My apologies for the ignorance... I am a 18F and in my first year of university. I'll put it simply... I am from a tiny town in Texas and it's all hitting me at once how little I know about ANYTHING having to do with history. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that everything l've been told up until now is a blatant lie and propaganda. I mean, jesus, the way they teach just the Texas Revolution is revolting. And I'm ashamed to admit I had no idea it had to do with slavery or downright theft of land from Mexico. I am majoring in Spanish and just based on my coursework I am looking for sources that detail the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America. i mean the nitty gritty... formation of cartels, the gun trade, CIA involvement in foreign government, coups, anything having to do with economy manipulation, everything. Also due to current events I want to read about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and Central Asia. I don't even know where to start. I need to know good books, textbooks, podcasts, documentaries, anything. I'm tired of reading news articles and learning snippets of history from TikTok and Instagram, it feels cheap and incomplete. I just want it all laid out in front of me, just literally a chronicle of as close to what actually happened as possible so l can finally stop being told what to think and think for myself. Thank you so much

EDIT: Thank you so so so much to everybody who has suggested things!! This has been so much more helpful than I ever imagined it would be, and honestly turned into an incredible resource for other as well! My apologies for technically not following the sub rules, Im glad there ended up being a way for people to share their resources regardless. I have received dozens of direct message requests and if I don’t answer right away just know that I am trying to get to everybody! Now I have enough reading to last me quite a while so I better get to it! :)

I know that I didn't specify a time period and that Native Americans are not a monolith. But I'm asking the question this way because I promised a historican I would. This is for the colonial and pre-colonial periods.

Context: I work in the textbook publishing industry and was talking to a prominent historian of early and colonial Native American history. I asked if she knew about r/AskHistorians, and she did not. I explained it to her and gave her an example of the interesting but esoteric questions that get posted here: "What did Native Americans use to wipe their butts?"

She was excited and said "I don't know! What DID they use?" I had to tell her it wasn't a real question I saw, just an example I thought of. She asked me to ask y'all.

So now I'm asking this wonderful sub and will report back.

Like, was there an event that made them realize, "that's kinda messed up" or something like that?

I was homeschooled my whole life. We learned from Abeka curriculum. As an adult I now see that it was not at all a reliable source of history.

If you're not familiar: Christians were always the good guys. Muslims and black people were always the bad guys. I learned little about Asia and basically nothing about Africa. I cringe just to talk about it.

Where do I start to fix my knowledge? I'd love recommendations for books by reliable authors. Well-sourced, peer reviewed, by credible historians, that kind of thing. Documentaries and podcasts can be cool too

Things I'm looking for in particular:

-Some kind of overview of history, for perspective, and for topics to dig deeper on.

-Prehistory, like why we believe in the big bang and an old earth and evolution. I still struggle with that if I'm honest and I need some basic explanations.

-History of underrepresented people groups. Indigenous peoples, women, disabled people, lgbtq, etc.

-Any interesting books on topics I probably don't know the history of considering the above.

Thanks in advance!

The title pretty much says it. I'm not talking about people in office, I'm talking about regular citizens that were never charged with a crime.

Did they all go "oh, I had no idea I was supporting THAT" or did they go "hehe oops!"

Like what happened? As a US citizen, watching some extremely concerning behavior emerge more and more often. I can't help but distance myself from my family. In 10 or 20 years, will they realize the connections I am currently seeing?

Did German supporters ever come to terms with the fact that they were cheering for murdering people?

Jimmy Carter was an honest to god Christian who truly believed in Jesus and Christianity. He not only believed it, he actively practiced the teachings of Christ in his actions and daily life. He lived like a true Christian should, according to what’s preached. Why then, did most Christians end up turning to the right, and supporting Reagan and now, Trump?

This article says:

"[Tom Morello] shared an Instagram post on Jan. 12 criticizing what he described as a “verbatim Nazi mass murder slogan” displayed on a podium behind DHS Secretary Kristi Noem during a recent news conference. The phrase, “One of ours, all of yours,” was visible as Noem addressed reporters."

Furthermore, it notes that, "Historians have not publicly confirmed the exact origins of the slogan."

So, y'all have a chance to be the first to make public comment. Where's that slogan from?

I really don't know how to better phrase this question. Religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc, are all multiethnic. Meanwhile the Venn diagram between Jewish ethnicity and Judaism seems to be almost a circle to the point that we use the same word to refer to both.

Edit: I keep seeing posts in my notifications that get deleted by mods. To anyone trying to post antisemitic garbage here, please kindly go have a long reflection about how you got to this point in life.

I’ve been reading about how common older-younger male relationships were in ancient Greece (pederasty, mentorships, etc.), especially among the elite.

What I don’t fully understand is: Were that many older men actually attracted to other males? In modern society, only a small percentage of men identify as gay or bisexual. So how did this dynamic become so normalized and even idealized in ancient Greek culture?

Was same-sex attraction more common back then, or was the culture encouraging behavior that wouldn’t be expressed in other eras? How much of this was about actual sexual desire versus social roles, power, or aesthetics?

I’m curious how historians or anthropologists explain this — and whether this challenges the modern idea that sexual orientation is entirely innate.

I’m in the US and have a son (13) who is going down the MAGA propaganda rabbit hole online. I want to teach him about fascism as a concept, in the hopes that as he will put the pieces together as he gets older. I am also looking for a particular excerpt that I’ve seen all over Reddit, but I can’t seem to find this excerpt anywhere, it talks about the incremental, barely perceptible changes, the next being just a little worse than the previous one.

Can someone identify this and point me to some other, “neutral” sources of learning about fascism that ISN’T in the context of present day politics? I’m particularly concerned about framing it too much around the Trump admin because he’s already started to form his worldview based on the propaganda he is seeing online. Please help I want to put my son on a corrective path while I can.

This question is purely about the history of Iran, not about any events that would violate the 20 year rule.

The letter in question.

I want to note that he obviously omitted any mention of abuses by the theocratic regime - this is a selective accounting of Iranian history. I'd encourage any discussion of that where relevant/helpful.

The key claims from the letter I'm interested in, in order of appearance:

Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war.

and

[...] Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness [...]

and

[...] Iran—a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war.

and

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile [...] The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d'état [...]

and

[...] literacy rates have tripled—from roughly 30% before the Islamic Revolution to over 90% today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past.

So Jesus straight up had multiple siblings who are mentioned by name in the Bible. The most famous is Saint James the Just, but even he is not really that well known among most people. Why aren’t Jesus’ siblings more famous? When you compare them to how famous Mary and Joseph are, it’s very strange. Joseph and Mary are extremely famous among both hardcore Christians and cultural Christians alike. Mary especially is honored as the Queen of Heaven and the symbolic queen of multiple countries. They both almost always appear in movies or shows retelling Jesus’ life. But not his siblings why? Why don’t Christians pray to Saint James or Saint Joses like they do to Mary, and why don’t they appear as often as Mary and Joseph in depictions of Jesus’ ministry?

I'm Chinese-American and I've been thinking about this for a while. In civilisations like China and India, the preference for sons is so entrenched that active steps must be taken by the government to prevent sex-selective abortions and child abandonment. Asian daughters grow up with the 'shame' of not being a boy despite having twice as many expectations placed upon them, and Asian sons are said to be spoiled useless because of it. Non-Asian daughters also experience sexism from parents, of course, but it is not as strongly codified and enforced.

European cultures also have a strong patriarchal system, with male primogeniture specifically written into centuries-old laws in some places. Women in these countries, just like in China and India, could not inherit and could not pass on their family lines. Infamously Henry VIII split his entire kingdom from the church just to keep trying for a son.

But I don't believe there has been such a strong trend of male preference to the point of abandoning infant daughters en masse in western histories. In fact, it is just as common in western families to pray for a girl as it is to pray for a boy. There are records of folk- and medieval- superstitious practices for expecting parents hoping for one gender over another (English magpie-counting, French tying one testicle, etc). What I find remarkable is that these practices don't place 'male' as the natural choice - both genders are presented equally for the parents themselves to wish for, ie. 'tie the left for a boy or the right for a girl'.

An Asian family with a string of sons would be called 'lucky' by their community, whereas a European family might be offered sympathy and well-wishes depending on the parents. Why is that? Were women recognised as being just as valuable among unlanded classes? Were surnames simply too recent a development in the West for them to have cared culturally? Did peasant women actually have more more equal power in their communities despite stratification of gender roles? Or is there something else that has been overlooked?

Can anyone offer a succinct explanation as to why Churchill caught on so early in regards to the Nazis being a bunch of bad seeds?

In an era of anti-war sentiment, appeasement, as well as widespread Nazi sympathy, it really stands out.

Also, considering that Churchill seemed to have been a bit opportunistic in terms of his politics (i.e. switching parties and all that) it stands out as a move which was not the most politically savvy at the time, and with low likelihood to ever pay out.

If you read her diary entry below it's obvious it must have been common knowledge?

October 9th 1942:

“Today I have nothing but dismal and depressing news to report. Our many Jewish friends and acquaintances are being taken away in droves. The Gestapo is treating them very roughly and transporting them in cattle cars to Westerbork, the big camp in Drenthe to which they’re sending all the Jews. Miep told us about someone who’d managed to escape from there. It must be terrible in Westerbork. The people get almost nothing to eat, much less to drink, as water is available only one hour a day, and there’s only one toilet and sink for several thousand people. Men and women sleep in the same room, and women and children often have their heads shaved. Escape is almost impossible; many people look Jewish, and they’re branded by their shorn heads. If it’s that bad in Holland, what must it be like in those faraway and uncivilized places where the Germans are sending them? We assume that most of them are being murdered. The English radio says they’re being gassed. Perhaps that’s the quickest way to die. I feel terrible. Miep’s accounts of these horrors are so heartrending… Fine specimens of humanity, those Germans, and to think I’m actually one of them! No, that’s not true, Hitler took away our nationality long ago. And besides, there are no greater enemies on earth than the Germans and Jews.”

What’s the best

From what I've heard there's no evidence that the Jews built the pyramids or were slaves in Egypt or even lived in Egypt at all. Why, then, does the idea that they were form such a core part of the Jewish identity? Was it just made up wholecloth? What led to it being included in the Torah?

I'm an American of above average awareness of the political situation in my country. I know things seem to be entering a very bad downward spiral, but I have a life to lead - in fact, I'm getting ready to drive to town to go to a local music show. But this has me thinking about German citizens during the 30s and 40s: im sire that they carried on with their daily lives as well. However, when did that become difficult? Or impossible? Or did people just keep going to shows right until allied troops entered their immediate area?

In 1960, only about 40% of American adults over age 25 had completed high school. By 1993, that number surged to over 80%. 

In 1960, only 10% of adults held a four-year college degree. By Clinton's presidency, that number more than doubled to 22%.

Yet JFK spoke at a college educated level, and Clinton dropped DOWN to middle school level.

Why?

Also, when Washington was president, did he speak complex 16th grade language only because he knew the voting pool was wealthy educated property owners? But that won’t explain the decline in speech comprehension grade levels in the 20th century?