I'm writing a fanfiction about an anime character, yes I know, but he's a Buddhist monk known as a Yamabushi (his profession but also the name he goes by) and I want to be as accurate as possible! I thought about asking this question in the Buddhist subreddits, but there doesn't seem to be much of a Japanese style buddhism following on reddit and Buddhism in Japan has changed drastically over the years so i thought asking here might be the best. Googling hasn't really answered my questions either.

Shinto has a lot of Buddist influences, that much is obvious from what I've read, but I'm not sure how true that is in reverse.

Did Buddhists, and specifically Buddhist Monks, believe/practice worship of the Shinto gods in 1500's Japan?

Good evening! I’m looking for an interesting book on Italian history. Specifically I’ve Been replaying the assassins creed Ezio trilogy and want to learn about what lead up to renaissance Italy and what happened during.

That said, I’d love a couple recommendations that are more about what happened that isn’t shown in average text books, and one that will skip the focus on dates and works. I’m more into politics and “day in the life” type of history since this is for fun and not for a class.

Any tangent recommendations are very welcome!

I am trying to understand how historians are able to look at writings from the ancient and middle ages and decide how much of it is close to the actual truth. This seems to be a difficult job since most early writings seem to be about the rulers rather than the lives of ordinary folk (?). I am also guessing that common folk didn't do much writing during that time, or did not leave much first hand accounts of their lives? If we are relying entirely on the official scribes or poets who have a vested interest (job security?) to create exaggerated accounts of their kings and their deeds, how do we know the actual scenario? It appears that the Realism movement came much later after which there has been much more .. well .. realism in early accounts, paintings, sculptures etc.

Or am I getting this all wrong and there were actually accounts from that time which tried to provide a honest account of the times? Thanks!

Hi I just finished watching a WW2 movie and it made me start thinking how did the different allied countries react to the concentration camps and what they did. I’d like to know specifically how the soldiers from different nations treated the liberated Jews. Thanks for your time

We know that the slave trade between Africa and the Middle East was strong and enduring for centuries. However, we see next to zero embedded black communities in these countries (I would be happy and reassured to be corrected). In North and South America, the descendants of the slaves are a very substantial minority, as is expected. Why is there a difference?

Was just curious, if he and the other allied leaders maintained their belief of the soft underbelly even with the hard fighting in Po valley and other parts of northern Italy or did he say otherwise?

I see a lot of documents that seem to have been scanned from early print to (admittedly pretty garbled) text.

Seems like a long-shot, but does anything similar exist for handwritten docs?

I'm really curious as to if there's a reason that this century-and-a-half-old organization dedicated to racism and hatred dresses like schoolchildren told to sit in the corner for being stupid.

For example, a small drink at McDonald's in the US is 16oz (473ml), whereas in the UK it's 250ml. This is true in general for most everything at restaurants and probably at homes as well.

When did this discrepancy in portion size arise? What kinds of cultural influences caused this difference?

I was watching a documentary and it talked about how slavery was an economic system until the 13th amendment was passed. I also remember hearing that Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation to a) get countries who were anti slavery to provide aid and b) get the freedmen to join the union forces. So, my question is, who was buying slaves that it supported the South so largely? Or was it just because of cotton that slavery was so profitable?

Not sure if it's just a misconception but all my reading and watching has lead me to believe Midway was won due to series of very fortunate events for the allies.

Viewed with hindsight and objectively would it be fair to say the allies underprepared (or poorly) for the battle with the amount of time and knowledge they had before hand? And simply got very lucky, or is this a misconception?

I know believing this is punishable by law in lots of countries, and in mine aswell (France), but what he told got me thinking of how easy it is for governments to manipulate things. I’ve always had a critical eye about the different articles and videos I read and watch, so that’s why I’m asking you about this. They say « winners write history », what if some of the WWII history was exaggerated?

I’m not saying I believe this at all, I went to Auschwitz a few years back and saw the horrible things that happened there. It’s just a question that bothers me.

Would it be accurate to say that Churchill is at least partially responsible for the death of millions of people in Bengal? Also, would it be accurate to compare the Bengal Famine to other man made famines like the Holodomor?

Deeper question would be, did people believe/trust scientists? Or were the big bones seen as fantastical hogwash?

Spanish, Dutch, British all used what is today New York as an important port, and (I think) had a reasonable size of settlement there. In places like Havana or Buenos Aires, even parts of Mexico city there's a clear spanish colonial style, morrish buildings, large european style squares. in the middle east and africa, not to mention obviously places in asia, there is the same for the british style. was it just a matter of time, that the us has been independent for longer? or were there buildings like that and they just got destroyed?

I can't think of another song as associated with Jewishness in popular consciousness as Hava Nagila. I've had people start singing it or bring it up if when they find out I'm Jewish. I've had friends who despite barely ever having interacted with the Jewish community know the lyrics by heart. Everyone from Bruce Springsteen to Neil Diamond to Harry Belafonte has a recorded rendition of it. As far as I understand it, the song is an Israeli folk song from the period of the Balfour Declaration. There are plenty of other Jewish songs and niggunim out there, I mean literally anything by the Barry Sisters, so why did Hava Nagila become so popular and why is it the sort of quintessential Jewish song?