The selection was made from a shortlist, which was then drawn by lots from a Golden Urn.
According to some of the monks though, the Chinese authorities rigged it so Gyaincain Norbu won. But he was a baby, so why did they select him?
1 Answers 2019-02-10
1 Answers 2019-02-10
Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.
3 Answers 2019-02-10
Not a history of psychology - there are plenty of those - but an interdisciplinary approach. There are books that look at history through the lens of other social sciences, but I haven't found any that take the psychology angle. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
2 Answers 2019-02-10
With all the talk of nationalising healthcare in the USA, I've been trying to look into how the UK fared when it first set up the NHS. This article by pastmedicalhistory.co.uk mentions "inadequate funding" initially, pretty much dismissing the problems and criticisms as rightist naysaying which crippled an otherwise good thing. This one by the Guardian puts the initial budget at £437m and mentions that "financial problems ensued" for the first few years.
The Independent's take on it goes into more detail:
Spending during the NHS's first year vastly overshot the budget, and the prime minister, Clement Attlee, went on the radio to plead with people not to overburden the service.
The vast expense of the enterprise brought Bevan's ministerial career to a premature end. In 1951, the new Labour chancellor, Hugh Gaitskell, insisted on prescription charges, breaching Bevan's principle that care must be free. This incensed him.
Bevan had argued that the huge initial expense was the result of years of under-provision, when the dying bequeathed their spectacles to relatives who could not get prescriptions. By 1951, he had apparently been proved right, because the rush had died away, and he felt charges were a punishment unjustly imposed on patients who had behaved responsibly.
The question I'm interested in, really, is: why was it sustainable in the end?
Was it underfunded in those early years, or was it simply more costly than it should have been? Where did the government get the money from? Did it end up paying for itself in the long term because of the money it saved people who would otherwise pay for their own healthcare? Is the Independent missing anything substantial when they say:
To the government's surprise, [Claude Guillebaud's Tory-ordered] committee reported that the NHS was efficient, cost-effective, and deserved more money. The Tories accepted it with reasonably good grace, and did their best to forget they had ever opposed the NHS's creation. The principle of a free health service for all, paid for out of general taxation, had been won. The people had come to love their free NHS so much that no one could take it away.
I understand how broad and subjective a subject like this can be, but any insights at all would be really appreciated. I was interested to find out that the Tories were happy to keep an arguably over-expensive NHS going even after Labour had been voted out in 1951; if anyone has anything to offer on that subject that'd be great too.
And, this is probably asking too much, but if anyone can speculate as to why the current situation in the US might be similar and/or different to what happened in the UK, I'd love to hear it.
1 Answers 2019-02-10
I recently saw that you can sometimes find Hercules carved as a defender of the Buddha, and that the Greeks were influential in spreading Buddhism. Did the Greeks have an influence on the columns at temples, and the style of dress? or were these things already present?
1 Answers 2019-02-10
Would they have mounted knights to the same extent as other european kingdoms? Would plate armor and brigandine have made it into the armies at the same time as in the rest of europe? How about crossbows and firearms?
1 Answers 2019-02-10
I have a question regarding Hitler and the KKK what was his opinion on the group and did he like or hate them thank you in advance
1 Answers 2019-02-10
I mean, when Congress has passed an amendment historically, did they go and write it down on the original constitution? If so, wouldn't the original paper be frail given its age? What if they damaged it? What if they ran out of space? Who got the honor of writing it down? Were they required to keep their penmanship consistent with the style of the original amendments?
1 Answers 2019-02-10
Were the initial Spanish-speaking settler communities in California, Texas, and the Southwest completely absorbed into Anglo-American society or did any of them keep their language traditions through the 20th century?
1 Answers 2019-02-10
and during that period before slaves came from africa, did the settle have slaves?
1 Answers 2019-02-10
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I hope this post is allowed. I was wondering if anyone was familiar with this set of aircraft pictures I recently acquired. There are about 3 dozen of them, all German, Japanese and Italian aircrafts with descriptions and specifications on the back side of the cards. In a lot of cases the little story on the back uses present tense. The cards themselves are printed on regular paper and they are 7x4.5. Any info is appreciated. Thanks
2 Answers 2019-02-10
title
1 Answers 2019-02-10
2 Answers 2019-02-10
I'm very interested in world history but the most I know are pieces of this and that and they're usually facts that are commonly mentioned in books and movies.
I know I could just go to the History section of the library and pick a book but I don't know where to start.
It is obvious I can start chronologically with the Greeks and Romans as, iirc, they're one of the first intensely documented ages. But a lot of things happened at the same time. For example, Mongol, Egyptian, and Roman events apparently happened at almost the same time and affected each other. I could be wrong.
I also want to avoid bias.
Please help me educate myself. And if this is the wrong subreddit, please redirect me to the appropriate one.
Thank you
1 Answers 2019-02-10
Sorry for the run-on sentence.
2 Answers 2019-02-10
Earlier today, I posted a question regarding a "what if" historical scenario that got deleted for breaking the subreddit's rules. Are there any subreddits that are more appropriate for asking such questions? The alternate history subreddit does have people asking questions but overall seems more geared towards people posting material regarding alternate histories they've created.
1 Answers 2019-02-09
Basically title. I went on a wiki rabbit hole of WWII and found the below phrase:
The UK invited Dominion governments to send representatives to the ceremony as subordinates to its own. MacArthur supported the government of Australia's demand to attend and sign separately from the UK, although Australia objected to his recommendation that Canada, the Netherlands, and France also sign the document.[14]
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender
Why did Australia object? It seems to me that Australia has always had close relations to other commonwealth nations, although this makes it seem not that way.
Thanks in advance.
1 Answers 2019-02-09
On one hand, it seems as though the strategic bombing campaigns would help bring down Germany and Japan by wearing down their war industries and thus making the fighting at the front go easier. On the other hand, neither Germany or Japan surrendered due to conventional strategic bombing, requiring a land invasion and the atomic bomb respectively. I'm very confused on this and would like a clarification from people who know more.
I suppose for purposes of this question strategic bombing could be split into two senses:
1 Answers 2019-02-09
Hello! I posted this on r/books but they suggested you guys. I’m in between reading and I’d like a very historical and scientific account of the life of Jesus. I want something that basically the most widely accepted piece of literature on the subject in the Historical and Scientific community. I’m ok with tough reads in fact I prefer having to investigate references..that’s a sign of diligence and transparency with works of literature like this IMO.
1 Answers 2019-02-09
What do I do. Is that my camp is liberated*
1 Answers 2019-02-09