I like your question and bangdazap's reply, but I find that there is some confusion about the use of the term "racism". As a child in the 70s, I remember the famous PSA of a boy asking his grandpa what prejudice is. It seemed to me that racism was just one form of prejudice, and did not include prejudice based on religious beliefs or ethnic grudges among different people of the same race.

As far as prejudice among different white ethnic and religious groups, the answer is that it was very common. However, it is difficult to say precisely when prejudice based on religion and ethnicity becomes actual racism, based on biological/genetic differences.

Throughout medieval and into modern western history, there was always prejudice against people with different religious beliefs. This applied not just to non-Christians, but among different Christian denominations as well. However, in the case of Jews, what I see happening is a transformation from religious to racial prejudice.

From what I can tell, Jews in Europe were viewed as white people who practiced the wrong religion. Benjamin Disraeli's family converted to Christianity when he was ten. Had they not done this, it is unlikely that he would have become prime minister, but his Jewish ancestry did not prevent it. During the 19th century, many Jews converted to Christianity and some changed their last names.

Hitler viewed Jews as a separate race. During the Holocaust, there were people who didn't know they had Jewish ancestors until the Gestapo researched their ancestry and showed up at their door. This sort of racial view of Jews seems to be the prevailing view of anti-semites today.

Had France started colonizing the new world earlier on, is it possible that the Huegenot Massacre could have been averted? Could the French have sent the Huegenots there, just as the English would eventually send Irish revolutionaries to Australia?

I agree with Swarnstadt's explanation. With regard to your comment, what exactly do you mean by "party switch". It's a term that is often thrown around, but one that may not be entirely accurate. I think a more accurate term would be "party rotation". Please clarify.

Alexander the Great and Roy Cohn come to mind. It used to be much easier for people to maintain their privacy. There are plenty of figures throughout history where there were rumors about their sexuality, but where there is no way of knowing for sure.

Thanks for the reply. I agree that Britain found a good outlet for its restlessness in the form of colonies. The British may have lamented the loss of the 13 colonies, but the reality is that if those rebel colonists had still been in England, Britain might have followed the same path as France.

Still, nothing motivates people like hunger. Without bread, the circus only goes so far, and England did have a civil war back in the 17th century. Speaking of which, I have a question about that too. During the years when Cromwell was in charge, did British nobles continue to have the same powers and privileges? Was there anything in the way of a ceremonial monarch? Who was living in the royal palaces?

Had the Corn Laws not been repealed in 1846, is it possible that the revolutions of 1848 would have occurred in England as well?

Now that I think about it, friendly fire incidents happen in most wars, so I am sure that the War of 1812 is no exception.

That's entirely possible. There is a story about colonial soldiers firing at each other in the Seven Years War. Apparently, George Washington rode out between them with his arms outstretched and got them to stop. I don't know if the story is entirely true, but it helped make Washington a hero throughout the 13 colonies.

Women in some Muslim countries walk around completely covered in the scorching heat.

Now that I think about it, I would say that unless you are a navy seal or something like that, all of us are wimps compared to people back then. Their tolerance for pain and discomfort was far higher than ours.

In a way, it's kind of like a reverse theocracy. Instead of the church telling the state what to do, the state is telling the church what to do.

Now that I think about it, the answer might be simpler than I thought. Many primitive societies did not have written languages, so there would be a few people who spent their time memorizing long stories and other things word for word. If someone were disabled and couldn't hunt or farm, then it was only natural that they would fill that role. To the extent that that person was perceived as more knowledgable than others, people would take their advice on spiritual matters as well.

From what I understand, Ireland had representation in the British parliament before becoming independent. Would I be correct in guessing that those MPs were wealthy protestants? Were there any Catholic MPs? Did Ireland have any seats in the House of Lords?

I don't know. The earliest example I can think of would be Homer. There are many motifs that I see throughout world history in terms of literature and mythology that are common among different cultures, e.g. a hero who narrowly escapes death as an infant. If the trend to which you are referring is common among different cultures, then there might not be any known origin.

I don't have an exact answer for you, although I can say that the north Atlantic region experienced what is called the "little ice age" during that time, so it would have been a bit cooler than it is now. What gets me is when I see pictures of female slaves wearing dresses while picking cotton in the deep south. That must have been unbearable.