{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb8hsjo","c_root_id_B":"gb8i4lb","created_at_utc_A":1604590186,"created_at_utc_B":1604590349,"score_A":129,"score_B":5892,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot to this election, but let's focus on your question - Did George W. Bush(GWB) steal the election through some nefarious means?  The answer there from a legal standpoint is \"no, he did not\".  He exercised his ability to challenge decisions in court, and the court ruled in his favor.  This is no different than literally thousands of other court cases.  There has never been any realistic evidence that GWB cheated or did anything illegal to gain his win.  First, to set the stage, let's talk about how the USA elects presidents.  The USA does not elect presidents by popular vote.  Rather, we elect presidents through use of an \"electoral college\".  There are 538 electors, and each state gets a number of electors that is equivalent to its number of elected senators and representatives.  The fewest a state can have is three.  There are also three given to the District of Columbia.  Each state decides how to apportion their electors.  The most common method(48\/50 states) is all-or-nothing, majority wins.  This means that the candidate who wins a popular vote in a particular state gets **all** of that state's electors, regardless of how close the vote is.   So let's go back to 2000.  At the end of Election Night, GWB had 246 electoral college votes and Al Gore had 250.  270 electoral college votes is the majority, and whoever gets 270(or more) wins.  There were three states outstanding, but Florida had 25 electoral college votes and thus was the lynchpin.  Whoever won Florida won the race.  As Election Night wore on, the state was called for Gore and GWB at different times by the media.  It's worth noting that this carries no legal or electoral weight of any kind.  By the time the count was finished, the margin between GWB and Gore in Florida was 1,784 votes, with GWB up.  Under Florida law this triggered a mandatory **machine** recount.  This meant feeding all of the ballots back into automated counting machines.  That recount narrowed the gap to approximately 300 votes, still in GWB's favor.      Over the next several days there was a lot of argument over recounts, what kind of recount(manual or machine), and where recounts would be held.  In general, Gore wanted manual recounts in specific counties, where GWB argued that a recount had to be statewide or it was invalid.    Eventually, this argument reached the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.  I need to digress for a moment to explain a few things about the construction of the US legal system.  In summary, we have a federal system and 50 individual state systems.  Each state decides how they vote, how they accept ballots, what counts, et cetera.  The US federal government **does not** tell states how to run elections, even for federal races.  There's one giant exception here, though - state elections not violate the US federal Constitution.  The federal courts can step into virtually any state-level matter if it violates the Constitution.  GWB sued to stop the recount, arguing that it was in violation of the US Constitution.  The argument was made on two grounds: first, that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, and second, that earlier decisions made to allow the recounts violated Article II of the US Constitution.  The Article II argument did not stick, but the Equal Protection argument did.  Each Florida county was recounting independently, using **their own** criteria for manually judging ballots.  This would mean that two identical ballots could be counted differently in two separate counties.  By a 7-2 majority, the US Supreme Court agreed that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and thus the current recount could not continue as it was unconstitutional.  Of note, the 7-2 majority included both conservative and liberal justices(both sides) and it was really an 8-1 decision, as Justice Souter agreed that it was unconstitutional but disagreed on the reasoning.  Only Ginsburg thought this was constitutional.  The bigger issue was what to do about this.  The general agreement was that a state-set process, that was the same county-to-county, would suffice to overcome this ruling.  However, there was a timing problem.  State certification of electoral votes was due on December 12, and a certification done by December 12 in accordance with state law was automatically Constitutional.  Florida had already stated that they **would** be done with the certification by December 12.  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 11 and issued their ruling on December 12.    The more controversial decision here is the 5-4 decision, along ideological lines, that the issue be remanded to the Florida Supreme Court for \"or further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion\".  Given the prior Florida rulings, this effectively ended the recount, although it was not ordered as such.   Both decisions were controversial, the second more than the first.  The controversy around the second stems primarily around whether the USSC should have ordered Florida to proceed with a recount and to miss the deadline.  There's also an argument that the USSC could **not** do that as the lack of recount does not constitute a Constitutional violation that the USSC could repair.  In short, while the final answer(no more recounts) was controversial, the declaration that Florida's planned recount was much less so.","human_ref_B":"I am not a trained historian, but rather a Political Science guy, but I feel qualified to answer this. The 2000 election for those of us too young to remember was a shitshow. In fact, news stations had to recall their initial projections twice. Following the election night drama, the election continued on for almost a month before ending in a controversial supreme court decision.  Let us start with election night itself. Early in the night, major networks called Florida for Al Gore. NBC was the first network to call it at 7:50 p.m. EST, but quickly the other major networks called it as well. However, as the night grew older more and more data came out of Florida that implied the calls were too early. Two hours later, CNN retracted their call after noticing a change between what the polling data they based their call on, and the actual results that was streaming on. Following the CNN call, the other major stations withdrew their decisions as well.   Then early the next morning a little after 2 am, most of the major networks (CNN, FOX, CBS, etc.) called Florida for Bush (AP being the only exception). However, this devision would also be recalled around two hours later, as more votes came in which favored Gore. The final results on election night showed Bush up by 1,784 votes which triggered an automatic recount.   The automatic recount brought up a lot of questions. Because of the way Florida conducted its ballots in 2000, there were some ballots that had trouble being counted. Florida used a ballot similar to a push-pin, where you pushed out a dangling (or chad as they became known) to vote for a candidate Occasionally, the chads so to speak on these ballots would not be fully disconnected resulting in a hanging chad, which the voting machines could not accurately read. This lead to even further confusion in the counting.   After conducting the first recount, the new official total showed Bush with a 537 vote lead. Because of how close this margin was, both the Bush and Gore campaigns filed legal briefs and cases to try and get support. Although Gore won at the Florida Supreme Court, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bush in Bush v. Gore. This ended the recount and was decided on partisan lines (i.e. the five conservatives on the court voted in favor of Bush and the four liberals for Gore).   Now comes the ultimate question, was the election stolen. First off, there is no concrete evidence that Gore would have won the election. A group of media organizations conducted an extensive review of the disputed ballots that were ruled on in Bush v. Gore and found it would not have decided the election in favor of Gore. However, they also didn\u2019t claim that Bush certainly won the total vote. Besides the over 43,000 votes that were at stake during Bush v. Gore, there was an even broader group of 175,010 ballots that was rejected in other counties.   The election of 2000 in Florida was basically a statistical tie. The votes that were counted under Florida Law resulted in Bush winning by 537 votes. Either candidate could probably have claimed victory under this close of a race, but the systems favored George Bush (the Florida Secretary of State was Republican and the Supreme Court of the US was controlled by Republicans). So in my mind, it was not a stolen election just an uber close election where the system benefited Bush.   Sources (I used a lot of newspaper articles because I believe this is a time period and event where the articles are just as relevant to establishing what happened as academic journals): https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-srv\/aponline\/20001108\/aponline183922_000.htm https:\/\/results.elections.myflorida.com\/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11\/7\/2000&DATAMODE=  \"The 2000 Presidential Election: A Statistical and Legal Analysis\" by: Richard A. Posner. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/3655316?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=bush+gore+recount&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dbush%2Bgore%2Brecount&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_solr_cloud%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A10adb61f9fc83eeb386bcec0fc3a7af6&seq=7#metadata_info_tab_contents  https:\/\/www.baltimoresun.com\/bal-00election31-story.html  https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2001\/11\/12\/us\/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html  Edit: slight correction of the ideology of the judges (I changed democrat to liberal, and republican to conservative) because as u\/overzealoustoddler pointed out it was not technically accurate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":163.0,"score_ratio":45.6744186047}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb8hsjo","c_root_id_B":"gb8n3d3","created_at_utc_A":1604590186,"created_at_utc_B":1604592684,"score_A":129,"score_B":1066,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot to this election, but let's focus on your question - Did George W. Bush(GWB) steal the election through some nefarious means?  The answer there from a legal standpoint is \"no, he did not\".  He exercised his ability to challenge decisions in court, and the court ruled in his favor.  This is no different than literally thousands of other court cases.  There has never been any realistic evidence that GWB cheated or did anything illegal to gain his win.  First, to set the stage, let's talk about how the USA elects presidents.  The USA does not elect presidents by popular vote.  Rather, we elect presidents through use of an \"electoral college\".  There are 538 electors, and each state gets a number of electors that is equivalent to its number of elected senators and representatives.  The fewest a state can have is three.  There are also three given to the District of Columbia.  Each state decides how to apportion their electors.  The most common method(48\/50 states) is all-or-nothing, majority wins.  This means that the candidate who wins a popular vote in a particular state gets **all** of that state's electors, regardless of how close the vote is.   So let's go back to 2000.  At the end of Election Night, GWB had 246 electoral college votes and Al Gore had 250.  270 electoral college votes is the majority, and whoever gets 270(or more) wins.  There were three states outstanding, but Florida had 25 electoral college votes and thus was the lynchpin.  Whoever won Florida won the race.  As Election Night wore on, the state was called for Gore and GWB at different times by the media.  It's worth noting that this carries no legal or electoral weight of any kind.  By the time the count was finished, the margin between GWB and Gore in Florida was 1,784 votes, with GWB up.  Under Florida law this triggered a mandatory **machine** recount.  This meant feeding all of the ballots back into automated counting machines.  That recount narrowed the gap to approximately 300 votes, still in GWB's favor.      Over the next several days there was a lot of argument over recounts, what kind of recount(manual or machine), and where recounts would be held.  In general, Gore wanted manual recounts in specific counties, where GWB argued that a recount had to be statewide or it was invalid.    Eventually, this argument reached the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.  I need to digress for a moment to explain a few things about the construction of the US legal system.  In summary, we have a federal system and 50 individual state systems.  Each state decides how they vote, how they accept ballots, what counts, et cetera.  The US federal government **does not** tell states how to run elections, even for federal races.  There's one giant exception here, though - state elections not violate the US federal Constitution.  The federal courts can step into virtually any state-level matter if it violates the Constitution.  GWB sued to stop the recount, arguing that it was in violation of the US Constitution.  The argument was made on two grounds: first, that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, and second, that earlier decisions made to allow the recounts violated Article II of the US Constitution.  The Article II argument did not stick, but the Equal Protection argument did.  Each Florida county was recounting independently, using **their own** criteria for manually judging ballots.  This would mean that two identical ballots could be counted differently in two separate counties.  By a 7-2 majority, the US Supreme Court agreed that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and thus the current recount could not continue as it was unconstitutional.  Of note, the 7-2 majority included both conservative and liberal justices(both sides) and it was really an 8-1 decision, as Justice Souter agreed that it was unconstitutional but disagreed on the reasoning.  Only Ginsburg thought this was constitutional.  The bigger issue was what to do about this.  The general agreement was that a state-set process, that was the same county-to-county, would suffice to overcome this ruling.  However, there was a timing problem.  State certification of electoral votes was due on December 12, and a certification done by December 12 in accordance with state law was automatically Constitutional.  Florida had already stated that they **would** be done with the certification by December 12.  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 11 and issued their ruling on December 12.    The more controversial decision here is the 5-4 decision, along ideological lines, that the issue be remanded to the Florida Supreme Court for \"or further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion\".  Given the prior Florida rulings, this effectively ended the recount, although it was not ordered as such.   Both decisions were controversial, the second more than the first.  The controversy around the second stems primarily around whether the USSC should have ordered Florida to proceed with a recount and to miss the deadline.  There's also an argument that the USSC could **not** do that as the lack of recount does not constitute a Constitutional violation that the USSC could repair.  In short, while the final answer(no more recounts) was controversial, the declaration that Florida's planned recount was much less so.","human_ref_B":"Obviously, the answer to this question is no from a legal perspective. Bush was legally the winner of the 2000 election, and he attained the presidency by victory in the electoral college as required by the Constitution. However, one could argue, and I am trying to choose my words very carefully, that Bush's election was a failure of democracy as it appears he should not have won.  So, the big deal is the Bush v Gore case and specifically the presidential vote in Florida. So, if you understand the way American presidential elections work, then you already know you need to receive the majority of electoral college votes to win. Not many foreigners understand that each state decides how these electors are distributed, but most of them, Florida included, awards all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate has the simple ~~majority~~ plurality. In the 2000 election, Florida's 29 electoral college votes were enough to give either candidate the win as the other states were tied. The first official tally of the votes was called as a victory for George W. Bush. Also, the difference in votes in Florida was less than 1% that year. Florida has an election law that automatically recounts when the difference is less than 1% which was triggered in this case. Now, most of the dispute came over these recounts.  So, Florida at the time used a punch card system for voting which has since been replaced. One of the reasons is that there was a chance (I will simplify) of hardware failure that could make a vote uncountable by the machine reader, and since the final vote difference between each candidate was actually less than 0.1%, the hardware failure rate could actually change the result. Specifically, since the problem seemed to have to do with how hard you punched the card making unclear marks on the ballot, and it was postulated this could affect senior populations very much which are a large part of the Florida constituency. So, the Gore campaign specifically filed for hand recounts of the ballots in specific counties (those favorable to him) at the Florida Supreme Court because a human could more accurately count ballots because of the hardware failure issue though some saw this as a political ploy to try and magic more votes since his supporters may be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on unclear ballots. Still, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore and ordered the recount including the counts by hand as requested in accordance with Florida statutes. Now, another part of this is that the Florida Law for recounts also has a time limit to produce those results before electors are decided upon. So, Florida polling stations only had a limited time to perform this recount, but it got underway.  Now, Bush not wanting to have his initial victory overturned sued in the Federal Supreme Court in the case Bush v. Gore. His argument was generally that because each polling location was counting votes based on different criteria (which was true, each polling place was just trying to do their best on a short schedule) that this violated the   Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Basically, treating and counting different peoples votes under different criteria was unconstitutional and the supreme court agreed. The federal supreme court ordered the recount to stop, and, most importantly, there was now no more time left under Florida Law for a recount before that elector designation as I mentioned earlier. So, the clock just ran out, and the initial call for Bush was upheld. Now, this meant that the election really fell apart because of the Florida Division of Elections not producing an effective, fair, uniform criteria for the recount which the Supreme Court ruled could have been done legally. If they had, the recount might not have been stopped, and if there wasn't a time limit, the Division of Elections could have created criteria and had a full recount, but the law was what the law was.  Now after all that was over. Several groups were able to study the ballots and do a review of the recounts based on specific criteria the state could have utilized for these ballots. The results were mixed in that different criteria produced different results for either Bush or Gore which gives some validity to the federal Supreme Court Arguments. However, one of the most comprehensive studies was the Florida Ballots Project which compared a great many ballots from the entire state that were both considered illegible for counting as well as some that were recounted which accounted for about 3% of the total vote. Their findings were pretty damning in that their review from almost every criteria would have given Gore the election had these ballots not been considered invalid due to those hardware failures I mentioned earlier.  TL;DR - Bush won legally, but Gore lost because of voting machine errors and the fact that Florida had a time limit on recounts and failed to establish statewide uniform criteria for hand recounts.  ​  Edit: just a quick thank you for the gold","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2498.0,"score_ratio":8.2635658915}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb8n3d3","c_root_id_B":"gb8n3cm","created_at_utc_A":1604592684,"created_at_utc_B":1604592684,"score_A":1066,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"Obviously, the answer to this question is no from a legal perspective. Bush was legally the winner of the 2000 election, and he attained the presidency by victory in the electoral college as required by the Constitution. However, one could argue, and I am trying to choose my words very carefully, that Bush's election was a failure of democracy as it appears he should not have won.  So, the big deal is the Bush v Gore case and specifically the presidential vote in Florida. So, if you understand the way American presidential elections work, then you already know you need to receive the majority of electoral college votes to win. Not many foreigners understand that each state decides how these electors are distributed, but most of them, Florida included, awards all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate has the simple ~~majority~~ plurality. In the 2000 election, Florida's 29 electoral college votes were enough to give either candidate the win as the other states were tied. The first official tally of the votes was called as a victory for George W. Bush. Also, the difference in votes in Florida was less than 1% that year. Florida has an election law that automatically recounts when the difference is less than 1% which was triggered in this case. Now, most of the dispute came over these recounts.  So, Florida at the time used a punch card system for voting which has since been replaced. One of the reasons is that there was a chance (I will simplify) of hardware failure that could make a vote uncountable by the machine reader, and since the final vote difference between each candidate was actually less than 0.1%, the hardware failure rate could actually change the result. Specifically, since the problem seemed to have to do with how hard you punched the card making unclear marks on the ballot, and it was postulated this could affect senior populations very much which are a large part of the Florida constituency. So, the Gore campaign specifically filed for hand recounts of the ballots in specific counties (those favorable to him) at the Florida Supreme Court because a human could more accurately count ballots because of the hardware failure issue though some saw this as a political ploy to try and magic more votes since his supporters may be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on unclear ballots. Still, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore and ordered the recount including the counts by hand as requested in accordance with Florida statutes. Now, another part of this is that the Florida Law for recounts also has a time limit to produce those results before electors are decided upon. So, Florida polling stations only had a limited time to perform this recount, but it got underway.  Now, Bush not wanting to have his initial victory overturned sued in the Federal Supreme Court in the case Bush v. Gore. His argument was generally that because each polling location was counting votes based on different criteria (which was true, each polling place was just trying to do their best on a short schedule) that this violated the   Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Basically, treating and counting different peoples votes under different criteria was unconstitutional and the supreme court agreed. The federal supreme court ordered the recount to stop, and, most importantly, there was now no more time left under Florida Law for a recount before that elector designation as I mentioned earlier. So, the clock just ran out, and the initial call for Bush was upheld. Now, this meant that the election really fell apart because of the Florida Division of Elections not producing an effective, fair, uniform criteria for the recount which the Supreme Court ruled could have been done legally. If they had, the recount might not have been stopped, and if there wasn't a time limit, the Division of Elections could have created criteria and had a full recount, but the law was what the law was.  Now after all that was over. Several groups were able to study the ballots and do a review of the recounts based on specific criteria the state could have utilized for these ballots. The results were mixed in that different criteria produced different results for either Bush or Gore which gives some validity to the federal Supreme Court Arguments. However, one of the most comprehensive studies was the Florida Ballots Project which compared a great many ballots from the entire state that were both considered illegible for counting as well as some that were recounted which accounted for about 3% of the total vote. Their findings were pretty damning in that their review from almost every criteria would have given Gore the election had these ballots not been considered invalid due to those hardware failures I mentioned earlier.  TL;DR - Bush won legally, but Gore lost because of voting machine errors and the fact that Florida had a time limit on recounts and failed to establish statewide uniform criteria for hand recounts.  ​  Edit: just a quick thank you for the gold","human_ref_B":"We may never actually know.   Full disclaimer, this may get removed as I'm not a historian. I am, however, an attorney. So, I can talk a little bit more about the legal battle behind it.   On the night of the election, a slew of news networks called Florida for Al Gore. However, they did so *before* the polls actually closed.  However, after the polls actually closed, Bush took the lead by over 100,000 votes. Gore called Bush and conceded.  As the night drew on, it became apparent that the race was actually closer than anticipated.  The day after the election, Bush only had a lead of 300 votes.  Gore called Bush and rescinded his concession.  As overseas ballots were counted in the following days, Bush's lead grew.   Thus began the five week legal battle to determine the winner of the election.  Regardless, the Florida secretary of state declared the election for Bush and the Democrats demanded a recount *in certain counties* where \"undervote\" was particularly prevalent. The \"undervote\" was a result of \"hanging chads\"  -- ballots where the hole wasn't *entirely* punched through. It was unclear if these individuals intended to vote for a certain candidate and failed to actually punch all the way through, or if they began to punch and changed their mind. This led to \"undervote\": where the machines tabulating the ballots were unable to register ANY vote for president on around 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade county (a heavily democratic area)   The initial stages of the recount also led to an examination of the infamous \"butterfly ballots\" \\-- an infamously confusing ballot setup. As you can see from the photo in that article, it's confusing. The first punch is for Bush, the second for Buchanan, the third for Gore.  Buchanan, a conservative third party candidate, received many votes in heavily democratic areas, leading some people to believe that many people who intended to vote for Gore selected the wrong hole punch.   The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a \"legal vote\" was one where the intent was clear from the ballot and ordered a manual recount of the ballots in Miami-Dade County. They also empowered state officials to order, if necessary, a recount \"in all counties that have not conducted a  manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes ... \\and\\] to do so forthwith,  said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the  ballots are located...\"   The US Supreme Court, however, reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision. In a 7-2 decision, in [Bush v. Gore they held that ordering a few specific counties to recount -- but not ALL counties -- violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. In effect, they reasoned that the ballots in counties NOT subject to a recount were not given the same protections as those in a county in which there was a recount.  In effect, they needed a statewide recount or no recount.    In that same case, the Supreme Court held, 5-4, that there was no alternative vote procedure that could be established in a timely manner that would satisfy the Equal Protection and Due Process concerns. This is the portion of the ruling that effectively ended the election and gave Bush the presidency.   The narrative of stealing the election primarily comes from the Bush campaign's legal efforts to stop the recounts and declare him president. Whether that is actually true, we may never know. The recounts were halted.  The truth behind the mysterious Buchanan votes was never uncovered.  Bush became president.  Later reports found that the \"overseas\" ballots which widened Bush's lead were not treated with the same standards as other votes \\-- with officials sometimes ignoring errors or double counting ballots. On the other hand, later reports also found that Bush maintained a lead within the disputed ballots.   Ultimately, whether or not Bush won the election the Supreme Court decision is particularly relevant today. In *Bush v. Gore*, the Supreme Court was willing to step into and modify a state's procedure for determining a presidential election. This precedent may soon again become relevant in the coming weeks.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":0.0,"score_ratio":28.0526315789}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb8k13o","c_root_id_B":"gb8n3d3","created_at_utc_A":1604591258,"created_at_utc_B":1604592684,"score_A":25,"score_B":1066,"human_ref_A":"It depends on who you ask and how they counted the ballots.    NORC did a study in 2001 and found that Gore would have won by between 60 and 171 votes had the full by-hand recount of all disputed ballots been conducted, depending on what criteria was used to read them.  However, it's not accurate to claim that Bush \"stole\" the election or used \"intrigue\".  The official count was \"the official count\" when Gore conceded.  It is still the official count in the public record.  The actual, factual count is incredibly difficult to determine, simply because of the type of ballots used by FL in 2000.  The design is poor from the start - voters used a little tool to punch out a perforated section next to their chosen candidate.  However, what do you do with a ballot that is only partially punched and the perforated section is not fully removed?  You may have heard the term \"hanging chads\" - this is what the phrase refers to.  What about ballots where the voter didn't press hard enough and the chad is clearly depressed, but not actually detached?  There's a lot of room for ambiguity, and whether a ballot has been clearly cast for one candidate or the other is open to interpretation.  There's also room for voter confusion, as the Gore\/Lieberman ticket is the second option in the left hand column, but you need to punch the 3rd hole to select it.  The 2nd hole is actually for the first option in the right column.  Not a very clear layout.  What really determined the winner in 2000 was how the ballots were counted and when they stopped counting.  Gore wanted a full by-hand recount in four extremely close counties with a lot of ambiguous\/questionable ballots.  Bush didn't, since he was winning based on the by-machine recount.  Initially the FL courts ordered a statewide, by-hand recount of only \"questionable\" ballots, but the US supreme court put a hold on that because different counties count votes differently and it would fall afoul of the equal protection clause.  Gore could have (and arguably should have) pressed the issue further in the courts, but he didn't.    Had he appealed using specific counting standards, it likely would have been permitted.  Depending on what those standards were, he probably would have won.  But by that point it was already mid Dec. and everybody was completely fed up with the whole process.  The public just wanted it to be over.  The Bush campaign had spent the last 5 weeks pushing the narrative that Gore was a sore loser and he was dragging the whole country down rather than just admitting he lost.  Public opinion was starting to agree with the spin.  At the advice of his lawyers and advisors, Gore officially conceded on 12\/13\/2000.  The results of the election may well have been inaccurate, but it was certainly not \"stolen\".  It was (and still is) somewhat ambiguous who the voters in FL really intended to choose.  For further details (especially about all the complex legal wrangling on both sides), check out Deadlock: The Inside Story Of America's Closest Election by David Von Drehle.","human_ref_B":"Obviously, the answer to this question is no from a legal perspective. Bush was legally the winner of the 2000 election, and he attained the presidency by victory in the electoral college as required by the Constitution. However, one could argue, and I am trying to choose my words very carefully, that Bush's election was a failure of democracy as it appears he should not have won.  So, the big deal is the Bush v Gore case and specifically the presidential vote in Florida. So, if you understand the way American presidential elections work, then you already know you need to receive the majority of electoral college votes to win. Not many foreigners understand that each state decides how these electors are distributed, but most of them, Florida included, awards all of its electoral college votes to whichever candidate has the simple ~~majority~~ plurality. In the 2000 election, Florida's 29 electoral college votes were enough to give either candidate the win as the other states were tied. The first official tally of the votes was called as a victory for George W. Bush. Also, the difference in votes in Florida was less than 1% that year. Florida has an election law that automatically recounts when the difference is less than 1% which was triggered in this case. Now, most of the dispute came over these recounts.  So, Florida at the time used a punch card system for voting which has since been replaced. One of the reasons is that there was a chance (I will simplify) of hardware failure that could make a vote uncountable by the machine reader, and since the final vote difference between each candidate was actually less than 0.1%, the hardware failure rate could actually change the result. Specifically, since the problem seemed to have to do with how hard you punched the card making unclear marks on the ballot, and it was postulated this could affect senior populations very much which are a large part of the Florida constituency. So, the Gore campaign specifically filed for hand recounts of the ballots in specific counties (those favorable to him) at the Florida Supreme Court because a human could more accurately count ballots because of the hardware failure issue though some saw this as a political ploy to try and magic more votes since his supporters may be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on unclear ballots. Still, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore and ordered the recount including the counts by hand as requested in accordance with Florida statutes. Now, another part of this is that the Florida Law for recounts also has a time limit to produce those results before electors are decided upon. So, Florida polling stations only had a limited time to perform this recount, but it got underway.  Now, Bush not wanting to have his initial victory overturned sued in the Federal Supreme Court in the case Bush v. Gore. His argument was generally that because each polling location was counting votes based on different criteria (which was true, each polling place was just trying to do their best on a short schedule) that this violated the   Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Basically, treating and counting different peoples votes under different criteria was unconstitutional and the supreme court agreed. The federal supreme court ordered the recount to stop, and, most importantly, there was now no more time left under Florida Law for a recount before that elector designation as I mentioned earlier. So, the clock just ran out, and the initial call for Bush was upheld. Now, this meant that the election really fell apart because of the Florida Division of Elections not producing an effective, fair, uniform criteria for the recount which the Supreme Court ruled could have been done legally. If they had, the recount might not have been stopped, and if there wasn't a time limit, the Division of Elections could have created criteria and had a full recount, but the law was what the law was.  Now after all that was over. Several groups were able to study the ballots and do a review of the recounts based on specific criteria the state could have utilized for these ballots. The results were mixed in that different criteria produced different results for either Bush or Gore which gives some validity to the federal Supreme Court Arguments. However, one of the most comprehensive studies was the Florida Ballots Project which compared a great many ballots from the entire state that were both considered illegible for counting as well as some that were recounted which accounted for about 3% of the total vote. Their findings were pretty damning in that their review from almost every criteria would have given Gore the election had these ballots not been considered invalid due to those hardware failures I mentioned earlier.  TL;DR - Bush won legally, but Gore lost because of voting machine errors and the fact that Florida had a time limit on recounts and failed to establish statewide uniform criteria for hand recounts.  ​  Edit: just a quick thank you for the gold","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1426.0,"score_ratio":42.64}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb99ax6","c_root_id_B":"gb8hsjo","created_at_utc_A":1604602739,"created_at_utc_B":1604590186,"score_A":191,"score_B":129,"human_ref_A":"One issue most people consistently leave out when addressing this question is the voter suppression efforts of the Florida G.O.P.  in 2000. \" **More than 12,000** eligible voters \u2013 a number twenty-two times larger than George W. Bush\u2019s 537 vote triumph over Al Gore \u2013 were wrongly denied their right to vote in Florida,\" according to the Brennan Center for Justice.2]    These voter suppression efforts were led by Katherine Harris, Florida\u2019s secretary of state, charged with overseeing an impartial election; she was a Republican who served as co-chair of Florida\u2019s Bush for President election committee and appointed by Florida\u2019s governor at the time: J.E.B. Bush, George W. Bush\u2019s younger brother.   Due to the controversy surrounding the Florida election results in the year 2000, \"The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission\u2019s subpoena power, included three days of hearings, more than 30 hours of testimony, 100 witnesses, and a systematic review of more than 118,000 pages of pertinent documents state that statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights.\" [1]     The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that:    * This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election.  * Poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations. For example, in Gadsden County, the only county in the state with an African American majority, approximately one in eight voters was disenfranchised. In Leon County, on the other hand, which is home to the prosperous state capital and two state universities, fewer than two votes in 1,000 were not counted. In Florida, of the 100 precincts with the highest numbers of disqualified ballots, 83 of them are majority-black precincts.   * Even in counties where the same voting technology was used, blacks were far more likely to have their votes rejected than whites.  **Now, while it is impossible to say what percentage of the people denied the franchise in Florida in the 2000 election would have voted for Gore rather than Bush, the groups this disenfranchisement fell on most harshly significantly favored Gore over Bush, which is at least suggestive that without the Florida G.O.P. putting their thumb on the scale, Gore would have beaten Bush.** It is also important to point out that this does not implicate Bush in the cheating, but rather some of the highest ranking members of the Florida G.O.P. most notably, Katherine Harris - it also does not directly implicate JEB Bush either, however his position and responsibility in appointing Harris may be taken as somewhat suggestive as to his culpability.    [2] [The Brennan Center for Justice's A Guide to Voter Caging    1] [The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election","human_ref_B":"There's a lot to this election, but let's focus on your question - Did George W. Bush(GWB) steal the election through some nefarious means?  The answer there from a legal standpoint is \"no, he did not\".  He exercised his ability to challenge decisions in court, and the court ruled in his favor.  This is no different than literally thousands of other court cases.  There has never been any realistic evidence that GWB cheated or did anything illegal to gain his win.  First, to set the stage, let's talk about how the USA elects presidents.  The USA does not elect presidents by popular vote.  Rather, we elect presidents through use of an \"electoral college\".  There are 538 electors, and each state gets a number of electors that is equivalent to its number of elected senators and representatives.  The fewest a state can have is three.  There are also three given to the District of Columbia.  Each state decides how to apportion their electors.  The most common method(48\/50 states) is all-or-nothing, majority wins.  This means that the candidate who wins a popular vote in a particular state gets **all** of that state's electors, regardless of how close the vote is.   So let's go back to 2000.  At the end of Election Night, GWB had 246 electoral college votes and Al Gore had 250.  270 electoral college votes is the majority, and whoever gets 270(or more) wins.  There were three states outstanding, but Florida had 25 electoral college votes and thus was the lynchpin.  Whoever won Florida won the race.  As Election Night wore on, the state was called for Gore and GWB at different times by the media.  It's worth noting that this carries no legal or electoral weight of any kind.  By the time the count was finished, the margin between GWB and Gore in Florida was 1,784 votes, with GWB up.  Under Florida law this triggered a mandatory **machine** recount.  This meant feeding all of the ballots back into automated counting machines.  That recount narrowed the gap to approximately 300 votes, still in GWB's favor.      Over the next several days there was a lot of argument over recounts, what kind of recount(manual or machine), and where recounts would be held.  In general, Gore wanted manual recounts in specific counties, where GWB argued that a recount had to be statewide or it was invalid.    Eventually, this argument reached the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.  I need to digress for a moment to explain a few things about the construction of the US legal system.  In summary, we have a federal system and 50 individual state systems.  Each state decides how they vote, how they accept ballots, what counts, et cetera.  The US federal government **does not** tell states how to run elections, even for federal races.  There's one giant exception here, though - state elections not violate the US federal Constitution.  The federal courts can step into virtually any state-level matter if it violates the Constitution.  GWB sued to stop the recount, arguing that it was in violation of the US Constitution.  The argument was made on two grounds: first, that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, and second, that earlier decisions made to allow the recounts violated Article II of the US Constitution.  The Article II argument did not stick, but the Equal Protection argument did.  Each Florida county was recounting independently, using **their own** criteria for manually judging ballots.  This would mean that two identical ballots could be counted differently in two separate counties.  By a 7-2 majority, the US Supreme Court agreed that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and thus the current recount could not continue as it was unconstitutional.  Of note, the 7-2 majority included both conservative and liberal justices(both sides) and it was really an 8-1 decision, as Justice Souter agreed that it was unconstitutional but disagreed on the reasoning.  Only Ginsburg thought this was constitutional.  The bigger issue was what to do about this.  The general agreement was that a state-set process, that was the same county-to-county, would suffice to overcome this ruling.  However, there was a timing problem.  State certification of electoral votes was due on December 12, and a certification done by December 12 in accordance with state law was automatically Constitutional.  Florida had already stated that they **would** be done with the certification by December 12.  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 11 and issued their ruling on December 12.    The more controversial decision here is the 5-4 decision, along ideological lines, that the issue be remanded to the Florida Supreme Court for \"or further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion\".  Given the prior Florida rulings, this effectively ended the recount, although it was not ordered as such.   Both decisions were controversial, the second more than the first.  The controversy around the second stems primarily around whether the USSC should have ordered Florida to proceed with a recount and to miss the deadline.  There's also an argument that the USSC could **not** do that as the lack of recount does not constitute a Constitutional violation that the USSC could repair.  In short, while the final answer(no more recounts) was controversial, the declaration that Florida's planned recount was much less so.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12553.0,"score_ratio":1.480620155}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb99ax6","c_root_id_B":"gb8n3cm","created_at_utc_A":1604602739,"created_at_utc_B":1604592684,"score_A":191,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"One issue most people consistently leave out when addressing this question is the voter suppression efforts of the Florida G.O.P.  in 2000. \" **More than 12,000** eligible voters \u2013 a number twenty-two times larger than George W. Bush\u2019s 537 vote triumph over Al Gore \u2013 were wrongly denied their right to vote in Florida,\" according to the Brennan Center for Justice.2]    These voter suppression efforts were led by Katherine Harris, Florida\u2019s secretary of state, charged with overseeing an impartial election; she was a Republican who served as co-chair of Florida\u2019s Bush for President election committee and appointed by Florida\u2019s governor at the time: J.E.B. Bush, George W. Bush\u2019s younger brother.   Due to the controversy surrounding the Florida election results in the year 2000, \"The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission\u2019s subpoena power, included three days of hearings, more than 30 hours of testimony, 100 witnesses, and a systematic review of more than 118,000 pages of pertinent documents state that statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights.\" [1]     The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that:    * This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election.  * Poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations. For example, in Gadsden County, the only county in the state with an African American majority, approximately one in eight voters was disenfranchised. In Leon County, on the other hand, which is home to the prosperous state capital and two state universities, fewer than two votes in 1,000 were not counted. In Florida, of the 100 precincts with the highest numbers of disqualified ballots, 83 of them are majority-black precincts.   * Even in counties where the same voting technology was used, blacks were far more likely to have their votes rejected than whites.  **Now, while it is impossible to say what percentage of the people denied the franchise in Florida in the 2000 election would have voted for Gore rather than Bush, the groups this disenfranchisement fell on most harshly significantly favored Gore over Bush, which is at least suggestive that without the Florida G.O.P. putting their thumb on the scale, Gore would have beaten Bush.** It is also important to point out that this does not implicate Bush in the cheating, but rather some of the highest ranking members of the Florida G.O.P. most notably, Katherine Harris - it also does not directly implicate JEB Bush either, however his position and responsibility in appointing Harris may be taken as somewhat suggestive as to his culpability.    [2] [The Brennan Center for Justice's A Guide to Voter Caging    1] [The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election","human_ref_B":"We may never actually know.   Full disclaimer, this may get removed as I'm not a historian. I am, however, an attorney. So, I can talk a little bit more about the legal battle behind it.   On the night of the election, a slew of news networks called Florida for Al Gore. However, they did so *before* the polls actually closed.  However, after the polls actually closed, Bush took the lead by over 100,000 votes. Gore called Bush and conceded.  As the night drew on, it became apparent that the race was actually closer than anticipated.  The day after the election, Bush only had a lead of 300 votes.  Gore called Bush and rescinded his concession.  As overseas ballots were counted in the following days, Bush's lead grew.   Thus began the five week legal battle to determine the winner of the election.  Regardless, the Florida secretary of state declared the election for Bush and the Democrats demanded a recount *in certain counties* where \"undervote\" was particularly prevalent. The \"undervote\" was a result of \"hanging chads\"  -- ballots where the hole wasn't *entirely* punched through. It was unclear if these individuals intended to vote for a certain candidate and failed to actually punch all the way through, or if they began to punch and changed their mind. This led to \"undervote\": where the machines tabulating the ballots were unable to register ANY vote for president on around 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade county (a heavily democratic area)   The initial stages of the recount also led to an examination of the infamous \"butterfly ballots\" \\-- an infamously confusing ballot setup. As you can see from the photo in that article, it's confusing. The first punch is for Bush, the second for Buchanan, the third for Gore.  Buchanan, a conservative third party candidate, received many votes in heavily democratic areas, leading some people to believe that many people who intended to vote for Gore selected the wrong hole punch.   The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a \"legal vote\" was one where the intent was clear from the ballot and ordered a manual recount of the ballots in Miami-Dade County. They also empowered state officials to order, if necessary, a recount \"in all counties that have not conducted a  manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes ... \\and\\] to do so forthwith,  said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the  ballots are located...\"   The US Supreme Court, however, reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision. In a 7-2 decision, in [Bush v. Gore they held that ordering a few specific counties to recount -- but not ALL counties -- violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. In effect, they reasoned that the ballots in counties NOT subject to a recount were not given the same protections as those in a county in which there was a recount.  In effect, they needed a statewide recount or no recount.    In that same case, the Supreme Court held, 5-4, that there was no alternative vote procedure that could be established in a timely manner that would satisfy the Equal Protection and Due Process concerns. This is the portion of the ruling that effectively ended the election and gave Bush the presidency.   The narrative of stealing the election primarily comes from the Bush campaign's legal efforts to stop the recounts and declare him president. Whether that is actually true, we may never know. The recounts were halted.  The truth behind the mysterious Buchanan votes was never uncovered.  Bush became president.  Later reports found that the \"overseas\" ballots which widened Bush's lead were not treated with the same standards as other votes \\-- with officials sometimes ignoring errors or double counting ballots. On the other hand, later reports also found that Bush maintained a lead within the disputed ballots.   Ultimately, whether or not Bush won the election the Supreme Court decision is particularly relevant today. In *Bush v. Gore*, the Supreme Court was willing to step into and modify a state's procedure for determining a presidential election. This precedent may soon again become relevant in the coming weeks.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10055.0,"score_ratio":5.0263157895}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb99ax6","c_root_id_B":"gb8k13o","created_at_utc_A":1604602739,"created_at_utc_B":1604591258,"score_A":191,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"One issue most people consistently leave out when addressing this question is the voter suppression efforts of the Florida G.O.P.  in 2000. \" **More than 12,000** eligible voters \u2013 a number twenty-two times larger than George W. Bush\u2019s 537 vote triumph over Al Gore \u2013 were wrongly denied their right to vote in Florida,\" according to the Brennan Center for Justice.2]    These voter suppression efforts were led by Katherine Harris, Florida\u2019s secretary of state, charged with overseeing an impartial election; she was a Republican who served as co-chair of Florida\u2019s Bush for President election committee and appointed by Florida\u2019s governor at the time: J.E.B. Bush, George W. Bush\u2019s younger brother.   Due to the controversy surrounding the Florida election results in the year 2000, \"The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission\u2019s subpoena power, included three days of hearings, more than 30 hours of testimony, 100 witnesses, and a systematic review of more than 118,000 pages of pertinent documents state that statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights.\" [1]     The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that:    * This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election.  * Poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations. For example, in Gadsden County, the only county in the state with an African American majority, approximately one in eight voters was disenfranchised. In Leon County, on the other hand, which is home to the prosperous state capital and two state universities, fewer than two votes in 1,000 were not counted. In Florida, of the 100 precincts with the highest numbers of disqualified ballots, 83 of them are majority-black precincts.   * Even in counties where the same voting technology was used, blacks were far more likely to have their votes rejected than whites.  **Now, while it is impossible to say what percentage of the people denied the franchise in Florida in the 2000 election would have voted for Gore rather than Bush, the groups this disenfranchisement fell on most harshly significantly favored Gore over Bush, which is at least suggestive that without the Florida G.O.P. putting their thumb on the scale, Gore would have beaten Bush.** It is also important to point out that this does not implicate Bush in the cheating, but rather some of the highest ranking members of the Florida G.O.P. most notably, Katherine Harris - it also does not directly implicate JEB Bush either, however his position and responsibility in appointing Harris may be taken as somewhat suggestive as to his culpability.    [2] [The Brennan Center for Justice's A Guide to Voter Caging    1] [The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election","human_ref_B":"It depends on who you ask and how they counted the ballots.    NORC did a study in 2001 and found that Gore would have won by between 60 and 171 votes had the full by-hand recount of all disputed ballots been conducted, depending on what criteria was used to read them.  However, it's not accurate to claim that Bush \"stole\" the election or used \"intrigue\".  The official count was \"the official count\" when Gore conceded.  It is still the official count in the public record.  The actual, factual count is incredibly difficult to determine, simply because of the type of ballots used by FL in 2000.  The design is poor from the start - voters used a little tool to punch out a perforated section next to their chosen candidate.  However, what do you do with a ballot that is only partially punched and the perforated section is not fully removed?  You may have heard the term \"hanging chads\" - this is what the phrase refers to.  What about ballots where the voter didn't press hard enough and the chad is clearly depressed, but not actually detached?  There's a lot of room for ambiguity, and whether a ballot has been clearly cast for one candidate or the other is open to interpretation.  There's also room for voter confusion, as the Gore\/Lieberman ticket is the second option in the left hand column, but you need to punch the 3rd hole to select it.  The 2nd hole is actually for the first option in the right column.  Not a very clear layout.  What really determined the winner in 2000 was how the ballots were counted and when they stopped counting.  Gore wanted a full by-hand recount in four extremely close counties with a lot of ambiguous\/questionable ballots.  Bush didn't, since he was winning based on the by-machine recount.  Initially the FL courts ordered a statewide, by-hand recount of only \"questionable\" ballots, but the US supreme court put a hold on that because different counties count votes differently and it would fall afoul of the equal protection clause.  Gore could have (and arguably should have) pressed the issue further in the courts, but he didn't.    Had he appealed using specific counting standards, it likely would have been permitted.  Depending on what those standards were, he probably would have won.  But by that point it was already mid Dec. and everybody was completely fed up with the whole process.  The public just wanted it to be over.  The Bush campaign had spent the last 5 weeks pushing the narrative that Gore was a sore loser and he was dragging the whole country down rather than just admitting he lost.  Public opinion was starting to agree with the spin.  At the advice of his lawyers and advisors, Gore officially conceded on 12\/13\/2000.  The results of the election may well have been inaccurate, but it was certainly not \"stolen\".  It was (and still is) somewhat ambiguous who the voters in FL really intended to choose.  For further details (especially about all the complex legal wrangling on both sides), check out Deadlock: The Inside Story Of America's Closest Election by David Von Drehle.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11481.0,"score_ratio":7.64}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb8om3e","c_root_id_B":"gb99ax6","created_at_utc_A":1604593381,"created_at_utc_B":1604602739,"score_A":6,"score_B":191,"human_ref_A":"Strictly speaking, this question is still subject to the 20 year rule, right?","human_ref_B":"One issue most people consistently leave out when addressing this question is the voter suppression efforts of the Florida G.O.P.  in 2000. \" **More than 12,000** eligible voters \u2013 a number twenty-two times larger than George W. Bush\u2019s 537 vote triumph over Al Gore \u2013 were wrongly denied their right to vote in Florida,\" according to the Brennan Center for Justice.2]    These voter suppression efforts were led by Katherine Harris, Florida\u2019s secretary of state, charged with overseeing an impartial election; she was a Republican who served as co-chair of Florida\u2019s Bush for President election committee and appointed by Florida\u2019s governor at the time: J.E.B. Bush, George W. Bush\u2019s younger brother.   Due to the controversy surrounding the Florida election results in the year 2000, \"The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted an extensive public investigation of allegations of voting irregularities during the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission\u2019s subpoena power, included three days of hearings, more than 30 hours of testimony, 100 witnesses, and a systematic review of more than 118,000 pages of pertinent documents state that statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights.\" [1]     The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that:    * This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election.  * Poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations. For example, in Gadsden County, the only county in the state with an African American majority, approximately one in eight voters was disenfranchised. In Leon County, on the other hand, which is home to the prosperous state capital and two state universities, fewer than two votes in 1,000 were not counted. In Florida, of the 100 precincts with the highest numbers of disqualified ballots, 83 of them are majority-black precincts.   * Even in counties where the same voting technology was used, blacks were far more likely to have their votes rejected than whites.  **Now, while it is impossible to say what percentage of the people denied the franchise in Florida in the 2000 election would have voted for Gore rather than Bush, the groups this disenfranchisement fell on most harshly significantly favored Gore over Bush, which is at least suggestive that without the Florida G.O.P. putting their thumb on the scale, Gore would have beaten Bush.** It is also important to point out that this does not implicate Bush in the cheating, but rather some of the highest ranking members of the Florida G.O.P. most notably, Katherine Harris - it also does not directly implicate JEB Bush either, however his position and responsibility in appointing Harris may be taken as somewhat suggestive as to his culpability.    [2] [The Brennan Center for Justice's A Guide to Voter Caging    1] [The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9358.0,"score_ratio":31.8333333333}
{"post_id":"johj33","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Did George W. Bush really steal an election in the 2000 USA election? I heard from elsewhere that Al Gore technically won but somehow George W. Bush won through intrigue somehow. I am not American so I don't really understand the context. What happened in the 2000 USA election?","c_root_id_A":"gb8n3cm","c_root_id_B":"gb8k13o","created_at_utc_A":1604592684,"created_at_utc_B":1604591258,"score_A":38,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"We may never actually know.   Full disclaimer, this may get removed as I'm not a historian. I am, however, an attorney. So, I can talk a little bit more about the legal battle behind it.   On the night of the election, a slew of news networks called Florida for Al Gore. However, they did so *before* the polls actually closed.  However, after the polls actually closed, Bush took the lead by over 100,000 votes. Gore called Bush and conceded.  As the night drew on, it became apparent that the race was actually closer than anticipated.  The day after the election, Bush only had a lead of 300 votes.  Gore called Bush and rescinded his concession.  As overseas ballots were counted in the following days, Bush's lead grew.   Thus began the five week legal battle to determine the winner of the election.  Regardless, the Florida secretary of state declared the election for Bush and the Democrats demanded a recount *in certain counties* where \"undervote\" was particularly prevalent. The \"undervote\" was a result of \"hanging chads\"  -- ballots where the hole wasn't *entirely* punched through. It was unclear if these individuals intended to vote for a certain candidate and failed to actually punch all the way through, or if they began to punch and changed their mind. This led to \"undervote\": where the machines tabulating the ballots were unable to register ANY vote for president on around 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade county (a heavily democratic area)   The initial stages of the recount also led to an examination of the infamous \"butterfly ballots\" \\-- an infamously confusing ballot setup. As you can see from the photo in that article, it's confusing. The first punch is for Bush, the second for Buchanan, the third for Gore.  Buchanan, a conservative third party candidate, received many votes in heavily democratic areas, leading some people to believe that many people who intended to vote for Gore selected the wrong hole punch.   The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a \"legal vote\" was one where the intent was clear from the ballot and ordered a manual recount of the ballots in Miami-Dade County. They also empowered state officials to order, if necessary, a recount \"in all counties that have not conducted a  manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes ... \\and\\] to do so forthwith,  said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the  ballots are located...\"   The US Supreme Court, however, reversed the Florida Supreme Court's decision. In a 7-2 decision, in [Bush v. Gore they held that ordering a few specific counties to recount -- but not ALL counties -- violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. In effect, they reasoned that the ballots in counties NOT subject to a recount were not given the same protections as those in a county in which there was a recount.  In effect, they needed a statewide recount or no recount.    In that same case, the Supreme Court held, 5-4, that there was no alternative vote procedure that could be established in a timely manner that would satisfy the Equal Protection and Due Process concerns. This is the portion of the ruling that effectively ended the election and gave Bush the presidency.   The narrative of stealing the election primarily comes from the Bush campaign's legal efforts to stop the recounts and declare him president. Whether that is actually true, we may never know. The recounts were halted.  The truth behind the mysterious Buchanan votes was never uncovered.  Bush became president.  Later reports found that the \"overseas\" ballots which widened Bush's lead were not treated with the same standards as other votes \\-- with officials sometimes ignoring errors or double counting ballots. On the other hand, later reports also found that Bush maintained a lead within the disputed ballots.   Ultimately, whether or not Bush won the election the Supreme Court decision is particularly relevant today. In *Bush v. Gore*, the Supreme Court was willing to step into and modify a state's procedure for determining a presidential election. This precedent may soon again become relevant in the coming weeks.","human_ref_B":"It depends on who you ask and how they counted the ballots.    NORC did a study in 2001 and found that Gore would have won by between 60 and 171 votes had the full by-hand recount of all disputed ballots been conducted, depending on what criteria was used to read them.  However, it's not accurate to claim that Bush \"stole\" the election or used \"intrigue\".  The official count was \"the official count\" when Gore conceded.  It is still the official count in the public record.  The actual, factual count is incredibly difficult to determine, simply because of the type of ballots used by FL in 2000.  The design is poor from the start - voters used a little tool to punch out a perforated section next to their chosen candidate.  However, what do you do with a ballot that is only partially punched and the perforated section is not fully removed?  You may have heard the term \"hanging chads\" - this is what the phrase refers to.  What about ballots where the voter didn't press hard enough and the chad is clearly depressed, but not actually detached?  There's a lot of room for ambiguity, and whether a ballot has been clearly cast for one candidate or the other is open to interpretation.  There's also room for voter confusion, as the Gore\/Lieberman ticket is the second option in the left hand column, but you need to punch the 3rd hole to select it.  The 2nd hole is actually for the first option in the right column.  Not a very clear layout.  What really determined the winner in 2000 was how the ballots were counted and when they stopped counting.  Gore wanted a full by-hand recount in four extremely close counties with a lot of ambiguous\/questionable ballots.  Bush didn't, since he was winning based on the by-machine recount.  Initially the FL courts ordered a statewide, by-hand recount of only \"questionable\" ballots, but the US supreme court put a hold on that because different counties count votes differently and it would fall afoul of the equal protection clause.  Gore could have (and arguably should have) pressed the issue further in the courts, but he didn't.    Had he appealed using specific counting standards, it likely would have been permitted.  Depending on what those standards were, he probably would have won.  But by that point it was already mid Dec. and everybody was completely fed up with the whole process.  The public just wanted it to be over.  The Bush campaign had spent the last 5 weeks pushing the narrative that Gore was a sore loser and he was dragging the whole country down rather than just admitting he lost.  Public opinion was starting to agree with the spin.  At the advice of his lawyers and advisors, Gore officially conceded on 12\/13\/2000.  The results of the election may well have been inaccurate, but it was certainly not \"stolen\".  It was (and still is) somewhat ambiguous who the voters in FL really intended to choose.  For further details (especially about all the complex legal wrangling on both sides), check out Deadlock: The Inside Story Of America's Closest Election by David Von Drehle.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1426.0,"score_ratio":1.52}
{"post_id":"i5ye5f","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Nearly everyone in the Western world knows the name \"Julius Caesar\" and recognizes his life as seminal to many modern civilizations. Has this been the case for 2,000 years, or is it the product of 18th\/19th century neoclassical Roman weebs?","c_root_id_A":"g0s87yu","c_root_id_B":"g0t4q2k","created_at_utc_A":1596890133,"created_at_utc_B":1596909396,"score_A":16,"score_B":2342,"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":"Summing up Caesar's position throughout the last 2,000 years is somewhat difficult to do in simple terms, because his significance to Western culture varies from era to era.  To begin with the more immediate reception of Caesar, that is in the immediate aftermath of his death, while his assassins would style themselves as liberators and freeing Rome from tyranny (Cicero goes so far as to call Caesar a tyrant and parricide of the fatherland, *De Officiis* 3.82f.), the people of Rome grieved and honoured Caesar as a god. This is reflected particularly in Octavian adopting the name Gaius Julius Caesar **Divi Filius** after Caesar's death and \"ascension\", and while he would go on to change his name again after assuming power, he kept the *Divi Filius* aspect of his name throughout.  The peoples' veneration of Caesar was exploited quite cleverly by the Triumvirs in the wake of their victory against Brutus et al. at the Battle of Philippi (though whether this was opportunistic reverence or genuine veneration of Caesar is perhaps up for debate); the fifth month of the year, Quintilis, was renamed Iulius (July), and Caesar was officially venerated as the Divine Julius, with Octavian even founding a Temple of Caesar.  Octavian continued to use his adoption by Caesar, and vengeance for Caesar's assassination, as justification for the moves he made in his career. His own legions were comprised of Caesar's veterans, and he continued to exploit Caesar's civic reputation to bolster his own. Even complaints about Octavian largely focussed on his reliance upon Caesar's memory.  It's worth noting, though, that once Octavian became Augustus, Caesar's significance dwindled somewhat under the cult of Augustus (though this is not to say that Caesar became objectively insignificant); Augustus came to rely on his own reputation rather than that of Caesar's before him. Augustan literature in particular came to downplay Caesar in favour of revering Augustus himself; Horace, for example, drew direct association between Caesar's triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and the origins of civil war (*Carmina*, 2.1.3f.), while Virgil's *Aeneid* drew attention to Caesar as a bellicose figure (see Anchises beseeching Caesar to lay down his arms, *Aeneid* 6.834f.) while depicting Caesar's bitter rival Cato as a lawgiver (*Aeneid* 8.670).  Caesar continued to be revered throughout Imperial history, albeit at varying degrees. The month of July continued to be held in his name, of course, and the title *Caesar* was held by Roman Emperors throughout the period. It's perhaps worth noting, though, the significance awarded to Augustus' position over Caesar's that after the Empire's split the title of *Caesar* was given to sub-emperors, while the emperors themselves held the title *Augustus*.  Imperial depictions of Caesar held him as the cure to the late Republic's numerous problems; he broke the cycle of aristocrats and do-nothings by installing a new sort of power. In short, he was seen as a turning point. Imperial historians, such as Velleius Paterculus and Appian, awarded Caesar perhaps disproportionate attention against later rulers; Cassius Dio devoted a tenth of his eighty books on Roman history to Caesar's career, despite this comprising only a short period of his work's 1,000-year coverage.  By the time of the later Roman empire, however, Caesar's centrality to Roman history had diminished, and his achievements were used largely as a comparison to the superiority of writers' contemporary rulers; Caesar was no longer the turning point of Roman history, as Christianisation had seen Rome's adoption of the faith as the seminal moment of history.  However, Caesar himself was not forgotten even after the fall of Rome; his name continued as a designation of the highest power, reflected in the Holy Roman Imperial title of \"Kaiser\" (and, later, in the Slavic title \"Czar\/Tsar\").  Caesar, as founder of the fourth great empire of Daniel's Biblical prophecy (Daniel 2:40-43), became seen as an instrument in God's divine plan, and was thus depicted as a model of chivalric virtue and the ideal king, and was even held as a comparison for contemporary rulers to aspire to. Medieval English and French writers in particular praised Caesar for his chivalry, while German writers, who saw the Holy Roman Empire as the natural successor to Rome, held Caesar as the founder of their own empire, and depicted him as an ideal ruler from as early as the 11th century (see, for example, Archbishop Anno II of Cologne's *Annolied*). It's worth noting as well that Caesar continued to be held as a somewhat multifaceted hero, though; while the embodiment of chivalric virtue, he was also victim to his own hubris.  Perhaps the most notable depiction of Caesar aligning with medieval ideas of the man is Dante's *Inferno*; as an unbaptised soul (obviously), Caesar was condemned to Limbo but was held as the one of the virtuous there (*Inferno* 4.123), while his murderers Brutus and Cassius are condemned to Hell to suffer alongside even the likes of Judas (*Inferno* 34.61-67).  The Renaissance brought a rejuvenation in Caesarian reverence, particularly after the \"discovery\" that it was in fact Caesar himself who authored his *Commentarii*, which was held during the Renaissance as a key text in Latin education. The *Commentarii*, seen as a unique glimpse into pre-Roman Gaul, even developed into a key work in the study of Gallic history. It became a work transposed even into contemporary times; poet Giannantonio de Pandoni composed a prose piece that drew on Caesar's *Commentarii* as inspiration for depicting his own contemporary war between Venice and Milan (albeit without drawing direct comparison). Even Pope Pius II, who himself authored an autobiographical *Commentarii*, appropriated the Caesarian model by portraying himself rather explicitly in the cast of Caesar, associating his own struggles against the enemies of the Papal States with Caesar's struggles in his civil war. Writers like Petrarch and Machiavelli continued to draw on Caesar as a figure of contrasting reputation; an agent of hostility to the virtues of the Republican, but simultaneously a praiseworthy genius and chivalric ideal.  Of course, his significance is also represented in Shakespeare's own plays about Caesar and the aftermath of his death; Shakespeare's depiction of Caesar suggests that the people were familiar, or at least aware, of Caesar as a historical figure. At the very least, they will have been aware of him after the fact.  I will bring my answer to a close here by bringing us to Caesarian reception during the Enlightenment. In this period of philosophical advancement, Caesar was regarded as one of the emblems of absolute monarchy, representing the martial prowess and cultured education that was considered the ideal for an 18th-century ruler. He was seen, as well, as a somewhat benevolent despot; using his absolute authority to impose social reform on a nation very much in need of it. Voltaire in particularly, while acknowledging Caesar's failures, held Caesar as the ideal philosopher-king.  The Revolutions of the 18th century were themselves no stranger to drawing upon Caesar as a significant figure; albeit not in the positive light he'd been awarded during earlier periods. As a symbol of absolute power, he was course seen as contrary to the ideals of the French and American revolutionaries, particularly as a warning for the dangers of a demagogue rising to power in the face of populism. Alexander Hamilton's *Federalist Papers* in particular used Caesar as a shorthand for autocratic power, and Hamilton also called Thomas Jefferson \"Caesar\" in warning of his potential.  Aside from the primary sources cited above, I believe some helpful sources should include;  \u2022 Baehr 1998, *Caesar and the Fading of the Roman World: A Study in Republicanism and Caesarism*  \u2022 O'Brien 2009, 'Arms and Letters: Julius Caesar, the *Commentaries* of Pope Pius II, and the Politicisation of Papal Imagery', *Renaissance Quarterly* 62, 1057-1097  \u2022 Ramage 1985, 'Augustus' Treatment of Julius Caesar', *Historia* 34, 223-245  \u2022 Wyke 2006, *Julius Caesar in Western Culture*  EDIT: formatting","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19263.0,"score_ratio":146.375}
{"post_id":"jqam41","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What caused Ronald Reagan to win by such a massive majority of electoral votes (525) in 1984? In 1984, Ronald Reagan won by a huge margin, taking every state but Minnesota. His first term in 1980 was also won in a huge landslide (489) with many of the traditionally blue states coming out in favour of him. Why was Reagan so popular?","c_root_id_A":"gbloutr","c_root_id_B":"gbnpbls","created_at_utc_A":1604836830,"created_at_utc_B":1604873391,"score_A":25,"score_B":2479,"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":"Mondale painted himself into a corner against Reagan and formulated bad campaign strategies that backfired upon himself.  Mondale believed that with the fiscal deficit that Reagan was running that taxes needed to be raised, and announced he'd be cutting the deficit through large scale tax increases and that admitting this made him honest because Reagan would have to do it in the future anyway. But polling showed that 80% of Americans believed the deficit should be reduced via budget cuts rather than tax increases and Reagan announced he had no plans to actually raise or lower taxes. Mondale's tax plan also showed it would raise taxes on middle-income earners. Whilst Democrats had traditionally advocated for higher taxes in return for greater prosperity Mondale seemed to be advocating for tax raises in return for nothing.  Voters, in general, were pleased with Reagan's economic performance whilst in office, with his approval on the economy consistently above 60%. Private-sector job creation was nearly the strongest on record, economic growth the fastest in 34 years, housing starts at their highest in 6, unemployment falling although still relatively high, interest and inflation low. For an America which had just gotten through a serious recession Mondale's beating of the drum for restraint, tax increases, and caution wasn't appealing.  Voters, in general, were far less positive with Reagan's foreign policy which was at 50% or less, with polling showing 40% of Americans believed they'd see a nuclear holocaust which would end humanity within their lifetimes. Voters were worried by Reagan's aggressive posturing and at his failure to negotiate with the Soviet Union after the Soviet Union walked out of the 1983 Geneva Convention. Mondale attacked Reagan on this by proposing a softer tone and an immediate push for arms reduction but somewhat bizarrely voters didn't like this either. Polling showed that while people were afraid of Reagan's foreign policy they did approve of the concept of \"peace through strength\" and they didn't actually want a more conciliatory president. Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko's visit to the White House and the ascension of Chernenko to leader of the Soviet Union seemed to alleviate fears of a full-blown war, and showed that Reagan was able to be both strong and guarantee peace.  Reagan also underwent a process criticized as \"blandification\" where he somewhat distanced himself from his party and presented himself as a national figure of peace and unity, who wanted every day to be the 4th of July and brought Morning Again to America. Notably whilst Reagan won a landslide the Republicans lost 2 seats in the Senate and an 18 seat gain in the house still meant there were 253 Democrats to 182 Republicans, leading to a lashing out of some Republican figures, unhappy that Reagan seemed to do little for his party, with Newt Gingrich declaring \"He should have been running against liberals\".  So Reagan was well received on economic issues whilst Mondale painted himself in a corner nobody seemed to support. Mondale advocated for an unpopular foreign policy whilst Reagan seemed to solve one of the key problems of his Presidency and alleviate concerns about nuclear war, moreover, Reagan was able to project a very positive feel-good tone of the campaign which attempted to reach out to all Americans.   Source: Morgan, Iwan \"Reagan: American Icon\"  Wilcox, Clyde & Allsop, Dee. \"Economic and Foreign Policy as Sources of Reagan Support.\"   Gromyko, Andrei - \"Memoirs\"  Morgan, Iwan \"The age of deficits: Presidents and unbalanced budgets from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush\"  Wirthlin, Richard \"The Greatest Communicator\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36561.0,"score_ratio":99.16}
{"post_id":"jqam41","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What caused Ronald Reagan to win by such a massive majority of electoral votes (525) in 1984? In 1984, Ronald Reagan won by a huge margin, taking every state but Minnesota. His first term in 1980 was also won in a huge landslide (489) with many of the traditionally blue states coming out in favour of him. Why was Reagan so popular?","c_root_id_A":"gbo126o","c_root_id_B":"gbloutr","created_at_utc_A":1604879482,"created_at_utc_B":1604836830,"score_A":149,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"There is no single answer to this question. Instead, I can give you a general outline of important factors that affected that election.  First of all, the 1984 Election was unique in how many people ran for president in the Democratic National Convention. As the Frontrunner, we had WalterMondale, but we also had Senator Gary Hart and Reverend Jesse Jackson, who were both well regarded. There were five other official nominations; including, a very young Joe Biden. There were another 18 unofficial nominations. This was a very large amount of candidates in the 80's. So why?  Well, the reason is, essentially, the Democrats smelled blood. They had the confidence to beat Reagan in this election. After all, he had only really been popular in his first year (1981) after stoically surviving the assassination attempt and his approval rating slowly plummeted afterward with his 1982 and 1983 approval ratings both below 50%. This was mostly due to Reagan's failure to revamp the economy with his now-infamous \"Reaganomics\". Another reason why the Democrats had confidence in defeating Reagan was the Cold War.  Reagan had taken a very tough stance on the Soviet Union. He was a military war hawk who took overt, aggressive actions against the Soviets contrasting the carefulness of his predecessors. He had initiated a military build-up, the SDI program, and many overt operations against Soviet influence in foreign countries. His opinion on America's former stance of coexistence and containment against the USSR is well explained by his 1983 speech in Orland, Florida:  *\"They preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over*  *individual man and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on Earth.*  *They are the focus of evil in the modern world. So, in your discussion of*  *the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride,*  *the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves about it all and label both*  *sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive*  *impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant*  *misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between*  *right and wrong and good and evil.\"* *^(4)*  Democratic opponents promised a safe return to a more timid policy with the USSR. However, despite his aggressive stands. Studies show that the public did not want to return to a international timid president.  Moving on from 1983, let's look at Mondale himself. Mondale was a former VP, which means the public associated him with the president he served (Jimmy Carter). A president who was markedly less liked than Reagan himself. With that in mind, Mondale was campaigning as a return to safer policies. His opponent in the primaries, Gary Hart, took advantage of this and ran a stellar primary campaign advertising that he would not return to old fashioned and failed policies. He was a shoo-in for moderate democrats. He went from a near unknown candidate polling at 1% in February 1983 to soundly beating Mondale in New Hampshire by over 10%. By the end of the primaries, Mondale barely edged out Gary Hart by 3% (38 - 35) of the popular vote and largely due to the financial support of establishment Democrats. This would cause lasting damage to Mondale's campaign as Gary Hart essentially split the party, much like the 2016 Hillary\/Bernie campaigns.  So we have acknowledged that the contested issues were National Security and the Economy. Mondale ran on a theory of peaceful cooperation and higher taxes. Reagan on peace through aggression and Reaganomics. Leading up to the 1984 election the economy finally started taking off with a 7% increase to GDP in under a year and Reagan comfortably back above 50% by October.  On the debate stage, Reagan as a former media personality trounced the uncharismatic Mondale with his quip in the second debate going down in political history. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Wt0xCpduK-E&ab\\_channel=FacetheNation. Regan was one of the most charismatic presidents we ever had and nearly every time he was on camera his opponent would suffer for it.  Furthermore, Mondale was running with a woman as a VP and aggressively pursuing minority voters. This cost him dearly with middle-class white voters who were, at that time, the majority.  I am going to finish this explanation with Allan Lichtman's 13 point Key's to the White House system, in which he states 13 questions to predict who will be president. These generally focus on how the incumbent party is viewed and the charisma of the candidates. If five or less of the questions are false, the incumbent candidate is predicted to win. In 1984, only two were false - and one of those could be disputed.  TLDR - Reagan's administration had the people's support where it mattered - foreign policy and the economy. He was greatly charismatic and easily beat Mondale whose reputation took a hit in the primaries against Gary Hart.  Sources -  1. DMC - https:\/\/www.ourcampaigns.com\/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=58503 2. Assassination - https:\/\/news.google.com\/newspapers?id=WIFIAAAAIBAJ&pg=3696%2C5358091 3. Reagan First Term Approval Ratings - https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/11887\/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx 4. Foreign Policy - https:\/\/ir.lib.uwo.ca\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=3553&context=etd 5. Speech - Howard Jones, Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897 (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001), 486 6. Democrat Primaries Polling - https:\/\/www.ourcampaigns.com\/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=58503 7. Mondale minority campaign focus - https:\/\/psmag.com\/news\/explaining-an-election-1984-edition 8. 13 keys - https:\/\/pollyvote.com\/en\/components\/models\/mixed\/keys-to-the-white-house\/","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":42652.0,"score_ratio":5.96}
{"post_id":"hx2sti","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"How should I, a native Turkish citizen, educate myself on the Armenian Genocide? Seeing as what I 'know' is limited to state propaganda","c_root_id_A":"fz3nze2","c_root_id_B":"fz3j1v1","created_at_utc_A":1595606178,"created_at_utc_B":1595603766,"score_A":2008,"score_B":189,"human_ref_A":"If you are in Turkey, as \/u\/flying_shadow already linked, you could do far worse than checking out our FAQ which has some content on this. If you are looking for published sources, I'm not positive what the availability would be within Turkey, so you might not be able to find all of these - I know some, but not all, are available as eBooks - but I can recommend some literature for a more in-depth dive into the topic:  *\"They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else\": A History of the Armenian Genocide* by Ronald Grigor Suny is what I usually recommend for a lighter, basic introduction to the topic. It isn't as in-depth as some other works, but it provides a good overview, especially if you want something that doesn't feel too academic.  *The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History* by Raymond K\u00e9vorkian is then the deeper complement if you *do* want that heavier, academic treatment, providing a very thorough study of the topic.  *The Armenian Genocide: Evidence From the German Foreign Office Archives, 1915-1916*, edited by Wolfgang Gust, is probably the best primary source collection available on the topic, providing ample material that was reported on by German officials present in the Ottoman Empire at the time as they were then allied with the Turks.  *A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility* and *The Young Turks' Crime Against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire* by Taner Ak\u00e7am are also worth mentioning. He isn't my first choice to recommend, but Ak\u00e7am definitely has some power in being a Turkish scholar who studies the genocide.  *America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915* by Jay Winter isn't a collection of primary sources, but it similarly provides a look at an outsiders view. American diplomats were present in the country as well, and likewise are important witnesses for our understanding of what was going on at the time. *The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response* by Peter Balakian covers similar ground but from a more popular history approach.  If you want to really get to the niche topics, *The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies* edited by Richard G. Hovannisian is an edited volume with essays tackling various aspects of the genocide in detail. It isn't a full history, but rather a way to learn about various details.  *In God's Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century*, edited by Omar Bartov, has a very interesting essay by Ara Sarafian, \"The Absorption of Armenian Women and Children into Muslim Households As a Structural Component of the Armenian Genocide\" which looks at aspects of the genocide beyond the killing, and how women and children were forced to convert and assimilate into Turkish households.  There is also *Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide* by Donald E. Miller & Lorna Touryan Miller if you want something with a more personal voice of the victims themselves.  *Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-long Struggle for Justice* by Michael Bobelian is much less academic, but I found to be an interesting, and heartfelt, look at the meaning of the Genocide especially within the diaspora community  Hope that helps!","human_ref_B":"The FAQ has a section about the Armenian Genocide, with contributions from various users.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2412.0,"score_ratio":10.6243386243}
{"post_id":"mf1uhi","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Remember the Alamo... but why isn\u2019t slavery mentioned as the main reason for the Texas Revolution? Actually slavery is often not even mentioned at all when talking about the war with Mexico \ud83e\udd14 Often I hear about the Mexicans oppressing the Texans. I hear three main forms of oppression.   1. Mexico wanted the Texans to speak Spanish  2. Convert to Catholicism  3. Have allegiance to the Mexican government  However you rarely hear anyone talk about slavery!   The Texas revolution happened 5 years after Mexico abolished slavery!  Why isn\u2019t Slavery the main cause for the war with Mexico?","c_root_id_A":"gsliufd","c_root_id_B":"gslv23s","created_at_utc_A":1616951960,"created_at_utc_B":1616957778,"score_A":275,"score_B":1224,"human_ref_A":"I asked a similar question a year ago.. u\/Milkhemet_Melekh gave a very good, detailed answer.","human_ref_B":"Any attempt answer to this inevitably has to begin with the question of \"According to whom...?\".   American historians often regard this as a primary organizing mode of Texian (anglo-) society and ultimately, one of the major factors in the mexican-anglo political division that led to the revolution. Shortly after accepting that, disagreements abound. These disagreements largely stem from the two different modes of research:   1) Studying the anglo revolutionaries who have so completely dominated popular narratives. The prominent political leaders of Texas were indeed intimately concerned with the preservation of slavery, texan identity, and to a lesser extent the issue of (con-)federalism.  2) Studying *everyone else*, for whom the issue of slavery was not necessarily irrelevant, but rather one issue among many (often of more import).   Historians in the latter school would point to prior conflicts (for example the Fredonian rebellion) and nearly concurrent independence movements elsewhere in Mexico like the Yucatan republic. These conflicts illustrated that fundamental disagreements over the power of Mexico's central government in the country were ongoing for decades before and after the Texas revolution. I've discussed this in previous answers, but those links have been lost to the void. One argument along these lines is Schlereth's \"Voluntary Mexicans\" in *Contested Empire* [2], which argues that contemporaneous ideas of Mexican citizenship inherently allowed justification of revolutionary sentiments and other stated causes were simultaneously meaningful and convenient.  In popular culture though, the question of slavery is much less prominent. Popular understandings often follow Turner's frontier thesis and Barker's martyrdom of the Alamo. You're already familiar with this narrative, so there's not much to say about it except that it's became a mythos for the sorts of texans that set textbook standards.  To get back to the underlying question, most historians acknowledge that slavery was very important to anglo revolutionaries at the time of the revolutionary. However, the framing you've given, where slavery was the sole and primary cause of the revolution, ties Texas into American narratives rather than understanding them in the context of early modern Mexico. Instead, let's look at the mexican tyranny angle, a long-standing complaint of prior revolutionaries (e.g. the Long expedition). In post-independence Mexico, the issue of federalism and the strength of the central government was **the** critical issue of the day. This issue was especially important in the loosely held territories of Northern Mexico, which by the 1930s had become a warzone as conflict with indigenous groups left whole regions ruined and depopulated [3]. The failure of the central government to protect them from these and other conflicts led to questions about the effectiveness of the system as a whole. Simultaneously (and making use of legal precedent), the Mexican government had established colonial policies on the northern frontiers to stabilize the area, inviting in any who could make it work. Farther south in central Mexico, conservative factions attempted to centralize the nation away from the federalist Constitution of 1824 with the new Siete Leyes (Seven Laws) in 1835. Shortly thereafter, Zacatecas, Sonora, Alta California, the Yucatan, Tabasco, and Texas all had federalist rebellions. In Texas and the Yucatan, federalism also fell along lines of identity, a component of which in Texas for Texian society was the preservation of slavery. While slavery may have been the ultimate cause of later conflicts with which Texas was involved, by the time of the revolution it was simply a proximate (though important) cause.   [1] Torget, A. J. (2015). *Seeds of Empire: Cotton, Slavery, and the Transformation of the Texas Borderlands*, 1800-1850. UNC Press Books.  [2] Cantrell, G., Schlereth, E., Soto, M., Fowler, W., & Greenberg, A. S. (2015). *Contested Empire: Rethinking the Texas Revolution* (Vol. 46). Texas A&M University Press.  [3] DeLay, B. (2008). *War of a Thousand Deserts: Indian Raids and the US-Mexican War.* Yale University Press.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5818.0,"score_ratio":4.4509090909}
{"post_id":"mayt8o","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Did Caesar actually leave 75 Drachma to every Roman citizen in his will? How would the money have been distributed? Apparently a skilled roman laborer would have earned 1 Drachma a day so how did this affect inflation? How obscenely wealthy was Caesar were he could afford such a thing to be paid out to millions of citizens? This website claims there were  4,063,000 citizens in 28BCE so around the time of Caesars death in 44BCE the number was probably around 3,500 000 roughly  ​  https:\/\/www.unrv.com\/empire\/roman-population.php  ​  Also follow-up where would Caesar have stored all his wealth?","c_root_id_A":"grvkd3e","c_root_id_B":"grvs4g2","created_at_utc_A":1616460504,"created_at_utc_B":1616464562,"score_A":296,"score_B":4160,"human_ref_A":"Here is an answer to Caesars wealth in general by u\/legalaction that discusses his leaving of money to citizens. It doesn't touch on inflation, but covers your general idea.  ​  This is a thread dealing with how his wealth was stored and kept with answers by u\/tiako and u\/nhnhnh (although their answer is not specifically about Caesar and Rome)","human_ref_B":"Caesar's will stipulated that 300 sesterces (= 75 denarii) were to be given to every member of the Roman plebs. This was not every single Roman citizen, but the freeborn citizens resident in Rome - i.e., something like 250,000 people. So the sum we're talking about here is on the order of 75,000,000 sesterces.  Our sources do not talk about how the money was distributed, though we do know that young Octavian had to scramble to raise it, mostly - it seems - by selling the estates he had inherited from Caesar.^(1) He probably shook down Caesar's wealthier freedmen as well. He seems to have raised the money fairly quickly, which is hardly surprising, since handing the money out as speedily as possible was critical for his political fortunes.  So how much money, relatively speaking, was 75 million sesterces?  At the risk of blowing your minds, a lot. To judge from stray notices in Pompeii and elsewhere, Roman laborers were paid between 1 and 4 sesterces (plus lunch!) for a day's work. Most Roman craftsmen - to give a wildly generalized estimate - probably made between 500 and 1000 each year. The Roman elite, of course, had much grander incomes. Cicero, with properties worth about 13,000,000 sesterces, was probably in the middle range of senatorial wealth. The famously wealthy Crassus was worth 200,000,000.^(2)  The great generals of the Late Republic were even richer; after one of his triumphs, Pompey distributed 384,000,000 sesterces among his soldiers and officers, and then gave an additional 200,000,000 to the state.^(3) Caesar piled up equally gargantuan sums after his conquest of Gaul. We have no precise numbers, but he reportedly spent no less than 100,000,000 sesterces just buying the land for his extension of the Roman Forum.^(4)  Caesar, in short, was obscenely wealthy, though we don't know how much he worth when he died. As in the case of most wealthy Romans, his wealth was invested largely in land (Octavian, recall, had to sell Caesar's estates to raise funds). At least some of it may have been in cash - Antony, we are told, kept a large sum for himself^(5) \\- and if this was so, the money was likely stored in some combination of silver denarii and gold bars.^(6)  As far as we can tell, the sudden infusion of 75 million sesterces did not cause significant inflation.  Nor did any of Augustus' other massive donations. This was only the first of several payments to the Roman plebs. As Augustus himself notes in his *Res Gestae*:  \"To the Roman plebs I paid out 300 sesterces per man in accordance with the will of my father, and in my own name in my fifth consulship I gave 400 sesterces apiece from the spoils of war; a second time, moreover, in my tenth consulship I paid out of my own patrimony 400 per man by way of bounty...and in the twelfth year of my tribunician power I gave for the third time 400 sesterces to each man. These donations of mine reached a number of persons never less than two hundred and fifty thousand.\"^(7)  Over the course of his long reign, in fact, Augustus distributed or paid indirectly (via shows, building programs, etc.) no less than 2,400,000,000 sesterces (or so he says in the *Res Gestae*). None of this, as far as we can tell, seriously unsettled the currency. The donations were, after all, something like a very large stimulus check, and were limited to a relatively small and privileged population.  ​  On the life of Caesar, I like Matthias Gelzer's old but still very readable biography *Caesar: Politician and Statesman*. On wealth in the classical world, check out Sitta Von Reden's *Money in Classical Antiquity*.  ​  (1) Appian, *Civil Wars* 3.21. (2) Crassus: Pliny, *Natural History* 33.134-5. (3) Pliny, *Natural History* 37.16. (4) Suetonius, *Caesar* 26. (5) Plutarch, *Cicero* 43.8. (6) Gold bars: e.g. Cicero, *For Cluentius* 179. (7) *RG* 15.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4058.0,"score_ratio":14.0540540541}
{"post_id":"6o066q","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"In fantasy books, bandits seem to be a very common occurrence. So far that merchants often hire mercenaries to protect caravans. Was that really a problem in medieval Europe and if yes who were the bandits and how big were the groups? Was there a particular region and or time where they were particularly active? Did merchants really have to hire mercenaries for protection or did they ever seek out protection against bandits or highwaymen? Were the bandits just small groups or individuals or were there groups who counted a dozen or more? I apologize for the wide spectrum of the question.","c_root_id_A":"dkdphur","c_root_id_B":"dkdn512","created_at_utc_A":1500387861,"created_at_utc_B":1500384817,"score_A":3524,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"In Anglo-Saxon England, the bounty for killing an outlaw was the same as for killing a wolf. By the late Middle Ages, this had evolved into the legal principle of *wolfesheed*: the outlaw *was* a wolf, able to be hunted and killed exactly like a wolf, legally and by any means. England wasn't the only place that so closely equated wolves with criminals: in the Norse sagas, murderers are *Ulfr* or wear wolf cloaks.  Although it is fairly common for cultures to equate criminals with dangerous animals, the link in medieval Europe between bandits and a type of animal particularly known for attacking travelers and traveling in packs is both strong and specific. Travel in the Middle Ages was dangerous business, and it wasn't just a case of humans versus animals and environment.  Overland medieval travelers faced several varieties of human threat. First--you might have noticed that university diplomas grant the holder *the rights and privileges* associated with the degree. Well, those rights and privileges originated in the Middle Ages, and the very first one--from twelfth century Germany, even before universities existed as such--was safe conduct for students and teachers traveling between schools or between home and school. The retinue of a lord whose land they were passing through, or a band from a city, had a very very nonzero chance of kidnapping travelers for ransom--whether they could come up with the money on their own, or whether a messenger had to be sent back to their family. (The struggle to reign in robber knights and lords is an important part of the medieval political narrative--it was  a slow and very hard-fought process). Timothy Reuter posits that noble\/aristocratic robbers (including those more or less employed by them) were actually the primary danger in the Middle Ages versus \"career bandits.\"  It wasn't just people and their ransom that roadside robbers would be after. When attacking merchants' caravans, wine was a popular theft item--also copper, iron, cloth, basically anything that could be sold. Remember, in many or most cases, we're dealing with people well integrated into the socio-economic fabric of medieval society. This would in many cases continue to apply to the next grouping I'll discuss.  There were also robbers and kidnappers from lower social classes who *acted like* they were legitimate groups or armies. In general, this type of banditry would rise out of a broader conflict or war, like a massive heterodox movement\/suppression. The best example here is probably the *bratczycy* or \"brothers\" in fifteenth-century Hungary. They seem to have the veneer of--and claimed to be--Hussite armies but in reality were pretty much gangs of bandits. The wartime context of groups like these is key. Medieval banditry--murder, plunder, robbery, arson, rape--looked pretty much like what the average soldier did during war. More to the point, what the average soldier was expected to do and what was societally *accepted* as \"what soldiers did.\" While making little difference to travelers, the attempt for a group to portray themselves as legitimate soldiers at war could matter for their own legal circumstances if caught.  And then, of course, there were indeed archetypal bandit gangs of vagabonds--maybe already outlaws where such a status existed. Feodor Glowaty's family\/gang at the end of the 15C Poland lasted longer than most (about three years), so it's a good example of the sort of \"career bandit\" life as opposed to a one-time robbery or a landed robber-knight. Glowaty's group, which had about twenty members at its height, became most infamous for a massive robbery of the Rozgonyi estate, including making off with a large number of horses. They also engaged in attacks on merchant caravans and locals moving between village to village. And most famously, in 1493, they held an entire town for ransom as punishment for capturing and executing two of their members. Well, they tried to, at least. It's pretty clear the town didn't pay.  It's tempting to say that over the course of the Middle Ages, the proportion of aristocrat\/servant-robbers declined and the proportion of vagabond and\/or outlaw and\/or desperate robbers increased. Civic criminal records show that many thieves operated on a bare survival level rather than bigger heists, and it seems reasonable that their counterparts outside the town walls might have been in similarly desperate circumstances. The agonizing long-term reigning in of wayward lords, on the other hand, operated at different speeds and scales in different parts of Europe. And as the case of soldiers\/claimed soldiers demonstrates, it's not a matter of \"noble OR outlaw,\" but a sliding scale that likes to tip up and down at different times.  As far as protection, the most important thing to remember is that attack was by no means a guarantee. Travel increased exponentially over the course of the Middle Ages--both local and long distance. In other words--most of the time, it was successful, and that most of the time was enough to be worth the risk. That said, there were a couple of basic ways travelers could protect themselves. The first is probably the most obvious: travel in groups. When Ibn Battuta crossed North Africa on his way to Mecca, he was basically told, \"Nope, you're waiting until the caravan goes this year, full stop.\"  It's also evident that travelers, perhaps especially merchant groups with valuable cargo, were often armed. Even at the sporadic times and places where weapon-carrying was regulated in medieval Europe, exceptions were frequently made for travelers.  Escorts are a trickier business to suss out of the sources. There are a few references to a ruler decreeing a soldier would accompany caravans between towns (especially in Italy), but in practice, this seems to have worked out symbolically far more than actually--almost a means of insurance, if cargo was stolen the merchant might be reimbursed for part of it. Italian bankers paid handsomely for military protection of their largest transports, especially if straight-up currency was involved.  Disguise was another popular method of attempted protection. By the late Middle Ages, pilgrims in medieval Europe had a distinctively coded style of dress. It might sound silly, but in fact, there are comparably few reports in sources of pilgrims being attacked--and a *whole lot* of complaining about not-pilgrims using pilgrim attire to conduct espionage, moneymaking business, or simply avoid payment of tolls at bridges and towns.  And, indeed, the final method of protection wasn't really protection at all. Jewish and Christian sources alike debate whether it is moral to just go ahead and buy back your stolen merchandise from the thieves.  Overall, highway banditry was indeed a problem in the Middle Ages, particularly in the more lucrative high-traffic areas between nearby towns or around a city. The most risk, indeed, was carried not by long-distance travelers but by everyday business. And while *homicides and robberies* flare up in legal sources, a lot of bandit activity would basically have consisted of bribes or \"paying for safe passage, wink wink.\" Scholars have also suggested that roadside crime increased over the course of the Middle Ages--laws against banditry become more common proportionally; inns and hostels spring up on the roadside to accommodate\/protect travelers overnight. But this only makes sense. More people traveling more often and with more money--and more to the point, more reasons to have money.","human_ref_B":"A similar question was answered by \/u\/NewYorkeroutoftown in this thread:  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/55pdq9\/how_prevalent_was_the_threat_of_bandits_in\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3044.0,"score_ratio":65.2592592593}
{"post_id":"6o066q","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"In fantasy books, bandits seem to be a very common occurrence. So far that merchants often hire mercenaries to protect caravans. Was that really a problem in medieval Europe and if yes who were the bandits and how big were the groups? Was there a particular region and or time where they were particularly active? Did merchants really have to hire mercenaries for protection or did they ever seek out protection against bandits or highwaymen? Were the bandits just small groups or individuals or were there groups who counted a dozen or more? I apologize for the wide spectrum of the question.","c_root_id_A":"dkdn8ir","c_root_id_B":"dkdphur","created_at_utc_A":1500384951,"created_at_utc_B":1500387861,"score_A":31,"score_B":3524,"human_ref_A":"Here's a very similar thread from (2014)[https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/2mx20x\/works_of_medieval_fantasy_often_depict_bandits_or\/].","human_ref_B":"In Anglo-Saxon England, the bounty for killing an outlaw was the same as for killing a wolf. By the late Middle Ages, this had evolved into the legal principle of *wolfesheed*: the outlaw *was* a wolf, able to be hunted and killed exactly like a wolf, legally and by any means. England wasn't the only place that so closely equated wolves with criminals: in the Norse sagas, murderers are *Ulfr* or wear wolf cloaks.  Although it is fairly common for cultures to equate criminals with dangerous animals, the link in medieval Europe between bandits and a type of animal particularly known for attacking travelers and traveling in packs is both strong and specific. Travel in the Middle Ages was dangerous business, and it wasn't just a case of humans versus animals and environment.  Overland medieval travelers faced several varieties of human threat. First--you might have noticed that university diplomas grant the holder *the rights and privileges* associated with the degree. Well, those rights and privileges originated in the Middle Ages, and the very first one--from twelfth century Germany, even before universities existed as such--was safe conduct for students and teachers traveling between schools or between home and school. The retinue of a lord whose land they were passing through, or a band from a city, had a very very nonzero chance of kidnapping travelers for ransom--whether they could come up with the money on their own, or whether a messenger had to be sent back to their family. (The struggle to reign in robber knights and lords is an important part of the medieval political narrative--it was  a slow and very hard-fought process). Timothy Reuter posits that noble\/aristocratic robbers (including those more or less employed by them) were actually the primary danger in the Middle Ages versus \"career bandits.\"  It wasn't just people and their ransom that roadside robbers would be after. When attacking merchants' caravans, wine was a popular theft item--also copper, iron, cloth, basically anything that could be sold. Remember, in many or most cases, we're dealing with people well integrated into the socio-economic fabric of medieval society. This would in many cases continue to apply to the next grouping I'll discuss.  There were also robbers and kidnappers from lower social classes who *acted like* they were legitimate groups or armies. In general, this type of banditry would rise out of a broader conflict or war, like a massive heterodox movement\/suppression. The best example here is probably the *bratczycy* or \"brothers\" in fifteenth-century Hungary. They seem to have the veneer of--and claimed to be--Hussite armies but in reality were pretty much gangs of bandits. The wartime context of groups like these is key. Medieval banditry--murder, plunder, robbery, arson, rape--looked pretty much like what the average soldier did during war. More to the point, what the average soldier was expected to do and what was societally *accepted* as \"what soldiers did.\" While making little difference to travelers, the attempt for a group to portray themselves as legitimate soldiers at war could matter for their own legal circumstances if caught.  And then, of course, there were indeed archetypal bandit gangs of vagabonds--maybe already outlaws where such a status existed. Feodor Glowaty's family\/gang at the end of the 15C Poland lasted longer than most (about three years), so it's a good example of the sort of \"career bandit\" life as opposed to a one-time robbery or a landed robber-knight. Glowaty's group, which had about twenty members at its height, became most infamous for a massive robbery of the Rozgonyi estate, including making off with a large number of horses. They also engaged in attacks on merchant caravans and locals moving between village to village. And most famously, in 1493, they held an entire town for ransom as punishment for capturing and executing two of their members. Well, they tried to, at least. It's pretty clear the town didn't pay.  It's tempting to say that over the course of the Middle Ages, the proportion of aristocrat\/servant-robbers declined and the proportion of vagabond and\/or outlaw and\/or desperate robbers increased. Civic criminal records show that many thieves operated on a bare survival level rather than bigger heists, and it seems reasonable that their counterparts outside the town walls might have been in similarly desperate circumstances. The agonizing long-term reigning in of wayward lords, on the other hand, operated at different speeds and scales in different parts of Europe. And as the case of soldiers\/claimed soldiers demonstrates, it's not a matter of \"noble OR outlaw,\" but a sliding scale that likes to tip up and down at different times.  As far as protection, the most important thing to remember is that attack was by no means a guarantee. Travel increased exponentially over the course of the Middle Ages--both local and long distance. In other words--most of the time, it was successful, and that most of the time was enough to be worth the risk. That said, there were a couple of basic ways travelers could protect themselves. The first is probably the most obvious: travel in groups. When Ibn Battuta crossed North Africa on his way to Mecca, he was basically told, \"Nope, you're waiting until the caravan goes this year, full stop.\"  It's also evident that travelers, perhaps especially merchant groups with valuable cargo, were often armed. Even at the sporadic times and places where weapon-carrying was regulated in medieval Europe, exceptions were frequently made for travelers.  Escorts are a trickier business to suss out of the sources. There are a few references to a ruler decreeing a soldier would accompany caravans between towns (especially in Italy), but in practice, this seems to have worked out symbolically far more than actually--almost a means of insurance, if cargo was stolen the merchant might be reimbursed for part of it. Italian bankers paid handsomely for military protection of their largest transports, especially if straight-up currency was involved.  Disguise was another popular method of attempted protection. By the late Middle Ages, pilgrims in medieval Europe had a distinctively coded style of dress. It might sound silly, but in fact, there are comparably few reports in sources of pilgrims being attacked--and a *whole lot* of complaining about not-pilgrims using pilgrim attire to conduct espionage, moneymaking business, or simply avoid payment of tolls at bridges and towns.  And, indeed, the final method of protection wasn't really protection at all. Jewish and Christian sources alike debate whether it is moral to just go ahead and buy back your stolen merchandise from the thieves.  Overall, highway banditry was indeed a problem in the Middle Ages, particularly in the more lucrative high-traffic areas between nearby towns or around a city. The most risk, indeed, was carried not by long-distance travelers but by everyday business. And while *homicides and robberies* flare up in legal sources, a lot of bandit activity would basically have consisted of bribes or \"paying for safe passage, wink wink.\" Scholars have also suggested that roadside crime increased over the course of the Middle Ages--laws against banditry become more common proportionally; inns and hostels spring up on the roadside to accommodate\/protect travelers overnight. But this only makes sense. More people traveling more often and with more money--and more to the point, more reasons to have money.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2910.0,"score_ratio":113.6774193548}
{"post_id":"sp7dhz","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"The baby boom generation is known for their outspoken progressive views when they were young (60s and 70s), but seem to be known for their conservative views later in life. Is this simply a matter of public perception or was there a major political realignment that occurred during their lifetimes? Not sure if this breaks the rules because this question references today's culture somewhat. However, there seems to be a common thread of the progressive anti-government and anti-war movement of the 1960s and the limited government movements of the Reagan\/Thatcher administrations in the 1980s. I'm wondering if there is a connection between these political eras, and if the brand of conservatism of the 1980s found traction with former anti-establishment youth of the 1960s and 70s. Or is this simply a matter of public perception focusing on singular aspects of a generation when in reality these representations highlight only vocal minorities of this age group?","c_root_id_A":"hwdqohr","c_root_id_B":"hwdq8qf","created_at_utc_A":1644509061,"created_at_utc_B":1644508894,"score_A":2787,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"I've written about this more here. I will save a click by reproducing my answer:  ...  *The Hippie Trip* from 1968 estimated 200,000 hippies, that is, less than 0.2% of the population. So you are right that the situation amplifies a minority. Even more seriously  (and being more expansive than just \"hippies\"): *a great deal of the counterculture was not Baby Boomers at all*.  Let's suppose the most common definition of Baby Boomers: as being born from 1946 to 1964.  Let's also, for the sake of argument, consider the height-of-counterculture year to be 1969, the year of Woodstock, the year of the Stonewall riots, the year of the trial of the Chicago 8 (later 7 when Bobby Seale's case was severed).  How old would your Baby Boomers be?  For them to even be 18, their cutoff birth year would be 1951, only a quarter into the supposed span of the entire generation of Baby Boomers.  Now, there were certainly young people involved -- and part of the push for the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was involving them -- but centering sole responsibility for the Counterculture Movement on Baby Boomers is very strange.  What about individual influential figures? There's no \"scientific\" way to make a \"most influential\" list, so I just grabbed a clickbait article which I figured would be a good approximation, just to check how many were Baby Boomers:  >Hunter S. Thompson, gonzo journalist  >The Beatles, musicians  >Bob Dylan, musician  >Muhammad Ali, boxer and noted pacifist  >Timothy Leary, LSD advocate  >Lenny Bruce, comedian  >Gloria Steinem, feminist  >Andy Warhol, artist  >Jimi Hendrix, musician  >Jack Kerouac, writer  We'll keep the Beatles even though they aren't from the US. The birth years of all the people listed? 1937, (1940, 1942, 1943, 1940), 1941, 1942, 1920, 1925, 1934, 1928, 1942, and 1922.  In other words, *none of them are Baby Boomers*. I can assure you it is equally hard to find Baby Boomers from larger and more expansive lists. The most prominent activist I can think of that falls in that zone, Fred Hampton (famous for dying young) just squeaks into the \"Baby Boomer\" window at 1948.  The Chicago 8, the ones charged with \"conspiring to use interstate commerce with intent to incite a riot\" and \"teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices that would be used in civil disturbances\"? None of them were Baby Boomers either. (The oldest, David Dellinger, was born in 1915: not even of the Silent Generation, but the Greatest Generation.)  Or to take things further, consider Reagan's 1980 group voting group, which did tend to be older; you can check out Roper's voting age breakdown here. 30+ went for Reagan (at 55%) and 18-29 went for Carter (symmetrically at 55%, and this group would be entirely born in the Baby Boomer range).  Again, the \"generation\" idea doesn't necessarily flow here in a smooth way. (If you're going the \"alternating liberal-conservative\" theory, both the older generations voted for Reagan.) \u200bThe concerns with the Iran hostage crisis, inflation, unemployment, etc. tended to concern an older generation more in 1980, just in that innately 20-year-olds might be more worried about college policies and 35-year-olds might be more worried about mortgage rates. If you really want to throw your politics for a loop, check out the 1984 election voting for Reagan:  18-24 61%, 25-29 57%, 30-49 48%, 50-64 61%, 65+ 64%  Ah-ha! you might say. That means the younger group is getting more conservative! But the actual circumstances are more complex: quoting from a NY Times article written at the time:  >For many of these new voters, the only American military action they remember is Grenada, a successful venture that posed no threat to their own security. They have never experienced the military draft, and the Vietnam era is something they hear about in history class.  >All that many young voters know about Mr. Mondale is that he was Vice President under Mr. Carter, which they see as a burden. The Minnesotan's long record in the Senate is a blur, as are the battles fought by his generation for civil rights and social programs.  They (the younger generation at the time) might not be any more conservative as far as civil rights goes, but the actual personalities involved in the election override other concerns. The fact Reagan was well-liked was part of why Reagan survived the Iran Contra scandal and when his reputation was being hard-hit, a deep in the scandal survey still found 72% approval when people were simply asked if they liked him as a person.  In simpler terms it appeared that: things got worse under Carter, things turned around and got better under Reagan. This isn't just a left-right concern. (The GOP did try to interpret it as snagging the younger generation, but by Clinton vs. Bush, the 18-24 group gave Bush the lowest percent of all age groups -- allegedly, if we think in terms of generations voting as blocs, part of the exact same group as the ones who voted for Reagan's 2nd term.)  Incidentally, one thing I've seen is to split Boomers into two groups, Boomer I and Boomer II, making the first half the more politically counterculture-aligned -- at least _some_ of them were old enough to go to Woodstock -- while the second half missed that wave. I've unfortunately not read enough of the analysis to know if that holds weight on the political end, but it'd make at least slightly more sense than assuming a 20-year voting bloc where it normally gets placed.  ...  Social change is progressive and not always defined by a \"generational\" boundary line except in an incidental sense. To take a small example, consider the use of marijuana (a reasonable \"hippie-ness\" proxy, since the two were considered inseparable in the 60s). Gallup has been asking since 1969 if marijuana should be legalized.  A chart of the trend  Note a very small initial support (12%) and near-steady increase then. In the supposedly-more-conservative-80s there was a slight slowdown and drop, but hardly a reversal. Support at 2020 is now at 68%. There wasn't a reversal of social norms; things steadily increased, until, in a sense, everyone became hippies.  ...  Issitt, M. (2009). *Hippies: A Guide to an American Subculture*. ABC-CLIO.  Colby, S., & Ortman, J. M. (2014). *The baby boom cohort in the United States: 2012 to 2060*. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.","human_ref_B":"Looks there was a relevant post & response (e: from \/u\/jbdyer) about 6 months ago:  https:\/\/old.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/oukjw3\/a_popular_perception_of_baby_boomers_is_that_they\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":167.0,"score_ratio":44.2380952381}
{"post_id":"sp7dhz","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"The baby boom generation is known for their outspoken progressive views when they were young (60s and 70s), but seem to be known for their conservative views later in life. Is this simply a matter of public perception or was there a major political realignment that occurred during their lifetimes? Not sure if this breaks the rules because this question references today's culture somewhat. However, there seems to be a common thread of the progressive anti-government and anti-war movement of the 1960s and the limited government movements of the Reagan\/Thatcher administrations in the 1980s. I'm wondering if there is a connection between these political eras, and if the brand of conservatism of the 1980s found traction with former anti-establishment youth of the 1960s and 70s. Or is this simply a matter of public perception focusing on singular aspects of a generation when in reality these representations highlight only vocal minorities of this age group?","c_root_id_A":"hwdq8qf","c_root_id_B":"hwdszty","created_at_utc_A":1644508894,"created_at_utc_B":1644509941,"score_A":63,"score_B":239,"human_ref_A":"Looks there was a relevant post & response (e: from \/u\/jbdyer) about 6 months ago:  https:\/\/old.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/oukjw3\/a_popular_perception_of_baby_boomers_is_that_they\/","human_ref_B":"What do you think of when considering California in the 60s? The Summer of Love? Hippies in San Fransisco? Innovative, progressive musicians and filmmakers pouring out of Hollywood? Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll?    All of those things were happening in the 60s and early 70s in California, but it would be a mistake to think that these trends represented the majority opinion of Californians, never mind the majority opinion of Americans writ large. Consider that Ronald Reagan, running as a conservative Republican, won decisive victories to win (1966) and hold (1970) the governorship of California. Consider how Reagan achieved these victories - by exploiting the general public's fear of increasingly vocal challenges to the status quo on issues of gender, race, sexuality, and drug use.   A quote from Rick Perlstein's *Nixonland* about the race for governor and the moral panic surrounding the emerging 60's counterculture and civil rights movement:  *\"The  pundits  little  noted  the  Reagan-friendly  culture  wars  roiling  beneath  the  surface  of  the  bourgeois  utopia.  Only  recently,  the  drug  lysergic  acid  diethylamide  had  been  rhapsodized  as  a  therapeutic  miracle;  its  acolytes  included  Cary  Grant.  Now  it  brought  headlines  like  \u201cGirl,  5,  Eats  LSD  and  Goes  Wild\u201d  and  \u201cThrill  Drug  Warps  Mind,  Kills.\u201d  Now  Time  reported  in  March  that  it  had  reached  \u201cthe  dormitories  of  expensive  prep  schools\u201d  and  \u201chas  grown  into  an  alarming  problem  at  UCLA  and  on  the  UC  campus  at  Berkeley.\u201d  Senator  Robert  F.  Kennedy  changed  a  hearing  scheduled  on  mental  retardation  into  an  inquiry  into  LSD  instead \u2014 one  of  three  going  on  concurrently.*   *A  group  called  the  California  League  Enlisting  Action  Now  (CLEAN)  pushed  an  initiative  forbidding  judges  from  dismissing  any  pornography  case.  Their  ads  called  pornographers  masters  of  \u201cPavlov\u2019s  conditioned  response,\u201d  responsible  for  an  epidemic  of  \u201crape,  perversion,  and  venereal  disease.\u201d  Other  activists  went  to  war  on  a  textbook \u2014 Negro  historian  John  Hope  Franklin\u2019s  Land  of  the  Free,  which,  their  pamphlets  insisted,  \u201cdestroys  pride  in  America\u2019s  past,  develops  a  guilt  complex,  mocks  American  justice,  indoctrinates  toward  Communism,  is  hostile  to  religious  concepts,  overemphasizes  Negro  participation  in  American  history,  projects  negative  thought  models,  criticizes  business  and  free  enterprise,  plays  politics,  foments  class  hatred,  slants  and  distorts  facts,\u201d  and  \u201cpromotes  propaganda  and  poppycock.\u201d  The  L.A.  County  Board  of  Supervisors  voted  \u201cto  uphold  high  moral  standards\u201d  by  censoring  an  exhibition  by  an  artist  named  Ed  Keinholz,  who  said  he  displayed  his  dioramas  of  consumer  products  and  mannequins  in  sexual  congress  and  babies  without  heads  to  comment  on  America\u2019s  \u201csick  society.\u201d*   *In  the  Golden  State,  it  was  a  season  of  moral  panic;  and  as  so  often,  California  led  a  national  trend.\"*  It is critically important to remember that the counter-culture of the 1960s was just that: a countercurrent to the predominance of social conservatism in American society in the 60s. The backlash to the radicalism of the 60's counterculture had just as, if not more important implications for the politics of the late 20th century as the counterculture itself did. Not only is there no contradiction between the conservatism of Baby Boomers and the youth radicalism of the 60s - there is a direct link between them. Consider another excerpt from \"Nixonland\":  *\"Then  there  were  campuses  like  Berkeley \u2014 where,  late  in  1964,  a  police  car  rolled  onto  campus  to  dismantle  a  recruitment  table  for  Mississippi  voter  registration  that  fell  afoul  of  campus  rules  about  where  political  advocacy  was  permitted.  The  squad  car  was  promptly  trapped  on  the  main  campus  plaza  by  hundreds  of  students,  who  started  climbing  up  on  its  roof  and  delivering  inspiring  speeches  about  the  right  to  free  speech,  the  necessity  of  defying  illegitimate  authority,  the  soul-crushing  blindness  of  the  bureaucrats.  Then  thousands  occupied  the  administration  building.  For  them  the  \u201cFree  Speech  Movement\u201d  was  a  moment  of  moral  transcendence.  To  the  man  on  the  street \u2014 especially  the  man  on  the  street  never  afforded  the  privilege  of  a  college  education \u2014 it  was  petulant  brattishness.  Then  came  the  \u201cfilthy  speech  movement.\u201d  That  started  when  a  couple  of  angry  kids  sat  on  the  Student  Union  steps  with  curses  scrawled  on  placards.  A  few  score  kids  rallied  to  their  support.  But  by  1966,  these  few  score  kids  had  become  Middle  America\u2019s  synecdoche  for  \u201cBerkeley.\u201d  \u201cAll  the  most  vociferous  of  them  could  produce  was  four-  letter  words,\u201d  Illinois\u2019s  Republican  Senate  candidate,  Charles  Percy,  told  eighteen  hundred  students  at  the  University  of  Illinois  in  a  speech  on  the  New  Left\u2019s  \u201cgeneral  uncleanliness.\u201d  The  students  gave  him  a  standing  ovation.*  *The  outrages,  all  of  them,  felt  linked:  the  filth,  the  crime,  \u201cthe  kids,\u201d  the  Communists,  the  imprecations  against  revealed  religion.  It  all  had  something  to  do  with  \u201cliberalism.\u201d  Pat  Brown  was  a  \u201cliberal.\u201d  And  it  arrived  that  liberalism\u2019s  enemy,  Ronald  Reagan,  wasn\u2019t  doing  too  poorly  at  all.  He  was  providing  a  political  outlet  for  all  the  outrages \u2014 outrages  that,  until  he  came  along,  hadn\u2019t  seemed  like  political  issues  at  all.\"*   The majority of students on American college campuses in the 60s did not riot, did not protest, and were in many cases, as seen in the example of the University of Illinois, alienated and disgusted by the behavior and beliefs of their more radical classmates. And in the 60s, the vast majority of young people did not even go to college in the first place - Perlstein anthropomorphizes the \"man on the street\" perhaps a little more than I'd like but it is very much the case that the American public at large, including most Baby Boomers, were not fans of student radicalism. After the Kent State shootings in 1971, *\"[a]  Gallup  poll  found  58  percent  blamed  the  Kent students  for  their  own  deaths.  Only  11  percent  blamed  the  National  Guard.\"*   To come back to the question you asked, it is not the case that the conservatism of the Reagan and Thatcher administrations was enabled by former anti-establishment youth. Instead, the conservative wave of the late 70s-mid 90s in the United States was powered by people who had *always* been conservative, and indeed who had their formative political experiences in the 60s as people opposed to or afraid\/hesitant of the social changes wrought by the 60s counterculture. None of this is to say that the 60s counterculture was unimportant or did not achieve long-term successes, but rather to demonstrate that the Boomers who voted for Reagan in the 1980s were *already* willing to vote for him in the 1960s, in large part because he was a crusader against the counter-culture.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1047.0,"score_ratio":3.7936507937}
{"post_id":"mg3rr6","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What even was the German plan to defeat America? Hitler was pretty eager to declare war on America after Pearl Harbor, and it's pretty clear that he expected to go to war with the USA sooner or later.  But what exactly was the German plan to defeat America?  USA was a huge country with an equally huge population and industry.  Defeating them would require an operation like Barbarossa, but across the Atlantic ocean. Even with everything going in German favor I just can't see this happening.  Did they expect Americans to just surrender after the Soviet Union was defeated? Or did they hope Japan could deal with America on their own?","c_root_id_A":"gssjzso","c_root_id_B":"gsqznct","created_at_utc_A":1617106968,"created_at_utc_B":1617064498,"score_A":1743,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Plainly put, Germany's plans were quite vague. Hitler had a notion of a coming superpower showdown between the United States and Germany, which we can trace back to the 1920s, and which the more immediate conquests to the east were intended to fuel, as noted by Tooze:  >one last great land grab in the East that] would create the self-sufficient basis both for domestic affluence and the platform necessary to prevail in the coming superpower competition with the United States.  But it is important to emphasize that he wasn't talking purely in terms of military conquest, but rather in terms of Germany becoming the dominant superpower in the world in the more general sense. Certainly the need to go toe-to-toe with the US was clear enough, but his plans for that weren't. A large part was the naive belief that the United Kingdom would agree about the threat of the US and side with Germany, providing the obvious, necessary naval might needed to control the Atlantic. This *obviously* didn't come to pass, but in turn tightening relations with Japan supplanted that and now it was the Japanese Navy which in German minds would provide the necessary naval component, and in fact was a significant factor in German willingness to declare war in 1941 despite the lack of a specific treaty obligation.   But planning never went much further than that. Vague ideas of spheres of influence, and some rough sketching out of long-range air campaigns with planes that never even entered production can be found, but I think the best summary comes from the Japanese Ambassador, who reported a conversation he had with Hitler in early 1942 where the summary amounted to \"How one defeats the USA, [Hitler] does not know yet\". There were always more immediate concerns, be it the French, the British, or the Soviets, and direct, military challenge to the United States just never went beyond the day-dreaming stage.  This is a brief sketch though, and for a more thorough treatment, I would point to [this older answer of mine which covers similar ground, as well as this one which is more focused on the background of pre-war attitudes towards the USA.","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":42470.0,"score_ratio":174.3}
{"post_id":"im4dn6","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How did a provocative dance like belly dancing come out of conservative Islamic countries? If it was pre-Islamic, how did it survive centuries of conservative laws for women? I am curious how a provocative dance form like belly dancing came out of the conservative Middle East, where many women are forbidden from dancing in public. Is this dance form pre-Islamic?   If so, how has it managed to survive so long?","c_root_id_A":"g3y6yd8","c_root_id_B":"g3yg4zx","created_at_utc_A":1599194913,"created_at_utc_B":1599202380,"score_A":611,"score_B":1080,"human_ref_A":"Edit: When I was working on this \/u\/floofyflooferi submitted an excellent answer that is now the top answer, and definitely go read that one! Some of my answer is now a bit unnecessary as the other response was removed (thanks mods) but I think still hopefully people can benefit from the larger analysis around Orientalist depictions of belly dancing that influences this question.   No reasonable scholar of Islamic history today would still subscribe to the \u201cIslam was so liberal before Wahabism\u201d framework\u2014that is not a useful description of the region nor of Islam. The MENA was neither backwards waiting for Europe to arrive nor some liberal multicultural utopia. I also fail to see what pictures of women in Iran pre-revolution have to do with belly dancing\u2014as if Islam didn\u2019t exist there before 1979?  So that being said, let\u2019s talk about the history of dance in the Middle East and North Africa, the parts of the Muslim world most strongly associated with \u201cbelly dancing,\u201d \u201cdance of the veil,\u201d etc. It is an immensely diverse region with many dialects spoken, religious and racial diversity, class stratification, etc. \u2013 so it therefore also has a diverse history of art and culture! Belly dancing as we usually picture it is somewhat of an amalgamation of different elements of Arab dance, including for instance hand drumming techniques, or the wearing of gold coins and other forms of ornamentation by women for special occasions (usually only weddings). There are many other forms of Arab dance that are also performed either by men or by men and women. Dabkeh is a traditional form of Arab dance common across the Levant but most strongly associated as a Palestinian dance. It is (perhaps mythically) associated with pre-Islamic cultivation or agricultural rituals, involves a lot of feet stomping with everyone in a line or semi-circle linked arm to shoulder, and nowadays frequently performed by men at weddings or by men and women together in more urban spaces or in Palestinian-American settings. Belly dancing does not really resemble any particular one of these dances.   Much of what we in the West consider \u201cbelly dancing\u201d emerges thus not necessarily from some true \u201cpre-Islamic fundamentalism\u201d dance technique or form but through performances that Western travelers to \u201cthe Orient\u201d recorded in written travelogues, postcards, or other travel narratives to distribute to European (and later US) audiences. The term \u201cbelly dance\u201d arrives to us not from any Arabic translation but from a translation of French Orientalists description in the late 19th century. Malek Alloula describes not just belly dancing but the larger phenomenon of photographic postcards of Algerian \u201charems,\u201d odalisques, etc as both \u201cstereotype and phantasm,\u201d a crucial part of the French colonization of Algeria. Algerian women became both desired and to be held at arm\u2019s length. The Western photographer sending back postcards of belly dancers was showing both his privileged status of getting access to the \u201cclosed harem\u201d as what he portrayed as an objective scientific western observer documenting traditional native life (which was pretty much always staged for the photographer\u2019s lens), while also leaning into to the lewdness and sexualization of Algerian women. Veiled women\u2019s bodies stood in for the land of Algeria \u2013 waiting to be conquered and penetrated by French men (colonists and conquered), yet also inaccessible, mysterious, desirable. There is a lot of great scholarship that is a bit beyond the scope of this question about how the veil actually became a tool of Algerian resistance during the revolution that kicked out the French (Fanon writes about it quite a bit, somewhat problematically at times), but short aside there is that wearing the veil actually became an anticolonial symbol against French imperial secularism. Veiled women, often assumed to be docile and apolitical, would actually smuggle in bombs under their coverings.   The US got on the belly dancing train particularly after the 1893 Chicago World\u2019s Fair, which included belly dancers in an exhibit. Amira Jamarkani argues that these belly dancers, who then had their photographs distributed on postcards, served less as some actual representation of Arabic dance practices than as a source of displaced American anxiety: about industrial progress and concurrent social change; the US as an imperial-power-in-waiting anxious about its state in the world; and the internalized disgust at women\u2019s bodies of the Victorian era \u2013 shaming these belly dancers was a useful way to thus hold up white women\u2019s \u201cproper behavior\u201d domestically as opposed to these \u201csavage undulations.\u201d Jamarkani even compares the way the belly dancers were discussed and their images circulated to minstrel shows which maintained a certain racial order in the US. This continued into the 20th century. Ella Shohat, in writing about the history of Orientalism in Western cinema, describes how belly dancing was really just a mash up of a lot of different \u201cEastern\u201d cultures to feed American audiences hungry to see \u201cthe harem\u201d: \u201cfilms often included eroticized dances, featuring a rather improbably melange of Spanish and Indian dances, plus a touch of belly-dancing (The Dance of Fatima, The Sheik, and Son of the Sheik (1926)). This filmic practice of melange recalls the frequent superimposition in Orientalist paintings of the visual traces of civilizations as diverse as Arab, Persian, Chinese, and Indian into a single feature of the exotic Orient.\u201d This continued and had a resurgence in the 1970s with the Arab oil embargo and the rise of US interest in the Middle East, which saw another rise of belly dancing and harem depictions in US movies and television.   Essentially or TL;DR: Our idea of \u201cbelly dancing\u201d is historically inaccurate, has little or nothing to do with a \u201cpre-Islamic fundamentalist\u201d utopia of the Middle East, and much more to do with Western fantasies of Muslim and Arab women linked to historical colonization and imperialism in the region.   Sources:   Alloula, Malek. The Colonial Harem. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.  Jarmakani, Amira. Imagining Arab Womanhood: The Cultural Mythology of Veils, Harems, and Belly Dancers in the U.S. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.  Shohat, Ella. \u201cGender and Culture of Empire: Toward a Feminist Ethnography of the Cinema.\u201d Quarterly Review of Film and Video 13, no. 1\u20133 (1991): 45\u201384.","human_ref_B":"My experience is with Egyptian dance, but I suggest looking into the research by Sahra C. Kent (Sahra Saeeda) and Heather Ward (Nisaa of St. Louis). Sahra does a seminar series called Journey Through Egypt in which she discusses Egyptian culture and dance and how dance has evolved from local social dance to stage performance, and Heather Ward is the author of  *Egyptian Belly Dance in Transition: The Raqs Sharqi Revolution, 1890-1930.*  Modern Egyptian belly dance has evolved from the dances of the Awalim ( female singers, dancers, musicians who performed for the lower and middle classes in private residences) and Ghawazee, dancers who performed for the rural populations in public. Awalim, while being of a similar social class to the Ghawazee, were held in higher esteem because they performed in private, higher class residences, whereas Ghawazee performed in public.  In the 1830s, King Muhammad Ali banned public performances by these two groups, as well as prostitution in urban areas, and when they were able to return decades later, the lines between the two blurred.  In the 1890s, the new style *raqs sharqi* (what we know as belly dance) developed with the advent of entertainment halls.  Costuming and movement styles would evolve with influences from the film industry and western influences such as ballet. I'm sure Mahmoud Reda, one of the founders of the Reda Dance Troupe, had a large influence on the evolution of this movement as he studied multiple forms of dance, including ballet, and trained many dancers over the course of his life. According to Nada El Masriya, there isn't a professional belly dancer in Egypt who hasn't taken at least some foundational ballet. You can see it in the terminology and movement vocabulary currently taught.  I would also say that the Reda Troupe had a large hand in bringing the dance styles to the rest of the world, via the Reda Troupe and his and Farida Fahmy's involvement in the Egyptian film industry, which featured a lot of oriental dancers, such as Tahiya Carioca, Samia Gamal, Soheir Zaki, and Nagwa Fouad.  You have to understand though, that Egypt has a very complicated relationship with its native music and dance forms. They aren't exactly viewed as high art by many people. And dancers can often be viewed as \"loose women.\" Like, they may want a dancer at their wedding, celebration, etc, but they would never want their daughter to become a dancer. And even professional dancers (native, not western ones) will be sure to distance themselves from the Awalim and Ghawazee traditions because of stigma.  I won't speak about Orientalism, as I haven't done a ton of research into that area at this time.  It is important to note that homestyle dance and stage performance are very different. While they share some movement vocabulary, belly dance for the stage, depending on the style, does tend to be more seductive, because you are portraying a sort of fantasy, or playing a character. But the seductive nature of it will vary depending on your audience.  I am an Egyptian style dancer who has been studying for the last 8 years with various native Egyptian and Western teachers, and I have taken the first two levels of Sahra C. Kent's JtE series and have sat in lectures by Heather Ward.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7467.0,"score_ratio":1.767594108}
{"post_id":"im4dn6","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How did a provocative dance like belly dancing come out of conservative Islamic countries? If it was pre-Islamic, how did it survive centuries of conservative laws for women? I am curious how a provocative dance form like belly dancing came out of the conservative Middle East, where many women are forbidden from dancing in public. Is this dance form pre-Islamic?   If so, how has it managed to survive so long?","c_root_id_A":"g3y1jd6","c_root_id_B":"g3yg4zx","created_at_utc_A":1599191324,"created_at_utc_B":1599202380,"score_A":89,"score_B":1080,"human_ref_A":"I don't have the authority to speak on the matter, but u\/Cptbuck made a great answer","human_ref_B":"My experience is with Egyptian dance, but I suggest looking into the research by Sahra C. Kent (Sahra Saeeda) and Heather Ward (Nisaa of St. Louis). Sahra does a seminar series called Journey Through Egypt in which she discusses Egyptian culture and dance and how dance has evolved from local social dance to stage performance, and Heather Ward is the author of  *Egyptian Belly Dance in Transition: The Raqs Sharqi Revolution, 1890-1930.*  Modern Egyptian belly dance has evolved from the dances of the Awalim ( female singers, dancers, musicians who performed for the lower and middle classes in private residences) and Ghawazee, dancers who performed for the rural populations in public. Awalim, while being of a similar social class to the Ghawazee, were held in higher esteem because they performed in private, higher class residences, whereas Ghawazee performed in public.  In the 1830s, King Muhammad Ali banned public performances by these two groups, as well as prostitution in urban areas, and when they were able to return decades later, the lines between the two blurred.  In the 1890s, the new style *raqs sharqi* (what we know as belly dance) developed with the advent of entertainment halls.  Costuming and movement styles would evolve with influences from the film industry and western influences such as ballet. I'm sure Mahmoud Reda, one of the founders of the Reda Dance Troupe, had a large influence on the evolution of this movement as he studied multiple forms of dance, including ballet, and trained many dancers over the course of his life. According to Nada El Masriya, there isn't a professional belly dancer in Egypt who hasn't taken at least some foundational ballet. You can see it in the terminology and movement vocabulary currently taught.  I would also say that the Reda Troupe had a large hand in bringing the dance styles to the rest of the world, via the Reda Troupe and his and Farida Fahmy's involvement in the Egyptian film industry, which featured a lot of oriental dancers, such as Tahiya Carioca, Samia Gamal, Soheir Zaki, and Nagwa Fouad.  You have to understand though, that Egypt has a very complicated relationship with its native music and dance forms. They aren't exactly viewed as high art by many people. And dancers can often be viewed as \"loose women.\" Like, they may want a dancer at their wedding, celebration, etc, but they would never want their daughter to become a dancer. And even professional dancers (native, not western ones) will be sure to distance themselves from the Awalim and Ghawazee traditions because of stigma.  I won't speak about Orientalism, as I haven't done a ton of research into that area at this time.  It is important to note that homestyle dance and stage performance are very different. While they share some movement vocabulary, belly dance for the stage, depending on the style, does tend to be more seductive, because you are portraying a sort of fantasy, or playing a character. But the seductive nature of it will vary depending on your audience.  I am an Egyptian style dancer who has been studying for the last 8 years with various native Egyptian and Western teachers, and I have taken the first two levels of Sahra C. Kent's JtE series and have sat in lectures by Heather Ward.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11056.0,"score_ratio":12.1348314607}
{"post_id":"im4dn6","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How did a provocative dance like belly dancing come out of conservative Islamic countries? If it was pre-Islamic, how did it survive centuries of conservative laws for women? I am curious how a provocative dance form like belly dancing came out of the conservative Middle East, where many women are forbidden from dancing in public. Is this dance form pre-Islamic?   If so, how has it managed to survive so long?","c_root_id_A":"g3y6yd8","c_root_id_B":"g3y1jd6","created_at_utc_A":1599194913,"created_at_utc_B":1599191324,"score_A":611,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"Edit: When I was working on this \/u\/floofyflooferi submitted an excellent answer that is now the top answer, and definitely go read that one! Some of my answer is now a bit unnecessary as the other response was removed (thanks mods) but I think still hopefully people can benefit from the larger analysis around Orientalist depictions of belly dancing that influences this question.   No reasonable scholar of Islamic history today would still subscribe to the \u201cIslam was so liberal before Wahabism\u201d framework\u2014that is not a useful description of the region nor of Islam. The MENA was neither backwards waiting for Europe to arrive nor some liberal multicultural utopia. I also fail to see what pictures of women in Iran pre-revolution have to do with belly dancing\u2014as if Islam didn\u2019t exist there before 1979?  So that being said, let\u2019s talk about the history of dance in the Middle East and North Africa, the parts of the Muslim world most strongly associated with \u201cbelly dancing,\u201d \u201cdance of the veil,\u201d etc. It is an immensely diverse region with many dialects spoken, religious and racial diversity, class stratification, etc. \u2013 so it therefore also has a diverse history of art and culture! Belly dancing as we usually picture it is somewhat of an amalgamation of different elements of Arab dance, including for instance hand drumming techniques, or the wearing of gold coins and other forms of ornamentation by women for special occasions (usually only weddings). There are many other forms of Arab dance that are also performed either by men or by men and women. Dabkeh is a traditional form of Arab dance common across the Levant but most strongly associated as a Palestinian dance. It is (perhaps mythically) associated with pre-Islamic cultivation or agricultural rituals, involves a lot of feet stomping with everyone in a line or semi-circle linked arm to shoulder, and nowadays frequently performed by men at weddings or by men and women together in more urban spaces or in Palestinian-American settings. Belly dancing does not really resemble any particular one of these dances.   Much of what we in the West consider \u201cbelly dancing\u201d emerges thus not necessarily from some true \u201cpre-Islamic fundamentalism\u201d dance technique or form but through performances that Western travelers to \u201cthe Orient\u201d recorded in written travelogues, postcards, or other travel narratives to distribute to European (and later US) audiences. The term \u201cbelly dance\u201d arrives to us not from any Arabic translation but from a translation of French Orientalists description in the late 19th century. Malek Alloula describes not just belly dancing but the larger phenomenon of photographic postcards of Algerian \u201charems,\u201d odalisques, etc as both \u201cstereotype and phantasm,\u201d a crucial part of the French colonization of Algeria. Algerian women became both desired and to be held at arm\u2019s length. The Western photographer sending back postcards of belly dancers was showing both his privileged status of getting access to the \u201cclosed harem\u201d as what he portrayed as an objective scientific western observer documenting traditional native life (which was pretty much always staged for the photographer\u2019s lens), while also leaning into to the lewdness and sexualization of Algerian women. Veiled women\u2019s bodies stood in for the land of Algeria \u2013 waiting to be conquered and penetrated by French men (colonists and conquered), yet also inaccessible, mysterious, desirable. There is a lot of great scholarship that is a bit beyond the scope of this question about how the veil actually became a tool of Algerian resistance during the revolution that kicked out the French (Fanon writes about it quite a bit, somewhat problematically at times), but short aside there is that wearing the veil actually became an anticolonial symbol against French imperial secularism. Veiled women, often assumed to be docile and apolitical, would actually smuggle in bombs under their coverings.   The US got on the belly dancing train particularly after the 1893 Chicago World\u2019s Fair, which included belly dancers in an exhibit. Amira Jamarkani argues that these belly dancers, who then had their photographs distributed on postcards, served less as some actual representation of Arabic dance practices than as a source of displaced American anxiety: about industrial progress and concurrent social change; the US as an imperial-power-in-waiting anxious about its state in the world; and the internalized disgust at women\u2019s bodies of the Victorian era \u2013 shaming these belly dancers was a useful way to thus hold up white women\u2019s \u201cproper behavior\u201d domestically as opposed to these \u201csavage undulations.\u201d Jamarkani even compares the way the belly dancers were discussed and their images circulated to minstrel shows which maintained a certain racial order in the US. This continued into the 20th century. Ella Shohat, in writing about the history of Orientalism in Western cinema, describes how belly dancing was really just a mash up of a lot of different \u201cEastern\u201d cultures to feed American audiences hungry to see \u201cthe harem\u201d: \u201cfilms often included eroticized dances, featuring a rather improbably melange of Spanish and Indian dances, plus a touch of belly-dancing (The Dance of Fatima, The Sheik, and Son of the Sheik (1926)). This filmic practice of melange recalls the frequent superimposition in Orientalist paintings of the visual traces of civilizations as diverse as Arab, Persian, Chinese, and Indian into a single feature of the exotic Orient.\u201d This continued and had a resurgence in the 1970s with the Arab oil embargo and the rise of US interest in the Middle East, which saw another rise of belly dancing and harem depictions in US movies and television.   Essentially or TL;DR: Our idea of \u201cbelly dancing\u201d is historically inaccurate, has little or nothing to do with a \u201cpre-Islamic fundamentalist\u201d utopia of the Middle East, and much more to do with Western fantasies of Muslim and Arab women linked to historical colonization and imperialism in the region.   Sources:   Alloula, Malek. The Colonial Harem. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.  Jarmakani, Amira. Imagining Arab Womanhood: The Cultural Mythology of Veils, Harems, and Belly Dancers in the U.S. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.  Shohat, Ella. \u201cGender and Culture of Empire: Toward a Feminist Ethnography of the Cinema.\u201d Quarterly Review of Film and Video 13, no. 1\u20133 (1991): 45\u201384.","human_ref_B":"I don't have the authority to speak on the matter, but u\/Cptbuck made a great answer","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3589.0,"score_ratio":6.8651685393}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0hu9v","c_root_id_B":"ds0iyi1","created_at_utc_A":1514758481,"created_at_utc_B":1514759819,"score_A":554,"score_B":827,"human_ref_A":"Only a few more years until the 9\/11 questions flood in. I hope you are all ready for that day.","human_ref_B":"Does that mean we can discuss Clinton\u2019s impeachment from December 1998, but NOT the 1999 Senate trial? ;)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1338.0,"score_ratio":1.4927797834}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0hq5g","c_root_id_B":"ds0iyi1","created_at_utc_A":1514758342,"created_at_utc_B":1514759819,"score_A":317,"score_B":827,"human_ref_A":"I'm now a historical object!","human_ref_B":"Does that mean we can discuss Clinton\u2019s impeachment from December 1998, but NOT the 1999 Senate trial? ;)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1477.0,"score_ratio":2.6088328076}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0iyi1","c_root_id_B":"ds0guz4","created_at_utc_A":1514759819,"created_at_utc_B":1514757308,"score_A":827,"score_B":294,"human_ref_A":"Does that mean we can discuss Clinton\u2019s impeachment from December 1998, but NOT the 1999 Senate trial? ;)","human_ref_B":"you're kidding, Martin you lazy piece of..... *grumbles off into the distance*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2511.0,"score_ratio":2.8129251701}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0iyi1","c_root_id_B":"ds0ehwj","created_at_utc_A":1514759819,"created_at_utc_B":1514754498,"score_A":827,"score_B":103,"human_ref_A":"Does that mean we can discuss Clinton\u2019s impeachment from December 1998, but NOT the 1999 Senate trial? ;)","human_ref_B":"I actually am pretty interested in the antitrust case against Microsoft and the international space station though. Please people, ask lots of questions about those.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5321.0,"score_ratio":8.0291262136}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0iyi1","c_root_id_B":"ds084u9","created_at_utc_A":1514759819,"created_at_utc_B":1514747049,"score_A":827,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"Does that mean we can discuss Clinton\u2019s impeachment from December 1998, but NOT the 1999 Senate trial? ;)","human_ref_B":"\u0421 \u041d\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c \u0433\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c! Happy New Year! \u0416\u0430\u04a3\u0430 \u0436\u044b\u043b\u044b\u04a3\u044b\u0437\u0431\u0435\u043d!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12770.0,"score_ratio":9.7294117647}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0a5pd","c_root_id_B":"ds0iyi1","created_at_utc_A":1514749385,"created_at_utc_B":1514759819,"score_A":70,"score_B":827,"human_ref_A":"Happy New Year, everyone at AskHistorians!  Does this mean I can ask questions about the Good Friday Agreement, then?  :D","human_ref_B":"Does that mean we can discuss Clinton\u2019s impeachment from December 1998, but NOT the 1999 Senate trial? ;)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10434.0,"score_ratio":11.8142857143}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0hq5g","c_root_id_B":"ds0hu9v","created_at_utc_A":1514758342,"created_at_utc_B":1514758481,"score_A":317,"score_B":554,"human_ref_A":"I'm now a historical object!","human_ref_B":"Only a few more years until the 9\/11 questions flood in. I hope you are all ready for that day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":139.0,"score_ratio":1.7476340694}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0guz4","c_root_id_B":"ds0hu9v","created_at_utc_A":1514757308,"created_at_utc_B":1514758481,"score_A":294,"score_B":554,"human_ref_A":"you're kidding, Martin you lazy piece of..... *grumbles off into the distance*","human_ref_B":"Only a few more years until the 9\/11 questions flood in. I hope you are all ready for that day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1173.0,"score_ratio":1.8843537415}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0hu9v","c_root_id_B":"ds0ehwj","created_at_utc_A":1514758481,"created_at_utc_B":1514754498,"score_A":554,"score_B":103,"human_ref_A":"Only a few more years until the 9\/11 questions flood in. I hope you are all ready for that day.","human_ref_B":"I actually am pretty interested in the antitrust case against Microsoft and the international space station though. Please people, ask lots of questions about those.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3983.0,"score_ratio":5.3786407767}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds084u9","c_root_id_B":"ds0hu9v","created_at_utc_A":1514747049,"created_at_utc_B":1514758481,"score_A":85,"score_B":554,"human_ref_A":"\u0421 \u041d\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c \u0433\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c! Happy New Year! \u0416\u0430\u04a3\u0430 \u0436\u044b\u043b\u044b\u04a3\u044b\u0437\u0431\u0435\u043d!","human_ref_B":"Only a few more years until the 9\/11 questions flood in. I hope you are all ready for that day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11432.0,"score_ratio":6.5176470588}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0a5pd","c_root_id_B":"ds0hu9v","created_at_utc_A":1514749385,"created_at_utc_B":1514758481,"score_A":70,"score_B":554,"human_ref_A":"Happy New Year, everyone at AskHistorians!  Does this mean I can ask questions about the Good Friday Agreement, then?  :D","human_ref_B":"Only a few more years until the 9\/11 questions flood in. I hope you are all ready for that day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9096.0,"score_ratio":7.9142857143}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0guz4","c_root_id_B":"ds0hq5g","created_at_utc_A":1514757308,"created_at_utc_B":1514758342,"score_A":294,"score_B":317,"human_ref_A":"you're kidding, Martin you lazy piece of..... *grumbles off into the distance*","human_ref_B":"I'm now a historical object!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1034.0,"score_ratio":1.0782312925}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0ehwj","c_root_id_B":"ds0hq5g","created_at_utc_A":1514754498,"created_at_utc_B":1514758342,"score_A":103,"score_B":317,"human_ref_A":"I actually am pretty interested in the antitrust case against Microsoft and the international space station though. Please people, ask lots of questions about those.","human_ref_B":"I'm now a historical object!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3844.0,"score_ratio":3.0776699029}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0hq5g","c_root_id_B":"ds084u9","created_at_utc_A":1514758342,"created_at_utc_B":1514747049,"score_A":317,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"I'm now a historical object!","human_ref_B":"\u0421 \u041d\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c \u0433\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c! Happy New Year! \u0416\u0430\u04a3\u0430 \u0436\u044b\u043b\u044b\u04a3\u044b\u0437\u0431\u0435\u043d!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11293.0,"score_ratio":3.7294117647}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0a5pd","c_root_id_B":"ds0hq5g","created_at_utc_A":1514749385,"created_at_utc_B":1514758342,"score_A":70,"score_B":317,"human_ref_A":"Happy New Year, everyone at AskHistorians!  Does this mean I can ask questions about the Good Friday Agreement, then?  :D","human_ref_B":"I'm now a historical object!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8957.0,"score_ratio":4.5285714286}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0guz4","c_root_id_B":"ds0ehwj","created_at_utc_A":1514757308,"created_at_utc_B":1514754498,"score_A":294,"score_B":103,"human_ref_A":"you're kidding, Martin you lazy piece of..... *grumbles off into the distance*","human_ref_B":"I actually am pretty interested in the antitrust case against Microsoft and the international space station though. Please people, ask lots of questions about those.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2810.0,"score_ratio":2.854368932}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds084u9","c_root_id_B":"ds0guz4","created_at_utc_A":1514747049,"created_at_utc_B":1514757308,"score_A":85,"score_B":294,"human_ref_A":"\u0421 \u041d\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c \u0433\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c! Happy New Year! \u0416\u0430\u04a3\u0430 \u0436\u044b\u043b\u044b\u04a3\u044b\u0437\u0431\u0435\u043d!","human_ref_B":"you're kidding, Martin you lazy piece of..... *grumbles off into the distance*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10259.0,"score_ratio":3.4588235294}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0guz4","c_root_id_B":"ds0a5pd","created_at_utc_A":1514757308,"created_at_utc_B":1514749385,"score_A":294,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"you're kidding, Martin you lazy piece of..... *grumbles off into the distance*","human_ref_B":"Happy New Year, everyone at AskHistorians!  Does this mean I can ask questions about the Good Friday Agreement, then?  :D","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7923.0,"score_ratio":4.2}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0ehwj","c_root_id_B":"ds0koob","created_at_utc_A":1514754498,"created_at_utc_B":1514761886,"score_A":103,"score_B":147,"human_ref_A":"I actually am pretty interested in the antitrust case against Microsoft and the international space station though. Please people, ask lots of questions about those.","human_ref_B":"Hi,  What is the definition of is?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7388.0,"score_ratio":1.427184466}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds084u9","c_root_id_B":"ds0koob","created_at_utc_A":1514747049,"created_at_utc_B":1514761886,"score_A":85,"score_B":147,"human_ref_A":"\u0421 \u041d\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c \u0433\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c! Happy New Year! \u0416\u0430\u04a3\u0430 \u0436\u044b\u043b\u044b\u04a3\u044b\u0437\u0431\u0435\u043d!","human_ref_B":"Hi,  What is the definition of is?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14837.0,"score_ratio":1.7294117647}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0koob","c_root_id_B":"ds0a5pd","created_at_utc_A":1514761886,"created_at_utc_B":1514749385,"score_A":147,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"Hi,  What is the definition of is?","human_ref_B":"Happy New Year, everyone at AskHistorians!  Does this mean I can ask questions about the Good Friday Agreement, then?  :D","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12501.0,"score_ratio":2.1}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0koob","c_root_id_B":"ds0k7rm","created_at_utc_A":1514761886,"created_at_utc_B":1514761288,"score_A":147,"score_B":66,"human_ref_A":"Hi,  What is the definition of is?","human_ref_B":"1998?! That isn't history. I mean it was only like 5 years....fuck. I'm old aren't I?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":598.0,"score_ratio":2.2272727273}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds084u9","c_root_id_B":"ds0ehwj","created_at_utc_A":1514747049,"created_at_utc_B":1514754498,"score_A":85,"score_B":103,"human_ref_A":"\u0421 \u041d\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c \u0433\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043c! Happy New Year! \u0416\u0430\u04a3\u0430 \u0436\u044b\u043b\u044b\u04a3\u044b\u0437\u0431\u0435\u043d!","human_ref_B":"I actually am pretty interested in the antitrust case against Microsoft and the international space station though. Please people, ask lots of questions about those.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7449.0,"score_ratio":1.2117647059}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0ehwj","c_root_id_B":"ds0a5pd","created_at_utc_A":1514754498,"created_at_utc_B":1514749385,"score_A":103,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"I actually am pretty interested in the antitrust case against Microsoft and the international space station though. Please people, ask lots of questions about those.","human_ref_B":"Happy New Year, everyone at AskHistorians!  Does this mean I can ask questions about the Good Friday Agreement, then?  :D","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5113.0,"score_ratio":1.4714285714}
{"post_id":"7na8cu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Happy New Year, AskHistorians! You may now have historical relations with 1998. We are SO EXCITED for all your questions about Exxon-Mobil merger and the world's longest suspension bridge and the antitrust case against Microsoft and the International Space Station and how books 2 in both Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* and Rowling's *Harry Potter* series were released the same year and...  Just kidding. Ask us about Viagra, N*sync, and what the definition of \"is\" is.  May 2018 be the best year of your life so far and the worst year of your life to come!","c_root_id_A":"ds0k7rm","c_root_id_B":"ds0oc2w","created_at_utc_A":1514761288,"created_at_utc_B":1514766340,"score_A":66,"score_B":68,"human_ref_A":"1998?! That isn't history. I mean it was only like 5 years....fuck. I'm old aren't I?","human_ref_B":"Don't forget the year the British formally handed over Hong Kong to China. That should lead to some interesting questions and plenty of good Rush Hour references.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5052.0,"score_ratio":1.0303030303}
{"post_id":"ne8bcc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"When did it stop being acceptable to openly conquer other nations?","c_root_id_A":"gyiv7t0","c_root_id_B":"gyiuieb","created_at_utc_A":1621305467,"created_at_utc_B":1621305114,"score_A":185,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"Part of the issue in answering this is that there isn't really *an answer*. At best we can say there are shades of acceptability that have shifted over time, and at least in some senses, we still have not reached a point where we can decisively say it is unacceptable, as there are examples which could be pointed to which nevertheless break the 20 year rule.  That doesn't mean there aren't major points we can look to though in the evolution of the unacceptability! To be clear, there are multiple ones to concentrate, and I am not looking at all of them, but the span of time I'm looking at is nevertheless an important one:  >ARTICLE I  >The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.  >ARTICLE II  >The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.  >ARTICLE III  >The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington.  While it now, if anything, is the butt of jokes, the 1928 Kellog-Briand Pact is actually more deserving of respect than it ends up getting in popular memory. Signed in 1928 as an attempt to 'Renounce War' as 'an Instrument of National Policy' by the great powers of the world, as its name states, it seems quite laughable in hindsight thanks to that minor conflict that erupted a decade later known as World War II, and which saw signatories such as Germany and Japan involved as aggressors. And to be sure, it isn't an unfair criticism! Outlawing war seems like a fools errand even today, where perhaps we have avoided great power conflicts in our lifetime, but certainly have had no end to smaller outbreaks of interstate violence.  But nevertheless, the Kellog-Briand Pact *does* represent an *aspirational* turning point, and an expression in international diplomacy of the unacceptability of armed conflict as a means to solving international disputes in a way that surpassed previous international agreements. More importantly though, it provides a binding expression of international law. To be sure, the treaty was entirely toothless. The three scant articles were entirely aspirational and included no method for enforcement, and did nothing, in the end, to prevent the Second World War.  What they *did* do though is nevertheless quite important! After the Allied victory over the Axis, trials were conducted at Nuremberg and Tokyo, and charged, among other things, with crimes against peace, a charge which they were able to substantiate with the signatures of the Axis power to the Kellog-Briand Pact, wherein they had renounced war of aggression. It should be noted that there *was* considerable debate over whether the pact provided sufficient justification, due to its lack of an enforcement clause, but in the end it was decided that enforcement was justifiable, with a key argument being that the Hague Conventions, which laid down the basic laws of war, likewise lacked enforcement mechanisms for its various clauses, yet had nevertheless been treated as such. The specific treaty having an enforcement mechanism was less important that its validation of the principle as a part of positive international law.  Once the contentious issue of whether the charges could be brought in the first place was settled, it was an incredibly easy charge to prove and convict for. The guilt of the accused, was all but self-evident, the only serious issue to establish being whether the treaty itself meant anything. The result then at Nuremberg, and the less remembered Tokyo Trials, was the enforcement of the spirit of the Kellog-Briand Pact, and giving meaning to its lofty ideals! At no point prior in history can we point to a situation which is so simple as to accurately summarize that 'War was outlawed, and violators convicted'.  But... let us not get ahead of ourselves and spike the football. One of the prosecuting powers was quite guilty themselves as whatever their protestations, the Soviet Union had sliced up Poland with the Germans back in 1939, and plenty more examples of war as 'an Instrument of National Policy' dot the post-World War II historical record, not only without prosecution, but in some cases conducted by the powers who had engaged in the prosecution that established the precedent in international law.   The Kellog-Briand Pact, nominally at least, remains in effect. Likewise so do the precedents that resulted from conviction at Nuremberg. Inarguably, attitudes *did* change, and creation of the UN, whose charter provides similar sentiments to the Pact, helped to further reinforce them. At least occasionally the UN's charter even provides legal backing to intercession against violations of these principles, such as in Korea, which was fought under a United Nations flag, or Resolution 678 which authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1991. But we return to the beginning as well and must reemphasize once again that we can only talk of shades of acceptability. The mid-century period surrounding the Second World War was a critical junction, and *perhaps* the single most important shift insofar as we look at relationships between the 'great powers' and their use of military force against each other, but its impact on smaller powers, let alone great powers in relation *to* smaller countries is very much a changing shade at best, with numerous examples easy enough to point to as at least worth discussion as to whether they violate those principles, and which violate the 20 year rule but are no doubt easy enough to deduce.   It is important *not* to go so far here as to argue simply that 'might makes right', but it certainly is important to emphasize that the strictures of international law are not ones which can be enforced uniformly. Does this mean we can't say norms concerning what was and wasn't acceptable in terms of aggressive war and conquest shifted through the 20th century? Of course not! But it does mean we must be cautious in talking about absolutes, or of seeing changes in *too* emphatic a light. We can look both before and after the period being concentrated on here and see other critical junctures in the shifting attitudes towards acceptability, but that itself speaks to why it can be tough to look at this question in anything other than shifting shades, rather than finding one, single turning point.  **Sources**  Hathaway, Oona A. & Scott J. Shapiro. *The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World.* Simon and Schuster, Sep 2017.  Hirsch, Francine. *Soviet Judgment at Nuremberg: A New History of the International Military Tribunal After World War II.* Oxford University Press, 2020.  Plesch, Dan. *Human Rights After Hitler: The Lost History of Prosecuting Axis War Crimes.* Georgetown University Press, 2017.  Krammer, Arnold. *War Crimes, Genocide, and the Law: A Reference Handbook.* ABC-CLIO, 2012.","human_ref_B":"Fairly recently, to the extent that this question is what a number of articles posted to the sleepy subreddit r\/IRStudies try to answer in a slightly altered form: what drives peace, and why does it seem that in the past seventy or so years, the international system has largely peaceful, devoid of wars of conquest as indeed you ask?   Is this even a History question, or is this an International Relations question? I will say that I believe this question is unanswerable from a historian\u2019s perspective: What constitutes a conquest across societies through history? What does it mean when a conquest is \u201cAcceptable?\u201d (I would argue that a conquest is never acceptable in the eyes of the conquered) In antiquity, across Europe and Asia, when nomadic peoples raided and extracted tribute from more stationary societies, was this conquest? What of the Empires which relied off of tribute extracted from peripheral peoples in order to enrich the homeland? Did the ancient empires understand conquest as we do, given the emergence of concepts of \u201cUniversal Empire\u201d (present in some form both Ancient Rome and China)? If we want to fish for a specific example, when in the Early Modern Era the Kings of France or Spain sliced off the ruling dynasties of Italian states like Milan and Naples without laying hand on the underlying institutions, was this really a conquest? These are all questions which can be answered in a variety of ways, and these answers will have a different impact in our response. Building on my last example, I could offer a multi-part answer exclusively on the French and Spanish \"conquest\" of Italy and we would still need to dig deeper into why or how decision-makers found that conflict \"acceptable\" (or \"unacceptable\").   So what I'm getting at is that there is no \u201creal\u201d answer to your question, but I can try to first inject some nuance in the notion of the historic \u201cacceptability\u201d of war in the western european history, and then veer onto a conclusion that will necessarily look at how an answer to this question might differ between various traditions of international relations theory. I'd also point out that anyone who might want to reply or offer their own answer from other perspectives is of course welcome to do so (I only point this out as the question has gotten a lot of upvotes, and I wouldn\u2019t want my reply to be taken as the only possible response). There might, for example, be a parallel answer to be had as pertains to the history of philosophy on the legitimacy of war and conquest (be it philosophy in the Eastern, Western, or other world traditions).   As pertains to modern notions of statehood and sovereignty, in the western tradition these ideas are generally said to have been first codified in the the Treaty of Westphalia at the end of the Thirty Years War. We can choose this point in time as the convenient first signal where the high politics of Europe sought to begin codifying what constituted acceptable interactions between sovereign states. But does this mean that the multitude of princes and diplomats, as well as the Venetian mediators, present in Osnabruk and Munster collectively had no notion of needing to \"Legitimize\" wars before this point?   Not really. Historians stay away from generalizations, but one that I am confident in making is that war is always a costly, disruptive, and highly destructive endeavor, which meant that long before the Treaty of Westphalia was signed, even the most authoritative ruler was accustomed to expending energy to galvanize subjects into accepting (and participating in) the business of war (and this is true today as it was in the past \u2014 but spending too much time on this would be veering too far into the real of modern social science and away from history). From the descent of Emperor Frederick (the \u201cBarbarossa\u201d) into Italy, to Charles VIII of France sparking the Italian wars, serious time and energy was expended to justify and legitimize the undertaking of war (I hope you will forgive my natural tendency to skewer examples towards Italy and the Mediterranean). My point is that war, especially war for conquest, is not exactly a natural concern of the state under any definition of the social contract; the very act of embarking on war is itself delegitimizing. Therefore, the right to rule by inheritance or acclamation, the real or perceived need to halt a growing threat or stabilize a border, the exploitation of religious or historic differences (or similarities), and good old opportunism, were just some of the reasons periodically produced in order to legitimize a war to stakeholders (often in a variety of combinations). Sure, there were no mass propaganda drives and elaborate mechanisms of enfranchisement that are necessary to legitimize modern conflicts, but a restricted circle of the empowered does not mean the absence of stakeholders altogether. And even pre-modern stakeholders knew full well that war was destructive and damaging, in no way guaranteed to be offset by plunder, perceived glory, and conquests: in the aforementioned example of Emperor Frederick, the highly destructive bouts of fighting in Northern Italy he pursued not only had the effect of consuming the very resources he was hoping to lay claim on, but also weakened his position relative to his subjects in Germany, and also imparted an intergenerational scar on communities in Italy which would forever change their attitudes to government and power, especially imperial power. But the Emperor Frederick himself was only building on the canons set by his ancestor, Emperor Otto, who at a critical moment in western european history had felt more much more legitimized in strengthening the imperial bonds between Germany and Italy and not, say, between Germany and France. For every european war of conquest, we can find specific and unique reasons why its participants felt that what they were doing was indeed, \u201cAcceptable.\u201d If they didn\u2019t, the war wouldn\u2019t have happened. In my own area of expertise, I could delve into how even the most opportunistic and seemingly unjustified conflicts, such as the 13th century Sack of Constantinople, were perceived as perfectly legitimate by the people who triggered them.   That is not to say pre-modern Europe was a peaceful place save for a few unique exceptions. Flimsy pretexts for the powerful to coerce the weak abounded. Opportunism was rife. Pretexts which today would be unacceptable, such as religion or colonialism, were instead seen as perfectly acceptable. But my point is that war almost never emerged exclusively for conquest\u2019s sake. To the people involved, all the reasons listed above represented very serious justifications for conflict. And although I am focusing on pre-Westphalian Europe, post-Westphalian Europe was similarly constrained. Even at the height of the 19th century colonialism, justifications ranging from resource extraction, to a \"Civilizing Mission,\" to the need to defend the metropole by projecting power across the world, necessarily emerged to justify the colonization process. Likewise, the innumerable causes of First World War, and the iconic (for all the wrong reasons) propaganda and nationalism in the lead-up to the Second World War, coupled with the very fact that both conquests erupted into world conflicts amid a narrative of curtailing an expansive aggressor, indicate to us that the \"acceptability\" of these conflicts was far from a simple foregone conclusion.   Does this mean my long-awaited answer to the question is that the roster of justifications for war has shrunk in the past seventy years? Maybe. I'll get into more detail in the second part to my question below, but we will have to veer into the world of International Relations theory.   Why? I've answered questions comparing International Relations methodology to Historical approaches in the past which might interest you. In short, the fundamental difference is that while history is a liberal art which looks to examine and deliver insight into the causes and consequences of past events, international relations theory is instead a social science which seeks to deliver systematize truths. In other words, a historian won't have much to say about the concept of \"Open Conquest\" which you ask about, however they might have a lot to say about the justifications and drivers of a specific conquest (that the historian happens to know something about). An International Relations theorist, on the other hand, will have an enormous amount of things to say on your question on \"Open Conquest,\" even if they might not be entirely well-versed in the details of a specific conflict (or conquests, as in our case).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":353.0,"score_ratio":2.9365079365}
{"post_id":"lldc9d","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Unions in the United States seem much weaker and more conciliatory now than 100 years ago. How has their relationship to capital changed? Why do their goals and tactics seem so much less grand now? Or is my perception entirely mistaken?","c_root_id_A":"gnsjdye","c_root_id_B":"gnsjedo","created_at_utc_A":1613586689,"created_at_utc_B":1613586694,"score_A":12,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"The range of answers in this thread so far points to how multifaceted this issue is. However so far there has not been much talk about the 1970s and 80s, and I want to talk about that. As far as sources, I am pulling significantly from Jeff Cowie's \"Stayin' Alive,\u201d as well as Rick Perlstein's \"Nixonland\" and a handful of other sources for which I don't have books on hand at the moment, but have tried to provide citation for with relevant statistics and news articles.   As \/u\/AdhesivenessLow630 points out, Taft-Hartley dealt a massive blow to labor militancy. Yet in the 1950s and 60s labor enjoyed the bounty that had been won in the 30s and 40s, and was able to make gains in some areas. The Teamsters Union saw significant gains in this era, spreading national labor standards for their industry that culminated in the National Master Freight Agreement in 1964. AFL-CIO president George Meany was a national political figure, being the primary backer of 1968 Democratic Presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon, according to Rick Perlstein, refused to directly attack labor, a lesson learned after having performed poorly in his duties whipping votes for the 1958 midterms campaigning on right-to-work(Perlstein 49-50).   Nonetheless, you did not see the same sort of combative strikes happening in the 50s and 60s that you saw in the prior decades. This began to change in the late 60s and early 70s. Quoting Cowie, \u201cIn 1970 alone there were over 2.4 million workers engaged in large-scale work stoppages, thirty-four massive stoppages of ten thousand workers or more, and a raft of wildcats, slowdowns, and aggressive stands in contract negotiations.\u201d   The late 60s through the 1970s represented a crisis of American society and American capitalism not seen since the 40s. The war in Vietnam radicalized a significant portion of the population and the American labor movement, alienating them from their pro-war leadership. The civil rights movement saw significant challenges to the segregated labor arrangement talked about by \/u\/deadletter - MLK was famously gunned down while supporting black Memphis sanitation workers in their strike to have their union recognized and receive better working conditions. This period also saw rising inflation and the beginning of an economic slowdown that in the 70s would become widely known as stagflation.   Stagflation's causes are wide-ranging and still debated (Nixon\u2019s wage and price controls, the oil crisis, increased consumer spending, increased international manufacturing competition, etc.), but the results are better known. Profits fell, factories began to close, and the economy of 70s America began to shrink.   Inflation, and eventually stagflation when it was identified as such, was a major concern for America's political leadership. One of Gerald Ford\u2019s first acts after pardoning Nixon was pushing the WIN campaign - Whip Inflation Now! - as inflation that year stood at 12.3 percent. (https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2006\/12\/28\/AR2006122801002.html) This concern continued with Jimmy Carter, who's presidency was stalked by the issue as the Iranian oil embargo worsened the economy.   To right the ship, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1979. Volcker sought to combat inflation through an aggressive regime of federal interest rate hikes, raising borrowing rates from 11% to 17% within 6 months of Volcker taking office. (https:\/\/www.richmondfed.org\/-\/media\/richmondfedorg\/publications\/research\/economic_quarterly\/1993\/winter\/pdf\/goodfriend.pdf) This interest rate hike reduced bank lending, resulting in a liquidity crunch that reduced investment in construction projects, farm loans, and manufacturing. The national unemployment rate climbed from 6% in 1979 to 11% in 1982 when these measures were ended. (https:\/\/www.thebalance.com\/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506)  The effects of the Volcker shock on union attitudes can be seen in negotiations over Chrysler\u2019s bailout in 1979-80. The UAW agreed to over $400 million in wage and benefit cuts in order to increase the liquidity of management, for fear of losing jobs for all unionized workers at the company. A far cry from the combative tactics of the 1930s. (https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/archive\/politics\/1980\/01\/06\/uaw-chrysler-officials-agree-on-contract-cuts\/c0322164-cd56-4f2c-9280-75deab4e85d3\/)  In retrospect, these things can be viewed as prelude to the PATCO strike. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization was the union that represented all federally employed air traffic controllers. It was one of the few unions to endorse Ronald Reagan for president in 1980, and Reagan had endorsed their fight for better working conditions during the campaign. In 1981, PATCO\u2019s contract negotiations with the FAA stalled, and the union calls a strike. Federal employees are legally barred from striking, but the law against such strikes had not been widely enforced, particularly on a union close to the sitting administration. But Reagan declared the strike a \u201cperil to national safety\u201d and demanded they either return to work in 48 hours or he would fire and replace all of them. The deadline passed, PATCO workers were either fired or returned to work outside the protection of PATCO. The FAA is able to avoid a prolonged shutdown of American air traffic, and thus able to beat the strike. (https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2006\/08\/03\/5604656\/1981-strike-leaves-legacy-for-american-workers)  An event that is often sighted as a turning point of the American Labor Movement is the Flint sit-down strike, because it was the first time that the president had ever called out the National Guard in support of labor rather than management. It was the first time labor had the federal government on its side. The PATCO strike was the inverse, a symbol to management that the Reagan Administration would not give political support to the unions.   The breaking of the PATCO strike put a chill on the organizing efforts of American labor. The Bureau of Labor Statistics records the number of work stoppages and workers involved in work stoppages every year. (https:\/\/www.bls.gov\/web\/wkstp\/annual-listing.htm) Note the sharp decline in stoppages from 1979 (Beginning of Volcker Shock) to 1982 (PATCO strike broken).   The event also served as a green light for management efforts to reign in labor. The most prominent representation of this is the shutting down of factories in the heavily unionized midwest and moving them either to the more anti-union American South or overseas. The way was paved for these plant relocations by the Reagan-Bush free trade efforts that culminated in NAFTA. NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and other free trade efforts were heavily opposed by elements of organized labor - playing a major role in the anti-globalization movement - but not only were these measures enacted, they were made law by Reagan and Bush\u2019s political rivals in the Democratic party. In the 90s the unions were made to see that even if more favorable leadership entered power, labor would not enjoy the sort of political power they had before.  edit: it was the 1958 midterms when Nixon got burned on right to work, not '54","human_ref_B":"There have been some great answers so far discussing unionizing from the late Nineteenth Century up to 1950! I will try to build on those answers and discuss post-World War II unions. There are a couple big trends that we need to consider in the post-war US. First, is broader economic changes. The bulk of labor organizing in the late Nineteenth Century and early Twentieth Century occurred in the midst of industrialization. The US's shift from an industrial economy to a service-based economy had many implications for the labor movement. Changes within structures of capital ownership as a result of globalization are also important to note. Societal shifts related to gender, race, and immigration are also significant. Second, is internal changes in the organized labor movement. u\/AdhesivenessLow630 is partially correct in that unions are coasting on their pre-war gains, but I think there is much more that can be said about the internal changes that unions undergo in the face of larger social changes in the 1960s and 1970s. PATCO is in many ways the response to a decades-long change within labor organizing. In many ways, we see an organized labor movement attempting to respond to broader economic, political, and social changes, but largely unable to do so.   First, we have to reckon with the broader economic and social changes of the postwar period. There are three big shifts I want to mention. The Civil Rights Movement is one of the most significant moments of 20th-Century U.S. History, but it also affected the labor movement. Except for a couple of professions (longshoremen, pullman porters, and coal miner, for example) the labor movement was heavily segregated prior to World War II (as noted by u\/deadletter and u\/Drugs_and_Anarchy). Important union protections, like closed shops and union seniority, were also used to exclude black workers from certain professions. Black workers were thus more likely to be stuck in low-paying jobs that also lacked union protection. Paul Frymer argues that NAACP lawyers worked hard throughout the 1950s and 1960s to get black workers access to union-protected jobs.^(1) In order to do so, they often had to force unions to accept racial equality in court. These legal efforts also undermined these important protections. By the late 1960s and 1970s, black workers are entering unions en masse, but corporate powers also use these new openings to undermine the power of unions. It is important to note that NAACP lawyers didn't want to undermine the labor movement. They actually viewed unions as vital to black labor interests and racial equality. The undermining of closed shops and seniority were an unfortunate side effect of divided movements of racial and class equality that had been torn apart by early Cold War rhetoric of red baiting and anti-communism.   The globalization of capital is also a very important part of the post-war period. Jefferson Cowie illustrates the ways that companies began to move from heavily-unionized communities to less unionized areas.^(2) In order to cut costs, companies began to move towards the less-unionized South in the mid-1900s. As the CIO fought to unionize the South, companies began to shift internationally. By the 1970s, many industrial employers had shifted production outside of the USA entirely. Capital moves, but communities are fixed. Much of the unionization efforts of the early 1900s are undermined by the mobility of capital in the postwar period. Also important is the conglomeration of corporations into multinational bodies. One example is the coal industry. In the late 1970s, many coal companies are bought up by larger energy conglomerates like Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon.^(3) This undermined the relationship between labor and capital that had been established back in the Treaty of Detroit in 1950. Corporations became less responsive to labor and more willing to encroach upon established labor protections.  Part of this process of globalization was the shift from an industrial economy to a service economy. As industrial jobs shifted beyond the US, the nature of labor itself was transformed. As noted earlier, most of the labor movement was concentrated in industrial labor. This left the largest-growing sector of the economy beyond the reach of the labor movement. Judith Stein also argues that this shift from industry to service and finance weakened unions, led to economic deregulation, and strengthened free trade policies.^(4)   As we see, organized labor faced a number of challenges in the postwar period, and it has tried to respond to many of these changes. One big change in organized labor was the incorporation of both African Americans and women. Lane Windham shows us that the many unions saw their numbers grow in the 1970s.^(5) Many established unions saw formerly-excluded workers join en masse following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement. Many new unions were also established in service-sector fields like grocery stores and department stores. Many unions also changed their tactics in response to changing ownership structures. For example, the United Mine Workers of America shifted from more traditional striking tactics to community-wide civil disobedience. In strikes against AT Massey and Pittston in the 1980s and 1990s, the UMWA drew upon the tactics of the Civil Rights Movement rather than traditional striking tactics.^(6) Many unions also changed internally. Once again looking at the UMWA, we see the rise of an internal union democracy movement. Gone were the days of John Lewis's autocratic rule over the union. A faction called the Miners for Democracy emerged, but their strongest supporter Joseph Yablonski and his family were murdered in 1969. From this example, we see many internal divisions within labor unions caused by the broader social, political, and economic changes of the postwar period. Divisions also sharpened over issues like women's employment and immigration.   More recently, the weakened labor movement has tried to reorient itself to a globalized labor market. Annelise Orleck describes more recent organizing efforts like OUR Walmart and the Fight for $15.^(7) Although much different than traditional labor unions, these organizations gesture towards a form of labor organization that can contend with the new nature of global capital. Labor organizing of undocumented workers is also increasingly important. Movements and events like Justice for Janitors and A Day Without Immigrants are efforts to educate the public and affect federal policy about immigration.   This is a long answer and it may be too rambling, but in short, labor and capitalism have transformed drastically since 1945. Globalization, Civil Rights, and the decline of American industry have forced labor unions to devise new strategies and contend with some of the underlying issues of racism and sexism within the traditional labor movement. Certainly PATCO can be seen as the end of a successful period of industrial labor organizing, but attempts have been made since 1980 to keep unions alive and create new labor organizations that can respond to the new nature of global capital.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":1.5833333333}
{"post_id":"c0do9b","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"HBO's Chernobyl: \"... We seal off the city. No one leaves. And cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how you keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labor.\" Is this an accurate representation of the USSR's politicians' attitudes toward their people? The full script and scene is here on page 43.  > For is that not the sole purpose of the apparatus of the state?   > From the Central Committee all the way down to each of us in this room-- we represent the perfect expression of the collective will of the Soviet proletariat.  > Sometimes, we forget. Sometimes, we fall prey to fear. But our faith in Soviet socialism will always be rewarded. Always. The State tells us the situation is not dangerous. Have faith. The State tells us they do not want a panic. Listen well.  > True, when the people see police, they will be scared. But it is my experience that when the people ask questions that are not in their own best interest, they should simply be told to keep their minds on their labour-- and to leave matters of the State to the State.  > We seal off the city. No one leaves. And cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how you keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labor.  As an American, some of this feels like they're hamming up the authoritarian communist rhetoric. Is this an accurate representation of the USSR's politicians' attitudes toward their people?  Alternate question: Is this a public-facing attitude, rather than a private one? Did they actually believe this, or is it as empty as it sounds to me personally here?  I'm not asking if this conversation actually literally happened, but if it's accurate in spirit.","c_root_id_A":"er59ns6","c_root_id_B":"er8252c","created_at_utc_A":1560521266,"created_at_utc_B":1560594018,"score_A":185,"score_B":229,"human_ref_A":"Related question (unsure if that's allowed in the comments or not): Is there evidence of the KGB actually doing what they did in the show?  Were they actually trying to keep other reactors from being fixed?","human_ref_B":"I was hoping someone with a better background on the USSR would take a crack at this. North Korea is my usual stomping ground and you can't help running into Soviet history and culture if you're studying NK, but I am definitely not the best person on the subreddit to answer this. I'll do my best and I hope this gives a little insight.  **\"As an American, some of this feels like they're hamming up the authoritarian communist rhetoric. Is this an accurate representation of the USSR's politicians' attitudes toward their people?\"** I know this is by far my most common answer on \/r\/AskHistorians, but ... sort of.   **TL:DR:** It's not a fully accurate representation of the Party's attitude toward the Soviet people by the late 1980s. However, it does capture the indifference that the Soviet state habitually exhibited toward the welfare of its citizens when it feared that its own survival or welfare was in danger. While this attitude had diminished by the Gorbachev era, it wasn't entirely gone. And unfortunately, you can't necessarily escape the consequences of bad policy even decades after those policies no longer exist.  So. Two things are worth considering:   - The age of the character who gives the speech  - The insidious incentive structures in Soviet society and culture that made the accident in Chernobyl possible  **Let's start with Zharkov:** The character played by Donald Sumpter is fictional and you're right to be suspicious; there's no evidence that any speech of this nature was given in the hours immediately following the accident (or at all). Sumpter is 76 years old, but appears to be have been aged up a little; Zharkov is portrayed as a feeble old man with a cane who looks to be in his eighties at the very least. (EDIT: I just checked the script you provided and that turns out to be the case! The character is meant to be 85 years old.) The accident happened on April 26th, 1986, which means the character would have been born in the early 20th century and experienced World War I, the Russian Revolution, the rise of Stalin, the purges of the 1930s, most likely fought or at least served in World War II ... this could go on.   Toward the end of his life, he's a Party member, and either head of the executive committee in Pripyat or reasonably powerful within it. Pripyat as an *atomograd*, or \"atomic city,\" was relatively new and had been built with a number of amenities and comforts not commonly or easily obtainable by the average Soviet citizen. It was a prestige post. (This is one of the reasons that Anatoly Dyatlov was able to exert so much pressure on the technicians running the ultimately-disastrous test.) The mere fact of Zharkov's presence there suggests his placement was a reward for years of loyal service to the USSR and the Party, and to ensure that that loyalty passed to the next generation of Party members in a city built to service a crucial power plant.   **So who got influential Party positions in the USSR?** Not people who stopped conversation in the middle of a knitting circle or dominos game to say, \"Golly, there really *are* a lot of systemic moral and economic issues with our approach to government.\" Party members were expected to be ideologically reliable and to couch disagreements or objections in acceptable terms when they made them at all. I kind of love the scene you're referencing here because the conflict between Brukhanov, Petrov, and Zharkov so deftly captures the USSR's internal conflicts in the 1980s. You have Petrov, and the younger committee members more generally, dressed in clothes that clumsily ape Western fashions: The older members are in standard Soviet suits of dismal quality. Petrov has reached physical and intellectual maturity in the increasing openness of a society that Gorbachev is working to reform still further: Zharkov's political sensibilities are informed by the Revolution and the Stalin era, combining the idealism of the former with the controlling impulses of the latter, without sensing the inherent contradiction between the two. Petrov is inconveniently sharp, guesses things are probably a lot worse than Brukhanov's letting on, and is willing to push on this point: Zharkov disregards the evidence of his eyes and ears in favor of ideological zealotry.  **And the old guy wins.** Inertia and the instinct toward self-preservation (well, Party preservation) are very powerful forces. But Zharkov's victory is short-lived and he is later seen boarding a bus to evacuate Pripyat. If you're fond of reading too much into things, you can see the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union in the contrast. Reality is the most patient thing in the world, and at the end of all the pretty speeches, the fake job reports, the doctored numbers, and the artful concealment of what's actually going on, it's still going to be there waiting for you.  Moving to our second point here ...  **Bad incentive structures and how they don't magically disappear:** Even after \"DeStalinization,\" the Soviet government was secretive, paranoid, and prone to controlling information. Why? The simplest answer is that the government was in an ideological war with the West. The public admission of problems was tantamount to admitting that the war was perhaps being lost, that the Party's control wasn't necessarily in the best interests of the people, and that the sacrifices the Soviet people were asked to make had all been for nothing. When reality's not cooperating with your beliefs, the easiest thing to do is control peoples' access to information on what's actually going on ... for as long as that will last.   **The entire system revolved around a kind of low-level, constant dishonesty.** Factories rushed to make quotas even when it meant obeying the letter of an order rather than the spirit, alternately sacrificing quantity or quality. Bonuses for factory managers depended on the gross ruble value of goods produced in a given month, incentivizing the design of products with a needless amount of raw materials (the final value of a product in the USSR depended on the value of the materials that went into it, hence the reputation Soviet goods acquired for being, as the *Harvard Business Review* diplomatically put it, \"large and heavy\"). A network of *tolkachi,* or \"pushers,\" sprang up to quietly trade materials between factories in order to compensate for mismanagement in GOSSNAB, the central supply agency. Problems with systems or products considered vital to national security -- like RBMK reactors -- were classified and kept secret even from the people running them. Chernobyl wasn't even the first \"Chernobyl:\" There had been a partial meltdown at reactor #1 in 1982. Most people thought it had been a minor accident that didn't involve the core, and that's if they were aware of it at all.   **No matter how hard it worked, the Party could never seem to shake the massive inefficiency of the system, and with it, the inevitable failures and unreliability in comparison to the West.** After decades of systemic failure, being honest about this would have destroyed its legitimacy as a controlling body, which was unacceptable. So while Soviet society had undoubtedly liberalized since the bad old days of Stalin, the penchant for controlling information never really went away. (Almost a year exactly before the Chernobyl disaster, the Soviet minister for energy created a policy that made it illegal for anyone in the media to report on any health or environmental issues created by power plants.) The best they could hope to do was control the perception of reality rather than reality itself, and that's a nasty habit to kick. The contradiction wasn't sustainable -- *it never is* -- but grew even more apparent as Soviet citizens became more and more aware of the gulf in living standards between themselves and the West.  **We've talked on \/r\/AskHistorians previously about the political nature of famines and how disasters don't just \"happen.\"** Every human society suffers crises (whether of its own making or those where God descends from the heavens in his Imma Kill You mood), but disasters happen when a crisis meets a bad or dysfunctional system that can't weather the shock. Gorbachev would later write that Chernobyl was the beginning of the end for the USSR -- not because it was a disaster that they were unable to fix, but because it was a disaster that was, in a very real sense, the result of a system that could not be honest about its failures. And when you can't be honest about your failures, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of fixing them in any substantive way.  Sources:   - *Producing Power: The Pre-Chernobyl History of the Soviet Nuclear Industry* by Sonja Schmid  - *Midnight in Chernobyl* by Adam Higginbotham","labels":0,"seconds_difference":72752.0,"score_ratio":1.2378378378}
{"post_id":"6lsafc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Since 1513, Denmark has alternated kings called Frederick and Christian. What is the reason for this and how has no king in over 500 years broken the tradition? Currently there's a queen, Margrethe II, but her successor is Crown Prince Frederick.   It just seems odd that for half a millennium not a single king of Denmark has decided to stand out from the crowd of Fredericks and Christians and take a different regnal name.","c_root_id_A":"djx55on","c_root_id_B":"djwqv7x","created_at_utc_A":1499461408,"created_at_utc_B":1499446452,"score_A":676,"score_B":102,"human_ref_A":"The simple answer is tradition. The royal house of Denmark has kept a non-violent transition of power since Frederik I ousted his nephew, Christian the second, in 1523. Christian the second's father was king Hans, and the last male danish monarch who didn't bear the name Christian og Frederik.  During the rennaisance, it became the norm for European Monarchs to keep to a few names in the line of kings in a given country, to the degree were new kings would change their name if they succeeded to the throne without the proper name. A late example of this is king george VI of England. George, who was initially named Albert, wasn't expected to succeed to the throne, being the younger brother, but, upon his brother's resignation from the Throne, he took the name George, to keep the tradition of the royal names (George, Edward, William and James). You see the same in france (Philip, Louis) and most other European monarchies.  This tradition originated in the middle ages, where it was common for noblemen, and kings especially, to be named after one of their forefathers, usually another king. This is evident in the danish line of kings, where you initially only find Gorm, Harald, Svend and Knud (Svein and Canute in English, because of inferior pronounciation). These names are used exclusively, until the sons of Svend Estridsen come into power. Svend had more than 20 children, and at least 10 of these where males. Of these 10 males, 5 (including the youngest of them) became kings. At this time, name changes weren't normal, and it would have been ridiculous to have 10 boys with only 4 names to go around. So besides an obligatory Harald, Knud, and two Svends, there was an Oluf and a Niels, who both became kings. What folowed was a series of civil wars, which lasted throughout the 11th and 12th centuries. The winners of these civil wars usually wouldn't name their sons after their rivals, which led to the abandonment of Svend and Harald, and to the Ascension of Valdemar (who was named after his slavic maternal grandfather king Vladimir). 3 more Valdemars followed, and it is still a rather normal middle name for the danish princes.  Now, during the middle ages, the kings were usualy warrior-kings, meaning they fought, and often died, in battles. Between 1067 and 1387, literally half of the danish kings died violently. But during the rennaisance, the kings became court-kings instead. This, along with the increasing reliance on using other generals than the king, and keeping him away from the front lines, meant that no danish king in the last 500 years died violently. Not even Christian the 2nd, who was ousted,but allowed to live out his life in imprisonement. This resulted in a much more stable line of succesion, which coincidentally resulted in a much more stable and limited list of names.  Sauce: for the medieval kings, Gesta Danorum, by Saxo Gramatticus, along with almost anything by Niels lund, Nils Hybel and Michael Gelting. For the rennaisance kings i can recommend almost any book by Sebastian Olden-J\u00f8rgensen.  Hope this answered your question, and doesn't get.... modded. :)","human_ref_B":"Follow up question: what about Thailand? Why were the last 10 kings (since 1782) called 'Rama'?  The chronology goes: Rama I, Rama II, Rama III, Rama IV, Rama V, Rama VI, Rama VII, Rama VIII, Rama IX and Rama X (the current king). It makes no sense to me, but I'm ignorant when it comes to non-western naming customs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14956.0,"score_ratio":6.6274509804}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxptph","c_root_id_B":"cpxpsf8","created_at_utc_A":1427889381,"created_at_utc_B":1427889261,"score_A":1191,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"It's actually already in existence in the form of \/r\/AskScienceFiction and it's a pretty active sub with nearly 40,000 subscribers. I must note that it also welcomes questions under the realm of Speculative Fiction (Yes, Fantasy, you're welcome too.)  Taken from their sidebar: >**It's like Ask Science, but all questions and answers are written with answers gleaned from the universe itself. Use in-universe knowledge, rules, and common sense to answer the questions.** Or as fanlore.org calls it Watsonian, not a Doylist point of view Take the fictional rules of the universe to their logical conclusion, ad absurdum.  ETA: It looks like \/r\/asksciencefiction has actually turned into \/r\/AskHistorians for the day!  ETA2: Didn't expect so much karma for sharing a subreddit\u2013 thanks for that! More importantly, I do hope the lot of you could bring your excellent writing on over to \/r\/asksciencefiction or to \/r\/shittyaskhistory because it was a joy reading everything.  Mods, this was a fantastic idea and expert cryptohistorians, you guys were absolutely wonderful.","human_ref_B":"Get in touch with \/u\/IGetNoSlack. He is already trying to get something like this off the ground, and I'm sure would love a helping hand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":120.0,"score_ratio":51.7826086957}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxqh39","c_root_id_B":"cpxu0yf","created_at_utc_A":1427891408,"created_at_utc_B":1427899327,"score_A":69,"score_B":175,"human_ref_A":"\/r\/DaystromInstitute is essentially this for Star Trek year round.","human_ref_B":"Relatedly, can we have some kind of awards for best April Fool's Day questions and comments? If so I nominate two questions:   * \/u\/DrSpaceUnicorn for the super-meta Why did so many survivors of the Wounded Knee Massacre become guards in Skyrim?   * \/u\/dekrepitbirth for fictional trutherism in Battle of the Blackwater: Could wildfire REALLY melt wooden beams?  Kalidor Crescents all around.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7919.0,"score_ratio":2.5362318841}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxu0yf","c_root_id_B":"cpxpsf8","created_at_utc_A":1427899327,"created_at_utc_B":1427889261,"score_A":175,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Relatedly, can we have some kind of awards for best April Fool's Day questions and comments? If so I nominate two questions:   * \/u\/DrSpaceUnicorn for the super-meta Why did so many survivors of the Wounded Knee Massacre become guards in Skyrim?   * \/u\/dekrepitbirth for fictional trutherism in Battle of the Blackwater: Could wildfire REALLY melt wooden beams?  Kalidor Crescents all around.","human_ref_B":"Get in touch with \/u\/IGetNoSlack. He is already trying to get something like this off the ground, and I'm sure would love a helping hand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10066.0,"score_ratio":7.6086956522}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxs904","c_root_id_B":"cpxu0yf","created_at_utc_A":1427895787,"created_at_utc_B":1427899327,"score_A":11,"score_B":175,"human_ref_A":"also kinda \/r\/shittyaskhistory","human_ref_B":"Relatedly, can we have some kind of awards for best April Fool's Day questions and comments? If so I nominate two questions:   * \/u\/DrSpaceUnicorn for the super-meta Why did so many survivors of the Wounded Knee Massacre become guards in Skyrim?   * \/u\/dekrepitbirth for fictional trutherism in Battle of the Blackwater: Could wildfire REALLY melt wooden beams?  Kalidor Crescents all around.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3540.0,"score_ratio":15.9090909091}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxpsf8","c_root_id_B":"cpxqh39","created_at_utc_A":1427889261,"created_at_utc_B":1427891408,"score_A":23,"score_B":69,"human_ref_A":"Get in touch with \/u\/IGetNoSlack. He is already trying to get something like this off the ground, and I'm sure would love a helping hand.","human_ref_B":"\/r\/DaystromInstitute is essentially this for Star Trek year round.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2147.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpy27bw","c_root_id_B":"cpxpsf8","created_at_utc_A":1427913345,"created_at_utc_B":1427889261,"score_A":46,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"*sigh* The sad part is that my knowledge of Star Trek probably exceeds my knowledge of Mesoamerica.","human_ref_B":"Get in touch with \/u\/IGetNoSlack. He is already trying to get something like this off the ground, and I'm sure would love a helping hand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24084.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxx54u","c_root_id_B":"cpy27bw","created_at_utc_A":1427904745,"created_at_utc_B":1427913345,"score_A":20,"score_B":46,"human_ref_A":"Ask and ye shall receive. \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians","human_ref_B":"*sigh* The sad part is that my knowledge of Star Trek probably exceeds my knowledge of Mesoamerica.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8600.0,"score_ratio":2.3}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpy27bw","c_root_id_B":"cpxs904","created_at_utc_A":1427913345,"created_at_utc_B":1427895787,"score_A":46,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"*sigh* The sad part is that my knowledge of Star Trek probably exceeds my knowledge of Mesoamerica.","human_ref_B":"also kinda \/r\/shittyaskhistory","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17558.0,"score_ratio":4.1818181818}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpy27bw","c_root_id_B":"cpxxq41","created_at_utc_A":1427913345,"created_at_utc_B":1427905739,"score_A":46,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"*sigh* The sad part is that my knowledge of Star Trek probably exceeds my knowledge of Mesoamerica.","human_ref_B":"Worth pointing out that, if the whole Fourth Wall issue doesn't bother you, many subs *do* exist for pretty serious lore discussion. \/r\/falloutlore is my favorite, but my understanding is that there are subs for most fictional universes with any following.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7606.0,"score_ratio":3.8333333333}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxx54u","c_root_id_B":"cpxs904","created_at_utc_A":1427904745,"created_at_utc_B":1427895787,"score_A":20,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Ask and ye shall receive. \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians","human_ref_B":"also kinda \/r\/shittyaskhistory","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8958.0,"score_ratio":1.8181818182}
{"post_id":"311n7x","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Meta][Serious][4th Wall Violation] If this is the quality of the fan fiction\/in-universe academics I'm reading today, please make \/r\/AskFantasyHistorians a thing. It needs to be a thing year-round, not just on one magical day.  ^And ^Star ^Wars ^is ^totally ^fantasy. ^Come ^at ^me, ^bro.","c_root_id_A":"cpxs904","c_root_id_B":"cpxxq41","created_at_utc_A":1427895787,"created_at_utc_B":1427905739,"score_A":11,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"also kinda \/r\/shittyaskhistory","human_ref_B":"Worth pointing out that, if the whole Fourth Wall issue doesn't bother you, many subs *do* exist for pretty serious lore discussion. \/r\/falloutlore is my favorite, but my understanding is that there are subs for most fictional universes with any following.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9952.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909}
{"post_id":"7l9ncw","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"A former IBM employee told me today that in the early 1970s, when he started working there, IBM required employees to wear \"dark suits, white shirts, and wingtips\" everyday. Was IBM unique in this or were other tech companies just as formal?","c_root_id_A":"drkrkx0","c_root_id_B":"drkzual","created_at_utc_A":1513875124,"created_at_utc_B":1513883474,"score_A":72,"score_B":1575,"human_ref_A":"Hey all,  If you frequent the sub, you know the drill. If you're here from \/r\/all, or browse only occasionally, please be aware we have strict rules here intended to enforce the very high bar we expect from comments, so before posting, please read our rules](\/r\/AskHistorians\/wiki\/rules). We remove comments which don't comply, and consider everyone forewarned. Up to now, a lot of people have been happy to share \"I work in tech and have heard X!\" or \"My dad worked at IBM!\" but that breaks our rules! If you have feedback or commentary about how things are run here, please don't post it in this thread. We'll just remove it. We love to hear *thoughtful* and *constructive* feedback via [modmail however.  It can take time for an answer to show up](\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/6a5duv\/a_statistical_analysis_of_10000_raskhistorians\/), so we thank you for your patience. We know you're here because the question sounds interesting, and we eagerly await an answer just like you! While you wait though, there is tons of great content already written, which you can find through our [Twitter, the Sunday Digest, the Monthly \"Best Of\" feature, and Facebook. If you don't want to forget to check back late, consider a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot, or the 'RES' Subscribe feature.  Again though, please remember the rules, and be conscious of them while you browse or write. If you don't like how this subreddit is run, keep in mind that this method has seen us continue to succeed and grow for years, and isn't going to change, so at least try and make your complaint original. \/r\/AskHistory exists, so whining about the rules to us is like going into a fancy restaurant to throw a tantrum because they don't sell chicken nuggets, even though Chick-fil-A is nextdoor.","human_ref_B":"Even amidst the more formal business dress code of the day (until the 1980s, men wore a suit to work in most jobs and industries), the IBM dress code was legendary for being strict and formal. While suits were the norm, IBM's dress code was notorious for being unrelenting. Bob Bemer, a computer scientist at IBM, recalls being horrified that a colleague attended an event in merely a sports jacket. In Denial (R.S. Tedlow, 2010), Sam Albert recalls being confronted in the elevator and scolded for not wearing sock garters.  The reasoning for the strict dress code is hard to pinpoint, but most writers ascribe it to the philosophies of CEOs Thomas J. Watson (until 1956) and his son Thomas J. Watson, Jr. (until 1971): that IBM was a unique place of impeccable standards and service, and every element of customer communication and presentation must reflect that. They rejected the \"disheveled salesman\" stereotype of the 1920s-30s caricatured by door-to-door vacuum salesmen and the like.   It wasn't until the 1980s-1990s and the emergence of Silicon Valley as a economic force that more casual business dress became the norm, exemplified by Microsoft's famously lax (at the time) dress code. This was partly because the workplace became dramatically younger, and partly because companies like the new Microsoft wanted to distinguish themselves from (in their view) older and stodgier technology companies.   But it was also because of an astute marketing campaign by Levi Strauss to send information about the benefits of \"business casual\" dress codes to tens of thousands of human resources professionals. The materials featured Dockers (a Levi's product), and the campaign's infiltration of the Silicon Valley culture is credited with the polo-and-khakis look that became the de facto uniform of 1990s dotcom and technology companies.   Incidentally, the IBM dress code was finally abolished by CEO Lou Gerstner in 1995. They have a gallery of IBM attire on their website.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8350.0,"score_ratio":21.875}
{"post_id":"7l9ncw","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"A former IBM employee told me today that in the early 1970s, when he started working there, IBM required employees to wear \"dark suits, white shirts, and wingtips\" everyday. Was IBM unique in this or were other tech companies just as formal?","c_root_id_A":"drkrkx0","c_root_id_B":"drl8stu","created_at_utc_A":1513875124,"created_at_utc_B":1513892799,"score_A":72,"score_B":193,"human_ref_A":"Hey all,  If you frequent the sub, you know the drill. If you're here from \/r\/all, or browse only occasionally, please be aware we have strict rules here intended to enforce the very high bar we expect from comments, so before posting, please read our rules](\/r\/AskHistorians\/wiki\/rules). We remove comments which don't comply, and consider everyone forewarned. Up to now, a lot of people have been happy to share \"I work in tech and have heard X!\" or \"My dad worked at IBM!\" but that breaks our rules! If you have feedback or commentary about how things are run here, please don't post it in this thread. We'll just remove it. We love to hear *thoughtful* and *constructive* feedback via [modmail however.  It can take time for an answer to show up](\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/6a5duv\/a_statistical_analysis_of_10000_raskhistorians\/), so we thank you for your patience. We know you're here because the question sounds interesting, and we eagerly await an answer just like you! While you wait though, there is tons of great content already written, which you can find through our [Twitter, the Sunday Digest, the Monthly \"Best Of\" feature, and Facebook. If you don't want to forget to check back late, consider a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot, or the 'RES' Subscribe feature.  Again though, please remember the rules, and be conscious of them while you browse or write. If you don't like how this subreddit is run, keep in mind that this method has seen us continue to succeed and grow for years, and isn't going to change, so at least try and make your complaint original. \/r\/AskHistory exists, so whining about the rules to us is like going into a fancy restaurant to throw a tantrum because they don't sell chicken nuggets, even though Chick-fil-A is nextdoor.","human_ref_B":"Your question actually touches one of the most interesting questions in economics (At least to me). My answer will only sort of explain this and I'm going to have to zoom out a little bit to get to discuss some big picture questions in economics.  Up until the 1980s, economists' considered long run technological change to be a sort of black box that couldn't really explained. During the 1980s , Paul Romer developed endogenous growth theory. I don't want to get too deep into how the model works, but the core idea is that growth is determined by spillover effects of human capital. That is to say, lets say I become an expert computer programmer. These skills will help me make a lot of money. But I won't be able to monetize all the work I do. I might inspire someone to build off my products, or someone might borrow my code to make something better. So, the level of growth is determined by how much human capital there is, and the ability for that information to spread. (There are reasons actual economists will quibble with bits of what I said, but beyond the scope of this subreddit)  This brings me to some really interesting research done by Sociologist AnnaLee Saxenian. Saxenian compared the Route 128 region around Boston, to Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley has become the center of the global tech industry, while Boston remains a relatively minor player. Saxenian argues that while Boston and Silicon Valley saw a massive concentration of human capital, all the brilliant ideas tended to be concentrated within individual companies, whereas good ideas could spread like wildfire in Silicon Valley.  She argues that differences between Silicon Valley and Route 128 lies in the different cultures. Route 128 companies tended to have a very formal, buttoned up culture. Management worked in a highly hierarchical manner. Workers were discouraged from interacting too much with people in other companies out of fear trade secrets would leak out. Companies hired lots of \"bean counters\" rather than individuals willing taking a lot of risks. The entrepreneurial culture in Silicon valley was very different, and much less formal, hierarchical, and conservative. They high level of constant informal interaction of firms in Silicon Valley created massive knowledge spillovers that helped transform it into the central node of the global technology economy.  So this brings us to your actual question. Saxenian looks at two major companies Sun (which for a while was one of the most important tech companies, and developed some technologies like Java and MySQL that are everywhere) and Apollo, which no one remembers anymore. As Apollo started to grow by leaps and bounds, they decided to bring in a \"grown up\" CEO who cut his teeth in the very traditional General Electric Corporation. He enforced a strict dress code, and strongly discouraged beards and moustaches. He was hardly alone, and lots of east coast tech startups became much more formal whereas, with suit jackets and ties. IBM is unique. It's not located in a hub, but in a closed off suburban HQ outside NYC. While IBM long had a near monopoly on the tech sector, it saw this sort of informal mingling that drove Silicon Valley as a threat of having it's best ideas and researchers stolen. I think the emphasis on formal dress can be seen as part of a very conservative culture that existed on a spectrum. IBM demanded wingtips and dark suits. Boston companies like Apollo any suit, and maybe cut out the scruffy beard. Sun threw monthly beer parties, and had guys dress up in Gorilla suits at parties.    Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 50525th Edition by AnnaLee Saxenian   https:\/\/www.huduser.gov\/periodicals\/cityscpe\/vol2num2\/saxenian.pdf","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17675.0,"score_ratio":2.6805555556}
{"post_id":"7l9ncw","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"A former IBM employee told me today that in the early 1970s, when he started working there, IBM required employees to wear \"dark suits, white shirts, and wingtips\" everyday. Was IBM unique in this or were other tech companies just as formal?","c_root_id_A":"drl7kbu","c_root_id_B":"drl8stu","created_at_utc_A":1513891465,"created_at_utc_B":1513892799,"score_A":36,"score_B":193,"human_ref_A":"Are 'wingtips' what Americans call brogues? And are they considered formal? Generally brogues are less formal than say Oxfords.","human_ref_B":"Your question actually touches one of the most interesting questions in economics (At least to me). My answer will only sort of explain this and I'm going to have to zoom out a little bit to get to discuss some big picture questions in economics.  Up until the 1980s, economists' considered long run technological change to be a sort of black box that couldn't really explained. During the 1980s , Paul Romer developed endogenous growth theory. I don't want to get too deep into how the model works, but the core idea is that growth is determined by spillover effects of human capital. That is to say, lets say I become an expert computer programmer. These skills will help me make a lot of money. But I won't be able to monetize all the work I do. I might inspire someone to build off my products, or someone might borrow my code to make something better. So, the level of growth is determined by how much human capital there is, and the ability for that information to spread. (There are reasons actual economists will quibble with bits of what I said, but beyond the scope of this subreddit)  This brings me to some really interesting research done by Sociologist AnnaLee Saxenian. Saxenian compared the Route 128 region around Boston, to Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley has become the center of the global tech industry, while Boston remains a relatively minor player. Saxenian argues that while Boston and Silicon Valley saw a massive concentration of human capital, all the brilliant ideas tended to be concentrated within individual companies, whereas good ideas could spread like wildfire in Silicon Valley.  She argues that differences between Silicon Valley and Route 128 lies in the different cultures. Route 128 companies tended to have a very formal, buttoned up culture. Management worked in a highly hierarchical manner. Workers were discouraged from interacting too much with people in other companies out of fear trade secrets would leak out. Companies hired lots of \"bean counters\" rather than individuals willing taking a lot of risks. The entrepreneurial culture in Silicon valley was very different, and much less formal, hierarchical, and conservative. They high level of constant informal interaction of firms in Silicon Valley created massive knowledge spillovers that helped transform it into the central node of the global technology economy.  So this brings us to your actual question. Saxenian looks at two major companies Sun (which for a while was one of the most important tech companies, and developed some technologies like Java and MySQL that are everywhere) and Apollo, which no one remembers anymore. As Apollo started to grow by leaps and bounds, they decided to bring in a \"grown up\" CEO who cut his teeth in the very traditional General Electric Corporation. He enforced a strict dress code, and strongly discouraged beards and moustaches. He was hardly alone, and lots of east coast tech startups became much more formal whereas, with suit jackets and ties. IBM is unique. It's not located in a hub, but in a closed off suburban HQ outside NYC. While IBM long had a near monopoly on the tech sector, it saw this sort of informal mingling that drove Silicon Valley as a threat of having it's best ideas and researchers stolen. I think the emphasis on formal dress can be seen as part of a very conservative culture that existed on a spectrum. IBM demanded wingtips and dark suits. Boston companies like Apollo any suit, and maybe cut out the scruffy beard. Sun threw monthly beer parties, and had guys dress up in Gorilla suits at parties.    Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 50525th Edition by AnnaLee Saxenian   https:\/\/www.huduser.gov\/periodicals\/cityscpe\/vol2num2\/saxenian.pdf","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1334.0,"score_ratio":5.3611111111}
{"post_id":"7l9ncw","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"A former IBM employee told me today that in the early 1970s, when he started working there, IBM required employees to wear \"dark suits, white shirts, and wingtips\" everyday. Was IBM unique in this or were other tech companies just as formal?","c_root_id_A":"drl8stu","c_root_id_B":"drl7wzl","created_at_utc_A":1513892799,"created_at_utc_B":1513891838,"score_A":193,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Your question actually touches one of the most interesting questions in economics (At least to me). My answer will only sort of explain this and I'm going to have to zoom out a little bit to get to discuss some big picture questions in economics.  Up until the 1980s, economists' considered long run technological change to be a sort of black box that couldn't really explained. During the 1980s , Paul Romer developed endogenous growth theory. I don't want to get too deep into how the model works, but the core idea is that growth is determined by spillover effects of human capital. That is to say, lets say I become an expert computer programmer. These skills will help me make a lot of money. But I won't be able to monetize all the work I do. I might inspire someone to build off my products, or someone might borrow my code to make something better. So, the level of growth is determined by how much human capital there is, and the ability for that information to spread. (There are reasons actual economists will quibble with bits of what I said, but beyond the scope of this subreddit)  This brings me to some really interesting research done by Sociologist AnnaLee Saxenian. Saxenian compared the Route 128 region around Boston, to Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley has become the center of the global tech industry, while Boston remains a relatively minor player. Saxenian argues that while Boston and Silicon Valley saw a massive concentration of human capital, all the brilliant ideas tended to be concentrated within individual companies, whereas good ideas could spread like wildfire in Silicon Valley.  She argues that differences between Silicon Valley and Route 128 lies in the different cultures. Route 128 companies tended to have a very formal, buttoned up culture. Management worked in a highly hierarchical manner. Workers were discouraged from interacting too much with people in other companies out of fear trade secrets would leak out. Companies hired lots of \"bean counters\" rather than individuals willing taking a lot of risks. The entrepreneurial culture in Silicon valley was very different, and much less formal, hierarchical, and conservative. They high level of constant informal interaction of firms in Silicon Valley created massive knowledge spillovers that helped transform it into the central node of the global technology economy.  So this brings us to your actual question. Saxenian looks at two major companies Sun (which for a while was one of the most important tech companies, and developed some technologies like Java and MySQL that are everywhere) and Apollo, which no one remembers anymore. As Apollo started to grow by leaps and bounds, they decided to bring in a \"grown up\" CEO who cut his teeth in the very traditional General Electric Corporation. He enforced a strict dress code, and strongly discouraged beards and moustaches. He was hardly alone, and lots of east coast tech startups became much more formal whereas, with suit jackets and ties. IBM is unique. It's not located in a hub, but in a closed off suburban HQ outside NYC. While IBM long had a near monopoly on the tech sector, it saw this sort of informal mingling that drove Silicon Valley as a threat of having it's best ideas and researchers stolen. I think the emphasis on formal dress can be seen as part of a very conservative culture that existed on a spectrum. IBM demanded wingtips and dark suits. Boston companies like Apollo any suit, and maybe cut out the scruffy beard. Sun threw monthly beer parties, and had guys dress up in Gorilla suits at parties.    Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 50525th Edition by AnnaLee Saxenian   https:\/\/www.huduser.gov\/periodicals\/cityscpe\/vol2num2\/saxenian.pdf","human_ref_B":"As a follow up question, can anyone tell more about the specifics of the dress code? A comment in here mentioned sock garters which I had never even heard of. What other fashions were 'mandatory' that may have subsequently gone out of vogue?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":961.0,"score_ratio":9.65}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfnsubg","c_root_id_B":"hfo7cd6","created_at_utc_A":1633559867,"created_at_utc_B":1633566930,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I just want to say that I was elated when I saw r\/AskHistorians listed in the r\/modnews announcement, and I came right here to check out what you had.","human_ref_B":"Well, I didn't *need* swag, but I bought some anyway.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7063.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfnzzmn","c_root_id_B":"hfo7cd6","created_at_utc_A":1633563393,"created_at_utc_B":1633566930,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I just want a tshirt that says [this comment has been removed by a moderator of \/r\/AskHistorians]","human_ref_B":"Well, I didn't *need* swag, but I bought some anyway.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3537.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfnvpkb","c_root_id_B":"hfo7cd6","created_at_utc_A":1633561269,"created_at_utc_B":1633566930,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Is there a reason some categories don't have any items? I could really go for some magnets.","human_ref_B":"Well, I didn't *need* swag, but I bought some anyway.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5661.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfo5pb2","c_root_id_B":"hfo7cd6","created_at_utc_A":1633566166,"created_at_utc_B":1633566930,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Who or what is benefitting from the sales?  Why are you doing this, and why are you doing this now?","human_ref_B":"Well, I didn't *need* swag, but I bought some anyway.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":764.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfnsubg","c_root_id_B":"hfoqy90","created_at_utc_A":1633559867,"created_at_utc_B":1633576779,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I just want to say that I was elated when I saw r\/AskHistorians listed in the r\/modnews announcement, and I came right here to check out what you had.","human_ref_B":"well this is extremely neat! As someone trying to be responsible about being paid for labor while still spending and volunteering time here, even the potential of a small fund to thank special guests is extremely cool and good and I'm glad you're doing things to enable it! plus the swag designs are excellent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16912.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfoqy90","c_root_id_B":"hfnzzmn","created_at_utc_A":1633576779,"created_at_utc_B":1633563393,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"well this is extremely neat! As someone trying to be responsible about being paid for labor while still spending and volunteering time here, even the potential of a small fund to thank special guests is extremely cool and good and I'm glad you're doing things to enable it! plus the swag designs are excellent.","human_ref_B":"I just want a tshirt that says [this comment has been removed by a moderator of \/r\/AskHistorians]","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13386.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfnzzmn","c_root_id_B":"hfnvpkb","created_at_utc_A":1633563393,"created_at_utc_B":1633561269,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I just want a tshirt that says [this comment has been removed by a moderator of \/r\/AskHistorians]","human_ref_B":"Is there a reason some categories don't have any items? I could really go for some magnets.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2124.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfoqy90","c_root_id_B":"hfnvpkb","created_at_utc_A":1633576779,"created_at_utc_B":1633561269,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"well this is extremely neat! As someone trying to be responsible about being paid for labor while still spending and volunteering time here, even the potential of a small fund to thank special guests is extremely cool and good and I'm glad you're doing things to enable it! plus the swag designs are excellent.","human_ref_B":"Is there a reason some categories don't have any items? I could really go for some magnets.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15510.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfoqy90","c_root_id_B":"hfoj5ty","created_at_utc_A":1633576779,"created_at_utc_B":1633572457,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"well this is extremely neat! As someone trying to be responsible about being paid for labor while still spending and volunteering time here, even the potential of a small fund to thank special guests is extremely cool and good and I'm glad you're doing things to enable it! plus the swag designs are excellent.","human_ref_B":"I love the Frederick Snooglass!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4322.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfoqy90","c_root_id_B":"hfo5pb2","created_at_utc_A":1633576779,"created_at_utc_B":1633566166,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"well this is extremely neat! As someone trying to be responsible about being paid for labor while still spending and volunteering time here, even the potential of a small fund to thank special guests is extremely cool and good and I'm glad you're doing things to enable it! plus the swag designs are excellent.","human_ref_B":"Who or what is benefitting from the sales?  Why are you doing this, and why are you doing this now?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10613.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"q2oxhc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Want to be the height of fashion? AskHistorians is participating in a swag store pilot program for reddit, so here is your chance. #TL;DR: Click Here to Check It Out  **What's Happening**  We agreed to assist the admins in piloting a new program which would allow users to get their hands on community themed swag. We've provided AskHistorians swag as prizes for year-end awards for many years now, as well as offered swag as part of fundraising efforts for our digital conference (less than two weeks away!!), so we were in a good position to help with this endeavor, both having a fair bit of experience with designing such things and knowing that there is interest within the community for AskHistorians swag.  **Where Do I Get the Stuff?**  The trial program is being done through the site Teepublic. **CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE STOREFRONT**  **What Can I Get?**  T-shirts, stickers, mugs, totes, buttons, notebooks, and hoodies are what there is. Each is available in the five Historical Snoo designs that we are using for this project.  **Why Did You Choose Those Snoos For This?**  We have twenty different 'New' styled Snoos in our collection, not to mention over thirty in the 'old' style! But for the pilot program, we're limited to five designs. *If* the feedback on this is positive and we're happy with the results *and* the program expands and continues, we'd like to be able to offer all of the Snoos, since we know everyone has their favorites. But for now, we chose five Snoos intended to a decent variety of places and interests, although it of course pretty hard to have anything *close* to broad coverage with that number (and also, Snoopata is my favorite, so....).  If you want to learn more about the Snoos currently featured, check out the Snoographies we wrote up when debuting them!  * Emiliano Snoopata * Jane Snoosten * Frederick Snoouglass * Se\u00f1or de Snoop\u00e1n * Empress Snooditu  **So... the Money...?**  Much as we wish we could offer them as such, we can't hand them out for free. The point of sale is all handled by Teepublic, and the profits generated go through reddit. From there, the funds are made available to the mod team to distribute *specifically* in ways to support the community. We aren't the only subreddit piloting this, so I don't know how other communities intend to use those funds, but as in past years, we'd be using funds raised for prizes to send to the winners of the year end awards, send \"Thank You\" gifts to AMA and Podcast guests and fund promotion of the subreddit (We had a super cool plan in the beginning of 2019 to promote participation in AskHistorians at history conferences which.... yeah. That didn't happen. But we hope to be able to restart that in 2022! Stay tuned!)  **Hey, What About the Conference Fundrazr?**  The astute among you will remember we already have been offering swag through the 2021 Conference Fundrazr, but don't worry, these aren't in direct conflict with each other. Aside from the fact that the Fundrazr has some supercool, exclusive things you can't get here, between the turnout so far, and the sponsorship that we have secured for the Conference, we feel confident at hitting our funding goals there, so by choosing *this* swag instead of *that* swag, you aren't bleeding the conference of funding (Related: Wondering where your conference swag is? Pins are supposed to arrive this week, and then we'll start shipping!)  **OMG, I Can't Believe You Sold Out Like This!!!!**  We really do value your feedback on this as a community! The pilot runs for one month, after which our continued participation (assuming they expand the program) is entirely up in the air, and very dependent on what you, the AskHistorians community, would want to see! Based on past years when we've done fundraisers, or simply shared some of the swag we send out for awards, its been pretty clear that many folks would be interested in AskHistorians swag, so we're giving this a try.  If you think this is super cool and want us to expand it, *let us know*. If you think this is stupid as hell and we never should have participated in the first place, *let us know*. We take all of that feedback seriously, and as this is very much a project *for the community*, the response of the community - *you folks* - is super important for us in evaluating its success or failure. We'll be providing feedback to reddit at the end of this, and what you all have to say about it will be front and center is whatever we end up reporting.","c_root_id_A":"hfo5pb2","c_root_id_B":"hfoj5ty","created_at_utc_A":1633566166,"created_at_utc_B":1633572457,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Who or what is benefitting from the sales?  Why are you doing this, and why are you doing this now?","human_ref_B":"I love the Frederick Snooglass!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6291.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"2150db","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Is it really possible that the early Israelites \"did not automatically link daylight with the sun,\" because \"dawn and dusk appear to have light without the sun\" (and presumably without the moon sometimes, too)? And if so, do we know of other cultures or individuals that thought this? I saw this claim in the footnotes to one of the most respected Biblical translations, commenting on the creation story in the book of Genesis.  As mentioned, I'm especially interested in if we have records of anyone else who didn't quite make the connection (from any culture, or any time period).","c_root_id_A":"cg9x8j9","c_root_id_B":"cg9wzku","created_at_utc_A":1395600802,"created_at_utc_B":1395600222,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I don't have my books with me but I do have an NIV study Bible.  Here is an excerpt that gives a probable historical\/critical answer for the \"lights\" in Genesis 1:14-16.  \"The words \u201csun\u201d and \u201cmoon\u201d seem to be avoided deliberately here, since both were used as proper names for the pagan deities associated with these heavenly bodies. They are light-givers to be appreciated, not powers to be feared, because the one true God made them (see Isa 40:26). Since the emphasis is on the greater light and lesser light, the stars seem to be mentioned almost as an afterthought. But Ps 136:9 indicates that the stars help the moon \u201cgovern the night.\u201d govern. The great Creator-King assigns subordinate regulating roles to certain of his creatures (see vv. 26,28).\"  The claim from the translation you cited seems rather unlikely to me.","human_ref_B":"I've heard something like that; it's in the Genesis Rabbah.  In Genesis, Adonai makes light before he makes the sun. The argument goes that light is an emanation of God's own brilliance, and all the light in our world belongs to that essential light radiated from God. The sun is where the light *is,* but it's not making light, God is.  But it doesn't really have to do with dawn and sunset. The Torah is assiduous about delineating *zmanim* based on not *just* sunup and sundown, but daybreak (some light) and nightfall (no light) that later commentaries linked to explicit declination angles of the sun, approximate minutes, etc.  I'm not exactly certain where to point you to the Rabbah, because I am not well-versed in Internet Judaism, I am mostly aware because the passage has a great deal of commentary in Kaballah which uses the word 'light' to mean something else entirely.  EDIT: Fixed a word.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":580.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286}
{"post_id":"3xl88l","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"I've read that early archaeologists believed the city of Great Zimbabwe had to be built by a \"white\" people, and so destroyed evidence of black cultures living there in their search for proof of their theories. Is there truth to this? Have archaeologists recovered anything?","c_root_id_A":"cy5tdug","c_root_id_B":"cy5rwqn","created_at_utc_A":1450644497,"created_at_utc_B":1450642207,"score_A":20,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"There is no truth to the theory that Great Zimbabwe was built by a non-black people. There is evidence of poor archaeological practices that hindered further research done on the site. Modern archaeological work has uncovered more artifacts. (Edited for clarity)  Early excavations sponsored by Rhodes were for the purpose of supporting an imperial narrative that white settlers had created. The narrative was that indigenous African peoples were primitive, and these primitive people were not capable of the change that Great Zimbabwe clearly embodied. So, the idea was that the stimulus for change could only come from outside influences (in this case the outside influences were of Mediterranean origin). Rhodes himself was convinced that the site was constructed by Phoenicians and other early archaeologists also speculated on the site being occupied by Egyptians and other archaic civilizations. Early work done on the site by men like J. Theodore Brent uncovered artifacts that we would now consider to be of very clear African origin. However Brent, having spent quite a bit of time studying the Phoenicians prior to his arrival in South Africa, chose to link the artifacts he found at Great Zimbabwe to the Phoenicians noting that, \"a prehistoric race built the ruins ... a northern race coming from Arabia ... closely akin to the Phoenician and Egyptian.\" (1)  Following Brent's fieldwork, Richard Nicklin Hall wanted to prove Brent's findings and firmly establish the origins of Great Zimbabwe as being of non-black descent. Hall tore apart the site by excavating large amounts of stratified deposits all at once. (2)  As \/u\/WillieJGrafton, there is plenty of archeological evidence that would support the existence of early peoples occupying the site.  Sources:   *Mysteries of Great Zimbabwe* over at PBS: http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/nova\/ancient\/mysteries-of-great-zimbabwe.html  *The Burden of Tribalism* by Martin Hall: http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/280354  Note: *This is my first r\/AskHistorians post, so any criticism regarding format or substance is entirely welcome. As a student, I'm always looking to improve.*","human_ref_B":"Anyone has a source concerning the destruction of evidence in particular? I've heard that Rhodesia only allowed researchers that beforehand agreed that Great Zimbabwe wasn't locally-made (deep into the 70's), but I've never heard of actual destruction of material.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2290.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"2ldegj","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"[META] Can we stop rudely directing people to the sidebar? Let me ask some questions:  * How many new subscribers sign up for this sub a day? A month? A year?  * How many new history books, scholarly articles, documentaries etc. produced a day? A month? A year?  I'm willing to bet it's quite a few. Opinions are constantly evolving, new stories are constantly being told and new minds and new information are always coming to the forefront.   Why then, when someone asks an interesting, thought provoking question are we rudely linking them to the sidebar that has years old posts?   If people are interested in a subject, or want a question answered, how about we use new minds, new voices, new resources and new ideas craft new answers for them and for this sub at large?","c_root_id_A":"cltw22k","c_root_id_B":"clu16zz","created_at_utc_A":1415213397,"created_at_utc_B":1415221975,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There are some great answers in the FAQ.  There are thousands more great answers that can be found with a little searching.    As far as I know posts aren't deleted just because somebody posts \"Hey great question, check out the FAQ for some good answers\" or \"here's a great link to some answers from a previous similar questions.\"  I've posted something similar only to have a great answer be written in the thread.    I'd much rather get a \"Check out the FAQ\" than be one of the posts that go completely unanswered.","human_ref_B":"If you hang around this sub long enough you will understand why people direct others to sidebar. Some questions are asked too frequently. Sometimes just hours apart. Literally.  That said, I don't think the rudeness is necessary. Just people frequenting this sub long enough sometimes don't have enough patience.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8578.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"2ldegj","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"[META] Can we stop rudely directing people to the sidebar? Let me ask some questions:  * How many new subscribers sign up for this sub a day? A month? A year?  * How many new history books, scholarly articles, documentaries etc. produced a day? A month? A year?  I'm willing to bet it's quite a few. Opinions are constantly evolving, new stories are constantly being told and new minds and new information are always coming to the forefront.   Why then, when someone asks an interesting, thought provoking question are we rudely linking them to the sidebar that has years old posts?   If people are interested in a subject, or want a question answered, how about we use new minds, new voices, new resources and new ideas craft new answers for them and for this sub at large?","c_root_id_A":"clu5s16","c_root_id_B":"clu397x","created_at_utc_A":1415229868,"created_at_utc_B":1415225338,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I for one would welcome rewriting posts again and again rather than adopt the old culture of \"search or gtfo\". But of course, we can direct people to existing material AND write new at the same time.","human_ref_B":"There is at least one mod here I believe that answers questions appropriately. He says that the question is already answered, but encourages others to post newer information. I forget which mod, but it seems very nice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4530.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"2ldegj","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"[META] Can we stop rudely directing people to the sidebar? Let me ask some questions:  * How many new subscribers sign up for this sub a day? A month? A year?  * How many new history books, scholarly articles, documentaries etc. produced a day? A month? A year?  I'm willing to bet it's quite a few. Opinions are constantly evolving, new stories are constantly being told and new minds and new information are always coming to the forefront.   Why then, when someone asks an interesting, thought provoking question are we rudely linking them to the sidebar that has years old posts?   If people are interested in a subject, or want a question answered, how about we use new minds, new voices, new resources and new ideas craft new answers for them and for this sub at large?","c_root_id_A":"clu5s16","c_root_id_B":"cltw22k","created_at_utc_A":1415229868,"created_at_utc_B":1415213397,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I for one would welcome rewriting posts again and again rather than adopt the old culture of \"search or gtfo\". But of course, we can direct people to existing material AND write new at the same time.","human_ref_B":"There are some great answers in the FAQ.  There are thousands more great answers that can be found with a little searching.    As far as I know posts aren't deleted just because somebody posts \"Hey great question, check out the FAQ for some good answers\" or \"here's a great link to some answers from a previous similar questions.\"  I've posted something similar only to have a great answer be written in the thread.    I'd much rather get a \"Check out the FAQ\" than be one of the posts that go completely unanswered.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16471.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ng6k3r","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How did the Germanic tribes transition from migrant \"barbarians\" to the feudal medieval kingdoms of Austria, Prussia, and the other Germanic kingdoms comprising the Holy Roman Empire? My admittedly cursory understanding of early European history is that celtic Indo-European people migrated from modern-day Turkey to Germany (mixing with Scandinavians (?) to become the Visigoths and Ostrogoths), Gallia (Gauls), Spain (the Celtiberians), and the British aisles (Britons) between 7000-2000 BCE.   Later the Gauls were mostly subjugated by Rome who then shared a border with the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine. I know warlords like Ariovistus made forays into Gaul from Germany but were beaten back. Then in the fourth century AD Gothic and Vandal tribes migrated west, displaced by Slavic migrants and the Huns, pushing into France and the Italian peninsula culminating in the fall of the WRE. Please correct anything overtly wrong here.  I'm really struggling to understand how these tribes became the Medieval kingdoms of 1000 AD + Europe. I know they were sometimes large pseudo-nations organized around powerful tribal warlords which is not too dissimilar from Feudalism. I also know Charles Martel and Charlemagne fought the Moors in the Iberian peninsula, adopted Christianity and founded Francia. How exactly did they go from tribes trading with\/borrowing technology from Rome to huge, organized Feudal states? How did the Goths and Vandals form the Holy Roman Empire?","c_root_id_A":"gyrhlvf","c_root_id_B":"gyq210k","created_at_utc_A":1621469631,"created_at_utc_B":1621446811,"score_A":32,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Just to address some misconceptions from the original question.  Austria has not been a kingdom as such. It\u2019s been margraviate in medieval times and then duchy and archduchy later on.  Prussia was a protestant duchy which emerged after the defeat of Teutonic Order and was a dominion of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at least until 30 years war (when the wars with Sweden weakened the Commonwealth influence in the area). We are talking about a Protestant state which emerged in the Renaissance and hadn\u2019t become a kingdom until much later. Before Teutonic Order colonized the area, at the invitation of Polish princes, the area has been inhabited by Baltic people known as Proto-Prussians or Old Prussians - a culture which has been entirely exterminated by the Teutonic Order\u2019s crusade. Regardless, there was no such thing as Prussian kingdom in medieval times and for the most of the medieval era the lands were inhabited by Baltic, not Germanic, people. There were Germanic tribes in the area in the Roman times, but that\u2019s before the migration and I don\u2019t know if there were any traces of Germanic settlements at the time of Teutonic Order\u2019s arrival to the area.","human_ref_B":"Could you speak more as to why many historians don\u2019t believe that strict definition of feudalism didn\u2019t exist? That would be an interesting rabbit hole.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22820.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"xnkqfv","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"The Starship Enterprise traces its name back through many generations of fictional and real life ships, dating back to the 16th century. Do other cultures with strong naval traditions (China, Portugal e.g.) have equivalent ship names that trace back through many iterations of naval or space travel?","c_root_id_A":"ipvnm66","c_root_id_B":"ipuowg2","created_at_utc_A":1664134570,"created_at_utc_B":1664121237,"score_A":200,"score_B":141,"human_ref_A":"While more will hopefully be said on the non-English speaking countries - I'm quite curious myself - there are several good answers on the historic ship nomenclature of several countries by \/u\/francisco_quispe on Peru, \/u\/JakeBob70 on the US Navy, and \/u\/thefourthmaninaboat and \/u\/tlumacz on the Royal Navy in answer to this very similar question by \/u\/eternalkerri.  Just as interesting is the Enterprise proper, though.  The most recent Enterprise monikers - with the obvious exception of the new *Ford* class carrier - are indisputably from Star Trek fans.  Speaking of them, the impression of a link between Star Trek and the age of sail Enterprises is probably even more recent.  It likely comes from Star Trek: Enterprise's *In A Mirror Darkly*, where during the opening sequence there's a \"HMS Enterprize\" graphic with a silhouetted age of sail ship followed by a clip from the 1945 film *The Spanish Main* of an 18th century warship firing a cannon.  My own recollection was wrong as well; I thought HMS Enterprize was etched on the stern, but it wasn't, and I suspect that if I misremembered that there's a good chance many other fans may have been under the impression that Roddenberry got the name after considering a long line of Enterprises.  We do have stronger evidence against this since so much has been written on *Star Trek*.  In the March 1964 pitch to Desilu, the original ship was not the *Enterprise* but the *Yorktown*.  From Cushman:  >\"The vessel used to transport us into the dramatic stories, with the registry of \u201cUnited Space Ship,\u201d was the Yorktown, later to be re-christened Enterprise. It was described as 190,000 gross tons, carrying a crew of 203 and able to travel beyond the speed of light, thanks to its \u201cspace-warp\u201d drive. The mission of the U.S.S. Yorktown was set for five years.\"  Roddenberry's pitch doesn't go great, but it's an interesting enough idea that the studio funds it, and at some point in July as the pilot starts to be written the ship gets renamed to Enterprise. Later, Roddenberry is quite open about his inspiration.  From Gross & Altman:  >\"With the name Enterprise, I\u2019d been an army bomber pilot in World War II. I\u2019d been fascinated by the navy and particularly fascinated by the story of the Enterprise in World War II, which at Midway really turned the tide in the whole war in our favor. I\u2019d always been proud of that ship and wanted to use the name.\"  This is reasonable considering how much Midway captured the public imagination, but what's a little peculiar about this explanation is that the Yorktown was right there too, at least until I-168 got in the way.  While Yorktown has been used multiple times in the franchise afterwards (there's plenty of fan literature about the name), it doesn't look like Roddenberry ever got asked about that particular name change. The CV-6 *Enterprise* did make it through the entire war and was a superstar because of it, but perhaps either he or the studio or someone else pointed out that the name was also less identified with the American Revolution (unless you were very familiar with it) and\/or didn't get sunk.  We'll likely never know.  When we take a look prior to CV-6, though, the *Enterprise* name was, well, not all that distinguished. Interestingly, even the book on the CV-6 and CVN-65 (Stafford's *The Big E*) skips the history of its earlier versions. It is a name that periodically got recycled when appropriate non-capital ships were available; the best that can be said about the predecessors is that one was part of the tiny handful of American ships that fought an actual duel with the British in the War of 1812, versus the majority of the fleet which was bottled up in port.  (The notable exception during this was the Essex running amok in the Pacific, likely why it became the name of a class of carriers.)  This is not entirely its fault, since there's a nice overview of how the US Navy decided to name its ships here and the Secretary of the Navy was required to name capital ships after states and locations.  The names for WW2 era aircraft carriers were a little freer, bouncing back and forth between a few concepts, including the American Revolution.  Why Enterprise in particular was plucked from relative obscurity to an aircraft carrier is far more fun, though.  It has to do with, of all people, Benedict Arnold.  So in May of 1775 Colonel Arnold surprises the British by attacking and capturing the lightly defended Fort Ticonderoga at the south end of Lake Champlain, which borders New York, Vermont, and conveniently for the Americans also goes up most of the way towards Montreal.  There's a long story suited to a top level question behind the mess of that campaign - he and Ethan Allen fought both contemporaneously and in the historiography - but the relevant part here is that after taking Ticonderoga on May 10th, the men he sends by water to the more northern fort at Crown Point report back that they can't get near it because of the HMS *George*, which can blow away anything the Americans put on the water.  So Arnold, who may have originally intended only to seize and hold the forts and send their cannon back down to Cambridge - Henry Knox shows up a few weeks later to do so - gets a second group to capture the even more lightly defended Fort Amherst at Crown Point by land, and then plots out what to do about the *George* since he realizes neither of the forts he's taken are anywhere close to secure while it's on the water.  Arnold gets a report that the only thing keeping the *George* from retaliating is that it's waiting for a favorable wind to come south from St. Jean.  He sends for a small but fast schooner, the *Katherine*, which arrives from the south.  The Americans put 10 guns on her along with provisions, rename her *Liberty* and take her 150 or so miles north along with a couple smaller boats.  A scout reports the *George* is indeed docked at St. Jean, another 30 miles up, and he informs Arnold that not only do the British already know about the loss of their forts but there are reports of a whole bunch of redcoats on the march to reinforce St. Jean who are then planning on sailing down to crush the rebels.    Arnold doesn't wait.  On May 19th, his men sail and row (the wind still isn't favorable) most of the remaining distance to St. Jean, hide the boats in a creek about a mile and a half from their target, find the British aren't aware of them yet, and then disembark a mere 100 yards away from the barracks.  At 0600 he personally leads a charge on the barracks and the docked *George*, and given his 3-1 advantage in manpower, bloodlessly captures both the fort and the ship.  The prisoners tell him that reinforcements are expected later that day - the commander is off getting them in Montreal, and there are supposedly 40 more coming momentarily from a post 12 miles away - so in a two hour period his men strip the fort of everything he can pack into his little fleet and then hightail it south.  Even the never-humble Arnold is openly stunned at how genuinely lucky he's gotten.  He then renames the *George*; it is now the *Enterprise*, and becomes the temporary flagship of Arnold's fleet.  Why this is historically significant is summed up by Randall:  >\"With thirty-five men in two open boats, the man who had conceived and helped to lead the first American offensive by invading another sovereign province only a week later now led the first naval attack in American history. It was also the first American invasion of a foreign country and an act which committed the Continental Congress to extend the revolution to Canada.\"  After that, what's a little amusing given all the legend surrounding the name is that the war record of even that *Enterprise* isn't particularly noteworthy on its own.  It sails north a few times but mostly just serves as a deterrent until it gets replaced by bigger and badder during the course of the frenzied Champlain ship building race of the next year.  It comes along with Arnold's new flagship, the 12 gun *Royal Savage*, for the first big battle on the Lake in October 1776 at Valcour Island, where it mostly serves as bait while the bigger ships lay in wait in a relatively successful ambush that's a tactical loss but strategic victory.  To hint at how far it has fallen, though, when *Royal Savage* is grounded and later burned, Arnold moves his flag to the *Congress* instead and the *Enterprise* serves as an ad hoc hospital ship; there are several references to some terrible wounds and amputations performed on it.  It participates in a few scouting missions up north with larger ships, but nothing significant.  While the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 is a success, the preceding siege of Ticonderoga where *Enterprise* runs supplies sees it encounter the main British Fleet; it gets deliberately run aground and burned to prevent its capture.  I've gone through a bunch of material to try and glean if Arnold ever explained precisely why he immediately chose that particular name, and as far as I can tell he didn't.  My suspicion is that it was a rather direct taunt to the British on how they came by their first HMS Enterprise some 70 years earlier.  It too had been a prize capture - of the Royal Navy from the French.  Sources: *Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor* (Randall, 1990),  *The Fifty Year Mission: The First 25 Years* (Gross & Altman, 2016), *These Are The Voyages, Season One* (Cushman, 2013), *The British Are Coming* (Atkinson, 2019), *Valiant Ambition* (Philbrick, 2016), *The War of 1812* (Hickey, 2012)","human_ref_B":"While we wait for new answers, consider perusing this old thread about the World War II battleship Yamato where u\/kieslowskifan gives a good write up of it\u2019s cultural impact on post-war Japan: https:\/\/old.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/2to4k3\/what_is_the_place_of_the_battleship_yamato_in_the\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13333.0,"score_ratio":1.4184397163}
{"post_id":"6cmtpw","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Monday Methods: A special episode of our podcast and a discussion post regarding: Post-modernism and history. How do we engage with it? Where do we go from here? What is the history of the future? Welcome to Monday Methods \u2013 a weekly feature we discuss, explain and explore historical methods, historiography, and theoretical frameworks concerning history.  Today's topic concerns special episode of our podcast 86A where this week's host \/u\/annalspornographie and \/u\/tenminutehistory discuss post-modernism, it's impact on history, and how we will write history and approach history in the future.  Brian and Doug already discuss some of the important context in the episode of the podcast from Friday but for those who (for some reason that is beyond me \u2013 because you really should) refuse to listen to the podcast, here is a quick primer on post-modernism and history:  Post-modernism is a major philosophical movement of the second part of the 20th century, that has massively influenced virtually all humanities and social sciences. Post-modernism as advanced by theories of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze and others holds (simply put) that categories such as ethnicity, nationality, gender, and culture are not eternal, unchanging, and natural but are the result of the process of social construction. What this means is that these things do not exist divorced from the way we talk about them, how we describe them. How we describe culture, nationality, ethnicity, gender constructs them in the first place \u2013 and they only exist in relation to how we describe them. In practical terms, this means that in relation to gender e.g., what Foucault, Delueze and others theorize is that there are no behaviors or traits that are \"female\" and \"male\" in the natural sense, they only become male and female because we as a society describe them as such. We inscribe certain behaviors and traits into the category gender that we then impose and perpetuate in our reality.  For the historian this is useful and not useful at the same time. It's useful because it lends itself very well to certain things we do. Because we are aware that e.g. thinking about what are male and female traits, what is culture, what it means to be German, American etc. are subject to massively historical change because society's view on what being American etc. entails changes and with it the behavior associated with these categories changes.  On the other hand, it presents a problem with historians because despite historians writing narratives about the past, we always operate under the assumption that our arguments are based on facts. How these facts are interpreted and connected are all things we argue about but in the end, we always rest on the assumption that what we write about is not mere fictional narrative but has at it's basis things that through our sources we can trace did indeed happen.  How history engages with post-modernism has and still is a topic that is relevant to many discussions in our profession. Richard Evans tried to so in his very recommended book *in Defense of History* where he writes:  > We know of course that we will be guided in selecting materials for the stories we tell, and in the way we put these materials together and interpret them, by literary models, by social science theories, by moral and political beliefs, by an aesthetic sense, even by our own unconscious assumptions and desires. It is an illusion to believe otherwise. But the stories we tell will be true stories, even if the truth they tell is our own, and even if other people will tell them differently.  But additionally to the question of how we as historians write history in the age of post-modernism is also the question, should we move beyond it and if so how? How can the writing of history in the future look like? Will we continue to engage with post-modernism while grappling with it? Is there an alternative that doesn't take us back to models of interpretation of our subject that are outdated?  Give the podcast a listen and add your questions and comments below!","c_root_id_A":"dhwla41","c_root_id_B":"dhvt1sa","created_at_utc_A":1495491053,"created_at_utc_B":1495456171,"score_A":17,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The category of postmodernism I spend the most time engaging with (as a historian of science\/STS person) is not so much the construction of identity, which I take as sort of a given (it's pretty obvious that national identities are constructed ideas or imagined communities, and it doesn't take much more to go from there to racial identities, gender identities, etc.), but on the broader question of what it means to be a \"fact\" when you lack a \"solid\" reference point. As a historian of science this is always tricky because even the things that some other historians might like to occasionally reference as \"givens\" (like, \"atoms are real\") are things that we tend to argue are also somewhat constructed (what does \"real\" mean in this statement?).   The epistemology I find most useful in my day to day work is Bruno Latour's as described in his _We Have Never Been Modern_, which basically articulates facts as nodes in networks that need to be continually reinforced as refreshed in their early days of establishment, but at some point become so enmeshed in the network (and future networks) that they become almost invisible and taken for granted (until something comes along and reinterprets the network relationships).   So for example, one of the examples that Latour discusses is that of Boyle's air pump and the establishment of the idea of a vacuum (which itself is borrowed from Shapin and Schaffer's _Leviathan and the Air-Pump_). Robert Boyle (the 17th century Irish natural philosopher\/chemyst) created a new tool (the \"air-pump,\" what we would today call a vacuum pump) that he believed could deploy a kind of mechanical objectivity to create new natural philosophical facts. There was considerable debate in his time as to what exactly was happening when you used it \u2014 was it really leaving a vacuum behind in the chamber, or was it doing something else? For Latour, the key thing here is that to establish the idea that the vacuum was real, you needed a whole lot of things to be working together. First you needed Boyle to actually do quite a lot of not only the creation of the device but the writing that disseminated information about it and interpreted it (as Latour puts it, facts always require \"spokesmen,\" as they cannot speak for themselves and certainly do not write themselves). You need the pump itself (for Latour, non-human actors are members of the network) \u2014 you need it to behave correctly (a non-trivial difficulty), you need it to actually work as it is supposed to. You need the other people, Boyle's gentleman witnesses, to attest to it doing what Boyle says it does, because replication was largely impossible (there were only five or six air-pumps in all of Europe over that time period, and they were finicky and not easy to access). You needed Boyle's compelling explanations of existing phenomena that other natural philosophers were interested in (e.g. the Torricelli experiment). You need Boyle's access to a printing press and the dissemination of the information. And so on.  In the earliest days of establishing the idea of the vacuum, the network was pretty weak \u2014 vulnerable in places. Do you really trust Boyle's gentleman witnesses? How about people who tried to replicate the work but failed, because their pumps didn't work quite like Boyle's? And there were those (like Thomas Hobbes) who attacked Boyle's claims, dissecting nodes in the network (like Boyle's interpretation of the data).   But over time, with more and more refinement of the tools, and more and more incorporation of the ideas into other models of the world, the idea of the vacuum moved from being a very weakly established fact, to a very strongly established one. It never crossed some magic line and went from \"non-fact\" to \"fact,\" as a more modernist, positivist epistemology might have it. Rather its \"factiness\" was built up over repeated strengthening of the network, to the degree that to question whether a vacuum exists became completely absurd \u2014 to do so, you'd be questioning a fundamental, \"easy to demonstrate\" matter of the world.   We might contrast this \"fact\" to the idea of the luminferous aether, which was built up with a very robust network in the 19th century. But in the end, its network collapsed: certain instruments stopped cooperating (e.g., the Michelson-Morley experiment, where Michelson's interferometer stubbornly refused to show aether drift, no matter how much he tried to coax it into cooperation), various theoretical models stopped requiring it, and finally it found itself not so much overthrown as dissipated. Einstein rejected it, sure, but the aether really fell out of favor because no networks kept requiring it \u2014 it became superfluous more than it was proven wrong. Without correspondence to a network, it just vanished out of \"fact.\"  What I like about this approach is that while it never really enshrines \"truth\" as some kind of simple, binary, yes\/no status, it also doesn't make it seem like it's totally up for grabs by anyone. It doesn't make it entirely a human process (the non-human actors are very important, and don't always obey!), but it also doesn't pretend like \"nature\" is some kind of easy category to observe, much less some kind of actor that can speak for itself.   Which is to say, it seems to preserve the best aspects of the postmodern critique, without falling into the pit of sophism or arbitrariness. It allows us to say, for example, that some ideas or facts have more support than others, and have a good, solid definition of \"support\" (the network). It also helps us understand what undermining a fact means (you are attacking the network) in terms that have better historical and frankly practical use that simple notions of proving something \"right\" or \"wrong.\"   You can take this model and apply it to the other categories mentioned earlier, like, say, nationality and race. You can identify the actors, the network, the nodes, from which these concepts pop out. And it also emphasizes that while, say, nationality or race are \"constructed\" (as is everything in the network, including each and every node that makes up a given network), they can still be as \"real\" in their effects as anything else.   An additional advantage to this epistemology, as a methodology, is that it makes the job of the historian quite clear: show the development, change, dissolution, etc. of the network over time, and you are doing quite interesting history.   Anyway. Just some stray thoughts. I find this kind of approach gets me more \"use value\" than either the modernist (\"facts are real, you just discover them!\") and postmodernist (\"everything is just stories, man!\"*) approaches. It is also incidentally mostly compatible with both: you end up redefining facts in ways that either, I think, could live with, preserving both the \"hard\" quality of facts that modernists like, yet emphasizing the constructedness that postmodernists like.   \\* Actual quote from a colleague who self-describes as a postmodernist.","human_ref_B":"As \/u\/commiespaceinvader pointed out to me while we were discussing the podcast, I am perhaps a bit unfair to Fukuyama in how I discuss him. If you have read The End of History (PDF article-version of his longer book) then you know that he arguing for an essentially Wiggish or Marxian\/Hegalian version of history that has reached it's end in the liberal democracies and post-War peace of the 1990s. (of course, the farther we get away from the summer of 89, the less likely we realize that things haven't really reached an End).   In the podcast, it sounds a bit like I am eliding that and attributing views to Fukuyama that are not his own -- Fukuyama isn't arguing along the same lines as Foucault and others are, that there is never an end to history, that everything is relative and purposeless. However, my larger point is that Fukuyama is an *example* of a type of postmodern history that I very strongly dislike (along with the Focauldians!) and I view as partially responsible for the current rut that the field humanities finds itself in -- a narcissistic  philosophic indolence.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34882.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286}
{"post_id":"pm3pg8","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it common for historians to refer to historical states by completely different names than what they were known as at the time(e.g. referring to the medieval Roman Empire as the \"Byzantine\" Empire)? Did the Ottoman Empire's inhabitants refer to it as such? Did medieval Germans think of themselves as part of the \"Holy Roman Empire\"? What about the various Chinese dynasties?","c_root_id_A":"hcg5wlk","c_root_id_B":"hcfng5m","created_at_utc_A":1631376521,"created_at_utc_B":1631368054,"score_A":94,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":"I'll also give an example that most people still do and don't even realize they are doing it: the Soviet Union being referred to simply as \"Russia\" (and conversely the Soviet people being called \"Russians\").  The Soviet Union largely replaced the Russian Empire (really only losing Finland and Poland), and was of course dominated by Russia (in terms of geography, population, language, and political power). But the Soviet Union was specifically not Russia, nor did it pretend to be. As the full name of the state (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) suggests, it was a union of republics, and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was just one (of 15 by the dissolution in 1991). And while ethnic Russians were roughly 50% of the population (50.8% in the 1989 census, the last in the USSR), there were still literally tens of millions of non-Russians: Ukrainians, Georgians, Tajiks, Tatars, and roughly one hundred other ethnic groups (the numbers differed throughout the life of the USSR as what constituted an ethnic group was changed, often for political reasons). To call Olexei Bondarchenko from Kyiv, or Giorgi Ivanishvili from Tbilisi (both made up names) Russian would have been like calling Angus McCloud from Edinburgh English: it was completely wrong, and bordering on offensive.  And yet the USSR was commonly referred to as Russia throughout its existence. Not just by historians or writers, but even by the highest powers in the West: Both Churchill and Reagan referred to \"Soviet Russia\", while Eisenhower referred to \"Russia\" in his famous \"The Chance for Peace\" speech, for example. In sports as well, it was common to refer to the \"Russians\" at the Olympics and in other sports (in particular Canadians like to talk about playing the \"Russians\" in international hockey tournaments; while nearly all Soviet players were Russian, they did have the odd non-Russian on the team).  This is even more interesting when you consider that arguably the most famous leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, wasn't even a Russian: he was born Iosef Jughashvili in what is now Georgia, and identified as a Georgian for most of his early life (even in later age, when he wanted to promote a Soviet identity, he did not attempt to downplay his background). And it's worth noting that two of his successors, Leonid Brezhnev and Konstantin Chernenko, all had some Ukrainian ancestry (Nikita Khrushchev grew up in Ukraine but was ethnically Russian). Lenin as well was well-known during his life for likely having Kalmyk (and possibly Jewish) ancestors, though that has never been confirmed.   Other early Bolshevik leaders were also all notably non-Russian: a high number of them were Jewish, with Leon Trotsky being the most notable; Anastas Mikoyan was an ethnic Armenian; Lavrenti Beria and Sergo Ordzhonikidze were both Georgian; and so on. It was quite a multi-ethnic leadership, and the state they created reflected this.  So while Russia may have been the \"first among equals\" (to steal the phrase) among the Soviet states, it is not right to call the whole USSR that; it would be like calling the United States \"California\" or \"New York\" or something.","human_ref_B":"With regards to the Holy Roman Empire, its very difficult to say when it began. A lot of the time, including on wikipedia and in a lot of school textbooks and popular histories, you'll hear that it was founded by Charlemagne when he was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day 800. What exactly this event meant has been heavily debated ever since the Middle Ages itself, when it figured prominently in the polemics that raged from the late eleventh to the early fourteenth centuries over whether or not the pope could claim superior authority (in both spiritual and secular matters) to that of the emperor. We can't really know what Pope Leo's motives for crowning Charlemagne were, but what is clear is that the power and authority of the Roman papacy at this time was very weak and it desperately needed a strong-armed protector on side - Leo's predecessor, Pope Zachary (d.752), had allowed Charlemagne's father, Pepin the Short (d.768), to depose the last Merovingian king, Childeric III, in 751 and receive a papal coronation as king of the Franks in return for militarily intervening in Italy on the side of the papacy against the hostile Lombard kingdom. Charlemagne's biographer, friend and courtier, Einhard (770 - 840), was probably not being strictly truthful when he claimed that Charlemagne was reluctant to be crowned emperor, but it doesn't seem like Charlemagne saw this as any kind of new beginning. Almost all of Frankish imperial expansion had already happened by that point - the last major expansionist war had been the Pannonia (modern day Hungary) campaign of 795 - 796 that resulted in the destruction of the Avar Khaganate, and the practice of annual spring campaigns against external enemies that had been going on for the last 75 years under Charles Martel, Pepin the Short and Charlemagne himself was largely discontinued thereafter. Almost all Carolingian warfare against external enemies after 800 was essentially defensive - punitive raids against the Bretons to the west, the Caliphate of Cordoba's frontier emirates and the Lombard duchies to the south and Slavic tribes to the east, and of course attempts to counteract the growing Viking threat from the north. Nor did Charlemagne's coronation really signal any real change in government and ideology - the ambitious and wide-reaching programme of administrative, religious and educational reforms that historians since the 1840s have called \"The Carolingian Renaissance\" had already begun in 789 with the royal edict known as the Admonitio Generalis, which also laid out succinctly Charlemagne's ideology of government. There, he claimed to be a \"new Josiah\" personally responsible for the moral health and salvation of his subjects, who needed to embark on a programme of correctio (restoration of right order in the world). Kingship and government under Charlemagne and his successors was very much rooted in Old Testament models, arguably much more so than those of the ancient Roman empire or its still-surviving eastern half centred in Constantinople. Its possible that Charlemagne just saw his title as Roman Emperor in the West as simply being a personal accolade, a literal crowning glory of his achievements, and quite revealingly when he drew up a plan for how to divide his territories - stretching from the Pyrenees to the Elbe and from the North Sea to Rome itself - between his three surviving adult sons in 806, he included no clause as to what was going to happen to the imperial title itself. In the end, only one of Charlemagne's sons, Louis the Pious (778 - 840), outlived him and this ensured that Charlemagne's territories remained intact for another generation and the survival of the imperial title. Overall, it seems pretty clear that Charlemagne's coronation in 800 didn't mark the beginning of a new, self-conscious imperial polity.  After the death of Emperor Louis the Pious, a civil war ensued between his sons that resulted in the famous Treaty of Verdun in 843, in which they divided the empire between the three of them. However, the imperial title continued to be held by the descendants of the eldest of the three sons, Lothar (795 -855), who was given the middle kingdom, until the death of Emperor Louis II, who reigned as king in Italy, in 875.  After that, Louis II's uncles, King Charles the Bald of West Francia (France) and King Louis the German of East Francia (Italy) briefly fought over it and in the end the imperial title was secured for Louis the German's line. Louis the German's son, Charles the Fat, managed to unify all of the former Carolingian territories under his rule by 884 after a series of dynastic accidents, but died childless of a stroke while facing rebellions in East Francia in 888. From that point on, the imperial title, which really was at this point ljust a badge of prestige, was fought over in Italy by various kings and magnates, some of whom were only distantly related to the Carolingians. After the death of the 79 year old emperor and king of Italy, Berengar I, who was a grandson of Louis the Pious through his mother Gisela, in 924 after a highly troubled 9 year reign, the imperial title was left completely vacant until 962 when ...  Otto the Great (r.936 - 973), the king of East Francia, after having been acclaimed by his troops as a \"new Caesar\" when he decisively defeated the Magyars at the Lechfeld in 955, ousted the erstwhile King of Italy, Berengar II, and was crowned emperor by Pope John XII. Now Otto's family, the Liudolfing or Ottonian dynasty, who had been reigning in East Francia (Germany) since 919 had developed this exciting new practice - rather than following the ancient Frankish custom, going back to the early Merovingians, of dividing the kingdom between all of the king's surviving sons (or male collateral relatives in the absence of sons) the kingdom would be indivisible and the kingship would be decided by election, though that election would take place in the lifetime of the previous king to ensure that the king's eldest legitimate son got elected. One could interpret this as being the first step towards an idea of an abstract impersonal state (as opposed to the state simply being the patrimony of the king\/ the reigning dynasty) and kingship as an office. Thus Otto the Great was succeeded as King of East Francia (which was increasingly coming to be known as the regnum Theutonicorum or the kingdom of the Deutscher\/ the Germans) and Italy and as emperor by his son Otto II (d.983) and his grandson Otto III (d.1002), who was then succeeded by his cousin Henry II (d.1024), from a junior branch of the Liudolfing\/ Ottonian family. Under Otto III new ideas developed about emperorship, including a revival of neo-Roman ideas (Otto tried to make Rome his capital and modelled his court on that of the East Roman emperors in Constantinople) but also an increased sense of the emperor as a religious and spiritual figure and as the leading authority in Christendom - Otto III elevated Gniezno in Poland to an archbishopric, may have crowned Boleslaw the Brave as king of Poland and played a decisive role in converting the Magyars (Hungarians) to Christianity. This ideas, of the emperor as a religious as well as secular figure and as the highest authority in Christendom, continued to develop under Henry II and under the Salian dynasty (1024 - 1125) that succeeded him. There was also a more solid sense of the Empire as an enduring and coherent territorial entity that included Germany, Italy and, after Emperor Conrad II conquered it in 1032, Burgundy (modern day Switzerland and the Franche Comte, Rhone-Alpes and Provence regions of France), for which the discontinuation of the ancient Frankish inheritance practices mentioned earlier combined with the crown lands and imperial regalia (rights of jurisdiction) being treated as belonging to the head of state (the reigning legitimate emperor) rather than a particular family must have helped. However, there wasn't much of a a sense of a common imperial identity. Germans, Italians and Burgundians had a strong sense of each other being different, and these identities were themselves very fragmented - a count from Bavaria would most likely identify as a Bavarian, a knight from Swabia a Swabian, a peasant from Lorraine as a Lotharingian and so on. And this entity was not yet known as the Holy Roman Empire - until 1182, documents from the imperial chancery simply referred to it as the empire, and its rulers were known as rex Romanorum (king of the Romans), once they were elected but before they had their papal coronation in Rome, and imperator (emperor), once they were crowned.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8467.0,"score_ratio":2.4736842105}
{"post_id":"pm3pg8","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it common for historians to refer to historical states by completely different names than what they were known as at the time(e.g. referring to the medieval Roman Empire as the \"Byzantine\" Empire)? Did the Ottoman Empire's inhabitants refer to it as such? Did medieval Germans think of themselves as part of the \"Holy Roman Empire\"? What about the various Chinese dynasties?","c_root_id_A":"hcg5wlk","c_root_id_B":"hcfnh52","created_at_utc_A":1631376521,"created_at_utc_B":1631368069,"score_A":94,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I'll also give an example that most people still do and don't even realize they are doing it: the Soviet Union being referred to simply as \"Russia\" (and conversely the Soviet people being called \"Russians\").  The Soviet Union largely replaced the Russian Empire (really only losing Finland and Poland), and was of course dominated by Russia (in terms of geography, population, language, and political power). But the Soviet Union was specifically not Russia, nor did it pretend to be. As the full name of the state (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) suggests, it was a union of republics, and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was just one (of 15 by the dissolution in 1991). And while ethnic Russians were roughly 50% of the population (50.8% in the 1989 census, the last in the USSR), there were still literally tens of millions of non-Russians: Ukrainians, Georgians, Tajiks, Tatars, and roughly one hundred other ethnic groups (the numbers differed throughout the life of the USSR as what constituted an ethnic group was changed, often for political reasons). To call Olexei Bondarchenko from Kyiv, or Giorgi Ivanishvili from Tbilisi (both made up names) Russian would have been like calling Angus McCloud from Edinburgh English: it was completely wrong, and bordering on offensive.  And yet the USSR was commonly referred to as Russia throughout its existence. Not just by historians or writers, but even by the highest powers in the West: Both Churchill and Reagan referred to \"Soviet Russia\", while Eisenhower referred to \"Russia\" in his famous \"The Chance for Peace\" speech, for example. In sports as well, it was common to refer to the \"Russians\" at the Olympics and in other sports (in particular Canadians like to talk about playing the \"Russians\" in international hockey tournaments; while nearly all Soviet players were Russian, they did have the odd non-Russian on the team).  This is even more interesting when you consider that arguably the most famous leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, wasn't even a Russian: he was born Iosef Jughashvili in what is now Georgia, and identified as a Georgian for most of his early life (even in later age, when he wanted to promote a Soviet identity, he did not attempt to downplay his background). And it's worth noting that two of his successors, Leonid Brezhnev and Konstantin Chernenko, all had some Ukrainian ancestry (Nikita Khrushchev grew up in Ukraine but was ethnically Russian). Lenin as well was well-known during his life for likely having Kalmyk (and possibly Jewish) ancestors, though that has never been confirmed.   Other early Bolshevik leaders were also all notably non-Russian: a high number of them were Jewish, with Leon Trotsky being the most notable; Anastas Mikoyan was an ethnic Armenian; Lavrenti Beria and Sergo Ordzhonikidze were both Georgian; and so on. It was quite a multi-ethnic leadership, and the state they created reflected this.  So while Russia may have been the \"first among equals\" (to steal the phrase) among the Soviet states, it is not right to call the whole USSR that; it would be like calling the United States \"California\" or \"New York\" or something.","human_ref_B":"In the end, a proper imperial identity was never realised due to various factors, but as recent scholarship by historians like Len Scales - see his essay 'Late Medieval Germany: an under-stated nation?' in Len Scales and Oliver Zimmer (eds) \"Power and the Nation in European History\" (2009) - has shown, as Italy and Burgundy almost completely slipped from the emperors' grasp after 1250 and the political situation in Germany became much more fragmented, with imperial authority weakening significantly, a fairly strong sense of national identity developed in the German kingdom, at least in a cultural if not quite a political sense. What can be considered to be something of a recognition of this was how, from 1508, the Holy Roman Empire was referred to as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. And over the course of the late medieval and early modern periods, the Holy Roman Empire's internal structures and institutions became much more formalised to the point that some revisionist historians, like Tim Blanning in \"The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648 - 1815\" (2008), have argued that in the late eighteenth century, when the Holy Roman Empire was famously mocked as a non-entity by satirists like Voltaire as a non-entity, the empire's institutions were actually working better than ever before. And when Emperor Francis II abolished the imperial title in 1806 to prevent Napoleon Bonaparte from crowning himself Holy Roman Emperor, people definitely did notice that a concrete political entity had indeed come to an end.  Recommended further reading  \\-\"The Inheritance of Rome: a History of Europe from 400 - 1000\" by Chris Wickham (2009)  \\-\"Medieval Germany: A political interpretation, 500 - 1300\" by Benjamin Arnold (1997)  \\-'Late Medieval Germany: an under-stated nation' by Len Scales in Len Scales and Oliver Zimmer (eds) \"Power and the Nation in European History\" (2009)  \\-\"The Holy Roman Empire: One thousand years of Europe's history\" by Peter Wilson (2016)  \\-\"The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648 - 1815\" by Tim Blanning (2008) - its an book about the history of Europe as a whole in this period, but Blanning himself is a specialist on German and Austrian history in this period and so gives the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburgs a lot of attention here","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8452.0,"score_ratio":4.4761904762}
{"post_id":"pm3pg8","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it common for historians to refer to historical states by completely different names than what they were known as at the time(e.g. referring to the medieval Roman Empire as the \"Byzantine\" Empire)? Did the Ottoman Empire's inhabitants refer to it as such? Did medieval Germans think of themselves as part of the \"Holy Roman Empire\"? What about the various Chinese dynasties?","c_root_id_A":"hcfred8","c_root_id_B":"hcg5wlk","created_at_utc_A":1631370063,"created_at_utc_B":1631376521,"score_A":16,"score_B":94,"human_ref_A":"I can help with a previous answer of mine for the Byzantine Empire, at least: Why is it called the Byzantine Empire when the city was known as Constantinople for centuries longer than it was called Byzantium?","human_ref_B":"I'll also give an example that most people still do and don't even realize they are doing it: the Soviet Union being referred to simply as \"Russia\" (and conversely the Soviet people being called \"Russians\").  The Soviet Union largely replaced the Russian Empire (really only losing Finland and Poland), and was of course dominated by Russia (in terms of geography, population, language, and political power). But the Soviet Union was specifically not Russia, nor did it pretend to be. As the full name of the state (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) suggests, it was a union of republics, and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was just one (of 15 by the dissolution in 1991). And while ethnic Russians were roughly 50% of the population (50.8% in the 1989 census, the last in the USSR), there were still literally tens of millions of non-Russians: Ukrainians, Georgians, Tajiks, Tatars, and roughly one hundred other ethnic groups (the numbers differed throughout the life of the USSR as what constituted an ethnic group was changed, often for political reasons). To call Olexei Bondarchenko from Kyiv, or Giorgi Ivanishvili from Tbilisi (both made up names) Russian would have been like calling Angus McCloud from Edinburgh English: it was completely wrong, and bordering on offensive.  And yet the USSR was commonly referred to as Russia throughout its existence. Not just by historians or writers, but even by the highest powers in the West: Both Churchill and Reagan referred to \"Soviet Russia\", while Eisenhower referred to \"Russia\" in his famous \"The Chance for Peace\" speech, for example. In sports as well, it was common to refer to the \"Russians\" at the Olympics and in other sports (in particular Canadians like to talk about playing the \"Russians\" in international hockey tournaments; while nearly all Soviet players were Russian, they did have the odd non-Russian on the team).  This is even more interesting when you consider that arguably the most famous leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, wasn't even a Russian: he was born Iosef Jughashvili in what is now Georgia, and identified as a Georgian for most of his early life (even in later age, when he wanted to promote a Soviet identity, he did not attempt to downplay his background). And it's worth noting that two of his successors, Leonid Brezhnev and Konstantin Chernenko, all had some Ukrainian ancestry (Nikita Khrushchev grew up in Ukraine but was ethnically Russian). Lenin as well was well-known during his life for likely having Kalmyk (and possibly Jewish) ancestors, though that has never been confirmed.   Other early Bolshevik leaders were also all notably non-Russian: a high number of them were Jewish, with Leon Trotsky being the most notable; Anastas Mikoyan was an ethnic Armenian; Lavrenti Beria and Sergo Ordzhonikidze were both Georgian; and so on. It was quite a multi-ethnic leadership, and the state they created reflected this.  So while Russia may have been the \"first among equals\" (to steal the phrase) among the Soviet states, it is not right to call the whole USSR that; it would be like calling the United States \"California\" or \"New York\" or something.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6458.0,"score_ratio":5.875}
{"post_id":"pm3pg8","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it common for historians to refer to historical states by completely different names than what they were known as at the time(e.g. referring to the medieval Roman Empire as the \"Byzantine\" Empire)? Did the Ottoman Empire's inhabitants refer to it as such? Did medieval Germans think of themselves as part of the \"Holy Roman Empire\"? What about the various Chinese dynasties?","c_root_id_A":"hcgys4u","c_root_id_B":"hcfnh52","created_at_utc_A":1631388967,"created_at_utc_B":1631368069,"score_A":35,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"So the case of China is really mostly a matter of being an exonym - simply put it's not a word in any Chinese language. \u4e2d\u570b (traditional)\/\u4e2d\u56fd(simplified) is the most common name for China, and is an *old* term that in Putonghua is pronounced \"Zh\u014dnggu\u00f3\" (the \"zh\" is pretty close to a \"j\" in English). The term \"China\" in English is quite modern and drawing it back to some ultimate origin gets kind of murky (the general consensus is that it draws back to the \"Qin\" dynasty, though there are alternatives (Geoff Wade proposes that it derives from an older word for \"Yelang\", source).   *Usually* the people of China would refer to the country that currently ruled them by the name of the current dynasty, which sometimes historians will follow by talking about \"the Han state\" and \"the Sui state,\" which is also something of a reflection that the different dynasties could have pretty recognizable government-scale signatures (e.g. Yuan governance is immediately and obviously different in how pro-merchant it was).  However, there was still a need to discuss the trans-dynastic phenomena, because if nothing else comparing dynasties was an important part of the discourse basically as long as we have Chinese philosophy (as in, literally centuries before the Qin existed). Zhongguo was already mentioned, and was an old term by the time of Confucius, dating back as early as 1000BCE when it's used on the He zun (forgive me, I do not know how to cite a 3000 year old pot). It starts being used as a formal term for foreign relations in the Qing dynasty (it is worth noting that pre-Qing dynasties don't really *have* recognizable foreign relations - acknowledgment of *any* peer state was irregular and tended to involve a lot of discontent, hand-wringing, and philosophical arguments). The reply to me by Enclaved Microstate goes into significantly greater and more interesting depth  \u4e2d\u570b means \"Middle State,\" which you may recognize as \"Middle Kingdom,\" and is generally pretty dominant, but there also exists stuff like \u83ef\u590f (traditional, \"Beautiful Grandness\") from the Spring & Autumn Annals, \u5929\u671d (\"Celestial Empire\" or \"Heavenly Kingdom,\" unsurprisingly has religious significance), and \u4e5d\u5dde (\"Nine States,\" yes that is also the name of the Japanese island of Kyushu, I don't know if there's any conflict over that specifically). AFAIK these terms are used in a kind of literary\/affective way (think like 'The United States' and 'America' and ''Merica'), but I've pretty much only encountered them in very, very old writings.  A further wrinkle is the question of demonyms. The most common demonyms for the majority Chinese people are \u6f22 \"Han\" and \u5510 \"Tang,\" which refer to two of the most popular dynasties in Chinese history - there's actually a rather neat geographic split here, where \"Han\" is more popular in the north and \"Tang\" in the south, as the older Han dynasty had much looser, lighter presence in the south than the later Tang (thought the Tang to be fair are still pretty northern focused among dynasties).  And then of course there's the issue of particularism - in English we usually refer to the majority as \"Han\" following the putonghua, but there are many, many other ethnic groups in China that didn't necesarily percieve the central government the same way. A classic and obvious case is that the Qing Emperor would send out art that suited local tastes in dramatic ways - e.g. deliberately relating the Emperor to a Boddhisattva when talking to Tibetans, which is *very* at odds with the theory of government that they'd use for either Manchu or Han subjects.  So overall, no the people of China would not refer to it as \"China\" in the vast majority of Chinese history. China and Chinese are English terms that correspond to a messy constellation of terms in Chinese history.  Esherick, Joseph (2006). \"How the Qing Became China\". Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World. Rowman & Littlefield.  Hansen, Valerie. *The Open Empire.\" \u200e W. W. Norton & Company; Second edition (January 22, 2015)   Wade, Geoff (May 2009). \"The Polity of Yelang and the Origin of the Name 'China'\". Sino-Platonic Papers. 188.","human_ref_B":"In the end, a proper imperial identity was never realised due to various factors, but as recent scholarship by historians like Len Scales - see his essay 'Late Medieval Germany: an under-stated nation?' in Len Scales and Oliver Zimmer (eds) \"Power and the Nation in European History\" (2009) - has shown, as Italy and Burgundy almost completely slipped from the emperors' grasp after 1250 and the political situation in Germany became much more fragmented, with imperial authority weakening significantly, a fairly strong sense of national identity developed in the German kingdom, at least in a cultural if not quite a political sense. What can be considered to be something of a recognition of this was how, from 1508, the Holy Roman Empire was referred to as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. And over the course of the late medieval and early modern periods, the Holy Roman Empire's internal structures and institutions became much more formalised to the point that some revisionist historians, like Tim Blanning in \"The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648 - 1815\" (2008), have argued that in the late eighteenth century, when the Holy Roman Empire was famously mocked as a non-entity by satirists like Voltaire as a non-entity, the empire's institutions were actually working better than ever before. And when Emperor Francis II abolished the imperial title in 1806 to prevent Napoleon Bonaparte from crowning himself Holy Roman Emperor, people definitely did notice that a concrete political entity had indeed come to an end.  Recommended further reading  \\-\"The Inheritance of Rome: a History of Europe from 400 - 1000\" by Chris Wickham (2009)  \\-\"Medieval Germany: A political interpretation, 500 - 1300\" by Benjamin Arnold (1997)  \\-'Late Medieval Germany: an under-stated nation' by Len Scales in Len Scales and Oliver Zimmer (eds) \"Power and the Nation in European History\" (2009)  \\-\"The Holy Roman Empire: One thousand years of Europe's history\" by Peter Wilson (2016)  \\-\"The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648 - 1815\" by Tim Blanning (2008) - its an book about the history of Europe as a whole in this period, but Blanning himself is a specialist on German and Austrian history in this period and so gives the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburgs a lot of attention here","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20898.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"pm3pg8","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it common for historians to refer to historical states by completely different names than what they were known as at the time(e.g. referring to the medieval Roman Empire as the \"Byzantine\" Empire)? Did the Ottoman Empire's inhabitants refer to it as such? Did medieval Germans think of themselves as part of the \"Holy Roman Empire\"? What about the various Chinese dynasties?","c_root_id_A":"hcfred8","c_root_id_B":"hcgys4u","created_at_utc_A":1631370063,"created_at_utc_B":1631388967,"score_A":16,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"I can help with a previous answer of mine for the Byzantine Empire, at least: Why is it called the Byzantine Empire when the city was known as Constantinople for centuries longer than it was called Byzantium?","human_ref_B":"So the case of China is really mostly a matter of being an exonym - simply put it's not a word in any Chinese language. \u4e2d\u570b (traditional)\/\u4e2d\u56fd(simplified) is the most common name for China, and is an *old* term that in Putonghua is pronounced \"Zh\u014dnggu\u00f3\" (the \"zh\" is pretty close to a \"j\" in English). The term \"China\" in English is quite modern and drawing it back to some ultimate origin gets kind of murky (the general consensus is that it draws back to the \"Qin\" dynasty, though there are alternatives (Geoff Wade proposes that it derives from an older word for \"Yelang\", source).   *Usually* the people of China would refer to the country that currently ruled them by the name of the current dynasty, which sometimes historians will follow by talking about \"the Han state\" and \"the Sui state,\" which is also something of a reflection that the different dynasties could have pretty recognizable government-scale signatures (e.g. Yuan governance is immediately and obviously different in how pro-merchant it was).  However, there was still a need to discuss the trans-dynastic phenomena, because if nothing else comparing dynasties was an important part of the discourse basically as long as we have Chinese philosophy (as in, literally centuries before the Qin existed). Zhongguo was already mentioned, and was an old term by the time of Confucius, dating back as early as 1000BCE when it's used on the He zun (forgive me, I do not know how to cite a 3000 year old pot). It starts being used as a formal term for foreign relations in the Qing dynasty (it is worth noting that pre-Qing dynasties don't really *have* recognizable foreign relations - acknowledgment of *any* peer state was irregular and tended to involve a lot of discontent, hand-wringing, and philosophical arguments). The reply to me by Enclaved Microstate goes into significantly greater and more interesting depth  \u4e2d\u570b means \"Middle State,\" which you may recognize as \"Middle Kingdom,\" and is generally pretty dominant, but there also exists stuff like \u83ef\u590f (traditional, \"Beautiful Grandness\") from the Spring & Autumn Annals, \u5929\u671d (\"Celestial Empire\" or \"Heavenly Kingdom,\" unsurprisingly has religious significance), and \u4e5d\u5dde (\"Nine States,\" yes that is also the name of the Japanese island of Kyushu, I don't know if there's any conflict over that specifically). AFAIK these terms are used in a kind of literary\/affective way (think like 'The United States' and 'America' and ''Merica'), but I've pretty much only encountered them in very, very old writings.  A further wrinkle is the question of demonyms. The most common demonyms for the majority Chinese people are \u6f22 \"Han\" and \u5510 \"Tang,\" which refer to two of the most popular dynasties in Chinese history - there's actually a rather neat geographic split here, where \"Han\" is more popular in the north and \"Tang\" in the south, as the older Han dynasty had much looser, lighter presence in the south than the later Tang (thought the Tang to be fair are still pretty northern focused among dynasties).  And then of course there's the issue of particularism - in English we usually refer to the majority as \"Han\" following the putonghua, but there are many, many other ethnic groups in China that didn't necesarily percieve the central government the same way. A classic and obvious case is that the Qing Emperor would send out art that suited local tastes in dramatic ways - e.g. deliberately relating the Emperor to a Boddhisattva when talking to Tibetans, which is *very* at odds with the theory of government that they'd use for either Manchu or Han subjects.  So overall, no the people of China would not refer to it as \"China\" in the vast majority of Chinese history. China and Chinese are English terms that correspond to a messy constellation of terms in Chinese history.  Esherick, Joseph (2006). \"How the Qing Became China\". Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World. Rowman & Littlefield.  Hansen, Valerie. *The Open Empire.\" \u200e W. W. Norton & Company; Second edition (January 22, 2015)   Wade, Geoff (May 2009). \"The Polity of Yelang and the Origin of the Name 'China'\". Sino-Platonic Papers. 188.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18904.0,"score_ratio":2.1875}
{"post_id":"wna6b2","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Do the Roman legionaries on Trajan\u2018s column wear a different kind of Lorica Segmentata than what is commonly depicted in reenactment and historical games\/movies etc.? Most depictions of Roman legionaries in a lorica segmentata I see look like this. The shoulder pieces are basically bent rectangulars with clasps in the middle that hold it together, and iirc these are based on actual archeological findings of lorica segmentata armour.   But the shoulder pieces of the legionary armour on Trajan\u2019s column has rounded ends, studs or buttons on every piece at these ends, a rim and are generally much thinner and similar in size. They inspired the look of the Roman legionaries in Asterix among others.  Additionally, recently there had been a find at Kalkriese of a Lorica segmentata that might\u2019ve looked a bit different than what is commonly depicted.  Does Trajans column show a different kind of lorica segmentata than what is shown in reenactment\/games\/movies?  Are the shoulder pieces perhaps another material (similar to leather belts, since they are so thin, have a rim and a button at the end) or did the sculptor not know what a real segmentata looks like (what I don\u2019t really believe since there are so many details on the column) or just simplified?   Thanks ahead for any answer and sorry for the long question.","c_root_id_A":"ik5njwn","c_root_id_B":"ik606gb","created_at_utc_A":1660414568,"created_at_utc_B":1660420036,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Trajan's Column in Rome is stylized military propaganda that should not be take as a very accurate portrayal of the Roman army in the early 2nd century AD:  \"...reliefs stray somewhat from historical accuracy in that for the sake of clarity they depict all legionaries in strip armor and all auxiliaries in mailshirts, while in reality some legionaires also wore mailshirts or scale armor. Likewise, in reality, Dacians often wore armor and rode on horseback, but, being enemies, are rarely thus shown on the reliefs.\" -p. 5 of \"Ancient Germanic Warriors: Warrior Styles from Trajan's Column to Icelandic Sagas\" By Michael P. Speidel \u00b7 2004  There are new archeological findings that have excavated segmented armor around what was thought to be exclusively auxillary military bases. This means that segmented armor, chainmail, and scale were all used by auxillary troops and legionary troops alike.  Fuethermore, there are some sections of Trajan's Column that portray legionaires using inaccurate and hilariously undersized scutums that are as small as their torso (it more resembles a rectangular buckler)...probably so you can more easily see the depiction of their armor and clothes.","human_ref_B":"What a great question! I write my dissertation about lorica segmentata and think it is a fascinating part of Roman army history.   Lorica segmentata is not the homogenous  armour e find depicted in modern media (i.e.Asterix), instead, we see had many different iterations. First dating from the Augustan period, with the earliest evidence of use being found at the site of a Roman camp in Dangestetten, Germany, which was abandoned in nine BCE. This earliest \u2018type\u2019 was first discovered in Kalkriese, the site of the Varian disaster, and consequently it was named the \u2018Kalkriese type\u2019 (a common theme in the nomenclature of the different \u2018types\u2019 of lorica segmentata). By the latter half of the first century CE the \u2018Kalkriese\u2019 type of lorica segmentata was replaced with the \u2018Corbridge\u2019 type, this type later being replaced by the \u2018Newstead\u2019 type by the early second century until lorica segmentata stopped being \u2018standard issue\u2019 body armour in the early to mid-third century CE and no longer used. The \u2018types\u2019 vary from how many plates there are, the size of the plates, how the plates are riveted, the different types of fittings, and whether the edges are rolled. Many of these \u2018types\u2019 vary from place to place, depending on the smithing skills and technology of the local region, lorica segmentata from Damatia was different from that in Britannia. This was not necessarily from different purpose but what was available at each part of the front.   The main theory as to why lorica segmentata was used by the Roman army is that it provided highly effective protection against penetrating and slashing blows, especially to the shoulders. Polybius mentions how the Gauls fought with a \u201cdownward cut\u201d due to \u201ctheir blades [having] no point\u201d, while Tacitus says that \u201cthe swords of the Britons are not pointed\u201d implying that they cut with the edge and thus used it in a slashing manner. The Romans would have had considerable contact with the Gauls and Celts because from Augustus to Trajan the Roman army was predominately based in the north western provinces, especially on the Rhine and in Britannia, these areas are also (not coincidently) the places that most finds of lorica segmentata come from.   Moving onto its representation on Trajan\u2019s column, an issue with using theColumn, is it is an unreliable source to support a theory with. Although previous scholarship believed that each scene was based on in-the-field sketches, it is now unanimously accepted by scholarship that Roman imperial propaganda had drastically altered any realism in order to celebrate the military prowess of the imperator. The makers of the column only likely saw soldiers during triumphal marches, were legionaries were unrealistically armoured homogeneously, whereas in reality there would\u2019ve been variation between each soldier as they had to purchase their own armour, often recycled from previous legionaries in the same legion.   Representation of the same events depicted on Trajan\u2019s column are depicted on the Tropaeum Traiani. Although of the same event, they depict soldiers in completely different armour (mail\/scale armour with segmented limb armour). These are likely to be more accurate than what is depicted on Trajan\u2019s column as they were likely made by legionaries with some skill in art (so using accurate design of armour).   The main reason we know so much (and so little) about this armour is due to its many small, intricate, pieces that made up the armour. As they were likely to break, there is an over-representation of lorica segmentata in the archaeological record resulting in the many different interpretations and making everything very confusing!   If you would like to read my dissertation, just DM me and I\u2019m more than happy to send it your way :)  For more on lorica segmentata please read:  Bishop, M. C., 2002. Lorica Segmentata. Volume 1: A handbook of articulated Roman plate armour. Journal of Roman Military Studies Monograph 1. Braemar: Armatura Press.  Bishop, M. C. & Coulston, J. C. N., 2006. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxbow Books.  Gilliver, K., 2007b. \u2018Display in Roman Warfare: The Appearance of Armies and Individuals on the Battlefield\u2019, War in History 14(1), 1-21.  Richmond, I. A., 1935. \u2018Trajan\u2019s Army on Trajan\u2019s Column\u2019, Papers of the British School at Rome 13, 1-40.  Sim, D. & Kaminski, J., 2012. Roman Imperial Armour: The Production of Early Imperial Military Armour. Oxford: Oxbow Books.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5468.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"zx8lxc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"When did landlocked regions get access to ocean seafood? Did it only become feasible after the invention of proper refrigeration or was it already in practice to send sea fish inland?","c_root_id_A":"j1z3a3w","c_root_id_B":"j1z8yoi","created_at_utc_A":1672235529,"created_at_utc_B":1672238352,"score_A":21,"score_B":61,"human_ref_A":"You may be interested in this answer from u\/gothwalk, which discusses the Anglo-Saxon Fish Event Horizon.","human_ref_B":"If you don't limit the definition of \"ocean seafood\" in OP to the solid and in form strictly, the garum, fish source made from sea fishes caught in the Mediterranean, could be transported by the river networks in the Roman Empire about 2,000 years ago (1th and 2th centuries CE), and pottery vase called amphorae used for the vessel of fish sauce as well as the development of zooarchaeology in identifying fish bones of sea fishes has also recently helped us with the provenance of the fish source.    To give some examples, two archaeological evidence (samples of fish bones) respectively found in Salzburg  (now Austria) and Mainz (Germany) testify the presence of sardine-based fish sauce (in the former case) and the marine mackerel specie (from Iberian Peninsula) in the latter city around the 1th century CE (van Neer 2010: 163). Typological analysis of the amphorae also suggest that the amphorae made in Baetica (now NE Spain) and Gallia Narbonensis (southern France)  were mainly used for the export of the garum product from the Mediterranean. Bone remains of Spanish mackerel are also found and identified across the northern part of Empire around 0 CE to the 2th century CE sporadically (Van Neer 2010: 168f., Table 1).    +++    As for the existence\/ degree of the commercial fishery in the northern seas (the North Sea and the Baltic) before the 12th century, researchers have still discussed, but you can at least also see the outline of the Norwegian stockfish export to Continental Europe in the Later Middle Ages in my previous post in: How did the people of the past dry and store fish and other foods?     (Adds): While not mentioning how they were transported to the inland market, \/u\/LXT130J's posts in: In medieval films, barrels and wooden crates seem to be a ubiquitous \"filler\" prop. How common would it actually have been to transport or store goods in such containers en masse in the European Middle Ages? also offer us some ideas on the scale of the commercial herring fishery as well as processing in the Later Middle Ages.   References:    * Curtis, Robert I. \u201c\u2018Negotiatores Allecarii\u2019 and the Herring.\u201d *Phoenix* 38, no. 2 (1984): 147\u201358. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/1088898. * GASPER, GILES E.M., and FAITH WALLIS. \u201c*Salsamenta Pictavensium*: Gastronomy and Medicine in Twelfth-Century England.\u201d *The English Historical Review* 131, no. 553 (2016): 1353\u201385. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/26364416. * Van Neer, Wim, Anton Ervynck, & Patrick Monsieur. \u201cFish Bones and Amphorae: Evidence for the Production and Consumption of Salted Fish Products Outside the Mediterranean Region.\u201d *Journal of Roman Archaeology* 23 (2010): 161\u201395. doi:10.1017\/S104775940000235X.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2823.0,"score_ratio":2.9047619048}
{"post_id":"sr1zu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Possible interesting suggestion? Hi guys,  So I was wondering about trying something a little new and seeing what everyones thoughts were about it. We have many members of this ever-growing subreddit now, many with their own personalised flair showing their areas of expertise\/knowledge. Now so far this conglomeration has worked excellently in providing answers to questions, interestingly often in a broad context which manages to provide examples from many historical periods; for instance I have seen many threads where the submitter asks for specific examples of things and our users can give answers from ancient, medieval and modern periods simultaneously. However despite all this we redditors are subject to the question being asked being within our area of knowledge. Now I know this subreddit is called askhistorians and I am more than happy for it simply to stay as it is... but who out there would be up for having informed users holding AMA like threads on their area of interest. I mean technically it is still within the purpose of askhistorians, in that we are asking questions of areas of history.. these sorts of threads would simply be directing that focus onto the specific resources we have in the users of this subreddit. Obviously users with very broad flairs could define exactly what areas they are willing and able to answer on in the information box so as to make the process easier. Like I say I know many may not like the idea, but i thought it at least worth putting out there. I personally have seen many here post comments on areas of historical interest that I had little knowledge of but after reading became very interested in reading\/hearing more about it.... case in point the comment left by our newest moderator eternalkerri with the fascinating and popular post about the Pirate Code. Obviously this sort of idea would need to be subject to some conditions in implementation, perhaps a schedule so that not everyone was flooding the subreddit with threads at the same time, but i'll leave that until after we see if there is any support for it.    Thanks for taking the time to read this.","c_root_id_A":"c4g9wiy","c_root_id_B":"c4gaew3","created_at_utc_A":1335324248,"created_at_utc_B":1335326695,"score_A":7,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I think this is a fine idea, and once the semester is over would love to participate in some fashion!  One suggestion, however, perhaps we could arrange these AMA's in groups?  For instance if two or three or four redditors with similar flair participate in the AMA in order to get a nice rounded historical opinion\/debate going, I think that would be awesome.  It would be something like the Q&A at a conference panel.","human_ref_B":"An interesting concept. I like what some people have said about doing a series of them over the summer. I'll think about maybe doing 1-2\/week, and we'll have a sign-up thread or something.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2447.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714}
{"post_id":"sr1zu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Possible interesting suggestion? Hi guys,  So I was wondering about trying something a little new and seeing what everyones thoughts were about it. We have many members of this ever-growing subreddit now, many with their own personalised flair showing their areas of expertise\/knowledge. Now so far this conglomeration has worked excellently in providing answers to questions, interestingly often in a broad context which manages to provide examples from many historical periods; for instance I have seen many threads where the submitter asks for specific examples of things and our users can give answers from ancient, medieval and modern periods simultaneously. However despite all this we redditors are subject to the question being asked being within our area of knowledge. Now I know this subreddit is called askhistorians and I am more than happy for it simply to stay as it is... but who out there would be up for having informed users holding AMA like threads on their area of interest. I mean technically it is still within the purpose of askhistorians, in that we are asking questions of areas of history.. these sorts of threads would simply be directing that focus onto the specific resources we have in the users of this subreddit. Obviously users with very broad flairs could define exactly what areas they are willing and able to answer on in the information box so as to make the process easier. Like I say I know many may not like the idea, but i thought it at least worth putting out there. I personally have seen many here post comments on areas of historical interest that I had little knowledge of but after reading became very interested in reading\/hearing more about it.... case in point the comment left by our newest moderator eternalkerri with the fascinating and popular post about the Pirate Code. Obviously this sort of idea would need to be subject to some conditions in implementation, perhaps a schedule so that not everyone was flooding the subreddit with threads at the same time, but i'll leave that until after we see if there is any support for it.    Thanks for taking the time to read this.","c_root_id_A":"c4gaew3","c_root_id_B":"c4g99ht","created_at_utc_A":1335326695,"created_at_utc_B":1335321236,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"An interesting concept. I like what some people have said about doing a series of them over the summer. I'll think about maybe doing 1-2\/week, and we'll have a sign-up thread or something.","human_ref_B":"Oooo, this would be cool, especially since summer is coming up and I'm sure I'm not the only person with at least a bit of the summer off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5459.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"sr1zu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Possible interesting suggestion? Hi guys,  So I was wondering about trying something a little new and seeing what everyones thoughts were about it. We have many members of this ever-growing subreddit now, many with their own personalised flair showing their areas of expertise\/knowledge. Now so far this conglomeration has worked excellently in providing answers to questions, interestingly often in a broad context which manages to provide examples from many historical periods; for instance I have seen many threads where the submitter asks for specific examples of things and our users can give answers from ancient, medieval and modern periods simultaneously. However despite all this we redditors are subject to the question being asked being within our area of knowledge. Now I know this subreddit is called askhistorians and I am more than happy for it simply to stay as it is... but who out there would be up for having informed users holding AMA like threads on their area of interest. I mean technically it is still within the purpose of askhistorians, in that we are asking questions of areas of history.. these sorts of threads would simply be directing that focus onto the specific resources we have in the users of this subreddit. Obviously users with very broad flairs could define exactly what areas they are willing and able to answer on in the information box so as to make the process easier. Like I say I know many may not like the idea, but i thought it at least worth putting out there. I personally have seen many here post comments on areas of historical interest that I had little knowledge of but after reading became very interested in reading\/hearing more about it.... case in point the comment left by our newest moderator eternalkerri with the fascinating and popular post about the Pirate Code. Obviously this sort of idea would need to be subject to some conditions in implementation, perhaps a schedule so that not everyone was flooding the subreddit with threads at the same time, but i'll leave that until after we see if there is any support for it.    Thanks for taking the time to read this.","c_root_id_A":"c4g99ht","c_root_id_B":"c4g9wiy","created_at_utc_A":1335321236,"created_at_utc_B":1335324248,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Oooo, this would be cool, especially since summer is coming up and I'm sure I'm not the only person with at least a bit of the summer off.","human_ref_B":"I think this is a fine idea, and once the semester is over would love to participate in some fashion!  One suggestion, however, perhaps we could arrange these AMA's in groups?  For instance if two or three or four redditors with similar flair participate in the AMA in order to get a nice rounded historical opinion\/debate going, I think that would be awesome.  It would be something like the Q&A at a conference panel.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3012.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"sr1zu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Possible interesting suggestion? Hi guys,  So I was wondering about trying something a little new and seeing what everyones thoughts were about it. We have many members of this ever-growing subreddit now, many with their own personalised flair showing their areas of expertise\/knowledge. Now so far this conglomeration has worked excellently in providing answers to questions, interestingly often in a broad context which manages to provide examples from many historical periods; for instance I have seen many threads where the submitter asks for specific examples of things and our users can give answers from ancient, medieval and modern periods simultaneously. However despite all this we redditors are subject to the question being asked being within our area of knowledge. Now I know this subreddit is called askhistorians and I am more than happy for it simply to stay as it is... but who out there would be up for having informed users holding AMA like threads on their area of interest. I mean technically it is still within the purpose of askhistorians, in that we are asking questions of areas of history.. these sorts of threads would simply be directing that focus onto the specific resources we have in the users of this subreddit. Obviously users with very broad flairs could define exactly what areas they are willing and able to answer on in the information box so as to make the process easier. Like I say I know many may not like the idea, but i thought it at least worth putting out there. I personally have seen many here post comments on areas of historical interest that I had little knowledge of but after reading became very interested in reading\/hearing more about it.... case in point the comment left by our newest moderator eternalkerri with the fascinating and popular post about the Pirate Code. Obviously this sort of idea would need to be subject to some conditions in implementation, perhaps a schedule so that not everyone was flooding the subreddit with threads at the same time, but i'll leave that until after we see if there is any support for it.    Thanks for taking the time to read this.","c_root_id_A":"c4gcnv4","c_root_id_B":"c4gcf3e","created_at_utc_A":1335343086,"created_at_utc_B":1335340283,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Try spacing your text a little ;)  TL;DR: Do AMAs?  I'd definitely would be interested in this!","human_ref_B":"Very interesting idea, but perhaps not an \"Ask Me Anything\" but an \"Ask Me About It\", so we get less inane questions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2803.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"sr1zu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Possible interesting suggestion? Hi guys,  So I was wondering about trying something a little new and seeing what everyones thoughts were about it. We have many members of this ever-growing subreddit now, many with their own personalised flair showing their areas of expertise\/knowledge. Now so far this conglomeration has worked excellently in providing answers to questions, interestingly often in a broad context which manages to provide examples from many historical periods; for instance I have seen many threads where the submitter asks for specific examples of things and our users can give answers from ancient, medieval and modern periods simultaneously. However despite all this we redditors are subject to the question being asked being within our area of knowledge. Now I know this subreddit is called askhistorians and I am more than happy for it simply to stay as it is... but who out there would be up for having informed users holding AMA like threads on their area of interest. I mean technically it is still within the purpose of askhistorians, in that we are asking questions of areas of history.. these sorts of threads would simply be directing that focus onto the specific resources we have in the users of this subreddit. Obviously users with very broad flairs could define exactly what areas they are willing and able to answer on in the information box so as to make the process easier. Like I say I know many may not like the idea, but i thought it at least worth putting out there. I personally have seen many here post comments on areas of historical interest that I had little knowledge of but after reading became very interested in reading\/hearing more about it.... case in point the comment left by our newest moderator eternalkerri with the fascinating and popular post about the Pirate Code. Obviously this sort of idea would need to be subject to some conditions in implementation, perhaps a schedule so that not everyone was flooding the subreddit with threads at the same time, but i'll leave that until after we see if there is any support for it.    Thanks for taking the time to read this.","c_root_id_A":"c4gassd","c_root_id_B":"c4gcf3e","created_at_utc_A":1335328668,"created_at_utc_B":1335340283,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As a redditor with little to no knowledge of most ancient history I think this would be pretty cool.","human_ref_B":"Very interesting idea, but perhaps not an \"Ask Me Anything\" but an \"Ask Me About It\", so we get less inane questions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11615.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"sr1zu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Possible interesting suggestion? Hi guys,  So I was wondering about trying something a little new and seeing what everyones thoughts were about it. We have many members of this ever-growing subreddit now, many with their own personalised flair showing their areas of expertise\/knowledge. Now so far this conglomeration has worked excellently in providing answers to questions, interestingly often in a broad context which manages to provide examples from many historical periods; for instance I have seen many threads where the submitter asks for specific examples of things and our users can give answers from ancient, medieval and modern periods simultaneously. However despite all this we redditors are subject to the question being asked being within our area of knowledge. Now I know this subreddit is called askhistorians and I am more than happy for it simply to stay as it is... but who out there would be up for having informed users holding AMA like threads on their area of interest. I mean technically it is still within the purpose of askhistorians, in that we are asking questions of areas of history.. these sorts of threads would simply be directing that focus onto the specific resources we have in the users of this subreddit. Obviously users with very broad flairs could define exactly what areas they are willing and able to answer on in the information box so as to make the process easier. Like I say I know many may not like the idea, but i thought it at least worth putting out there. I personally have seen many here post comments on areas of historical interest that I had little knowledge of but after reading became very interested in reading\/hearing more about it.... case in point the comment left by our newest moderator eternalkerri with the fascinating and popular post about the Pirate Code. Obviously this sort of idea would need to be subject to some conditions in implementation, perhaps a schedule so that not everyone was flooding the subreddit with threads at the same time, but i'll leave that until after we see if there is any support for it.    Thanks for taking the time to read this.","c_root_id_A":"c4gcnv4","c_root_id_B":"c4gassd","created_at_utc_A":1335343086,"created_at_utc_B":1335328668,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Try spacing your text a little ;)  TL;DR: Do AMAs?  I'd definitely would be interested in this!","human_ref_B":"As a redditor with little to no knowledge of most ancient history I think this would be pretty cool.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14418.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"sr1zu","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Possible interesting suggestion? Hi guys,  So I was wondering about trying something a little new and seeing what everyones thoughts were about it. We have many members of this ever-growing subreddit now, many with their own personalised flair showing their areas of expertise\/knowledge. Now so far this conglomeration has worked excellently in providing answers to questions, interestingly often in a broad context which manages to provide examples from many historical periods; for instance I have seen many threads where the submitter asks for specific examples of things and our users can give answers from ancient, medieval and modern periods simultaneously. However despite all this we redditors are subject to the question being asked being within our area of knowledge. Now I know this subreddit is called askhistorians and I am more than happy for it simply to stay as it is... but who out there would be up for having informed users holding AMA like threads on their area of interest. I mean technically it is still within the purpose of askhistorians, in that we are asking questions of areas of history.. these sorts of threads would simply be directing that focus onto the specific resources we have in the users of this subreddit. Obviously users with very broad flairs could define exactly what areas they are willing and able to answer on in the information box so as to make the process easier. Like I say I know many may not like the idea, but i thought it at least worth putting out there. I personally have seen many here post comments on areas of historical interest that I had little knowledge of but after reading became very interested in reading\/hearing more about it.... case in point the comment left by our newest moderator eternalkerri with the fascinating and popular post about the Pirate Code. Obviously this sort of idea would need to be subject to some conditions in implementation, perhaps a schedule so that not everyone was flooding the subreddit with threads at the same time, but i'll leave that until after we see if there is any support for it.    Thanks for taking the time to read this.","c_root_id_A":"c4gassd","c_root_id_B":"c4gd7jb","created_at_utc_A":1335328668,"created_at_utc_B":1335350640,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As a redditor with little to no knowledge of most ancient history I think this would be pretty cool.","human_ref_B":"It's a great concept and I'd actually been toying with something similar in my mind lately, but in a field such as history I'd say it's problematic. Not impossible, but problematic.  Answers to historical questions tend to be very involved. My answer to any meaningful question is usually a few paragraphs. Sometimes I need to consult books to make sure I'm getting things right. A good answer to a good question usually takes more than a couple minutes to formulate and explain. In a capacity like r\/Iama does this can get very demanding very quickly. And seemingly similar questions will have subtle differences that require varied answers, so usually one won't just be able to post a permalink and say \"see previous comment.\" Unless I intend to just make answers consisting of short reading lists [snore], I have a hard time seeing myself or any one person handling a large volume of questions quickly.  I have a couple ideas about this but they aren't ironclad. The first is organizing groups of scholars who can share the load. This sounds good but it also has some issues of disagreement. If my answer is somehow unsavory to another historian in the group or vice versa, we could end up debating it amongst ourselves which both eats time and gets boring for the readers quickly. Also, who decides which person is best suited for a question, and how to prevent overlapping answers?  Next I thought of delayed responses. We collect questions on Monday, organize them and present answers on Wednesday. But this still has the problems of time and grouping of researchers, plus how can we make sure people come back Wednesday?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21972.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"v1dvn","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Was there a logical explanation for why Grigori Rasputin was so difficult to murder or do historians simply rests with the notion that he is tough as nails?","c_root_id_A":"c50gxn2","c_root_id_B":"c50gz45","created_at_utc_A":1339676859,"created_at_utc_B":1339677192,"score_A":29,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"His death is more of a question for biologists. It's his life that will always dumbfound historians.","human_ref_B":"How much can we know about him though? As a polarising figure it seems all the records were either written by people who explicitly hated or loved him.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":333.0,"score_ratio":1.8620689655}
{"post_id":"v1dvn","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Was there a logical explanation for why Grigori Rasputin was so difficult to murder or do historians simply rests with the notion that he is tough as nails?","c_root_id_A":"c50gxn2","c_root_id_B":"c50hb0t","created_at_utc_A":1339676859,"created_at_utc_B":1339679621,"score_A":29,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"His death is more of a question for biologists. It's his life that will always dumbfound historians.","human_ref_B":"The consensus is that Rasputin *was* tough as nails- but that is not solely responsible for his reputation. His associates (read: enemies) wanted to make him seem like a ghoulish menace so they assigned supernaturally extreme stories to his name. In short, he probably didn't *really* swim around in that river after they cut his dick off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2762.0,"score_ratio":1.2068965517}
{"post_id":"v1dvn","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Was there a logical explanation for why Grigori Rasputin was so difficult to murder or do historians simply rests with the notion that he is tough as nails?","c_root_id_A":"c50gxn2","c_root_id_B":"c50i6s9","created_at_utc_A":1339676859,"created_at_utc_B":1339684524,"score_A":29,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"His death is more of a question for biologists. It's his life that will always dumbfound historians.","human_ref_B":"Most of what is 'known' about Rasputin's death is largely myth. There is no definitive account of what happened, as Felix Yuspov's accounts were clearly more of an exciting anecdote than a historical account. Any documents that may corroborate or contradict his story were lost in the Stalinist era.  The most credible research is that of Derrick Pounder, which suggests that Rasputin was killed by  four gunshot wounds, fired from two guns. The rest is likely just embellishment and myth.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7665.0,"score_ratio":1.1034482759}
{"post_id":"v1dvn","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Was there a logical explanation for why Grigori Rasputin was so difficult to murder or do historians simply rests with the notion that he is tough as nails?","c_root_id_A":"c50i6s9","c_root_id_B":"c50hgwb","created_at_utc_A":1339684524,"created_at_utc_B":1339680647,"score_A":32,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Most of what is 'known' about Rasputin's death is largely myth. There is no definitive account of what happened, as Felix Yuspov's accounts were clearly more of an exciting anecdote than a historical account. Any documents that may corroborate or contradict his story were lost in the Stalinist era.  The most credible research is that of Derrick Pounder, which suggests that Rasputin was killed by  four gunshot wounds, fired from two guns. The rest is likely just embellishment and myth.","human_ref_B":"Also, can anyone expand on the subject of the newer discoveries suggesting that there was a British intelligence agent present during the murder?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3877.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"v1dvn","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Was there a logical explanation for why Grigori Rasputin was so difficult to murder or do historians simply rests with the notion that he is tough as nails?","c_root_id_A":"c50i6s9","c_root_id_B":"c50i4qm","created_at_utc_A":1339684524,"created_at_utc_B":1339684250,"score_A":32,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Most of what is 'known' about Rasputin's death is largely myth. There is no definitive account of what happened, as Felix Yuspov's accounts were clearly more of an exciting anecdote than a historical account. Any documents that may corroborate or contradict his story were lost in the Stalinist era.  The most credible research is that of Derrick Pounder, which suggests that Rasputin was killed by  four gunshot wounds, fired from two guns. The rest is likely just embellishment and myth.","human_ref_B":"mithridatism should explain the avoidance of death by poison. He reportedly became very drunk, so it had *some* sort of effect on him. There are some poisons that work by clotting the blood, so that could explain him surviving the major stab wounds and bullet holes long enough to drown in the river instead.  Of course I am speculating without a shadow of historical evidence so take this with a pinch of salt, but to me it always seemed like a logical explanation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":274.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
{"post_id":"v1dvn","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Was there a logical explanation for why Grigori Rasputin was so difficult to murder or do historians simply rests with the notion that he is tough as nails?","c_root_id_A":"c50i4qm","c_root_id_B":"c50kuzo","created_at_utc_A":1339684250,"created_at_utc_B":1339695496,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"mithridatism should explain the avoidance of death by poison. He reportedly became very drunk, so it had *some* sort of effect on him. There are some poisons that work by clotting the blood, so that could explain him surviving the major stab wounds and bullet holes long enough to drown in the river instead.  Of course I am speculating without a shadow of historical evidence so take this with a pinch of salt, but to me it always seemed like a logical explanation.","human_ref_B":"Another hypothesis is that the conspirators lied about his drowning because this would prevent the Tsarina from having him sainted. In the Eastern church one cannot be made a saint if he dies by drowning (or at the very least it makes the process much more complicated).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11246.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"2i5pca","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Chicken seems to be a universal meat appearing in almost all cultures. How did this happen and where were chickens first used as livestock.","c_root_id_A":"ckzbyw0","c_root_id_B":"ckz47xe","created_at_utc_A":1412343621,"created_at_utc_B":1412311480,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Genetic studies show that there were multiple independent domestication events for chicken across India, southeast Asia and China, all roughly 6,000 - 8,000 years ago. It was domesticated from the red junglefowl, which still exists today across that whole region, and which breeds freely with domesticated chicken.  Chicken raised today across the rest of the world (Europe, Africa and the Americas) belong to the Indian strain, that is, they are derived from the Indian domestication event. They may have spread to Europe via the middle east through the Indus Valley Civilization trade.  They were brought to the Americas by the European colonists.   **Sources**:  * Multiple maternal origins of chickens: Out of the Asian jungles. Liu et al. *Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution*, Vol 38 (1), 2006.  * Overview of chicken taxonomy and domestication. Al-Nasser et al. *World's Poultry Science Journal*, Vol 63 (2), 2007.  * Documenting domestication: the intersection of genetics and archaeology. Zeder et al. *Trends in Genetics*, Vol 22 (3), 2006.","human_ref_B":"One note: The bird we call chickens probably didn't in exist pre-Colombian America. One report^1 contended that mitochondrial DNA in pre-1450 chicken remains from Chile indicated they had been brought over ~1350 from Polynesia. However, reanalysis^2 suggested that the carbon dates were skewed by oceanic carbon and the mDNA indicated Eurasian origins. This was corroborated by a very recent study^3.  1. Radiocarbon and DNA Evidence for a Pre-Columbian Introduction of Polynesian Chickens to Chile Alice A. Storey, et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 25 (Jun. 19, 2007), pp. 10335-10339  2. Indo-European and Asian Origins for Chilean and Pacific Chickens Revealed by mtDNA Jaime Gongora, et al Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 105, No. 30 (Jul. 29, 2008), pp. 10308-10313  3. Thomson, Vicki A., et al \"Using Ancient DNA to Study the Origins and Dispersal of Ancestral Polynesian Chickens across the Pacific.(ANTHROPOLOGY)(Author Abstract).\" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 111, no. 13 (2014): 4826.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32141.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"1c2hui","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Was the CIA involved in selling Crack Cocaine to inner city persons to fund secret armies in Nicaragua? My American Literature professor said that CIA involvement in selling drugs in the US was often speculated about in the 80s but never proven.    Right as he said that, a young woman in my class interrupted to contradict him saying, \"No, the CIA actually DID sell drugs to inner-city Blacks to get them addicted and promote their own social policies and fund military activity.\"   Any information about CIA involvement during this time and what is a sure-thing v. a conspiracy theory?","c_root_id_A":"c9cdhtw","c_root_id_B":"c9cddxd","created_at_utc_A":1365609875,"created_at_utc_B":1365609567,"score_A":14,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"It happened. This is the book that broke the story open decisively in a series of newspaper articles.   Note that the CIA wasn't involved in \"street\" selling - they provided crack to several gangs, who went on to distribute it.   The CIA's goal for this operation was to provide funding for the Contras, who were fighting the democratic socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Congress had cut off all funding for this proxy war. Elements within the National Security apparatus decided that the fight was worth continuing - they just needed another way to pay for it.","human_ref_B":"I've found a couple of relevant questions that might have the answers you're looking for. However, these threads got relatively few answers so new answers here are welcome.  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/1a9cn3\/did_the_cia_really_introduce_cocainecrack_to_the\/  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/18wz70\/ive_heard_it_said_that_the_american_crack\/  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/17pqsf\/in_what_way_was_the_cia_involved_in_drug\/  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/1bdcvk\/how_much_truth_is_there_to_the_notion_that_the_us\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":308.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"71cboc","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"FDR is always rated as one of the best presidents in the country, so why was the 22nd amendment (limiting terms in office to two) passed?","c_root_id_A":"dnargiw","c_root_id_B":"dnag77o","created_at_utc_A":1505976663,"created_at_utc_B":1505958446,"score_A":31,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"At the time the 22nd Amendment was ratified, it was a partisan issue, although quite obviously not a particularly contentious one.  The two term limit was set as tradition with George Washington, but it was always a custom and never a law, despite calls by Thomas Jefferson and others for presidential tenure to be addressed Constitutionally. A March 17, 1940, article in the *Washington Post* tallied up fifteen serious attempts by one or the other houses of Congress to limit presidential tenure since the adoption of the Constitution.  For the first hundred years of the country, the issue was one that would be brought up in Congress every now and again, but it never got much traction mostly due to the issue never really arising. Jefferson and Jackson had both publicly come out against third terms, nor did Madison or Monroe seek one either.  That changed in 1880, when Ulysses S. Grant sought the Republican nomination for an unprecedented third (non-consecutive) term. But that worked itself out when he didn't win the nomination and didn't run in the general election.  Same thing happened in 1912. Teddy Roosevelt had served most of McKinley's second term, then a full term of his own, then stepped down, then sought to win the nomination of the Republican Party from his successor William Howard Taft. He lost the nomination, ran as a third party, and lost again. Woodrow Wilson was elected president, and when he was asked to weigh in on the issue, he said that presidents shouldn't serve for more than two terms, but that it shouldn't be made part of the Constitution, either. Let the people decide at the polls.  The biggest threat of a possible third presidential term in at least a hundred years was with Calvin Coolidge. He had served most of Harding's term, won his own, and if he had run for another term, a lot of Republicans would have loved to nominate him. And, seeing as fellow Republican Herbert Hoover won that election, it was very conceivable that he would have won a third term. But the issue was averted when Coolidge declared in the late summer of 1927 that he did not \"choose to run for President in 1928\".  The wording was curious since it surely implied that Coolidge felt he had the option to do so if he wanted, and that the social custom of two terms was, by the 1920s, not well respected anymore.  Despite Coolidge's statement, there were efforts to draft him, while others in his own party sought to stop that from happening. The leading opponent of third terms was Coolidge's fellow Republican, Senator Robert La Follette, Jr., from Wisconsin. This was a different time for Republicans, remember, and La Follette was also the co-founder of the Wisconsin Progressive Party, and the son of the late Robert La Follette, Sr., who had just run against Coolidge in 1924 on the Progressive Party ticket and won the electoral votes of his home state of Wisconsin.  Senator La Follette, Jr., was philosophically opposed to third terms, and drafted a Senate resolution in February 1927 against them to warn Coolidge off of running again. Coolidge decided against running for his own personal reasons, but after his statement, there continued to be efforts to draft him, which he had at least given some private indication he wasn't entirely opposed to it.  La Follette then revived his anti-third term resolution, quoted in the February 11, 1928, *Atlanta Constitution* as saying he was worried that Coolidge-ally and former RNC chairman Charles Hilles of New York \"and other powerful factors in the party\" were seeking to draft Coolidge and that it had become \"apparent from statements by [Coolidge's] friends here that the President has not foreclosed his renomination\".  To prevent this, on February 10, 1928, the Senate passed the La Follette Resolution which stated \"that it is the sense of the Senate that the precedent established by Washington and other Presidents of the United States in retiring from the Presidential office after their second term has become by universal concurrence, a part of our republican system of government, and that any departure from this time-honored custom would be unwise, unpatriotic and fraught with peril to our free institutions.\"   The resolution passed 56-26 (more than two-thirds). The Democrats, not wanting to see a third Coolidge term, voted overwhelming in favor, 37-4. The Republicans were split, 18 voted in favor with La Follette, and 22 voting against. This put an end to any reconsiderations that Coolidge had to his \"I do not choose\" statement. A month later, the Wyoming Republican Party tried formally to draft him, but he publicly turned it down. Others in the party then began to seek the nomination, no doubt at least one or two of the La Follette Resolution supporters among them.  The issue remained dormant until 1940, when all signs pointed to FDR running for a third term. The same progressive faction of the Republican Party was the first to rail against it, and this time, they were able to get all the Republican Party to support the policy. But of course, this time, the Democrats were uniformly against it. As a March 9, 1940, letter to the *Hartford Courant* put it:  > \"From the tenor of the letters in today's Forum it is very evident that the Republicans are deeply worried about the forthcoming elections even at this early date. However, the Republicans are still handing out the same brand of nonsense they dished out at the outset of the Roosevelt Administration. [A Republican letter writer] still thinks we are about to be engulfed by a dictatorship. To avoid this so-called dictatorship, he suggests an amendment to the Constitution restricting the President's term of office to two terms of four years each. A noble suggestion, but why restrict the third term issue to the presidency [and not include other elected offices]?...What the Republicans are deeply worried over is the fact that President Roosevelt will undoubtedly be reelected if he runs next November...It is interesting to note to what extent these politicians will go to defeat President Roosevelt.\"  In other words, even among opponents of presidential term limits at that time, they could recognize the wisdom in it as a \"noble suggestion\", but opposed it in 1940 in part due to the curious timing of reviving the issue.  Nevertheless, the Republican Party made presidential term limits a plank in their 1940 campaign platform. They lost, FDR was reelected, and the Republicans kept it in their platform for the 1944 election as well. Once again, they lost, and FDR was reelected.  After his death and the end of World War II, the Republicans finally got control back of Congress (though not the Presidency) in 1946. Still running on that 1944 platform, one of their highest priorities was the passage of the 22nd Amendment as they came into power with the 80th Congress in 1947. Rep. Charles La Follette, Republican of Indiana (a third cousin of Robert Jr.'s), wrote an opinion piece in the *Christian Science Monitor* published before the election, on January 6, 1946, under the title \"I Favor Restricting The President To Two Terms\". He gave several reasons why this was a good idea, starting with:  > \"I believe that a tenure in excess of eight consecutive years is harmful to the development of a dynamic democratic society and potentially endangers its future maintenance.\"  He goes on to headline other points with \"Fluidity of Leadership Will Be Encouraged\" and \"The Dangerous 'Leader-Complex' Will Be Checked\".  A front page article in the *New York Times* from February 7, 1947, after the Amendment had been passed in the House, gave the reasoning from a couple others in the Republican leadership:  > Representative Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, saw a long tenure as enabling the Chief Executive to get too firm a grip on the government machinery, leading to \"irresponsible bureaucracy\" and \"over-concentration of power.\" A long-term President can gain influence over Congress and the judiciary as well, he maintained. > > Representative Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, majority leader, asserted the only object was to place \"an unwritten law of the country firmly into the Constitution.\"  Opponents of the amendment, mostly Democrats, were characterized in the same article:  > The Democrats argued generally that an amendment would shackle future generations, who in the event of another emergency might find it necessary to continue a President in office for more than two terms. They contended, moreover, that the issue had already been decided by the people when they had elected Franklin D. Roosevelt to a third and a fourth term.  Senator Scott W. Lucas summed up the Democratic opposition's point of view more succinctly, as quoted in the March 8, 1947, edition of the *Chicago Tribune*:  > \"Some people can't leave the dead alone! This is a slap at the ghost of Franklin D. Roosevelt because the people reelected him to a third and fourth term. It is an effort to repudiate his memory, his work, and his immortal services.\"  But the Democrats were split. Senators O'Connor, Overton, and McClellan supported the amendment because:  > \"...the office of the President had become so powerful that the incumbent could establish a dynasty if not restricted to two terms.\"  On February 4, 1947, the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee along with the votes of \"conservative Democrats\", according to the *New York Times*, brought the amendment to the House floor on a vote of 20-6. On February 6, the full House voted in favor of the amendment 285-121.  (...cont'd...)","human_ref_B":"2 terms limits had generally been an \"unwritten rule\" since Washington. More importantly though, it appears that Americans had grown wary of long-term leadership after experiences fighting dictatorships in WWII.   Link to previous reddit discussion in this topic: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/4c5nlh\/why_was_the_22nd_amendment_passed\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18217.0,"score_ratio":1.1923076923}
{"post_id":"u1weyd","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Blackbeard's ship was famously called \"The Queen Anne's Revenge\". But who was Queen Anne and why would she need revenge ? I'm really into pirates right now but I don't get the name of the ship","c_root_id_A":"i4fab0p","c_root_id_B":"i4f4qm1","created_at_utc_A":1649769445,"created_at_utc_B":1649766816,"score_A":577,"score_B":191,"human_ref_A":"It's an older answer, but u\/Iwashmyself had a quite engaging answer on this question in this thread.","human_ref_B":"The question of why \"revenge\" is not for me to answer, but I have several past answers on Queen Anne:  What was King James II relationship with his two daughters?  Queen Anne of England was pregnant seventeen times yet had no children reach adolescence. Was this high rate of child mortality standard in all social castes at the time? Or is it more likely due to centuries of inbreeding by the royal families of Europe?  Is the movie ''The Favourite'' Plausible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2629.0,"score_ratio":3.0209424084}
{"post_id":"2jpu8f","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"How did Russia become Russia, and so different from the rest of Europe? What led to Russia, as well as the former Soviet Union, on such a different path from rest of Europe and the west? After all, they had all the possibilities in terms of natural resources, population size etc. as the rest of Europe, and were located within Europe itself.  The rest of Europe developed (more or less) into friendly, highly schooled and very democratic countries.  So why did Russia alone develop into an undemocratic, oppressive and by economic and academic measures, uninnovative country?  I know a lot of the eastern bloc were like that, too, but for reasons of simplicity I'm putting that down to Russian influence.","c_root_id_A":"cleevug","c_root_id_B":"cledoyc","created_at_utc_A":1413786264,"created_at_utc_B":1413782009,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is only really true post-1918. Before that Russia was very much integrated into the system of European politics. It was distinct in several ways, for one it had been politically unified since early on, as Moscow basically annexed or invaded the rest of Russia starting in the 1400s. Two, it had its holdings in Asia and Siberia, which it acquired starting in the 1500s. And finally it retained feudalism comparatively late. However none of these really preclude it from being European, most countries east of Germany maintained similar forms of feudalism, and there were varying amounts of political unification throughout Europe.  For all subjective opinions are worth, I don't think the idea that Russia is \"not western\" is particularly useful or descriptive. The word is very often vaguely defined, and used more for modern political purposes than to indicate deep seated historical or cultural difference.  If the Soviets hadn't come to power in 1918 I think Russia could have taken a very different path than it did, becoming more like Imperial Germany.","human_ref_B":"hi! you may be interested in a few earlier posts  * Why do Russians not consider themselves \"western\"?  * Was Russia always so culturally and politically detached from the rest of Europe?  * Why does Russia and other eastern European countries always seem to get oppressive and totalitarian governments and leaders throughout it's history?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4255.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"7y32wm","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Napoleon Bonaparte is often said to be one of history's greatest military commanders. What significant new innovations or tactics did Napoleon introduce? I'm familiar with the broad outline of Napoleon's  career, from his campaigns during the Republican Era to the Battle of the Nile, to the Consulate, to the foundation of the Napoleonic Empire.   From what I gather his greatest innovation was highly mobile artillery, though I don't quite grasp the implications of what that would have meant in 1800. Other than that, I'd be hard-pressed to explain anything about his success or career.   Is it accurate to call Napoleon one of history's great generals, and if so, how come?","c_root_id_A":"dudgd1b","c_root_id_B":"dudhwba","created_at_utc_A":1518836581,"created_at_utc_B":1518838587,"score_A":30,"score_B":615,"human_ref_A":"Since this would likely be answerable for someone who could answer this. What was special about Napoleon's abilities (from the norm that wasn't almost dominating all of Europe)? Was Napoleon good at anything other than generalship, like say art or economics?","human_ref_B":"There's an existing thread here that answered this question      Edit: https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskHistorians\/comments\/7lalnf\/what_specific_battle_tactics_did_napoleon_employ\/  Courtesy of \/u\/dandan_noodles","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2006.0,"score_ratio":20.5}
{"post_id":"cfgwoo","domain":"askhistorians_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"We hear a lot about allied intelligence from WWII really fooling a lot of German plans. Are there examples of German intelligence doing the same?","c_root_id_A":"euaeoas","c_root_id_B":"euaft3i","created_at_utc_A":1563614552,"created_at_utc_B":1563616299,"score_A":53,"score_B":137,"human_ref_A":"The German intelligence service was called Abwehr.   According to German Cryptologic Officer Wilhelm Flicke in a U.S. post-war report on early German intelligence successes , Abwehr enjoyed early success when hostilities initially began in France, Poland and Belgium. Flicke states that Abwehr was able to keep track of French, Polish, and Belgian troop movements. In addition, he mentions how the Germans were able to hear French and Britsh communications early in the war, giving the Germans the ability to keep an eye on British plans.  ​  According to Herman J Giske in his book *London Calling North Pole*, Abwehr also found success in operations such as Operation North Pole against the Dutch resistance and their British allies. They secretly gathered intelligence about Allied agents and were even able to capture 50 Allied operatives. They did all this and were still able to get the allies to send more support and information to the location.  ​  Abwehr also was successful in assisting the German army in the invasion of Denmark and Norway by providing target for the Luftwaffe. According to the previous U.S. report.  ​  According to Richard Basset in *Hitler's Chief Spy: The Wilhelm Canaris Betrayal* They also found success in Romania, where they were able to gain cheap oil for Germany through an extensive campaign to get the Romanian population to be scared of Soviet invasion. In order to be protected from Soviet aggression (or at least to allay the Romania people's fear of Soviet aggression), the Romanian government sold Germany oil on the cheap and pushed the Allied oil interests in the area out.  ​  After this, Germany succeeded in tricking the British once more, when they got ahold of a SOE radio operator and forced him to transmit a code Abwehr understood back to London. Dispite the operator indicating he had been compromised, the receiver did not pick up on the hints. This led to Abwehr compromising British intelligence, making Britain send agents to their deaths. This didn't last long however, as the British soon caught on, and after that the British just pretended to not know their communications were compromised and just fed the Germans false information, according to Lauren Paine in her book  *German Military Intelligence in World War II: The Abwehr*.   ​  After this, Abwehr went on a long streak of failure. Starting with grossly underestimating Soviet troop counts throughout the whole of the war, to their failure in predicting anything real about D-Day, to being completely outmatched by the many British double agents (also according to Paine).","human_ref_B":"One of the largest coups for German intelligence early on in the war is what's known as the Venlo Incident, which involved the kidnapping of two British SOE agents across the border in the Netherlands, and the murder of their Dutch intelligence liaison.   In the years leading up to the war, a number of high profile members of the German military and civil service had travelled to Britain and revealed the existence of a number of plots to depose Hitler if and when it came to a war. During the Sudetenland Crisis, they had come within an hour of actually launching a coup attempt. These contacts with members of the opposition had not ceased after the declaration of war, including talks through the British ambassador in the Vatican. As such, it was no surprise to the British when a German refugee in the Netherlands named Fischer appeared to have contacts with Army officers who opposed Hitler. At a meeting with Captain Sigismund Best, he revealed more about these officers. Among the list of names given to the British were Generals von Rundstedt and Dorsheim, Colonel General Wiedersheim and Major Generals Geyer and Ottenstein. Also given was the name of a Colonel Teichmann, who did not actually exist. According to British documents, 'Colonel Teichmann' and Colonel von Seydlitz had a meeting with Major Richard Stevens of the SIS about potential coup attempts.  However, unknown to Captain Best, 'Fischer' was actually an SD Agent. Over the course of several meetings, which were also attended by Major Stevens, and a Dutch officer, Dirk Klop, 'Fischer' managed to convince them of the existence of a network of German officers opposed to Hitler. The lie was spun that the German generals only needed a slight push to be willing to overthrow Hitler and end the war. While the foreign office hadn't really trusted the *actual* resistance when they said they were willing to overthrow Hitler, Best and Stevens were almost completely taken in by the pretend resistance. A diplomat at the British embassy in the Netherlands said that Stevens \"was a man of immense ambition\", and \"saw in this a possibility literally of winning the war off his own bat, and this completely clouded his operational judgement\". Later meetings were also attended by Walter Schellenberg, posing as a junior army officer.   On the 8th of November, a meeting was arranged with one of the opposition Generals, to be held at the border crossing in Venlo. It's probable that Schellenberg was planning on continuing the deception for longer, but it was believed that British intelligence were behind the Beer Cellar Bomb which had been detonated a few days previously by Georg Elser. While Elser was caught trying to cross into Switzerland, German intelligence refused to believe that he had acted alone, given the sophistication of the device and plot. It was decided to kidnap Best and Stevens to assist in this regard.   For unknown reasons, the meeting was delayed until the 9th. Best, Stevens, Klop and Best's driver, Jan Lemmons, approached the border at Venlo in Best's own car. Their rendezvous was at a cafe 150 yards away from the border. Schellenberg was stood on the Cafe veranda and waved to the British officers as they approached. However, waiting on the other side of the border was an SD snatch squad. When Schellenberg waved his hat in the air, they opened fire, and bundled all four men into a car and across the border. Klop returned fire and was mortally wounded before his capture.   This significant coup for the Germans was made worse by the awful tradecraft shown by Best and Stevens. They had used a recognisable car to approach the meeting place, which they hadn't done reconnaissance on beforehand. They hadn't told anyone at the Hague station about their dealings, instead communicating only with London. This meant that they had no back-up plan in case things went wrong and also that there was no opportunity for their colleagues to come to their aid. Indeed, the British continued to broadcast valuable information about their conditions for peace and stances towards any coup attempt to the 'resistance' until the **17th of November.** Stevens was also carrying some code material and Best had a list of agent's names and addresses in his pocket. This information combined with the capture of Best and Stevens completely crippled the British intelligence network in the Netherlands and indeed damaged the entire structure in Western Europe. This also made possible the German efforts which u\/thefourthmaninaboat has described.  Venlo also had the unfortunate side effect that the British became much less likely to believe the actual resistance network when they got in contact. Despite Colonel Hans Oster passing the date for the invasion of Western Europe to the Dutch military attache, the allies were reluctant to believe him after having been burned before. Incredibly valuable sources of information such as Wilhelm Canaris, the head of Military Intelligence, and Colonel Lahousen, the head of Counter-Sabotage, who were passing information through a French agent, were thus not fully exploited. This also applied to the various peace overtures made through the British embassies in Switzerland, Turkey and the Vatican.  As well as Venlo, the Germans managed one major intelligence success in North Africa. While they couldn't break British military codes, the Germans had managed to break the American diplomatic ones. The American military liason in North Africa sent incredibly valuable troop information given to him by the British over these compromised channels, which allowed the Germans to build up an accurate picture of the entire British order of battle in North Africa, incredibly valuable intelligence to have.  Sources:  Keith Jeffery, *The Secret History of MI6* (2010)  'Negotiations with \"German Generals\" Oct 1939-Jan 1940 in Holland. Best and Stevens at Venlo' Vol. I & II, National Archives, FO1093\/201 & 202","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1747.0,"score_ratio":2.5849056604}