Though it does get to your Q OP of how people could get up without a modern alarm clock for something as vital as a pre-fast meal, if you missed it, no food till Iftar after sundown. And considering that Suhuur traditionally takes place at 2am, I find a man yelling out my name (though apparently this was only done for the boys\/men in the community) would be very helpful.   Some reading about Musaharati: http:\/\/www.saudigazette.com.sa\/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=2009082848103  http:\/\/www.touregypt.net\/featurestories\/misaharaty.htm  Also, if this has you at all interested here is a clip from the Egyptian singer Sayed Mekawy who created a character of the Musaharati which was wildly popular at the time and can still be seen during Ramadan http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=I8w_Awta-6M","human_ref_B":"Is there any historical basis for the notion that native North Americans would drink an amount of water before going to bed sufficient to make sure they had to urinate at roughly the time they needed to get up?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1032.0,"score_ratio":2.8666666667}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd822da","c_root_id_B":"cd83gnz","created_at_utc_A":1383750544,"created_at_utc_B":1383754082,"score_A":24,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"see this thread from a while ago: http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskReddit\/comments\/18o28r\/how_did_people_wake_up_at_designated_times_before\/  The most insightful comment for me was that there used to be profession called *knocker-up*, a person who would wake people up for a living. See here.","human_ref_B":"This is a very specific example that pertains only Muslims during Ramadan, but is an example of a professional acting as an alarm-clock for a whole neighborhood (and they still exist in some parts of the Islamic World today).   During Ramadan, Muslims are required to fast from sunrise to sundown, or more specifically, from the prayer at sunrise to the prayer at sunset  (I feel the need to clarify this because for many Muslim expats now, particularly in far-northern countries like Scotland, the dawn prayer can be standardized if Ramadan falls during a time that makes its schedule very, very different, especially in places where the sun never *really* sets)   Sorry for that long-winded clarification. Anyway, to help Muslims get up before the morning prayer in time to eat the morning meal Suhuur (\u0633\u062d\u0648\u0631) the Musaharati roughly meaning the Suhuur-announcer (but really just an active participle of the word Suhuur) would go through the streets of Muslim neighborhoods banging on a drum and yelling to the community various messages, during the first few days of Ramadan one such yell was \"Awake, oh faster and praise Allah. Welcome to you Ramadan, month of forgiveness.\"   The Musaharati has disappeared from some communities today unfortunately replaced by alarm-clocks, although apparently in Mecca his role has been taken over by a cannon, which I find quite cool.   Though it does get to your Q OP of how people could get up without a modern alarm clock for something as vital as a pre-fast meal, if you missed it, no food till Iftar after sundown. And considering that Suhuur traditionally takes place at 2am, I find a man yelling out my name (though apparently this was only done for the boys\/men in the community) would be very helpful.   Some reading about Musaharati: http:\/\/www.saudigazette.com.sa\/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=2009082848103  http:\/\/www.touregypt.net\/featurestories\/misaharaty.htm  Also, if this has you at all interested here is a clip from the Egyptian singer Sayed Mekawy who created a character of the Musaharati which was wildly popular at the time and can still be seen during Ramadan http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=I8w_Awta-6M","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3538.0,"score_ratio":3.5833333333}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd831se","c_root_id_B":"cd83wg2","created_at_utc_A":1383753050,"created_at_utc_B":1383755143,"score_A":30,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"Is there any historical basis for the notion that native North Americans would drink an amount of water before going to bed sufficient to make sure they had to urinate at roughly the time they needed to get up?","human_ref_B":"To the OP, you may find this section of our Popular Questions page interesting (note there's nothing wrong with re-asking).  To everyone rushing in to share their assumptions, guesses, speculation and personal anecdotes: You are in AskHistorians. All answers are expected to be *historical*, in-depth, comprehensive and able to be backed by authoritative sources (though you don't need to provide those unless asked), as laid out in our rules. Such answers as break the rules will be deleted. This also answers the perennial question of \"what happened here?\"  Thank you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2093.0,"score_ratio":1.3}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd83wg2","c_root_id_B":"cd822da","created_at_utc_A":1383755143,"created_at_utc_B":1383750544,"score_A":39,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"To the OP, you may find this section of our Popular Questions page interesting (note there's nothing wrong with re-asking).  To everyone rushing in to share their assumptions, guesses, speculation and personal anecdotes: You are in AskHistorians. All answers are expected to be *historical*, in-depth, comprehensive and able to be backed by authoritative sources (though you don't need to provide those unless asked), as laid out in our rules. Such answers as break the rules will be deleted. This also answers the perennial question of \"what happened here?\"  Thank you.","human_ref_B":"see this thread from a while ago: http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskReddit\/comments\/18o28r\/how_did_people_wake_up_at_designated_times_before\/  The most insightful comment for me was that there used to be profession called *knocker-up*, a person who would wake people up for a living. See here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4599.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
+{"post_id":"1q0vi2","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"How did people wake up at set times before the modern day alarm clock?","c_root_id_A":"cd831se","c_root_id_B":"cd822da","created_at_utc_A":1383753050,"created_at_utc_B":1383750544,"score_A":30,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Is there any historical basis for the notion that native North Americans would drink an amount of water before going to bed sufficient to make sure they had to urinate at roughly the time they needed to get up?","human_ref_B":"see this thread from a while ago: http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskReddit\/comments\/18o28r\/how_did_people_wake_up_at_designated_times_before\/  The most insightful comment for me was that there used to be profession called *knocker-up*, a person who would wake people up for a living. See here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2506.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
+{"post_id":"i4fpz9","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Victorians were prude by today's standards, yet victorian painters always seemed able to find women willing to pose nude, whether they were in Europe, America, or overseas in Arab-dominated countries. How hard would it have been to find willing nude models? How frowned on was their work? John Singer Sargent found a girl willing to pose nude in Egypt, where one might imagine women were expected to be pretty buttoned up.   In The Reading Girl, Th\u00e9odore Roussel, a Frenchman living in England, painted a popular model from the era, Hetty\\_Pettigrew, who apparently earned good money posing for many artists. Would her profession have been seen as highly immoral by the standards of the day?","c_root_id_A":"g0i7d9s","c_root_id_B":"g0iag6j","created_at_utc_A":1596672802,"created_at_utc_B":1596674460,"score_A":17,"score_B":115,"human_ref_A":"Here is a response to a similar question about prudeness in the Victorian era","human_ref_B":"> \"in Arab-dominated countries\"  I can't say with certainty that this particular model was a prostitute, but it strikes me as the most likely way he would have found a nude model in Egypt in the 19th century. John Singer Sargent apparently was no stranger to brothels, as this page about the painting notes at the top.  Prostitutes were basically the typical way that European men gained access to women in the Middle East in the 19th century, with sometimes preposterous results. So for example when Gustave Flaubert was traveling in Egypt he described the erotic \"dance of the bee\". It was erotic because the performer was a prostitute he had paid and then slept with.  This and other descriptions by 19th century European observers writing about how their prostitutes danced for them created a fundamental misunderstanding of what Arab dance consisted of, among other things.  There were some exceptions. Edward William Lane writing in the 1830s recruited his sister to report on the goings on in the harems, bath houses, and other women-only spaces that he could not be admitted to.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1658.0,"score_ratio":6.7647058824}
+{"post_id":"ahiz1y","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"If Christian kingdoms sent missionaries to the New World to spread Christianity there in the post-Columbus era, why didn't Muslim nations like the Ottoman Empire do the same to spread Islam? To build upon that question, why did only a handful of European kingdoms attempt colonization of the New World? Why didn't other nations do so, especially ones outside of Europe like those in Asia and the Middle East? What factors motivated that handful of nations (Spain, Great Britain, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Russia) to colonize that wasn't present for other nations?","c_root_id_A":"eefbrpa","c_root_id_B":"eefj2wj","created_at_utc_A":1547887841,"created_at_utc_B":1547896635,"score_A":92,"score_B":526,"human_ref_A":"Hi,  until we get more answers, I want to point out we have a pretty big FAQ section on Why didn't X colonize which has links to many old questions pertaining to this topic  EDIT: some users have notified us that some of the links don't work on mobile apps (it does on desktop). We tried to correct the issue and hopefully it will work better now","human_ref_B":"I think for most of us in the West, it's easy to slip into seeing \"colonize and evangelize\" as the default setting. Our Western Civ II\/World Civ II class *starts* with that as the foundational principle in its triumphant Story Of Civilization. In fact, with a variety of exceptions, Christianity and Islam had spent a solid number of centuries quite comfortably expanding through attrition in conquered territories. The ideal of evangelizing militancy in what John O'Malley has dubbed \"Early Modern Catholicism\" is exceptional--not the other way around. And to a much greater extent than our textbooks like to admit, *successful* militant evangelization was an even further exception.  Christian Europeans had spent the fifteenth century making, well, European Christianity. It was the Church's first full-court press to teach *everyone* in Christian society the basic fundamentals of what now had a name: \"the Christian faith.\" That's not to overblow the 14th century as \"pagan\" or whatever, just to stress how *dedicated* large swathes of the 15th century Church were to religious instruction of the laity. The Ten Commandments, the seven deadly sins, the meaning of the sacraments, how to die a good death so you go to heaven, reading the Bible (in the vernacular...except in England) to your family after a post-Mass meal, &c.  Individual-level religious enthusiasm is a big part of this in many cases, from leaders on down. It was especially aided by an utterly ubiquitous belief that the world was going to end RIGHT NOW...no, NOW...no, but that's *definitely* the Antichrist over there. It makes the looming Day of Judgment very real and very soon. It's easy to bleed this over into *collective* religious enthusiasm--the desire to save other people's souls, too.  There are other factors in play, especially the inexorable onward march of the medieval push towards order in society. Sumptuary laws regulating what people of different social statuses are and aren't allowed to wear is a very visible example. Religion is another big one, though. You'll recall that other thing that happened in 1492--Isabella and Ferdinand forced all Jewish Spaniards to choose between conversion to Christianity or immediate exile. This isn't *just* anti-Semitism for the sake of anti-Semitism, although it's that too; subsequent actions of Spanish inquisitors put in action the often-stated paranoia that Jewish people will sneakily de-convert New Christians. A big threat to Church and state authority!  So we head into the sixteenth century with Western Europe tipping into *internal* militant evangelization. You can then think of Martin Luther and his rinkadink regional Reformation as one among many contemporary reform movements. Several of those being, as traditional in medieval Christianity, *reformacio* of monastic life. Most relevantly here, that means the creation of the Jesuits and Ursulines, and the streamlining and outward turn of Observant mendicant orders. In addition to personal, internal spiritual renewal, the new and revived orders aimed to really, REALLY get Christians to be, well, Christian, and in a more sober and knowledgeable way than some of the more colorful aspects of late medieval devotion.  *Now* we can pitch this into wider context. The Church had long seen itself as an international government, operating within and beyond secular ones. Participation in colonialist expansion to the west and south and very east was important to it for mundane reasons as well as spiritual ones. One strategy absolutely was to plant convents of European nuns (especially) and monks as a way of claiming territory. But the other was to try to convert Indigenous populations to Christianity as an extension of the way Europe was being \"converted.\"  And that's the happy triumphant success narrative, and we point to modern Mexican Catholicism and the recent canonization of Kateri Tekakwitha and say, \"Sounds plausible.\" In reality, there were a whole lot of jagged steps forwards and backwards. You're probably familiar with That Ugly Time Europeans Decided To Formally Debate Whether Indigenous Americans Are Human, a question intimately wrapped up with whether they should be targets for conversion or not.   In some cases, Christianity blended into native religion and native religion blended into Christianity. Sometimes this *didn't* happen, and colonialist Inquisitors thought it had anyway and persecuted Americans for witchcraft. In Catholic Europe, meanwhile, the Inquisition was frequently targeting people it identified as \"crypto-Jews\"--essentially, people they believed were adopting a veneer of Christianity while retaining their non-Christian religion for keeps. We're talking about an Early Modern Catholicism here, not mission versus home Christianity. And sometimes, friars kind of just shrugged and said maybe mission wasn't really that important to the Church in the first place.  European imperialist expansion happened at a very specific time in western religious history. To be a Christian had become *defined as* more than just baptism and reciting the right words at your godchildren's baptisms; making a territory Christian needed to mean more than mass baptism or even baptism of the leaders. Whether imperialist conquest, diplomatic encounter (hi, China!), or cleaning up one's own backyard, the making of Christians was of primary importance to large segments of the Catholic Church.  They had the money, the power, and the government support in the interests of order and control to back up their mission of saving souls with the apocalypse just over the horizon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8794.0,"score_ratio":5.7173913043}
+{"post_id":"1rn8y8","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Before the Wright Brothers, did paper airplanes exist? If so, were they any different than our modern conception of one? Any answer is greatly appreciated; this question just poked my brain while I was actually on a plane today. Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"cdp0naq","c_root_id_B":"cdp5ze7","created_at_utc_A":1385660381,"created_at_utc_B":1385675115,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Toy helicopters existed, as it's widely documented that their father brought them one as a child , sparking their curiosity into flight.   http:\/\/www.nps.gov\/wrbr\/historyculture\/theroadtothefirstflight.htm","human_ref_B":"Yes, there were some airplanes discovered during renovations of an old British schoolhouse that are over a century old. Some of them, in my opinion, could get surprisingly elaborate. It looks like they're based more off of rockets used in war and fireworks rather than \"airplane\" like designs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14734.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
+{"post_id":"1vatbe","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Considering the chronological relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, why is it that Christianity didn't have any dietary restrictions? Or am I wrong believing that? Were there any restrictions at the beginning of Christianity? Even if that would be the case, why they weren't applied as rigorously as its counterparts?","c_root_id_A":"ceqf4zd","c_root_id_B":"ceqf6o3","created_at_utc_A":1389819030,"created_at_utc_B":1389819127,"score_A":3,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"Early Christian's were almost entirely Jewish (as was Jesus himself) and the early Christian \"church\" considered itself the next step in Judaism.  However, many Jews rejected this notion and in many cases persecuted early Christians (see the conversion of Saul to Paul).  This did not keep Christianity from spreading to the non-Jewish populations of the Mediterranean.    The aforementioned Paul then wrote many letters to these communities in which there were some serious issues of dietary restrictions and male circumcision were very divisive topics between Jewish and Gentile Christians.  In what I believe to be a nice political move, it is decided that there should be no pressure for Christians to be circumcised or to have restrictions on food (the once restriction that I remember at all is to not eat of food offered in sacrifice to idols i.e. Roman or other \"gods\").  This is just one example of the inclusiveness of the early Christian Church.  A major part of the \"success\" of Christianity is\/was it's adaptability.","human_ref_B":"There's evidence of 'factionalism' even among the earliest Christians (in the 1st century) on this very issue. In many cases, much of the tension arose between Jewish and Gentile Christians. But not necessarily. One of the narratives in the New Testament itself that addresses dietary issues (and some of the Christian innovations regarding them) is found in the 10th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles:  >Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, \"Get up, Peter; kill and eat.\" 14 But Peter said, \"By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.\" 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, \"What God has made clean, you must not call profane.\"   This is almost certainly more representative of the so-called \"supersessionist\" branch, which prioritized the coming\/sacrifice of Christ and its transformative effects over observance of Jewish law.  We can see another narrative that addresses kosher\/dietary things, just a few chapters later (in Acts 15). Described here is a \"council\" in Jerusalem, with many the most important Christian figures present: James, Peter, Paul. In the end, these figures produce a letter which is then sent to Gentiles churches, advising that Gentiles should \"abstain . . . from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.\" This list is virtually identical to that in Leviticus 17-18: prohibiting meat offered to idols (17.8-9), ingestion of blood (17.10-12) and improperly slaughtered animals (17.15).  I've written about this in more detail here - but just to pick out one little section:  >there's no real indication from [the council related in Acts 15] that Paul and the Jerusalem church get along anything other than splendidly (\"our dear friend\" Paul, etc.) . . . Yet the letter that they then send back with Paul (to Antioch, Syria, Cilicia) seems to have \"agreements\" which, elsewhere, are quite opposed by Paul. While - for the sake of space - skipping over some nuances here, consider Paul's blanket statement in 1 Cor 10:25-26:  >>Eat *anything* that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience\u2019s sake; \"for the earth is the Lord's, and all it contains\"  ____  Ultimately, as the Christian church became a majority *Gentile* church, the supersessionist 'faction' won out - evidence of which is certainly found in the accounts of Acts themselves (which, as a whole, is a highly fictionalized [quasi-]'history').   It's absolutely fascinating to look at early Islam's relationship with all this. There's some evidence that some of the influence of some of the more primitive Jewish-oriented Christian sects survived, and may have still been around to have influenced Islam (that could be its own thread). But in any case, it all fits in with Islam's portrait of a Christianity which - though still founded by figures that were truly divinely inspired, and worth of reverence - had gone too far in its rejection of the laws and theology of its 'mother' traditions, introducing heretical innovations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":97.0,"score_ratio":9.0}
+{"post_id":"4zyne3","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"The popular conception of the popular-music landscape in the 1920s-40s is pretty much wall-to-wall jazz. But is that accurate? Suppose I'm an American in the second quarter or so of the 20th century (i.e., 1926-1950 or so) who doesn't care for Jazz-- what am I probably listening to instead?","c_root_id_A":"d707t8v","c_root_id_B":"d7010bo","created_at_utc_A":1472409114,"created_at_utc_B":1472398590,"score_A":13,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Folk music was absolutely huge. In the 1920s and recording technology expanded, people could finally hear their traditional music recorded. This is absolutely one of the most revolutionary things to happen to folk music, and it led to people like Harry Smith in the US and Cecil Sharp in the UK obsessively recording and collecting everything they could. It had quite the effect on classical music too, with composers like Vaughan Williams encompassing these strange new (old?) sounds into their music. This is why the folk music of the 60s is often referred to as 'folk revival'.   This is also why Oh Brother Where Art Thou is a masterpiece.","human_ref_B":"Since there already have been some great answers, I'll take the risk (and please call me to order if you consider this an insufficient answer) and simply point you to \"The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century\", by Alex Ross, which is a popular overview of the music of the 20th Century. It's an easy read, and might give you some additional insight.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10524.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
+{"post_id":"4zyne3","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"The popular conception of the popular-music landscape in the 1920s-40s is pretty much wall-to-wall jazz. But is that accurate? Suppose I'm an American in the second quarter or so of the 20th century (i.e., 1926-1950 or so) who doesn't care for Jazz-- what am I probably listening to instead?","c_root_id_A":"d7010bo","c_root_id_B":"d708520","created_at_utc_A":1472398590,"created_at_utc_B":1472409600,"score_A":9,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Since there already have been some great answers, I'll take the risk (and please call me to order if you consider this an insufficient answer) and simply point you to \"The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century\", by Alex Ross, which is a popular overview of the music of the 20th Century. It's an easy read, and might give you some additional insight.","human_ref_B":"Not mentioned in any of the responses here is that the period between the 20's and 40's was the incubator for what today is known as country-western music. Harry McClintock and other hobo themed music, Gene Autry, Jimmie Rodgers, The Carter Family, Hank Williams, western swing, \"hillbilly\", Woodie Guthrie, Bill Monroe and the Bluegrass Boys, the early black country jug bands, etc.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11010.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
+{"post_id":"2e3dwt","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"suppose I live in Boston in 1717. How far would have to travel to find a Native American tribe who have had no direct contact with white people in living memory?","c_root_id_A":"cjvt2uh","c_root_id_B":"cjw33wi","created_at_utc_A":1408562590,"created_at_utc_B":1408582560,"score_A":212,"score_B":761,"human_ref_A":"This is an interesting question, and I'd like to tack on a follow-up question. How likely would it be to find native peoples living in Boston at the time? Would there be any? If there were, would they be discriminated against?","human_ref_B":"I'll assume living memory to be a nice round number like 60, so we are looking for the closest Native American nation that did not have direct contact with Europeans between 1657 and 1717. I'll also assume that not all members of the group interacted with Europeans, just that somewhat regular contact\/influence existed some time between 1657 and 1717.  The closest nations to Boston, the Wampanoag, Nipmuck, Narragansett and Nashaway, were swept up in the hostilities with King Phillip's War from 1675-1678. Any Native American belligerents not killed in the conflict and not professing Christians were sold into slavery in Bermuda. Praying Indians settled in towns like Natick, Grafton and Marlborough, and refugees fled inland to join other nations.  Expanding out of the direct Boston\/Providence Plantation area, we have the nations in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. Coastal populations in Maine would have regular trading contact with white merchants and fisherman, so those nations are out. Further inland many nations possibly contacted a European during King William's War (look, a map] during the 1680s and 1690s. I am not as familiar with the small nations of northern Maine, but I assume the constant tension between the French and English colonial enterprises, and the Maine Amerindians strategic importance as allies, meant they were courted extensively during the period. Further north into Canada the Wendat\/Huron were strongly allied with the French, and during the diaspora caused by the Beaver Wars (to be explained shortly) fled west to the Great Lakes.  Looking west, here is a generalized map so we can keep our bearings. The Mahican and the Delaware definitely encountered Europeans in the period of interest. First contact along the Mohawk River occurred in 1609 and these groups were intimately involved in the game of colonial expansion with New York\/New England\/New France.   1657-1717 is a very interesting time for the Haudenosaunee\/Iroquois. Hostilities related to the fur trade and disease mortality brought about a series of mourning wars that increased the Haudenosaunee territory, and wrought destruction over a huge swath of the U.S. Midwest. The Beaver Wars turned the Great Lakes into a war zone. Iroquois raids depopulated much of the U.S. Midwest and sent refugees fleeing to the lands bordering the Great Plains. French missionaries fled west with their Huron flock, establishing missions on Lake Michigan by 1652 and the western tip of Lake Superior by 1661. As they moved west, the Huron diaspora opened up the fur trade to nations previously beyond the frontier outposts. Heading directly west of Boston we are basically on the Great Plains before we consider a nation without European contact.  Next, lets dive south. English colonial enterprises in Pennsylvania contacted the Erie, Shawnee and previously mentioned Iroquois. Jamestown was established in 1607, and English influence continued to grow among the Algonquian nations living in the tidewater. To the west of the tidewater we start to run into the area of Iroquois expansion during the Beaver Wars so I will dive further south.  Between 1657 and 1717,  traders operating out of Virginia and Carolina colonies united the greater U.S. Southeast based on the trade of Indian slaves and deerskins. Though actual \"white guy presence\" was limited, the repercussions of the Indian slave trade destabilized the south. Pressure from the French and English spurred the rise of confederacies like the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw to deal with the encroachment of the French to the west (operating from Louisiana and the Mississippi River) and the English (with their native, slave-raiding allies) to the east. As an aside, from 1696-1700 a devastating smallpox epidemic spread through the southeast causing tremendous mortality in the region. Epidemics, combined with refugees fleeing the Yamasee War from 1715-1717, shattered the existing lifeways in the south. The interior southeastern nations, as well as the petite nations along the Gulf Coast, all felt the repercussions of contact with Europeans between 1657 and 1717.  So, we are at the Mississippi and we have yet to encounter a Native American nation without contact with\/significant influence from Europeans between 1657 and 1717. Obviously, the nations of New Mexico and Texas near Spanish missions are out of consideration. In New Mexico the Spanish presence along the Rio Grande ensures the Pueblos, Apaches, Utes, Dine, Comanche and many smaller Southwestern nations could contact a white guy. The first mission in Spanish Texas, San Francisco de los Tejas, was established in 1690. The Spanish presence in Texas was not influential, long-lived, or particularly productive during our time period, but it does mean we need to look north of the Red River for a nation that fits our criteria (Edit: The first mission founded in the geographic region that we know as Texas was San Angelo, founded in 1632. Thanks to \/u\/_choupette for clarifying.)  Where does this leave us? In 1717 you would need to be on the Great Plains, likely north of the Red River, and west of French influence along the Mississippi River\/Great Lakes to encounter a Native American nation that had yet to contact a white person. Even then, contact was imminent. For example, the first European encounter with the Mandan occurred with the arrival of a French Canadian trader, Sieur de la Verendrye, in 1738.  **Sources**  Calloway *Once Vast Winter Count: The Native American West Before Lewis and Clark*  Kelton *Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast 1492-1715*  Gallay *The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717*  Bragdon *Native Peoples of Southern New England, 1650-1775*  Trigger *The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660*  Weber *The Spanish Frontier in North America*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19970.0,"score_ratio":3.5896226415}
+{"post_id":"2e3dwt","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"suppose I live in Boston in 1717. How far would have to travel to find a Native American tribe who have had no direct contact with white people in living memory?","c_root_id_A":"cjw33wi","c_root_id_B":"cjvyc2k","created_at_utc_A":1408582560,"created_at_utc_B":1408572386,"score_A":761,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"I'll assume living memory to be a nice round number like 60, so we are looking for the closest Native American nation that did not have direct contact with Europeans between 1657 and 1717. I'll also assume that not all members of the group interacted with Europeans, just that somewhat regular contact\/influence existed some time between 1657 and 1717.  The closest nations to Boston, the Wampanoag, Nipmuck, Narragansett and Nashaway, were swept up in the hostilities with King Phillip's War from 1675-1678. Any Native American belligerents not killed in the conflict and not professing Christians were sold into slavery in Bermuda. Praying Indians settled in towns like Natick, Grafton and Marlborough, and refugees fled inland to join other nations.  Expanding out of the direct Boston\/Providence Plantation area, we have the nations in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. Coastal populations in Maine would have regular trading contact with white merchants and fisherman, so those nations are out. Further inland many nations possibly contacted a European during King William's War (look, a map] during the 1680s and 1690s. I am not as familiar with the small nations of northern Maine, but I assume the constant tension between the French and English colonial enterprises, and the Maine Amerindians strategic importance as allies, meant they were courted extensively during the period. Further north into Canada the Wendat\/Huron were strongly allied with the French, and during the diaspora caused by the Beaver Wars (to be explained shortly) fled west to the Great Lakes.  Looking west, here is a generalized map so we can keep our bearings. The Mahican and the Delaware definitely encountered Europeans in the period of interest. First contact along the Mohawk River occurred in 1609 and these groups were intimately involved in the game of colonial expansion with New York\/New England\/New France.   1657-1717 is a very interesting time for the Haudenosaunee\/Iroquois. Hostilities related to the fur trade and disease mortality brought about a series of mourning wars that increased the Haudenosaunee territory, and wrought destruction over a huge swath of the U.S. Midwest. The Beaver Wars turned the Great Lakes into a war zone. Iroquois raids depopulated much of the U.S. Midwest and sent refugees fleeing to the lands bordering the Great Plains. French missionaries fled west with their Huron flock, establishing missions on Lake Michigan by 1652 and the western tip of Lake Superior by 1661. As they moved west, the Huron diaspora opened up the fur trade to nations previously beyond the frontier outposts. Heading directly west of Boston we are basically on the Great Plains before we consider a nation without European contact.  Next, lets dive south. English colonial enterprises in Pennsylvania contacted the Erie, Shawnee and previously mentioned Iroquois. Jamestown was established in 1607, and English influence continued to grow among the Algonquian nations living in the tidewater. To the west of the tidewater we start to run into the area of Iroquois expansion during the Beaver Wars so I will dive further south.  Between 1657 and 1717,  traders operating out of Virginia and Carolina colonies united the greater U.S. Southeast based on the trade of Indian slaves and deerskins. Though actual \"white guy presence\" was limited, the repercussions of the Indian slave trade destabilized the south. Pressure from the French and English spurred the rise of confederacies like the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw to deal with the encroachment of the French to the west (operating from Louisiana and the Mississippi River) and the English (with their native, slave-raiding allies) to the east. As an aside, from 1696-1700 a devastating smallpox epidemic spread through the southeast causing tremendous mortality in the region. Epidemics, combined with refugees fleeing the Yamasee War from 1715-1717, shattered the existing lifeways in the south. The interior southeastern nations, as well as the petite nations along the Gulf Coast, all felt the repercussions of contact with Europeans between 1657 and 1717.  So, we are at the Mississippi and we have yet to encounter a Native American nation without contact with\/significant influence from Europeans between 1657 and 1717. Obviously, the nations of New Mexico and Texas near Spanish missions are out of consideration. In New Mexico the Spanish presence along the Rio Grande ensures the Pueblos, Apaches, Utes, Dine, Comanche and many smaller Southwestern nations could contact a white guy. The first mission in Spanish Texas, San Francisco de los Tejas, was established in 1690. The Spanish presence in Texas was not influential, long-lived, or particularly productive during our time period, but it does mean we need to look north of the Red River for a nation that fits our criteria (Edit: The first mission founded in the geographic region that we know as Texas was San Angelo, founded in 1632. Thanks to \/u\/_choupette for clarifying.)  Where does this leave us? In 1717 you would need to be on the Great Plains, likely north of the Red River, and west of French influence along the Mississippi River\/Great Lakes to encounter a Native American nation that had yet to contact a white person. Even then, contact was imminent. For example, the first European encounter with the Mandan occurred with the arrival of a French Canadian trader, Sieur de la Verendrye, in 1738.  **Sources**  Calloway *Once Vast Winter Count: The Native American West Before Lewis and Clark*  Kelton *Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast 1492-1715*  Gallay *The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717*  Bragdon *Native Peoples of Southern New England, 1650-1775*  Trigger *The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660*  Weber *The Spanish Frontier in North America*","human_ref_B":"Alternatively, which tribe or community was the last to be contacted in North America by non-Natives?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10174.0,"score_ratio":11.7076923077}
+{"post_id":"mwi29m","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"A booby-trapped temple is a major set piece in \"Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.\" Were such set-ups actually found in temples in South America or was that poetic license? If they did exist, I'd be curious if any unlucky archeologists, local residents, or explorers discovered one such setup or if they inferred their presence based on context clues.","c_root_id_A":"gvinf2t","c_root_id_B":"gviutmp","created_at_utc_A":1619142134,"created_at_utc_B":1619145910,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"While you wait for newer answers you can check out previous discussions of this topic, such as those from this list of such threads compiled by \/u\/soulstealer1984.","human_ref_B":"\/u\/SecondTalon has previously found answers about booby traps in tombs by \/u\/kookingpot and \/u\/toldinstone, among others.  EDIT: More answers remain to be written, this is a very popular topic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3776.0,"score_ratio":1.625}
+{"post_id":"4t854d","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"There are huge gaps between islands in the Pacific, what methods did the Polynesians\/Islanders use to discover them and to stay on course in a trip between two islands they already knew existed? Do we know how many\/what percentage were lost at sea?","c_root_id_A":"d5fsrxg","c_root_id_B":"d5g7oxx","created_at_utc_A":1468776241,"created_at_utc_B":1468800667,"score_A":6,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"This is a question that has always fascinated me and is close to my heart.  According to the exhibits and guides at The National\u00a0Museum\u00a0of\u00a0Vanuatu, voyages were guided by the stars, trade winds, clouds and sea life.  The \"maps\" consisted of songs, poems and lore that gave mariners an idea of what stars and constellations to use, when to embark, animals that may serve as navigation aids and crucial food sources, architectural considerations for the vessel and cloud formations that may be relevant.    The secrets of navigation in the South Pacific are deceptively simple.  It's only when you examine the question in detail that you realize it isn't just songs, stars and islanders with a death wish.   Ben Finney (author, historian and rebel) had built a traditional Polynesian sailing canoe christened the \"Hokulea\". He used it to travel from Hawaii to Tahiti in 1976 using only traditional methods.  His exploits contributed to a large extent in elevating the traditional navigational methods of the South Pacific   While I am a fan of Ben Finney and his work, I do want to point out that the islands of the South Pacific are not homogenous. Navigational methods and lore vary considerably between regions and islands.  It's very easy to paint the South Pacific islands with a broad brush. In reality the cultures and methods exist in a colorful tapestry.   If this is a topic that interests you, I recommend reading \"Ben R. Finney;\u00a0Sailing in the Wake of the Ancestors: Reviving Polynesian Voyaging\".  There are many other books that cover the topic but I feel that Ben's book is a good way of getting your feet wet.   I visited Vanuatu in 2007 for my honeymoon, certainly the trip of a lifetime!  During my voyage I spent time in New Caledonia and Fiji as well.  Vanuatu in my opinion had done the best job preserving their cultural and religious practices. The National Museum of Vanuatu really highlights how much oral tradition and navigation varies from tribe to tribe, island to island and \"nation to nation\".   This is my first substantial post to this sub, I can provide more references, details or photographs  substantiate my response should they be required.","human_ref_B":"The Pacific Islands are wonderfully diverse and yet there is also a growing and unified cultural concept of what it means to be a Pacific Islander in the modern world and contexts, this identity being formed not only by modern political experiences and attitudes, but also by genetic links- between Micronesians and Polynesians- and certain shared histories, largely in the context of colonisation and independence, with the area the islands are spread across being so large as to leave it difficult to find simply a shared identity on the basis of geography, when some live in the highlands of Papua, and others on small atolls.   Traditionally, the Pacific Islands have been divided into Micronesia (small), Polynesia (many) and Melanesia (black), however these boundaries are not so easily drawn, not just as a result of geography, but as a result of culture, ethnic and genetic heritage and even language. Even within the classical divisions of the Pacific Islands, there is conflict over identity, such as with the Bougainville independence movement. Many Islanders and academics now prefer to use geographical divisions, North, East, South, West, and being more specific by naming individual places, whether countries, atolls or islands, instead of identifying places by concepts which were driven and created by Western colonists, as a result of the growing movement within the Pacific Islander communities, to drive academic understandings and literature, although today, the vast majority of historians and archaeologists of the Pacific Islands are still not of indigenous Islander heritage.   Although, as with every place, there is a long history of, well, learning and constructing history, across Islander societies and cultures, only recently have Islanders' constructions and narratives entered, or been allowed to enter, academia, and only recently have Islanders significantly been able to contribute to the academic understandings of Pacific history, to be the writers of their own history for non-Islanders, whereas even in the 20th century, they were often restricted to being the subjects, but not the authors, and in any writing of history, they were often equally restricted to being the one acted on, instead of being active in history themselves. Outside of academia, historically Islanders have seen the history of their ancestors or heritage, as part of a greater understanding of the world, with legend and history being deeply intertwined pre-European contact, in a similar way to the Romulus and Remus origins of Rome, Torres Strait Islanders- sometimes seen as Pacific Islanders- had the story of a woman making a tunnel from the sky in order to save her children from being killed. Oral traditions such as this are still central and important to many Islanders' politics and to many Pacific structures and communities, as well as to the faith of many Islanders, and their expressions of their identity, be it as someone from Hawai'i, from Polynesia, or from the Pacific Islands, as an example.   Post-European contact, many Islanders' understanding of history changed, with histories being written down, or being expressed in the traditional forms of Western settlers and coloniser, or to include settler ideals and ideas of history. This means that there is no one genre of Pacific history, there is no one lens it has traditionally been looked at through. Across the islands, genealogy has been a important and central part of society, identity and culture, and this continues today, for example. How Islanders have viewed and understood history changed and developed pre-European contact, during colonisation and into the modern era, with no one singular idea of history or methods of interpretation or recording, although genealogy remains a central and important part of identity for many Islanders, as it was pre-European contact.   It was only in the 1960s that Islanders' agency and viewpoints became a central part of Pacific history, and early reports by Europeans of technology which could reasonably be expected to have existed pre-European contact is therefore clouded by assumptions and by the contexts of the understanding of Islanders, of seafaring and also of record keeping, anthropology, society and history that they carried with them, and indigenous writers of Pacific history in Western academic tradition have only become common in the last few decades, notably from what is classically identified as Polynesia.   With the large number of inhabited islands, and an even larger number of islands when including those, such as Caroline Island in Kiribati, which had previously been inhabited, it is to be expected that there will be vastly different relations to the ocean, allowing movement between the atolls and islands, which have been of central importance to Pacific Islanders throughout history, excluding parts of what is now New Zealand, West Papua and Papua New Guinea. With some islanders living in closely linked island chains, such as in the Marshall Islands, and others living thousands of miles from the nearest small settlement, the technology and techniques allowing for exploration, colonisation and general transport have vastly differed, and changed throughout history, including pre-European contact.   Evidence for the earliest seafaring technology in the Pacific Islands is sparse, and even for later history, oral tradition is an important part of understanding Pacific Islanders' oceanic history and heritage. The extent of archaeological evidence that remains from the earliest centuries or even millennia of settlement in multiple islands, is small, with, for example, no Lapita boats existing, and the only Lapita material culture found having little or no relation to the ocean, instead, any oceanic exploration and travel by the Lapita must be worked out far more indirectly, through genetic heritage of existing populations, material culture unrelated to transport, such as pottery, and even language.   We know parts of New Guinea were settled some 30-40,000 years ago, through radiocarbon dating of a rock shelter, and although outside of the Pacific Islands, in Australia, there is evidence of settlement across Australia, down to Tasmania, from a similar period, or some very uncertain evidence of settlement dating back over 50,000 years, when it was, at the time, still connected to what is now Papua New Guinea. We don't know, however, if a rising ocean swallowed earlier evidence elsewhere, whether there are island settlements submerged showing earlier settlement, or at least exploration. The ever changing shape of the Pacific Ocean has created the ever changing shapes of the Pacific Islands, with evidence obscured and uncovered with changing ocean currents and sea levels, any older settlements may never be found, and therefore it is possible that humanity came to the Pacific Islands past 40,000 years ago. The dates are important because land bridges have since disappeared as connections between islands and settlements, and therefore our concepts of the process of settlement will also be affected. Settlers undoubtedly came from South East Asia, where similar dates of settlement, 30-40,000 years ago, are shown, including areas of Indonesia, although early *homo* settlement in SE Asia, dating perhaps a million years or older, is found in Java, relatively close to parts of what is classically defined as Melanesia.   To reach New Guinea, water would indeed have to have been crossed, even if there were some disappearing land bridges which allowed travel from what continues to be mainland SE Asia to much of Malaysia and even much of Indonesia. Settlement would have reached the Solomon Islands just under 30,000 years ago, and again, ocean had to have been travelled.  The craft used, and any losses when attempting to find inhabitable land, are unknown. The later settlers of the Pacific Islands saw multiple different paths of heritage and development for their seafaring technology, oral traditions not appearing to relate to these settlers or at least not their crafts, and even those who are not Pacific Islanders, who trace descent back to these Pleistocene settlers and who saw little or no impact from further waves of settlement, for example, by the Lapita, namely Australian Aborigines, have craft which are either frankly unable to make any sea crossings or do not appear to have developed from thousands of years old technology, or have developed so far away as to be of little use to tracing these Pleistocene vessels, as a result of thousands of years of change, refinement and transforming needs, cultures and societies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24426.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667}
+{"post_id":"4t854d","domain":"askhistorians_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"There are huge gaps between islands in the Pacific, what methods did the Polynesians\/Islanders use to discover them and to stay on course in a trip between two islands they already knew existed? Do we know how many\/what percentage were lost at sea?","c_root_id_A":"d5g7oxx","c_root_id_B":"d5fx61v","created_at_utc_A":1468800667,"created_at_utc_B":1468783312,"score_A":22,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The Pacific Islands are wonderfully diverse and yet there is also a growing and unified cultural concept of what it means to be a Pacific Islander in the modern world and contexts, this identity being formed not only by modern political experiences and attitudes, but also by genetic links- between Micronesians and Polynesians- and certain shared histories, largely in the context of colonisation and independence, with the area the islands are spread across being so large as to leave it difficult to find simply a shared identity on the basis of geography, when some live in the highlands of Papua, and others on small atolls.   Traditionally, the Pacific Islands have been divided into Micronesia (small), Polynesia (many) and Melanesia (black), however these boundaries are not so easily drawn, not just as a result of geography, but as a result of culture, ethnic and genetic heritage and even language. Even within the classical divisions of the Pacific Islands, there is conflict over identity, such as with the Bougainville independence movement. Many Islanders and academics now prefer to use geographical divisions, North, East, South, West, and being more specific by naming individual places, whether countries, atolls or islands, instead of identifying places by concepts which were driven and created by Western colonists, as a result of the growing movement within the Pacific Islander communities, to drive academic understandings and literature, although today, the vast majority of historians and archaeologists of the Pacific Islands are still not of indigenous Islander heritage.   Although, as with every place, there is a long history of, well, learning and constructing history, across Islander societies and cultures, only recently have Islanders' constructions and narratives entered, or been allowed to enter, academia, and only recently have Islanders significantly been able to contribute to the academic understandings of Pacific history, to be the writers of their own history for non-Islanders, whereas even in the 20th century, they were often restricted to being the subjects, but not the authors, and in any writing of history, they were often equally restricted to being the one acted on, instead of being active in history themselves. Outside of academia, historically Islanders have seen the history of their ancestors or heritage, as part of a greater understanding of the world, with legend and history being deeply intertwined pre-European contact, in a similar way to the Romulus and Remus origins of Rome, Torres Strait Islanders- sometimes seen as Pacific Islanders- had the story of a woman making a tunnel from the sky in order to save her children from being killed. Oral traditions such as this are still central and important to many Islanders' politics and to many Pacific structures and communities, as well as to the faith of many Islanders, and their expressions of their identity, be it as someone from Hawai'i, from Polynesia, or from the Pacific Islands, as an example.   Post-European contact, many Islanders' understanding of history changed, with histories being written down, or being expressed in the traditional forms of Western settlers and coloniser, or to include settler ideals and ideas of history. This means that there is no one genre of Pacific history, there is no one lens it has traditionally been looked at through. Across the islands, genealogy has been a important and central part of society, identity and culture, and this continues today, for example. How Islanders have viewed and understood history changed and developed pre-European contact, during colonisation and into the modern era, with no one singular idea of history or methods of interpretation or recording, although genealogy remains a central and important part of identity for many Islanders, as it was pre-European contact.   It was only in the 1960s that Islanders' agency and viewpoints became a central part of Pacific history, and early reports by Europeans of technology which could reasonably be expected to have existed pre-European contact is therefore clouded by assumptions and by the contexts of the understanding of Islanders, of seafaring and also of record keeping, anthropology, society and history that they carried with them, and indigenous writers of Pacific history in Western academic tradition have only become common in the last few decades, notably from what is classically identified as Polynesia.   With the large number of inhabited islands, and an even larger number of islands when including those, such as Caroline Island in Kiribati, which had previously been inhabited, it is to be expected that there will be vastly different relations to the ocean, allowing movement between the atolls and islands, which have been of central importance to Pacific Islanders throughout history, excluding parts of what is now New Zealand, West Papua and Papua New Guinea. With some islanders living in closely linked island chains, such as in the Marshall Islands, and others living thousands of miles from the nearest small settlement, the technology and techniques allowing for exploration, colonisation and general transport have vastly differed, and changed throughout history, including pre-European contact.   Evidence for the earliest seafaring technology in the Pacific Islands is sparse, and even for later history, oral tradition is an important part of understanding Pacific Islanders' oceanic history and heritage. The extent of archaeological evidence that remains from the earliest centuries or even millennia of settlement in multiple islands, is small, with, for example, no Lapita boats existing, and the only Lapita material culture found having little or no relation to the ocean, instead, any oceanic exploration and travel by the Lapita must be worked out far more indirectly, through genetic heritage of existing populations, material culture unrelated to transport, such as pottery, and even language.   We know parts of New Guinea were settled some 30-40,000 years ago, through radiocarbon dating of a rock shelter, and although outside of the Pacific Islands, in Australia, there is evidence of settlement across Australia, down to Tasmania, from a similar period, or some very uncertain evidence of settlement dating back over 50,000 years, when it was, at the time, still connected to what is now Papua New Guinea. We don't know, however, if a rising ocean swallowed earlier evidence elsewhere, whether there are island settlements submerged showing earlier settlement, or at least exploration. The ever changing shape of the Pacific Ocean has created the ever changing shapes of the Pacific Islands, with evidence obscured and uncovered with changing ocean currents and sea levels, any older settlements may never be found, and therefore it is possible that humanity came to the Pacific Islands past 40,000 years ago. The dates are important because land bridges have since disappeared as connections between islands and settlements, and therefore our concepts of the process of settlement will also be affected. Settlers undoubtedly came from South East Asia, where similar dates of settlement, 30-40,000 years ago, are shown, including areas of Indonesia, although early *homo* settlement in SE Asia, dating perhaps a million years or older, is found in Java, relatively close to parts of what is classically defined as Melanesia.   To reach New Guinea, water would indeed have to have been crossed, even if there were some disappearing land bridges which allowed travel from what continues to be mainland SE Asia to much of Malaysia and even much of Indonesia. Settlement would have reached the Solomon Islands just under 30,000 years ago, and again, ocean had to have been travelled.  The craft used, and any losses when attempting to find inhabitable land, are unknown. The later settlers of the Pacific Islands saw multiple different paths of heritage and development for their seafaring technology, oral traditions not appearing to relate to these settlers or at least not their crafts, and even those who are not Pacific Islanders, who trace descent back to these Pleistocene settlers and who saw little or no impact from further waves of settlement, for example, by the Lapita, namely Australian Aborigines, have craft which are either frankly unable to make any sea crossings or do not appear to have developed from thousands of years old technology, or have developed so far away as to be of little use to tracing these Pleistocene vessels, as a result of thousands of years of change, refinement and transforming needs, cultures and societies.","human_ref_B":"Hi, if you're interested in some previous posts on navigation, I've pulled a few for you here, which, while not addressing  your last question, do provide some general information:  * How did ancient seafaring peoples of Melanesia find remote islands like Easter Island, yet miss the Americas?  * How did the original Native Hawaiians find Hawaii in the first place?  * in 1414 would the Hawaiians have been aware of the existence of either Asia or America?  These have been picked from a larger collection of posts on navigation and trade, so if you're interested in more, dive down the rabbit hole here  * How extensively did Polynesians trade with one another?  These posts have all been archived by now, so if you have follow-up questions for any of the users therein, just ask them here and tag their username to notify them","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17355.0,"score_ratio":11.0}