wow that's a pretty cool fact

I don‘t know when exactly it became common practice in Europe, but it seems to be a very old tradition, as the user before stated, that earrings were common in the Minoan civilization already. In medeival time, it was common for both genders.

Interesting anecdote: Ever heard the German term ‚Schlitzohr‘? It translates to ‚rascal’, but the original meaning is ‚slit ear‘. It was tradition for master craftsmen and merchants to wear earrings as sign of their respectability. When they were caught cheating their customers, the earring was ripped off as a punishment. The slit ear showed that they are dishonest persons.

[removed]

No mention of Cleopatra? Cmon dude.

The headline of the article uses a picture of Liz Taylor as Cleopatra, and her picture is used as a comparison to a sarcophagus that Cleopatra was NOT buried in. I clicked on the link before commenting.

Was Cleopatra in ancient Egypt as a colonizer? Sure. Did she use makeup? I’ve never seen a painting of the Greek Cleopatra in Egyptian eye makeup. She shouldn’t have been used in anything related to the culture of ancient Egypt. People who don’t know better will attribute her white skin to ancient Egypt, and we both know that.

Uhm… speak for yourself

1917 the British royal family took over the official family name Windsor, which was used by all family members, who are not a ‚His/Her Royal Highness‘. In 1960, the name was changed to Mountbatton–Windsor for the descendents of Queen Elisabeth and Prince Philip. For example, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Anne, Princess Royal, children of Queen Elizabeth II, used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in official marriage registry entries in 1986 and 1973 respectively. The queen or king will not use the family name. The former queen signed as Elizabeth R, the current king signs as Charles R (R for Rex/Regina).

During the cold war how did countries test nuclear bombs safely? (Or at least as safe as possible)

[removed]

No? If you read the article, it describes how the practices back then were different.

I don't think many people today wear eyeshadow to ward off the threat of Satan or other evil entities.

IIRC, they used very hard dolomite quite a bit. Might be a good place for OP to start researching further.

>heroin, cocaine and morphine were not “harder stuff”

You're really going to tell us a glass of whiskey isn't harder hitting than a glass of beer?

The term "harder" is sort of subjective, but I use it here on the basis that heroin/morphine/cocaine are all processed and concentrated products of the natural raw material that they are derived from. Raw opium doesn't contain 100% morphine - it's around 10% by mass.

Refining processes remove the non-psychoactive components and impurities from the base material, isolating /concentrating the components that do have a narcotic effect. For a given dose in mass or volume, heroin or cocaine is more potent than raw opium or coca leaves - cocaine production being the most dramatic change in concentration as the leaves typically contain less than 0.3% active cocaine chloride.

>and weren’t designed for export to China.

Never said they were, just pointing to their presence in the Chinese market. Old-fashion opium was still being imported (and produced domestically) by the ton into China at this time if I recall.

>Your ideas on heroin are wholesale wrong, it was first synthesized in 1874, it wasn’t commercialized until 1895. It was banned in 1924 in the U.S. but was available off the shelf until then. 1920 in the U.K.

I believe I did say "by the start of the 20th century" - if you're unfamiliar with this nomenclature, it means "early-1900s".

>Furthermore, your ideas on the U.S. fighting to stop the drug trade and the U.K. stalling is also wrong, in most cases, the U.K. banned drugs before the U.S.

Maybe, I'm a little vague on my dates and details in this regard. I'll have to reread my sources. Still, the Americans did indeed pushed for wider international collaboration in restricting narcotic trade and production, and they did faced resistance from other nations.

>Your ideas on drugs in the golden triangle being because of the French is preposterous. The Golden Triangle appeared because the communist Chinese outlawed the domestic opium trade in southern China, the growers and dealers shifted south in the 1950s following action by the Chinese.

I agree it's a subjective take open to bias and interpretations from both sides (colonial apologists vs. anti-colonial critics), but it doesn't change the fact that wartime French colonial officials were encouraging cultivation of poppies among local Miao/Hmong farmers for the purpose of producing opium. Whether that encouraged the wider intensive cultivation of opium in post-war Southeast Asia, I leave to more qualified scholars to argue over.

>Your ideas on Japan are equally wrong. The Japanese didn’t “flood” colonial India with cocaine

My sources tell me otherwise.

Excerpt from "Cocaine - An Unauthorized Biography" by Dominic Streatfeild:

->Such was the extent of the Japanese-Indian cocaine trade that in 1930 the Home Office despatched a Mr J Slattery, OBE, to the Far East to find what was going on. His secret report is in the Public Records Office at Kew. Slattery discovered that much of the cocaine being shifted bore the labels of Fujitsuru, Buddha, or Elephant brands, yet none of these were recognized manufacturers...Clearly of the impression that this cocaine all originated in Japan, Slattery could obtain no assistance from the Japanese authorities. Slattery had the wrappings of a Fujitsuru cocaine package analysed to see who made the paper. He was informed, and it was later corroborated, that it was made by the Fuji Company of Japan, and the string that held the package together was also Japanese.

>Nor did the Japanese play a major part in the Chinese opium trade

Please be aware I'm talking about Japan in the larger context of the 19th/20th century narcotic trade in China, so beyond the scope of the earlier Opium Wars period. As the original post hinted, the Japanese DID peddled opiates and other narcotics to the Chinese, something that the Japanese culprits faced charges for during the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

Indoor toilets require water on demand in every home, which is a VERY recent innovation around the world. You use the water both to flush waste but also as a barrier between the sewer pipes and the home, to prevent odors and flammable/explosive sewer gas from entering (a modern toilet is also a nontrivial industrial product--large, reliable metal and porcelain castings are relatively recent, too). Until you can use water to remove the waste, a bucket with a tight lid is the best option (aka a chamberpot) followed by an outside bucket with a door (aka an outhouse).

Also, seriously, how could the Church have possibly caused this? The majority of the world that's not Christian had and has the same waste removal strategies.

All of them do have last names available, but they are rarely used. For example, the current royal family would use Mountbatten-Windsor.

I mean the article had no mention of Cleopatra - just a photo from a movie clip of someone playing Cleopatra. Feels like you’re missing the point of the entire article if this is what your takeaway is.

So... same as now?

[removed]

Cleopatra wasn’t an ancient Egyptian. She was a Greek.

This is Wikipedia level information.

[removed]

Oh so much to unpack! So George III was a complex character in history and it's easy to paint a person as good vs bad, tyrant vs benevolent and so on. Now, there are a handful of people throughout history that are easily painted by their character and actions but Mad King George isn't one of them. George was firstly deeply saddened by the loss of the North American colonies and was in agreement that a reform in how they were ruled was needed but obviously disagreed that it the change had to be through a war. He wasn't a tyrant, far from it, he often had to make hard decisions in a time where there wasn't any fast form of communication so, he would send an order and by the time it got to North America was enforced and the people reacted good or bad and he recieved word of it, it was often far too late to change course or tweak it in a way that was meaningful or worked for the people in North America. As for taxes, the majority of people from the early 1600's up until the end of the Seven Years War (1756-1763) came to North America because they often were free from paying any tax at all, it was very hard to enforce taxation especially on the fringes of the colonies. When taxes were finally levied to pay off debts from the Seven Years War, which had begun in North America and plunged the entire world into what some historians have dubbed "World War 0" it was a common tax on the mostlt previously untaxed citizens which was 0.25% of what the same people paid in the United Kingdom proper, for example using modern US currency, if a citizen in England had to pay $1,000.00 annually then the same citizen in British North America paid $0.25. Now that's an extremely oversimplification however, they paid an extremely small fraction compared to their counterparts back in the main part of the Kingdom. What George III actually taxed that angered the "colonists" were imports, exports & luxury goods. This affected the wealthy land owners in coastal and near costal towns & merchants in major port cities, who did pay high taxes and because they were in a major port city the taxation was easily enforced. The tax on tea for example an item from Asia, that had to be specially packaged and shipped was huge but most British North Americans didn't drink it, instead they drank locally made beer and spirits or raw milk, tea was drink for the wealthy of the time. Sugar was taxed but most common people sweetened their food with honey, honey you could farm on your own, sugar had to be shipped from the Caribbean and processed. Postage was taxed but postage was mostly used by the wealthy and merchants when shipping items across the Atlantic or when sending letters concerning business. Most common people never traveled more than 12 miles outside their home town/city on average and had no purpose to send letters or use any postage. So the wealthy felt that they carried an uneven and unfair amount of the tax burden. The King also been having minor attacks of what some think was porphyria (it could've been another mental illness bipolar disorder is also a possibility) since 1765 and continued throughout the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. He finally had a major attack which spanned 1788-1789 (1789 is when George Washington assumed the office of President) and another which began in 1811 and lasted until he died in 1820. George's mental health was such that in 1788 there was an attempt at establishing a Regency and again in 1811 it was under established under Prince George of Wales (future King George IV) who was a fat fop more interested in his Catholic mistress, food and his own hedonistic pursuits than governing. The US didn't "break free from a tyrant through a just war" as it was led by wealthy citizens and fought a British government in some level of disarray, in an era of poor intercontinental communications, led by a bunch of wealthy land owners and merchants who had an explicit goal of not paying taxes at all, So while it's easy to paint King George III as a tyrant and despot, he actually was a complex leader who was neither sinner nor saint and had the hard task of running a Kingdom that was restricted by the times and technology available.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Historically, have UK monarchy ever had to use their last name? I get that Diana Spencer did have a last name, but does A child born into monarchy have a last name? Did they ever need to use it? Meaning did they ever have to do something outside of their titles? In their full legal name?

[removed]

flavored nicotine vapes are banned in China but exported in massive quantities to the USA