The process can vary from outright suppression of an indigenous language to adoption of a language seen as more useful (e.g. more widely spoken) or conferring higher status. Trade, urbanisation, public education and mass media each accelerated the process and offered dominant groups new means to drive the process still further.

Tell-tale signs of forced assimilation might include withholding education in an indigenous language or denying access to public services or employment for its speakers (unless there really weren't the numbers for it to be a viable proposition), or suppressing or penalising its publication or broadcast. Promotion of a non-indigenous religious model or perception of the past are also used to erode traditional allegiances and identity.

Another top-down approach is of course literal colonisation, settlement of speakers of the privileged language, often with economic advantages (e.g. land grants, government jobs or contracts), forcing native speakers to adopt the dominant tongue for work or sometimes even making them a minority.

It isn't always coercive or associated with migration, and sometimes the "metropolitan" language is itself partly assimilated into a pidgin or creole tongue including indigenous elements: the most widespread lingua franca drawing on different elements is probably Swahili, grammatically Bantu but with large borrowings from Arabic and spoken far beyond the former area of Arab dominance: in Europe, Celtic cultural expressions are similarly thought to have spread ahead of any movement of people or change of ruling elite.

Because it isn't very good. Carlin has been known to make things up, regularly takes individual instances to represent whole peoples and eras, exaggerates and makes misleading analogies, and when he makes errors (which is too often) he is reluctant to correct them. He became a regular feature over on /r/badhistory for a reason.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/6swvvq/opinion_of_this_sub_on_dan_carlins_hardcore/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/385860/we_all_know_about_godwins_law_and_poes_but_i/

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3v63nh/dan_carlins_blueprint_for_armageddon_has_7/

Part of the problem is (and it's a fundamental thing), he's not a historian, and says so as a way to shield himself from criticism, rather than use it to explain why he's made mistakes. His fans use the same excuse, and don't take criticism of his work well. Throughout his work he hasn't shown much compunction about improving, either.

Mainly cereals - for food and spirits alike: in eastern and north-central Europe that would have meant predominantly rye. In the west and south wheat was the preferred foodgrain, though barley and oats were also consumed, especially among the poor (wheat being more expensive): barley was of course also used for beer and oats as feed for horses and oxen. Just about anything that might me made into booze probably has been at some point, though potatoes never really took off as source of spirits even when they were Ireland's staple food. Vodka's still predominantly made from grain, though now maize or rice get included, the first an introduction from Mexico and the latter little known outside southern Europe until the last few centuries.

Its very stereotypical for medieval themed fiction writers to make duos like this: Royalty (Or at least anyone with a high status) gets saved by a commoner when they were younger, they become best friends, then said commoner because something like their right hand man. Either they become a military officer/guard for them or an advisor.

So that makes me wonder: Has similar stuff like that actually happened in history?

[deleted]

Guy's origin story was wild. Started rock bottom, born in a poor family out of eight kids. Famine kills his whole family but him and another brother. Didn't know what to do with his life, so he joins a monastery and becomes a monk. Got bored of being a temple monk, so left and started wandering the countryside as a beggar vangabond. Goes back to the monastery, learns how to read and write. Yuan army comes out of nowhere and burns down the monastery. Decides to become a bandit. Gets good enough as a bandit that he starts his own bandit gang. Local rebel faction notices him and his gang successfully robbing Yuan government officials and convoys, asks him to join them. He agrees, eventually levels up to rebel general, then takes over as boss of the rebel faction. Scores victories against both Yuan army and rival rebel factions. Captures the Yuan winter capital and crowns himself Emperor of China at the age of 40 (in comparison, the youngest US president, John F. Kennedy was 44 when he took office).

Why isn’t Hardcore History in the subreddit’s suggested media podcast section? Unless I just missed it. Just curious.

[removed]

What was vodka made of before the introduction of the potato?

Heck, what did potato-eating cultures in Europe eat before that?

[removed]

Thank you for sharing your insights on the concept of the "mandate from heaven" and its implications on the legitimacy of Chinese dynasties. Your point about the necessity for each new dynasty to acknowledge the legitimacy of the preceding dynasty in order to claim the mandate is particularly interesting. It demonstrates the continuity and stability of the Chinese imperial system, despite the frequent changes in ruling families.

Well by the nature of this concept of a "mandate from heaven", he kind of have to take this position. If the founder of the Ming dynasty claims he now has the legitimate devine right to rule China by taking this mandate from the preceding Yuan dynasty, then by definition the Yuan dynasty must have been at one point legitimate. After all, if they were never legitimate, and then you took the mandate to rule from them, that would mean your own mandate is also illegitimate.

Therefore the official stance of EVERY major Chinese dynasty has to be that the previous dynasty gained the mandate of heaven legitimately, but then lost said mandate due to poor rule, thereby allowing the new dynasty to claim the mandate and begin the cycle anew.

Interesting side note about the mandate is that there was once a physical symbol of it in the form of a massive jade seal made by the first emperor of China around 220 BCE, which survived multiple pronged periods of interdynastic chaos, until eventually the Heirloom Seal of the Realm was finally lost to history somewhere around the Song to Yuan dynasties. Zhu's forces looked very hard for the seal as they took over the country from the retreating Mongol five, but came up empty.

[removed]

[removed]

At the beginning of the 20th century, when people washed more regularly, and used deodorant, was there a backlash against those who didn't?

And then there was Nixon.

Powerful and well-respected leadership, while the X country is having a lot of political dissent and divisive issues other than with the rebels, that distract the populace.

[removed]

Aww, okay. I appreciate the correction. That makes it all clear. Thanks for the whole explanation!

How does culture shift occur? I notice that in the early modern period and the desire to create nations based on language lines and so on means that when nations/kingdoms wanted to incorporate new land, they also had to change the language. How long does this tend to take and how does it happen? I have read a lot about the japan-isation of Okinawa and the Americanisation of Hawaii but I am wondering if there are any tell tale signs of attempting to force a degree assimilation in order to incorporate lands.

Requiem for the human mind

Cleveland's wife is reported to have said to the wife of Benjamin Harrison (the 23rd President) "don't change the drapes or furnishings, we'll be back in 4 years" when Cleveland's term as the 22nd President ended.

Eye-opening and a valuable antidote to notions of the Mongols ruling over a devastated and depopulated land. Of course the new Emperor is partly doing sound politics, blaming bad officials rather than the overthrown court - there's an old injunction about not being too negative about your predecessor, lest your denunciations undermine the status of the office you seek to hold.

The communications for external consumption are interesting too, offering a rather different evaluation. But Korea and Japan each had their own beef with the Mongols, so here distancing yourself from the old regime was good statecraft. Might there also be a hint (less subtle in the Japanese case) of "Remember those fearsome Mongols? Well I'm the guy who defeated them!"?

Which is the "true" version of his thoughts? It's notable that even in the external letters he blames disorder in the last Yuan reign rather than the dynasty as a whole: Mongol and Han ways may be incompatible, but there's nothing to contradict the domestic account of the Yuan as a legitimate though "barbarian" dynasty that had outlived its usefulness by no longer being able to rule.

In second grade there was a book of U.S. presidents at the front of the class. If you finished your assignment early you could pick up the book and read while the other students completed their work. For some reason I loved the book, and I decided to memorize the cause of death for every president. My teacher, instead of responding to my questions about typhoid with, "Nice little kids don't talk about death and diseases," helped me look up more information in the encyclopedia.

Shout out to Mrs. Capps for encouraging me to dive deeper into the history of human health and disease. You were the best.

[removed]