As an Australian we learned a bit about indigenous Australians but I went down the path of educating myself on the topic and it’s fascinating, terrible in some parts but fascinating

Thanks for your first-hand response!

Americans would also need to be warned about mention of libraries too.

Just to add to this, Archie Roach, an iconic First Nations singer recently died. His family gave permission to use his first name in press.

In contrast, another iconic singer by last name Yunupingu died a few years ago as well. He was known by his first name in life, but not in death.

Very interesting. I was curious about this too as an American who’s never seen a warning like that before. I assumed it was something along those lines, but context is always nice to have.

[removed]

Payback for european squatting.

The question I’ve got does anybody understand what happened in Tulsa in 1921 because people I’ve met there but nothing ever happened

When I think of Aborigines, I think of the natives from "Crocodile Dundee".

Oh yeah, pretty much Japan and the US’s strategy. Create a chain of supply lines towards your enemy so you can eventually deliver the decisive blow

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

My first thought was "But why Italy?"

That's far by either land or sea.

It's a warning out of respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI).

They are a nation of many communities and with varying cultural protocols. A widespread part of their culture is that it's disrespectful to mention names and share images or recordings of those who have passed, especially during a period of mourning. It is believed that in doing so, it will disturb the spirit of the deceased.

It can also be very distressful.

These warnings are provided for those who are a part of the ATSI community. It allows them to choose before watching a program or reading an article.

The Great Triumvirate vs Heirs of The Founders. These 2 books tackle the lives & relationships between them in early to mid 19th century U.S. Senators, Webster, Clay, & Calhoun.I am wondering which of the 2 is overall better or what distinct differences the 2 works have in the 31 year difference between publications.I only have time enough to read one, but wanted to pick up what fellow students of history thought b4 I pick 1 or the other up. I thought Reddit could help.Thank you.

The USSR was actually pretty definite about its borders: its sphere of influence and network of satellites or allies (like the USA's) were less fixed. Poland and East Germany weren't a de facto part of the USSR any more than various Central American countries were part of the US, rather they were a part of the Soviet bloc and expected to toe the line to varying degrees. Poland's communist leaders actually exercised considerable independence after 1956, a luxury not available to the frontline GDR.

Some tribes have a taboo against speaking the names of the dead, which extends to photographs. By bringing up the dead you're disturbing their spirits.

They weren't long-forgotten, I personally handled a few from a contemporary batch. It's probably that the archivist didn't know that information was new.

[deleted]

[removed]

Nice to see that more people are studying this wonderful archive (not a library lol) and it's proving useful! There's a lot of beautiful photographs, I used a few when I wrote about the historical basis for Sandokan. Also, it's not a random archive, it's part of Italy's national anthropology museum in Rome.

I think calling them "blatant lies" is counter productive, although I can definitely see where it can seem that way especially with Christopher Columbus. I'd say it's a combination of various biases that heavily distort the truth. One bias, as an example, would be idolization, where people have a tendancy to idolize people (like Columbus) who achieved something ("Discovering" America). Don't blame underpaid elementary or secondary teachers for not being able to fully see through these biases, it's just not something that everybody spends a lot of time thinking about.

I think it's good that we are able to talk about Christopher Columbus in a more balanced way now that some of his flaws have become more known, and I wish people would continue talking about it without blowing it out of proportion.