Question regarding L.M. Montgomery books.
Place: Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Time: Circa 1860s-1900 (books were published in 1900s but sequels retroactively pushed first oe back)

Elderly siblings, Matthew and Marilla run a farm together. They take in unrelated orphan to have some help (intended for a boy, got a girl). They both love her dearly and provide the best they could, payig for her education in Queens Academy that got Anne teaching license. In their own words- as long as they live Green Gables is Annes home but they want her to be able to fend for herself.

After Matthews death (from the shock, after hering the news of the bank bancrupcy that wiped out siblings savings) Marilla stays at the farm and leases the land. After cousins death, she takes in orphaned twins (this time blood relatives) and after the boy grow up, he runs the farm.

The possibility of Anne getting the farm is never raised so apprently there is some context lost that would be obivous for first time readers.

EDIT: I don't ask for plot summaries of the sequels. I ask for cultural and legal reasons that could stand behind that diecision. All Annes decisions were based on the fact that Green Gables will ever belong to her. So they didn't gave it to someone else because she was away, she was away because she had to build her own life.

They were a fixture from my childhood, but I don't think I have seen one for 20 years (since that is the case, i believe it falls within the sub's rules)?

Also, how many people actually bought swords for them to stay in business?

Even though Japan struck America first with Pearl Harbor, my understanding is that America’s reason to initiate the Manhattan Project was specifically against Germany.

Also, did Americans perceive Japan as weaker and thus didn’t think they needed to nuke Japan before Germany?

There are over 500 Indigenous American tribes that Native Americans could enroll in, provided they meet the requirement(s).

Colonialism/assimilation sapped most Natives of their languages and traditions but there’s still some level of cultural preservation.

So why wasn’t there a similar system in place for Indigenous Mexicans in Mexico? There are 23 million self-identified indigenous peoples in Mexico today with over 7 million still speaking an indigenous language so they make up a good portion of Mexico’s population.

Japan is known world wide for being very anti-litter. American friends who have lived in or visited the country always comment on how clean it is. One friend who lived in South Korea and was visiting was startled at how clean Japan was in comparison to South Korea, even in towns with similar socio-economics.

What aspects about Japan's history influenced the anti-littering culture that's prevalent? Or is the general anti-littering stance newer?

When Charles Dickens arrived in America in 1842, he was already enormously famous. He spoke about international copyright in and wrote bitterly about the difficulty of even raising the issue. His book American Notes was pirated and rapidly reproduced in the United States, and reports show more than 50,000 copies sold in New York in two days, with Philadelphia booksellers reportedly selling 3,000 copies in the first 30 minutes. Dickens received zero royalties from those sales. And this was all perfectly legal, foreign authors had no protection.

Yet in the 20th century laws became incredibly stringent, works can be protected for life plus 70 years after death. Infringement penalizes you $150,000 per work. Why did this dramatically change?

Going though a relatives stamp collection and found a page of Hitlers, after I got over the shock it raised some questions. Did they have an transfer procedure for converting Hitler stamps into non-Hitler stamps? Did they just stay in circulation? Was this a high priority for anyone?

I'm less interested specifically in the topic of like, "snake oil" or altogether fake/false/etc. products. The main thing that prompted me to think about this was movie trailers and what people are proposed to expect out of a piece of media. It's October, I'm watching some old grindhouse horror movies, and something that strikes me is how a lot of them were continually repositioned in their marketing to strike on different trends. Movies would get renamed with different titles, marketed as sequels to unrelated films, and even sometimes presented as genres other than what it actually was.

So specifically I'm watching Zombie Holocaust aka Doctor Butcher MD, which is a pretty silly movie with an evil scientist, cannibals, and zombies. The American trailer for it calls it "Doctor Butcher MD" and makes it seem like it's exclusively a movie about a mad scientist, and doesn't acknowledge at all that it's (mostly) a cannibal movie and (kind of) a zombie movie. The mad scientist angle only really comes into focus in the movie's final act, and the trailer is almost exclusively clips from like the last ten minutes of the film. So not only does the trailer spoil the ending, but it completely misrepresents the main genres the film is operating under. It's also clearly not doing this for artistic purposes (i.e. monster movies hiding the monster in the trailers) but it seems to think its sales pitch is stronger as this "mad scientist" movie than as anything else.

Any examples of people discussing this sort of thing? Reviewers or critics complaining about a film not being what was in the trailer? Or for that matter, book reviews talking about misrepresentative covers, theater reviews talking about misrepresentative posters, etc.?

A lot of people will tell me that the Islamic Golden Age was one of the greatest times in all of history, where the search for knowledge, spirituality, and ideas prospered. It’s seen as a time of peace and love and where famous concepts in Math and Science came to be, but obviously no time is history is perfect, so in what parts is the Islamic Golden Age romanticized, and what parts of it could be seen in a critical lens?

I ran into a guy on the Tube who told me that 1 million Muslims were killed. I mentioned that there must have been non-Muslims killed as well, but he didn't know. Does anyone have a sectarian breakdown or a reference of casualty figures during Indian partition.

I’m asking specifically about goose semen. I am reading a book about the human body in antiquity. In a section about birth, it says that Pliny the Elder suggested multiple concoctions to help with labor and delivery - including goose semen mixed with water.

I am, unfortunately, diving headfirst into this rabbit hole. How would they collect it? How did they decide this was a good idea? Also, I’m on page 27 - this is going to real weird, huh?

I can’t imagine all of them were psychopaths , they had to suffer some kind of PTSD. Especially einsatzgruppen. Even if you were just a regular soldier , the trauma must have been immense. How did they handle it post war? Was PTSD something recognized? How was the German economic recovery even possible in the backs of such broken men?

The Bible mainly use dogs in a negative light. From what I have heard, this is because feral dogs were common and seen as pests.

But, dogs are a domesticated animal. I also know that Ancient Egyptians kept dogs.

Did ancient Hebrews and Israelites just not keep dogs as pets or work animals? If so, why?

I know the Dutch had religious minorities like Jewish and Catholic communities unlike say France which expelled the Hugenouts but how many rights did these minorities have?

I know the "horned Viking helmet" is considered a myth, and the only helmet found from the Viking Age (the Gjermundbu helmet) has no horns. But the image is incredibly persistent. I've seen it traced to 19th-century costume design for Wagner's operas, but I've also seen claims that it goes back further, maybe to Romantic nationalist art in Scandinavia. Which of these is better supported? And were there any Bronze Age horned helmets that got conflated with Vikings along the way?

Nowadays it is mostly just seen as a fin bit of trivia because the name didn't last long and so many other way more significant changes happened shortly after. But how did people react at thetime? Did people of Russia take to the new name? Did the gramans consider the change insulting? Or did everyone just see it as a meaningless populist move?

I've been curious about how their relationship was. Ike famously didn't have combat/battlefield experience before WW2 and was given the top job of Supreme Allied Commander over Monty who had seen battle in the First World War.

Was Monty envious/jealous of Ike? Did he respect him even tho he had less experience than him? Did he ever talk down on him in meetings infant of the other brass?