Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities
|
Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
|
Choose a topic:
See also:
|
December 17
how would you draw a gondolier
I hope this is the right place to ask this -- I'm trying to draw a gondolier (in the act of rowing a gondola, naturally) and I've just realised I am not terribly good at drawing figures while they're inside a boat. I'm not so much asking for a step-by-step thing as perhaps some tips on what to do. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- They basically just stand up - so draw a standing man, with a big oar, and then draw the boat under him. (I would warn you that my drawing abilities are pretty rotten!). DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The gondolier stands at the stern of his boat just above the point at which the stern leaves the water. When rowing, he has his feet apart and both hands (not too far apart) are on the oar, which is very long and straight, and he leans a little into the oar which is anchored to a post slightly in front of him on the starboard side. However, an easier way to draw him is to have him not rowing, in which case he stands quite upright to rest his back, leaving the oar in the water but angled (this is invisible) so that it doesn't hold the boat up. By angling the boat you can avoid drawing the oar-post, if you’re not sure about it! If you want to draw it, it has a strange shape, rather like a bent leg, with the knee sticking out over the water. Don’t forget, gondolas are almost invariably painted black. Xn4 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, he stands on the deck of the boat, not in it. The decks are normally either plain wood or else are painted black or red. Xn4 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The Rise of Western and European Civilization
For hundreds of years up to now, Western and European civilization has dominated the world. The richest and most developed countries in the world are all mostly and mainly Western or European countries. Europe and European countries have controlled and ruled most of the world through colonialism and colonization. Europeans colonized and settled in overseas lands such as the Americas and Australia. Europeans and European countries have become the masters of most non-Western countries and peoples through colonialism. In the West, in Europe, in Britain, there first developed in Industrial Revolution, where people lived mostly in cities and worked mostly in factories. In the West, in America, Britain, Rome, and Greece, democracy first rose, grew, spread, and developed, and it was the West where the world's democracy came from. Most of the world's scientific research, advancement, and knowledge and technological invention, development, and application came from and occurred in the West and Europe. Most of the world's science and technology, scientists and inventors, are in the West or from the West. The West has led much in humanity and the world's development and progress. From Europe came the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Agricultural Revolution. The most powerful country in the world, the United States, is a Western country.
I have three questions to ask you about this:
1. Why has Western and European civilization been so great and powerful currently in the past few hundred years? Why has it dominated the world? Why had it contributed so much to humanity and the world's development and progress? Why?
2. Is there any evidence, for example, historical, political, social, cultural, anthropological, or geographical, that it is not inevitable that Western and European civilization dominated the world? Is there any evidence that other civilizations can also or are also able to or capable of being so great and powerful or contributing so much to humanity and the world's development and progress?
3. Will Western and European civilization be so great and the greatest civilization in the world for ever? Will there be other civlizations that will be or become as great or greater than Western and European civilization?
Bowei Huang (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like this has something to do with Guns, Germs, and Steel. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Leaving aside (1),
- 2) Why should European dominance be inevitable? Since a great many non-European civilizations have had their time as "greatest in the world" or what have you, the question seems quite flawed.
- 3) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but given world history, it's likely that a new body will rise to dominance.
- And what's up with the recent ref desk fixation with GG&S lately, anyway? — Lomn 04:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's a popular book, probably being used by high schools and maybe undergrad classes, which has satisfying answers to impossible questions, based on questionably methodology. Assuming it is correct is much easier than having students do any real work. Hooray! (Although I don't know why it's suddenly popular now, since it is a decade or so old.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Your question touches on what has been perhaps the single most important aspect of my own personal lifelong study of history, namely: the transition of non-"Western" societies that encounter and are ultimately absorbed into the spreading society of Western Civilization. I have yet to find a society on earth that has been able to successfully sustain itself independent once it comes into contact with Western Civilization. I would say, from what I have been able to understand from having studied this so extensively, that your premise that Western Civilization's spread throughout the world was indeed "inevitable". Or rather, after a certain point it was. However, when discussing this, I really don't like to use the term "Western" or "European" or "Civilization", since from my perspective, it is neither exclusively Western or European, and to call it a Civilization is to mislabel it, I think. But for purposes of clarity, let's call it this here for now... This is explained a little better in the Wiki article Sociocultural evolution. However, I do have to say that even in this I find that the term "evolution" is unsatisfactory, since it implies that there has been a progression from early "bad" societies to "better" ones. Instead, the term Social change is probably better to use, but it is rather general and vague...
Western Civilization actually did not begin in the West, nor even in Europe. Instead, it probably began in the Fertile Crescent and adjacent areas. During a very pivotal time in ancient history, from about 2000 BCE to 600 AD (but most especially from around 1800 to 1200 BCE), a series of migrations and invasions took place among a group of nomadic warriors known as the Indo-Europeans from their probable homeland north of the Black Sea into areas stretching from the Indian sub-continent to Ireland. Some of the early invasions of the Indo-Europeans took them over the mountainous region of Turkey, Iraq and Iran and down into the lands of the Fertile Crescent where more sedentary and agricultural societies fluorished. The nomadic Indo-Europeans had a couple of technological advantages at first that greatly helped them in their warfare: they had developed the knowledge of how to smelt and work iron, and they had domesticated the horse. Along with this they also were nomadic, and nomads are typically very good warriors. Unable to fend off these highly proficient warriors, many of the communities in this area were rubbed out. One such example of this is the ruined city of Ebla, which was destroyed in 1750 BCE by the Hittites, an Indo-European tribe. Although there had been much competition between societies in the Fertile Crescent before the arrival of the Indo-European invasion, the level of devastation and social upheaval brought about by these nomadic warrior barbarians coming from the north was unprecedented for this region.
If a society wished to stand up against these invaders in an attempt to keep from being completely wiped out, they had to change how their society functioned in order to do so. In other words, they had to adopt the very techniques that made the invading armies so powerful, and try to improve on them. In the end this basically destroyed their old culture, and supplanted it with that of the invaders' even though they had not been conquered. By becoming the same kind of society as that of their enemies, they stopped being the society that they once were. To stand up against these nomadic warriors, the societies in this region had to become "machine-like". Before this, the typical person in this area had a life that was quite diversified. People would perform many different activities throughout their day, and their lives were not very regimented. In order to withstand the constant threat of invasion, though, these societies had to reshape themselves so that they created specialists. The ruler (typically a King), would establish a well-trained standing army of soldiers who could respond at a moment's notice to any threat, and who did not produce anything other than safety from outside invasion. Instead, these soldiers consumed - and it was very expensive for these societies' economies to equip, train, and maintain armies large enough to prevent invaders from destroying them. This meant that the average person no longer was occupied with various and sundry activities, but would be regulated to a particular livelihood such as farming, metal crafts, etc. Taxes became even more critical, so a larger bureaucracy had to be established to keep track of this. In short, "Western Civilization" was created. Unfortunately for these people in the Fertile Crescent, the invading Indo-European tribes began settling down and started the process of turning their societies into machines as well.
Eventually what ended up happening was that another Indo-European society invaded the Fertile Crescent - the Greeks under Alexander the Great. The Greeks' society was even MORE "machine-like" than other people - and because of this they were more successful. But then another Indo-European society came along that, for a variety of reasons, was the most efficient machine-like society to yet - namely the Romans. It would not be for centuries later that another society could match the great advantage that the Romans had over their competeting rivals in terms of being efficiently organized. After the collapse of the Roman Empire under the hands of yet more Indo-Europeans (the Germanic Tribes), "Western Civilization" continued to spread, but more subtely - mostly through the Christianity (which carried with it Roman culture) and Commerce. Even though other societies embraced the techniques of "Western Civilization", such as the Medieval Muslims, the societies of Northern and Western Europe managed to take the lead in developing these techniques, and by the Age of Exploration, were poised to spread its influence all over the entire globe.
It so happens that a couple of other phenomena occurred that have had a huge impact on the course of world events over the past couple of hundred years - the rise of the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution - both of which occurred mainly in Northern and Western Europe. The conditions that created both of these things were optimized by Western Civilization, and then both the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution (with their emphasis on mercantilism and exploitation) went on to make Western Civilization even more powerful than it had been before by making the societies in which these things occurred become even more "machine-like". Today, the most machine-like society that has ever existed is that of the United States. The U.S. embodies the epitome of a society that has incorporated both of these forces. It may well be that some other forces might come along that will supplant the Middle Class's powerful position, or to supplant the Industrial Revolution - but whatever force this is, it will certainly still be an integral part of Western Civilization. Communism, after all, is just another form of Western Civilization, for example... So perhaps a better question would be: "What, if anything, will supplant the Middle Class?"
As different societies initially encountered Western Civilization, there were mixed reactions. Some societies embraced it fervently (such as the Romans), while others opposed it violently (such as the Gauls). Still other peoples had a mixture of embracing and opposing its cancerous spread (such as the Britons). However, nobody has been able to ultimately resist embracing it. All a society can realistically hope for is that it can hang on to many vestiges of its earlier unique character, while trying to incorporate the aspects of Western Civilization in as seamless a way as possible. Always this process of transformation from earlier society to Western Civilization is filled with huge social upheaval and violence. This cannot be changed, as it is in the very nature of why societies must adopt Western Civilization in the first place: to prevent themselves from being annhilated. Today we can see this same process as it works its way through societies that are in various stages of embracing Western Civilization (notably in places such as Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia). All are fraught with violence and upheaval. This process usually lasts a couple of hundred years, and then relative stability ensues. Perhaps the day will come when some future generation will no longer be faced with headlines from around the world that speak of societies' violent encounters with Western Civilization, as it will be a done deal. I just do not see how any social or historical interference can possibly stop the spread of Western Civilization until it has been embraced by every last society on the planet. It is a cancer that cannot be stopped without becoming part of the cancer itself.
You asked if it is possible whether something else could come along that could be as strong or stronger in terms of social influence as Western Civilization, and my answer would be no. At least not for the next thousand years or so. The reason is that Western Civilization turns societies into machines. By doing so, the machine-like society becomes so efficient and so powerful that it cannot be successfully opposed. The other reason is that in doing this, the society also achieves a level of security that allows for the flow of commerce and the development of culture, which are very powerful enticements for the average human being. Having a steady income and being able to enjoy entertainments regularly are highly valued things. In order for another system to be able to be as strong as this, it would basically have to replicate what Western Civilization does - and in so doing, it would actually become part of Western Civilization, too. (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...). Forever, though, is a long time. I am sure that some time in the distant future there will emerge some social force that will supplant Western Civilization, but I cannot envision it happening for centuries, if not for millenia.
This is written from my own opinion, but I am not writing this as "original research" by any means! There have been many books and articles that have stated the same thing I just did. Indeed, this is such a pervasive theme that unless someone requests, I shall forego citing any specific works, alhtough the aforementioned "Guns, Germs and Steel" is probably just as good a work as any.Saukkomies 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- One thing to keep in mind is that while so-called "Western Civilization" had a huge and transformational effect on the rest of the world over the last 500 years, so to has the "West" been transformed by this process. What would Ireland's history be like had the potato not been introduced from the New World, for example? What would popular music be like in "the West" (and thus the world now) had not African slaves been brought to the United States in such large numbers? I'm just pointing out that even if every society on the planet has been transformed to one degree or another by Western Civilization, so too has Western Civilization been transformed "to one degree or another". Pfly (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, yes! And to further elaborate, the "West" (namely, western Europe) originally wasn't even a part of "Western Civilization" to begin with! As this thing that has come to be known as "Western Civilization" spread from the Middle East into Europe and eventually into Western Europe, people fought against it kicking and screaming until one by one they all succumbed to its influence. The fact that they then went on to spread this "thing" even further around the globe does not mean they're the ones who are originally responsible for it. -- Saukkomies 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Beware always, Bowei Huang, of the illusion that history always moves in one direction. For that which rises also falls and the owl of Minerva only ever flys at dusk. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good advice, Clio. And, in addition, it is always good to remind ourselves that any given theory about history or historical events is most probably not going to be absolutely correct. The best we can do is to look at things from as many angles as possible, and then draw tentative conclusions from there. Trying to be a good historian (and by that I mean one that attempts to be honest) is a very humbling experience, or at least it ought to be. -- Saukkomies 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You said that Western countries and societies rose and flourished because they were more machine-like. I don't understand. Weren't many other countries and civilizations such as China also very machine-like or just as machine-like as Western countries and civilization? I mean, the Chinese had a large empire and ancient civilization that was as complex, sophisticated, and advanced as the Romans were and had. So how and why were Western countries and societies more machine-like than other countries and societies, like China?Bowei Huang (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- A book I've been reading, Pathfinders: A Global History of Exploration, points out that nearly all of Europe's Atlantic-side peoples have founded virtually all of the maritime world empires of modern history, even the relatively tiny "peripheral communities" like Portugal and the Netherlands. And further, that the "European miracle" seems odd in that for most of history there was no miracle. In the authors words, "Westerners are the dregs of Eurasian history, and the salient they inhabit is the sump into which Eurasian history has drained." A "renaissance or three", the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, and industrialization play a role in the West's spread. But in the long-term picture, "Europe's west has been at the receiving end of great transmissions of culture." And that for most of history the Atlantic end of Europe was rather inhospitable and unpromising, populated by waves of refugees. For hundreds and even thousands of years these people lived on the Atlantic coast "without exercising much in the way of seaward initiative." Living near the sea such people were naturally drawn to maritime work, like fishing and coastal trading. But when it came to the Atlantic Ocean itself, "most of these people were stuck... as if pinioned by the prevailing westerlies which blow onto all their shores." Further, when Europeans "discovered" the larger Atlantic, it was not the coastal people who pioneered the effort, but people from deep in the Mediterranean -- the Genoese, Majorcans, and so on. These were the people who began to work down the coast of Africa, discovering the Canary Islands in the process. Ships of the time could sail from Europe to the Canaries on the trade winds, but had difficulty returning. One had to sail north vaguely searching for a westerly wind, which is probably how the Azores were discovered. In other words, via relatively short explorations of the Atlantic Europeans were able to find an island group perfectly suited for an outward bound trip (the Canaries) and one suited for the return trip (the Azores). Once these islands were found, secured, and fitted with ports, what was once a foolhardy thing to try -- sailing the ocean open for long distances -- became increasingly routine. This system of using easterly trade winds to the Canaries, working north to the Azores and using westerly winds to return home became relatively routine by about 1430. Once this was established the essential secret about the wind patterns of the Atlantic were unlocked. The Portuguese rather daringly guessed that the pattern was the same in the South Atlantic and pioneered a route around Africa that was essentially a southern reflection of the search for westerly winds near the Azores. In this case, however, they didn't discover an island group like the Azores, but Brazil. Another possible use of the wind system and the Canary and Azore bases, also daring, was to sail west on the trade winds much farther into the Atlantic than anyone had tried before, and then working north to the zone of westerly winds in order to return to Europe. This is precisely what Columbus did. He may not have been the first to realize such a voyage could be done, but he was the first daring enough to try. All four of his voyages went via the Canary Islands and returned via the Azores. Once the theory of the Atlantic winds was proven there was a great rush to search for ways to exploit it. The rush lasted centuries, with new lands and new wind systems worked out piece by piece. Before long western Europe, once the "dregs" of Eurasia, had mastered transoceanic sailing and global circumnavigation, and soon were masters of global maritime empires. Compare the wind patterns, islands, the ocean sizes of the Indian and Pacific Oceans to get a sense of why this kind of thing did not arise in those places. In short, the Pacific Ocean is too big -- the polynesians mastered its winds and colonized its islands but were unable to establish global empires for various reasons, not least of which is the size and winds of the Pacific. The Indian Ocean's monsoon wind system was well known from very early on, and was used to establish a vast trading network and some large empires. But the Indian Ocean winds served to contain such things to the Indian Ocean and peripheral regions (all the way to China). Plus, there was so much profit to be made within the Indian Ocean there was little incentive to go try foolhardy explorations to unknown lands. Anyway, it is an interesting book, perhaps a useful addition to Guns, Germs, and Steel. Pfly (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To respond to your second query, Bowei Huang, I would say that each civilization that has sprung up on earth has its own unique characteristics. It is probably not wise to generalize by talking about civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, or the Indus Valley, or the Incan as the same thing, even though they do have certain similiarities. The reason that China did not become the same kind of civilization as "Western Civilization" is not because it did not have a "machine-like" society, nor that it had access to technology and raw resources, or that they explored the world to some degree - all of which they did have. The most likely reason that the Chinese didn't follow the same course that Western Civilization did was that Chinese society was very self-absorbed. They did not have a lot of motivation to go out and find new lands, but repeatedly chose a path of isolating themselves from the outside world. The only real exception to this was when outsiders, the Mongolians under Genghis and Kublai Khan, conquered China and then went on to conquer a huge amount of real estate elsewhere. However, they could not maintain their hold on their conquered lands due to the fact that they assimilated and fought amongst themselves. We could examine each of the various histoical civilizations that have come and gone, and each has the seeds of its own destruction.
However, Western Civilization is not like that. Why? What makes it different from, say the Chinese civilization, or the Aztec civilization? It is due to the fact that it is actually NOT a "civilization" in the first place. At the beginning of my previous response above in this subject I mentioned the fact that I did not like the term "Western Civilization" because it is neither Western nor is it a Civilization. So what is it? I won't talk about the various definitions of the term that go into other subjects. What a civilization is defined to be in this regard is a distinct society that shares the same culture, and often the same language, as well as having a degree of sophistication (to differentiate it from tribal societies). We can say that there was a Roman Civilization, or a French Civilization, or a Portuguese Civilization, etc. But they ALL belonged to what we call "Western Civilization", right? How can such diverse societies as Catholic Portuguese-speaking Brazilians and Lutheran Finns be included in the same society or culture? And yet they are part of "Western Civilization". See what I'm saying?
The big mistake that people often make when they talk about "Western Civilization" is that they think of it as a civilization, instead of something else. Western Civilization is much bigger than just the various societies and nations that are part of it. It represents a shift in the way that human society works - much the same way as the Industrial Revolution was a shift. This shift that took place back in the Fertile Crescent in ancient times where the whole thing started was a transformation of society into a machine, making the people who live in the society all cogs of the machine - each with his or her own specialization. But the difference between why "Western Civilization" fluorished and spread all over the planet is not just due to that - it is also due to the nature of reaching out to new lands that was imbued in it from the very start.
If you examine history, you'll find that there were times when societies that were part of Western Civilization reached out and conquered new lands (or tried to conquer them). One such example was when the Persians tried to conquer all of the Middle East and then the lands of the Greeks. The Persians were indeed part of Western Civilization - they were the inheritors of centuries of struggle on the plains of the Fertile Crescent and surrounding mountains and deserts. There had been others before them - the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, etc - all trying to establish control over these lands. Eventually the Persians came out on top for a while. Then they reached out to the West. And when they did they ran smack into the Greeks. And then the Greeks realized that they, too, had to transform their society in order to survive - adopting the methods of Western Civilization - almost deliberately so. And then of course Alexander came along, and "good-bye Persians".
Another "reaching out" came when the Europeans Christians began their Crusades into the Holy Land. This set in motion events that would ultimately result in the Conquistadors of Spain reaching out even further to conquer the civilizations of the New World. I won't go into the details about all that here, though.
Then another "reaching out" took place when first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and English, sailed off to distant lands to set up colonies where they could raise precious spices and other commodoties that could be traded for a high profit back home.
This, then is the real difference why Western Civilization has spread all over the globe when such things as the Chinese civilization did not. The Europeans had the technology to sail around the world, and they had the motivation to do so, and they had societies that were organized such that they could carry with them a system of governance that could stand up against threats from other peoples they encountered. All three of these things were necessary for what happened. Having just the technology and motivation alone was not enough to accomplish what Western Civilization has done. The systems in place within Western Civilization make it so that it is an unstoppable force - as I outlined above, in order to stop it, you have to become like it, and once you become like it, you've lost - you are assimiliated - like the Borg! -- Saukkomies 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Why were Western countries and civilization so good at assimilating other countries and people? Why is it that the only way to stop it is to be like it?
Another thing is, I've heard the European Union will probably become the next superpower in the world. This means that America might not be the world's superpower any more, but this doesn't say or mean if another civilization will probably become the world's most powerful civilization.Bowei Huang (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, you are asking good questions, and I'm the kind of guy that takes very little encouragement to keep talking. Hopefully this won't become the longest refdesk article that's ever been... At any rate, to respond to the first part of your question, the reason Western countries were good at assimilating other countries was outlined in my responses above, but I'll briefly reiterate them here again. The reason for this is because Western Civilization is so well organized - so "machine-like", if you will - that countries that become part of Western Civilization become very efficient - they can produce a lot of resources. There are two basic reasons for this: 1) people are turned into specialists, which makes the work that they do more efficient, and 2) a well-established Western Civilization nation is relatively stable. This stability further promotes efficiency because commerce and trade fluorish in a stable environment. If there is upheaval, commerce suffers.
- So when another society encounters Western Civilization, it will at first be introduced to new and cheaper goods that are being produced by the more efficient societies that are part of Western Civilization. This introduces chaos and the beginnings of social upheaval as the society begins to have its economy changed. People in the society can see that the nations that are part of Western Civilization are much stronger than they, and this too is destabilizing. Their society is threatened by this new exposure to such an efficient and powerful force, and the result is that eventually it does become absorbed by the spreading Western Civilization. This has happened over and over and over again with such predictable repetition, and there has not yet to date been a society that has withstood its encounter against Western Civilization, that it seems pretty safe to assume that it is at least at present impossible for a society to do so successfully.
- Part of the reason that Western European countries were so successful was due to the fact that they had those three elements I mentioned above: 1) an efficient society and government based on Western Civilization's model, 2) advanced technology that helped them to travel and defeat other nations, and 3) their societies were motivated to reach out around the world, and this outward expansion was encouraged by their people. Without all three of these elements the Western European countries would not have been successful at doing what they did. Why did they venture forth? To bring in more resources - to expand commerce and trade - to hearken to the call of exploration - to convert the "heathen" to Christianity. There were many reasons, not just one. They sought to go out to the world, and they had the technology to do it, and they had a system of governance that provided the blueprint to accomplish this. That is what makes Western Civilization so successful.
- As far as the EEU being the next superpower, I do not pretend to predict such things. China seems like it's doing a good job of entering this race, too. But the U.S. is far from being a dying giant. The U.S. has so much infrastructure and such a tremendous amount of inertia, that it is like a very huge ship - it takes a LOT of effort to get it to change its course significantly. At the present the EEU also faces some pretty difficult problems as well. And then there's NAFTA, which if it's ever strengthened to the point that it begins to resemble the EEU will outdistance Europe, maybe. Who knows these things? Nations rise and fall, but one thing I can safely promise: Western Civilization is here to stay for many centuries to come. Unless of course it doesn't. -- Saukkomies 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Today's equivalent of one pound sterling in 1978 in Britain
Can any user please tell me that based on the increase in the Cost of Living Index, what is the equivalent today of one pound sterling in 1978 in Britain. Thank you.
Simonschaim (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There's rather a lot of information on the Retail Price Index, from 1800 to 2007, at www.statistics.gov.uk. According to one of the tables I requested, the RPI stood at 197.1 in 1978, and in October this year was 824.1. Which suggests that one pound sterling in 1978 would have felt, in purchasing power, like 4.20 does today.
Obviously that only works as a generalisation - property prices have increased more like tenfold, while video cameras have gone the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[2] is a UK House of Common Research paper giving the value of the pound sterling from 1750-1998. If the 1974 index is taken as 100, then the 1970 is 68.2 and 1978 is 181.7
[3] is a paper from the Office of National Statistics on inflation from 1947 to 2004 in the UK. It gives the 1970 index as 18.5 and 2004 as 186.7.
Thus if I calculate right, referring both back to 1970, (186.7/18.5)/(181.7/68.2) = 3.80 approx. A pound in 1978 would have been worth nearly £3.80 in 2004, which is not much less than today's value in these times of relatively low inflation. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The answers above suggest different answers because (as 194.66.229.8 says) some prices go up more than others, while some go down. In what you call a Cost of Living Index, much depends on the weighting given to things. See Consumer price index. People play strange games in using different indices, depending on whether they want to arrive at a higher or a lower figure for what the man in the street calls inflation. Xn4 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a website somewhere which will calculate prices for different dates, giving a choice of methodologies - someone answered a question of mine here by linking it ages ago, Unfortunately I didn't bookmark the link! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- And here it is [4]. My q was in June 2007, and answered by Clio. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- It only calculates up to 2006, but here are the figures it gives for £1 from 1978 -
- In 2006, £1.00 from 1978 was worth:
- There is a website somewhere which will calculate prices for different dates, giving a choice of methodologies - someone answered a question of mine here by linking it ages ago, Unfortunately I didn't bookmark the link! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- £3.96 using the retail price index
- £4.02 using the GDP deflator
- £6.44 using average earnings
- £7.18 using per capita GDP
- £7.74 using the GDP
- Hope this is useful. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Doggy story
Who was the medieval city ruler who forced the population to look after his many dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.98 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you, perchance, referring to the canines of Venice, of Genoa or the ones in the window? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Were they shaggy dogs? DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was it the Emperor of the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- This may be a memory of the notorious Gian Maria Visconti (1388-1412), a Duke of Milan. He was certainly famous for keeping man-killing dogs, and they were so feared that many of their names have come down to us. Visconti was despot of Milan, so no doubt the cost of maintaining his dogs fell on the city. One supposes that few tears were wept for Gian Maria when he was assassinated at the tender age of twenty-three. Xn4 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have the right family, Xn4, but the wrong Visconti. It was Bernabo, who might be said to be the very definition of a tyrant and despot. Amongst other things, he forbade the citizens of Milan to keep dogs, although he had his own kennel of five thousand hounds. These he billited, as 217.43 has indicated, on the unwilling citizens, who were forced to feed and care for them at their own expense, and threatened with punishment if any harm should come to the brutes. His kennel masters made periodic tours of inspection. If the dog was found to be too thin the carer was fined; if it died all of his property was confiscated.
- Bernabo also announced that, for everyone apart from himself, the killing of boars and rabbits was absolutely prohibited. Offenders were hanged or maimed. But, merciful as he was, Bernabo was occasionally moved by Christian charity to spare those who were caught, always provided that they ate the whole beast, rabbit or boar, raw and in its entirety. Bon appétit! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Kinship terminology
What is the term used in the English speaking world to the relationship that exists after a marriage between the bride's parents and the groom's parents - i.e between the two respective sets of in-laws?Peterjames wilson (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is none. That's the plain and simple truth. The bride's parents would refer to the groom's parents as "our daughter's parents-in-law" or "our son-in-law's parents". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a term for that, as they would not be considered to be related by affinity. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- In Spanish, we add the prefix con- to state such relations. The one you are seeking is thus consuegro/consuegra. Online Spanish-English dictionaries translate that as "father/mother in law of one's child", so I guess there is no specific word, in line with has been said above. Pallida Mors 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Kith" is used in our family for kin of kin, as in "Are you related?" "Kith not kin", but the OED says kith are just local "compatriots". My North Welsh grandparents were first cousins: in some country districts all the neighbors of the same class were kin of kin. --Wetman (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In the movie The In-Laws, one of two characters related in this way simply refers to the other as "my in-law". (And hence the title.) The dialogue goes something like "He's going to be my in-law; his son is marrying my daughter." However, as noted above, this is not standard English usage.
In Yiddish the word you want would be "machatunim". (I don't speak the language; that's one transcription into the English alphabet, but there may be others.)
--Anonymous, 06:12 UTC, December 18, 2007.
The transliteration is open. There are, besides the plural you cited, also male and female singular forms "machutin" and "machatennista". The relationship is/was very important among the Jews of Eastern Europe, where aranged marriages were common, and a wedding united two families. The go-between who served as a match-maker recieved the gratitude of both families. Too Old (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm researching the history of naval operations during the World War One and am trying to discover what and where the very first British naval victory over the Germans was. The obvious biggie was the battle of Heligoland Bight in late August 1914, but is there anything before this, no matter how small? (even the sinking of a single U Boat or gunship.)81.156.3.207 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The most notable early engagement was the pursuit of Goeben and Breslau on 3–4 August (a victory for Germany).
- The excellent web site uboat.net has a list of World War I U-boat losses. The first of these was U-15 on 9 August 1914, rammed by the cruiser HMS Birmingham. Gdr 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- On 4 August the auxiliary minelayer Königin Luise was ordered to: "Make for sea in Thames direction at top speed. Lay mines as near as possible English coast, not near neutral coasts, and not farther north than Lat. 53°." On the morning of the 5th she was spotted by a trawler in the North Sea and her position reported to the light cruiser HMS Amphion. Königin Luise was spotted at 11 A.M., Amphion and several destroyers gave chase and sank her with gunfire.
Königin Luise - At 6:30 A.M. the following day, Aphion, returning to Harwich, struck two of the mines earlier dropped by Königin Luise, sinking her almost immediately, with the loss of one officer and 150 men. Frothingham, Thomas G. (1924) The Naval History of the World War: Offensive Operations, 1914-1915. p. 71.—eric 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the exchange of a cruiser for a minelayer probably counts as a German victory. Gdr 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I can give you, I think, an unambigious British victory, 81.156, from a theatre of operations that you might not even have considered. The facts themselves, fantastic as they are, read like something that might have arisen from the fiction of William Somerset Maugham.
Anyway, the theatre in question is German East Africa, which did not learn of the outbreak of the European war until several weeks after the event. On Lake Nyasa there was a British gun-boat by the name of Guendolen, commanded by the red-headed Captain Rhoades, known throughout the area for his Rabelasian wit and his filthy songs. On 19 August Captain Rhoades took the Guendolen into Sphinxhaven Bay, at the German end of the lake, there disabling the Hermann von Wissmann with a single shot from a range of 2000 yards. Captain Berndt, the commander of the German vessel, an erstwhile drinking partner of Rhoades, rowed out to the Guendolen to remonstrate, shouting as he pulled alongside "Gott for damm, Rhoades, vos you drunk?" Rhoades, full of apologies, explained that he was not. He had, rather, received orders to take control of Lake Nyasa. Berndt and his crew were duly taken prisoner, with even more apologies. This small encounter was hailed by The Times as the British Empire's first naval victory of the war. The details can be found in Edward Paice's superb Tip and Run: the Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa, London, 2007, p. 20. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Added some of this information to the article on Lake Malawi where the skirmish had already been mentioned. But it probably deserves its own article, including the spicier details I boringly omitted. One question, could you double-check the date? Another website said it happened on August 13 (not 19). Once again, thanks to the Muse! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to Paice, Sluzzelin, it was 16 August, not the 19th, which was my typo! I've corrected the error on the page. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, i was just reading of another action in German East Africa. On 8 August two old light cruisers, Atraea and Pegasus began shelling the wireless station at Dar es Salaam and on the 9th, the governor and commander-in-chief of the military forces in the colony Dr. Heinrich Schnee effectively surrendered the port, signing a truce in which the Germans agreed to take no offensive action for the duration of the war. Seems like a successful bit of gunboat diplomacy, but might have, as in the case of the Goeben and Breslau, had more important unforeseen consequences. Either the top-ranking military officer had Schnee's doctors declare him mentally unfit, or Schnee (after the British repudiated the truce) agreed to allow that officer—Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck—to conduct the war in East Africa as he saw fit.—eric 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Schnee indulged in a little bit of double-dealing over the open port issue, eric. Also, from the outset, there was tension between the governor and Lettow-Vorbeck. Nominally Schnee had supreme authority in the colony but Berlin had given considerable latitude in matters of defence and mobilisation to Lettow-Vorbeck as commander of the Schutztruppe. As a result he made his own plans to defend the coast, regardless of Schnee's arrangements, and with brilliant effect. You will find all of the details in the work I have already mentioned above, which I cannot recommend highly enough. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
German Names
I am purchasing a German Shepard Puppy,female. She is about 6 weeks old and I will get her at 8 weeks. I need a german name, a strong name, a loving name Thanks!Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hrosvit! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had a snow white Alsatian, and wanted to call it Sphinx, however other members of my family called her Sarah, and soon she only responded to Sarah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How about Ingrid? Or Sabine (pronounced Sa-been-eh)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Helga? Heidi? or the loveliest of all (cough ,mine) Hannah? 86.53.57.148 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- This question was recently asked on one of the Reference Desks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, though the gender wasn't specified in that question. Here's the link: "Need a German type name for a German shepard puppy". ---Sluzzelin talk 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(re-indent) Hertha, a Germanic fertility goddess. AecisBrievenbus 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Kriemhild, Brunhilda, Fredegunde. Steewi (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- In my role as Adam, giver of names for all creatures, I called - many years ago - my stepdaugher´s doggy "Woofelwurst". In German, "Wurst" means sausage, which most people may know and "Woofel" means absolutly nothing. For nonspeakers it neverless sounds sufficiently German and, if queried upon its meaning, you can always mutter darkly about Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Woofelwurst, the noted philosophers :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Woofel" fits though. "Wuffi" (pronounced voofy), is a slightly derogatory generic metonym for a dog. "Wuff wuff" (voof voof) is German onomatopoeia for "ruff ruff" or "arf arf" ("bow wow" is "wau wau", pronounced "vow vow", in German). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- In my role as Adam, giver of names for all creatures, I called - many years ago - my stepdaugher´s doggy "Woofelwurst". In German, "Wurst" means sausage, which most people may know and "Woofel" means absolutly nothing. For nonspeakers it neverless sounds sufficiently German and, if queried upon its meaning, you can always mutter darkly about Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Woofelwurst, the noted philosophers :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Tale of Two Cities - question about sequel(s)?
I'm pretty sure Charles Dickens never wrote a sequel to "Tale of Two Cities"; but I heard from somewhere that another author did (and I think it was fairly recent). I cant seem to find any info though - how many sequels to "Tale of Two Cities" have been published, and what are the names of the authors/title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there is A Sale of Two Titties by Edmund Wells (who also wrote David Coperfield with *one* p)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.149.81 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- This question was recently asked on one of the Reference Desks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've never heard of one by Dickens, but there's a modern attempt at a sequel by Diana Mayer called Evrémonde (published 2005), which follows the later adventures of Charles and Lucie Darnay, who escape to Austria. As foreseen by the expiring Sydney Carton, he has a son, another Sydney. Xn4 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(Very) Christian names
Could somebody please point me in the direction of information on the (17th century-ish? English?) practice of naming children things like Praise-The-Lord Smith and God's-Judgement-Is-Mighty Jackson? (I've made those examples up, but hopefully someone knows what I'm on about.) I don't think there's anything about it on Wikipedia (I have looked), and it's the sort of thing I imagine would be swiftly struck down as non-notable if anyone did try to write about it, but maybe the brains of the Reference Desk can tell me where else to look for this kind of thing. It's a pain to try to find this sort of thing on search engines because all the phrases I try bring up religious tracts rather than references to people. -88.109.63.214 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Example: Praise-God Barebone. Skomorokh incite 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Here [5] are a few for you, on a baby naming forum. [6] and a few more. I googled "Puritan names". [7] here is an article with more examples linked to it. Not exhaustive, but a start for you to follow! (see also [8]SaundersW (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC) By the way, see also Ankh-Morpork City Watch#Constable Visit-the-Infidel-with-Explanatory-PamphletsSaundersW (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is similar to many Biblical English names, if we translated them from Hebrew or Greek. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Praise-God Barebone, or Barbon, is thought to be the father of the economist and physician, Nicholas Barbon, whose full name was Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned-Barbon. Indeed it was! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- And here I was thinking William Makepeace Thackeray had a ridiculous middle name... AecisBrievenbus 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Headlam and Christian Socialism
Your article on Stewart Headlam says next to nothing about his particular contribution to Christian socialism. Can someone please tell me some more about his teachings? Lady Electric (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Headlam takes as his point of departure, Lady Electric, the ideas of Frederick Denison Maurice, in particular the notion of the immanence of the divine in the material world, giving it a specifically political meaning. His task in the Guild of St. Matthew, as he saw it, was to 'restore' Jesus as he really was: a man of the people, the supreme "social and political Emancipator, the greatest of all secular workers, the founder of the great Socialistic society for the promotion of Righteousness, the preacher of a Revolution." Jesus, he insisted, said much more about this world than the world to come. It was his emphasis on justice and righteous dealings between people that the conventionally minded, and the religious establishment, had ignored. For Headlam "the sayings of Jesus tell of a Kingdom of Heaven to be set up upon earth, of a righteous Communistic society." Amongst other Victorian Christian Socialists he was the one who understood the need for political action to bring about social change. He also supported collective bargaining, trade union rights and advocated the redistribution of wealth by means of state action. In his Fabian tract of 1892 he argued that it was the duty of all good men "to seize the state and use it for the well-being of the masses instead of the classes." The masses instead of the classes. I suppose he deserves to be remembered for that phrase alone. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Constitutional Law
Question .... If a foreign born person is in the postion of the vice-president and something happens to the president, can a foreign born person them assume the presidency as an interim president not elected to the office but there by circumstance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.49.106 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not "foreign-born" that's a problem. One can be born abroad and still be a "natural-born citizen" (as constitutionally required) by virtue of having American parents (some people dispute this, but they're probably wrong - and I guess it's actually tangential to your posed question). If your question is, can someone not a "natural-born citizen" become vice-president and succeed to the presidency, the answer is no; a person who is not eligible to become president cannot be vice president as per the 12th amendment to the constitution. - Nunh-huh 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- See also Article Two of the United States Constitution. Xn4 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's the question of what constitutes "natural born". Does John McCain qualify? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Did Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, qualify? He was born in Mexico to parents who were US citizens. Corvus cornixtalk 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
USA Presidential Candidates
What are the known beliefs about human evolution of each candidate? - Joseph Edwards
Why should you care? I understood that the idea was to select the best candidate based on the needs of the nation as a whole. However as a UK citizen, I also understand that you are allowed to pick and choose the constitutional items you want to follow or not. Like separation of chirch and state - most citizens appear to select candidates who are main line christians - even if they are buffoons.83.148.88.37 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the question has been posed only to Republican candidates; of those, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback indicated they did not believe in evolution. Others were quick to say they believed in theistic evolution. - Nunh-huh 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was also apparently posed to John Edwards as well, who said he believed in evolution and said he didn't think that interfered with his faith. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just heard a rumour that Barack Obama believes in hinduisim, and he beleives in a giant eight armed elephant god called ganesha. (Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
- I think he would be the first Christian to believe in that. AecisBrievenbus 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- So... is it a must for US presidential candidates to believe in at least one non-existing entity? --Taraborn (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if capability of public expenditure to solve all problems counts as one of such entities, I guess most Democratic candidates pass the test. :p Pallida Mors 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, Democrats like Mike Huckabee. On a completely unrelated matter, where do Republicans get the money to pay for their wars? Not counting all those wars that have paid for themselves. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if capability of public expenditure to solve all problems counts as one of such entities, I guess most Democratic candidates pass the test. :p Pallida Mors 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- So... is it a must for US presidential candidates to believe in at least one non-existing entity? --Taraborn (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to our article, Ganesha only has four arms, and our article on the United Church of Christ, which Obama belongs to, doesn't include any mention of their worshipping Hindu gods. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Henrik Ibsen
Why Henrik Ibsen is considered as "father of modern drama"? If you going to refer ma to the article of him, then I would suggest you where it says or which paragraph does it say. Another question: How does Ibsen develop his characters in A Doll's House? What steps does he take? and Can A Doll's House be seen as a tragedy? Yes, I have read it but don't know how he developed his characters and steps does he take. What kinds of human beings does Ibsen satirize, mock or make of fun of his plays? What are some issues and themes that are addressed in Ibsen's works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC) These are not homework questions and please answer them, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think I may very well have given you answers to a previous set of questions on A Doll's House, which went quite unacknowledged. I am not inclined to answer any more. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
December 18
A few questions about world trade.
How is Canada protecting it's economy?
What is so bad about Globalization?
What is so bad about NAFTA?
Why does Canada do so much busieness with U.S.A.?
Thank you for listening and PLEAASE answer.(Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
- 1. By exporting maple syrup.
- 2. It's round.
- 3. It rhymes with Have Ta.
- 4. It's the closest country they can smuggle booze into.
- If you are NOT a student just trying to get answers for your homework (which, sorry, that's what this looks like to me), then write back and convince us otherwise. Saukkomies 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be cool if there was an online encyclopedia with information on the economy of Canada, globalization, NAFTA, and the Canadian economic relations with the U.S.? -- kainaw™ 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that would be superawesome. But hold, once I ruminate a while: What would happen to all them frustrated referencedeskopedians, staring morosely at an empty screen, experiencing the gruesome pangs of bleakest Freudian existential fear, fossilising imperceptibly into antediluvian gargoyles whilst millions of ignorami tap furiously their query strings into the search box and disvover the blissfulness of gnorance. Shreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek. ´Tis the end of civiliization, as we knew it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Tamo tigers?
What or who are the tamo tigers? (Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
- Do you mean the Tamil Tigers? AecisBrievenbus 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Industrial Revolution
Did the lives of upper class in Britain change and when I mean upper class, I mean the ones in Britain. Please give more information than previous question about Industrial Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.200 (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- As Marco polo has already dealt with this specific question in the second paragraph of his answer the first time you asked the question, I think you will need to tell us what other information you would like to have. Bielle (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bielle that Marco polo's response was pretty good, but I also see how you might be wanting more information. I know that you are wanting to know about the British Upper Class specifically, but please allow me to compare what happened in England with the British Upper Class with that of Germany's Upper Class during the Industrial Revolution. It may give you some insight into why things happened the way they did in England by showing a contrast to another country.
Although England was the country that first started industrialization, Germany was not far behind. And when I say Germany, what I mean is the various and sundry German States that existed for most of the 19th Century. There was a difference, though, in how England and Germany approached industrialization, and it is a result of the differences in their societies and social values, and this is also reflected in the differences between the Upper Classes of England and Germany.
First let's talk about England. There were several groups of people in England during the time of Industrialization who made up the Upper Class. First, there were those people who were considered to be Peers, meaning that they had hereditary titles of nobility (such as Baron, Count, etc). It was possible for someone to have a title and still be poor, but he or she would still be considered Upper Class. Then there were people who were of the Upper Class who did not have a title (and thus were not Peers), but who owned large estates and were wealthy - these were called the Landed Gentry. The difference between the Landed Gentry and those who had Titles was that if someone from the Landed Gentry lost his lands and money, he would no longer be considered to be in the Upper Class. Finally, there were members of the Upper Class who had no land or title, but who were high ranking officers in the British military. Let's examine each of these three groups in regards to what happened to them during time of Industrialization.
The Military Upper Class saw several changes during Industrialization due to the increasing reliance of the Navy and Army on complex military technology. Men who were of lower classes managed to work their way up through the ranks because of their knowledge and training of particular types of technology. This eased the flow from one class to the next in the British military, but it must be stated that the British military never achieved the same egalitarianism that has been witnessed in many other countries, such as the U.S. and even Germany. Even today the highest ranking officers in the British military tend to have hereditary titles.
More change during Industrialization was seen among the Landed Gentry than any other Upper Class of Britain. Many of the people who were considered Landed Gentry had recently managed to make it up to that level of society, and still carried with them their personal history of how they managed to become rich. Typically these people were from the Middle Class, and made enormous wealth through business dealings, which they still managed after moving into the Landed Gentry Class. However, it must also be stated that there were many Landed Gentry whose families had held their land for hundreds of years, and who were not of "new money" like the recent members who'd migrated up from the Middle Class. So it is difficult to generalize about these people, since they came from such different background. The one thing they had in common was land and wealth.
Then there were the titled nobility, who were the most conservative to change during this period of time. The ones who did change the most were those who for one reason or another lost their wealth and lands and were forced to try to marry a son or daughter into a family of wealthy Landed Gentry or rising Middle Class merchant in order to keep themselves from the Poor House. Jane Austen and Emily Bronte have used this theme, as have others.
So as you can see, then, it is very difficult to state with complete authority that the Upper Class of England did "such and such" during the Industrial Revolution - they represented too much of a diverse background for such an easy and quick explanation. However, one may make some generalized statements about how England as a country industrialized, and this would yes include the Upper Class. Historically, the British Upper Class was concerned with the land - the land out in the countryside, not in the city. The Medieval cities such as London and York had their own Royal Charter, and were thus independent. No Lord or Peer owned a city - other than ultimately the King (who owned everything in theory). Thus, in England (and elsewhere in Medieval Europe) the general tendency was for the Upper Class nobiility to mind their own business of making money from their own lands out in the country. They became good at knowing how to raise sheep, cattle, horses, pigs, how to hunt, how to rotate crops, etc. This was considered the "proper" business of the Nobility in England. Minding shops, buying and selling, and all that other "Bourgeoisie" stuff was left to the lower classes living in the cities. Of course there were exceptions to this, but generally this is how it was prior to the Industrial Revolution.
So, if the Nobility were busy conducting fox hunts and breeding swine, how did England manage to be the place where the Industrial Revolution sprang from? The answer to that is that it was NOT the Upper Class that was responsible for Industrialization in England - it came from a very particular segment of Middle Class society - namely the English Dissenters from primarily Northern England and Scotland. Upper Class boys were sent off to special Upper Class schools, where they were taught how to play a "good game of cricket", and to speak in the "proper King's English", and to dance and hold a cup of tea just so. This prepared them to succeed in the world they lived in. However, things were different for the English Dissenters, who were called this because they belonged to a handful of churches (including Baptists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Congregationalists, and Quakers) that had declared independence from the official Church of England back in the days just after the English Civil Wars - thus they "dissented". These people were officially banned from attending the Upper Class schools. However, the Dissenters were very keen on education - they placed a very high priority on education (something they had inherited from their Puritan roots). So, since they could not attend the Upper Class schools, they attended schools that would allow them in. Many of these schools were located in Northern England and Scotland. The subjects that were taught in these schools were not how to play cricket or drink tea correctly, but involved mathematics, physics, engineering, science, and other more tangible subjects. The result was that these boys who graduated from these northern schools were the ones who basically went out and created the Industrial Revolution - NOT the Upper Class boys. And this is also why the Industrial Revolution started in Northern England, instead of in the South.
As the Industrial Revolution caught on and began to transform English life, the people who were perhaps the most resistant to its influences were those of the Upper Class who lived out in the countryside. And yet they could not stop the pervasive influences of Industrialization.
Now, for Germany.
Germany also had a similar situation as the British as far as their Upper Classes being mostly out in the country on some large estate. They also had chartered cities where no Lord owned the land, and where commerce took place. However, there was a very marked difference in what went on in the schooling of the German Upper Class boys from that which took place in England. Instead of sending their boys to Upper Class schools to learn how to drink tea, the Upper Class Germans sent their boys to Universities (of which Germany had a good supply) to learn the sort of things that the Dissenter boys were learning in England - namely: science and math. This has a lot to do with the fact that many members of the German Upper Class were Lutheran. Because Luther taught that a person needs to come to an understanding on his or her own about what the Bible teaches (instead of just believing what a Priest told you to believe), there was s huge emphasis placed on education among Lutherans (basically, this was the same thing with the Puritans, too). This education did not restrict itself to just theology, but also sought to provide an education in all the subjects of knowledge, since it was seen that all knowledge led one ultimately to God. If you're interested in finding out more concerning how German education was so radically different, see these Wiki articles on: Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and History of European Research Universities.
As these German boys graduated with degrees in Engineering, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc., they went home to their rich fathers and hit them up for money to start building factories and mills in order to put their education to work. This was quite different from what was going on in England, where the Upper Class was mostly against Industrialization. As a result, the German Upper Class was much more directly involved in how Industrialization developed. The Feudal attitude of the German Upper Class (carried over from Medieval times) towards the members of the lower classes who lived on their estates was patronizing, meaning that the Upper Class felt a responsibility towards the members of the Lower Class who lived on their land. So what happened a lot in Germany was that an Upper Class Lord would build a factory on his land, and then build houses around it for the people who lived on his land and worked in his factory to live in. He would also build a school, church, and maybe even a hospital for his workers. This was the beginning (in Germany at least) of the Company town.
In England, the Upper Class had nothing but disdain for displaced Lower Class workers. They did NOT want to build factories on their farms and sheep pastures, and they certainly did NOT want to build a town for people to come and muss everything up for them. This contributed to the overcrowding of the cities in England, something that for the most part did not take place in Germany. It is not that Germany was exempt of social problems during this time - quite the contrary. But they had slightly different problems than the British had.
In comparing what the British Upper Class was like before Industrialization to what it is like today in the modern Post-Industrial society of Britain, one may find that there are quite a few significant changes that have occurred. I do not want to address these things specifically, though, but have just strove to provide a foundation to build on when examining the subsequent changes that took place as the 19th and 20th Centuries unfolded. Knowing how the Industrial Revolution began in England, and why the Upper Class was not directly involved, is important in learning about the rest of what happened later, and that is whay I've tried to present here.
At any rate, I hope this background helps. Please keep in mind that I am speaking in generalities a lot, and so some of what I have written is perhaps a bit overgeneralized. However, I did this in order to enhance the underlying thesis of how the British Upper Class had distanced itself from the Industrial Revolution. And of course, I am doing the best I can here, and do welcome any and all comments, changes or criticism of what I have written. So fire away Clio! heh! -- Saukkomies 12:21, 18 December, 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very interesting dissertation, Saukkomies, but-and please forgive me for saying so- much of it seems wide of the question! Also, and again I have to beg your pardon, but your understanding of the British aristocracy, and the British class system in general, is awfully one-dimensional. Yes, you are right: it is overgeneralised, and by more than a bit! I rather suspect, though, that your view of the aristocracy as fox-hunting and tea drinking boobies is one peculiar to Americans in general.
- The causes for the onset of the Industrial Revolution in Britain are complex and manifold; but it was in part inspired by one thing much of the aristocracy and the bourgeois held in common-a healthy interest in profit, and innovation in the pursuit of profit. Industrial production and the growth of cities would hardly have been possible without the British Agricultural Revolution, which involved long standing changes in land management, ethusiastically adopted by sections of the aristocracy. Similarly changes in the transport system were often a consequence of upper class initiative. The greatest example here is that of Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, who employed James Brindley to improve canal transport because he was looking for a quicker way to transport the coal from his mines (yes, his coal and his mines) to Manchester with greater efficiency.
- Bridgewater's coal leads to yet another reason why the Industrial Revolution took of in the north rather than the south, which has nothing at all to do with the presence of dissenters and the absence of nobility. Quite simply, the major sources of energy-coal being the most important of all-were all in Northern England, Wales or Scotland. You will find investment and innovation by the nobility in all sorts of areas, from coal, to mills, to railways. The growth of cities was of huge benefit for landowners, with rents incresing dramatically, as indeed was their effects on the demand for agricultural produce. The dispute between the landowners and the city-based bourgeoise was not over the rate of expansion, or over industrialisation itself, but over the question of relative profits. The Corn Laws had the effect of redistributing profits away from the urban bourgeoisie towards landowners; hence the great political struggles of the 1840s.
- Finally, Eton, Rugby, Winchester and the other great English public schools taught much more than how to drink tea or play a good game of cricket. Or, if they did, these activities must have appealed greatly to the new middle classes, who, as the nineteenth century progressed, were more than anxious to push their offspring through their doors! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Instead of sending their boys to Upper Class schools to learn how to drink tea, the Upper Class Germans sent their boys to Universities..." I find that hilarious, Saukkomies! Young English gentlemen might go straight from school into the Army or the Navy, but if they didn't then they were most likely to go to Oxford or Cambridge or else into business. In the days of primogeniture, eldest sons would one day get the lion's share of any family land and money, but in the mean time they were expected to do something useful, while younger sons knew they had to make their own way in the world, and that usually meant finding a profession or a trade. If the British ruling classes had been as impractical (by comparison with the Germans) as Saukkomies would have us believe, then no doubt the British Empire would have been a poor thing and the world would now be talking German! Xn4 04:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ouch and double ouch! Actually, I sort of expected those responses. After I showed what I'd written to my wife, who went to Oxford, she basically told me the same thing that Clio did. So that is why I inserted the caveat about the whole thing being a generalization. Yes, it is indeed true that I did paint the British Aristocracy as a bunch of "fox-hunting and tea drinking boobies", and that most likely reflects my anti-Aristocratic American sensibilities about things. However, in response to what I was outlining in my general thesis, I am basing the points I covered regarding the Dissenters and their connection to the North of England on several sources, one of which is: "The industrial revolution, 1760-1830" by Thomas Southcliffe Ashton, which was first published in 1948 by Oxford University Press. I am not conveying my own ideas here - but perhaps I'm presenting them with my own particular flair, which I cannot help but do, I'm afraid. But I'll stand by my analysis: England's Industrial Revolution was made possible due (among other things such as yes the Agricultural Revolution - and the silver taken from the New World on Spanish ships) to the more Applied Science pedagogy that the Dissenters were exposed to in Northern English schools. Oxford and Cambridge did teach science, but they neglected the applied sciences, which were regarded as being too "bourgeoisie" by many Aristocrats to muddy their hands in. As per the comment that we would all be speaking German, this is apparently discounting the ingenuity that the early engineers in Northern England were capable of. They were remarkable men, and should not be overlooked or brushed aside. To neglect the fact that they were Dissenters and had gained their knowledge by going to schools in the North that would let them in is to be blind to the real reason that the Industrial Revolution began in the North. In mentioning Egerton and Brindley, I again reiterate that what I was presenting was a generalization, and there will be of course exceptions that can be found to counter it. However, the sheer amount of industrial development that took place in the North was not due only to the fact that there were resources available. Textile mills could have been built in many places in England - and eventually would be. But the start of Industrialization began in the North due to the presence of the Dissenters more than anything else - from what I have read this is convincing to me to keep my stand on this. -- Saukkomies 00:58, 19 December, 2007 (UTC)
Karl Marx Young and Old
Is there truly an intellectual break between the work of the young and the old Marx? S. Shape (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do I detect traces of the 'epistemological break', the shade of Louis Althusser? I hope not! You must remember, S Shape, that with Marx theory always went hand-in-hand with practice, though, in the course of time, one element of the partnership became more important than the other. What this means is that the young revolutionary, the Marx of The German Ideology and before, gives way in Das Kapital and other mature works to the ponderous critic of the capitalist mode of production. He had believed in his early life in the imminence of revolution, a belief sustained by political developments in Europe. More settled historical conditions produced a more sober and cautious prophet; but there is no 'break', Althusserian or otherwise; merely a process of consolodation, development, and-dare I say it-disillusionment. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Examples of Conflict/Irony in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"
I have tried to google conflict/irony in the book, but all that has been showing up are websites offering to sell me papers. I am not going to buy a paper to find what someone else has written, I am just looking for some examples of Conflict/Irony. Any help would be well appreciated.
Thanks.
--Devol4 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- As your teacher probably told you, a simple definition of irony is a difference between what's expected and what's there- it could be a situation when the author says one thing but means something different, or a situation that turns out to be completely different from what it appears to be, for example. So just grab a piece of paper and run through the events of the novel in your mind- or flip back through the novel- and make a list of situations in which Twain says something when he clearly means the opposite (there's lots of them in this book), or a situation in which someone turns out to be other than what they seemed. A lot of the stuff that made you laugh in the book will be your cue to look for an example of irony there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Conflict is particularly easy in Huck Finn. Think about Huck and Jim, Huck and his father, Huck and that family of feudin' folk. The whole section with the feudin' folk is chock full of irony—Huck is an "uncivilized" guy falling in with "civilized" folk who end up spending a lot of their time acting like murderous savages, etc. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Just finding examples and writing them down is not going to help.Did you read the book and find and understand what is being asked here?hotclaws 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Is cream cheese and lox kosher?
How is kosher spiritual? The food seems so unhealthy and unrefined!
by Mrs. Dinka Kumer
- If "Kosher" means having cream cheese and lox for breakfast, Cholent with kishke for lunch, and schwarma and falafel for dinner, then this would not be the most healthful diet to choose on a daily basis. ...
August 1, 2007
Something to Nosh On: Here's the Skinny on Jewish Delis
by By Sewell Chan of the NY Times
Can you see the food at the upper right corner? It's "cream cheese and lox". I guess meat shall not be eaten with any dairy product within a time limit and fish is a kind of meat. How can a Jewish restaurant serve cream cheese and lox which is certainly not kosher? Isn't it a bad idea? -- Toytoy (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on the clientèle. Your second reference strongly suggests that the typical deli customer base is not primarily made up of kosher-observant Jews. Given that, there's no (secular) reason for the entire menu to have to be kosher if other items are going to improve profits. I imagine this is the same market force that puts chicken nuggets on most Chinese buffets. — Lomn 14:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, your first reference seems to state that cream cheese and lox is kosher (and Google appears to back this up) -- the non-kosher note there is to point out that while CC&L can be kosher, use of non-kosher ingredients makes the end result non-kosher. — Lomn 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Our article on Kosher foods says " fish are considered to be parve (also spelled parev, pareve; Yiddish: פארעוו parev), neither meat nor dairy" and "Fish is considered parve (neutral) and may be eaten at both meat and dairy meals". Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Plate armor worn during the American revolutionary war and napoleonic wars
Was plate armor used during these wars at all? By whom? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I don't know about anyone else, but Napoleon's cuirassiers were still wearing plate on the torso. Algebraist 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Breastplates stayed in use longest with the French cuirassiers, who were still wearing them on active service in August 1914, in the early stages of the Great War. You can still see them being worn by all ranks of the British Army's Blues and Royals, on ceremonial duties only. Xn4 03:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
British constitution
Why is Britain the only country in the world never to have had a written constitution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.5.235 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- This implies a vagueness in the term "written". Britain does not have a single written document called the Constitution. Instead, there is a notion of a Constitution comprised of many documents. Those documents are written. It is also implied that unwritten traditions are considered part of the Constitution. Because they are traditions, they are not defined in written text on a document. This leads to the common "unwritten Constitution" phrase. I believe the actual proper term is "uncodified constitution" - but I could be completely wrong. So why? This allows for a very dynamic process. You can change one document without changing a whole constitution. Of course, you can do that with any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So it is basically a semantic argument. -- kainaw™ 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is Britain "the only country in the world never to have had a written constitution"? It's a big world. The claim seems most unlikely to me, but I am no scholar of worldwide constitutional practices. --Anonymous, 17:51 UTC, December 18, 2007.
- I find it highly unlikely that any country has a truly "unwritten" Constitution. I believe the OP is mixing "uncodified" with "unwritten" - a common mistake. As such, other countries currently have uncodified constitutions, such as Australia. The clarifier "never to have" in the question may give it strength. Australia began with a single document and evolved into multiple documents. So, assuming that this example uses "unwritten" to mean "uncodified", the question is about the existence of a country that currently has an uncodified constitution that is not derived from a codified one. -- kainaw™ 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you mean by Australia having an uncodified constitution, and that she began with a single document and evolved into multiple documents, Kainaw? I'm only aware of one document that is "the Australian Constitution", although all our laws and many other things proceed from it. -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is the "Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia" - the original constitution. Later, the "Statute of Westminster" and the "Australia Act 1986" were both adopted as "constitutional." They are not part of the Australian Constitution, but have equal constitutional authority - which creates an uncodified constitution. Please correct me if I've got this wrong. -- kainaw™ 05:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm no constitutional lawyer, or any kind of lawyer, so this is just educated opinion. All of our laws must have constitutional authority, and that includes the 2 you mention. By "constitutional authority", I mean that they must receive Royal Assent after being passed by both houses of parliament; they must be on a matter the Constitution permits the parliament to make laws about; etc. All laws on the statute books therefore have equal constitutional authority. Some laws are of much more interest to constitutional experts than other laws, and again they would include the 2 you mention. One could describe them, in a sense, as "constitutional documents", I suppose (but don't quote me). However, they are not part of the Constitution per se. The only laws that could be said to be "part of the Constitution" are those that actually amend the Constitution, such as the ones passed in association with a successful referendum. But even there, those laws sit outside the Constitution proper. They certainly impact the Constitution, but the Constitution in its amended form then continues as the sole ultimate authority for the way our country operates. If these 2 laws are part of the Constitution, then every law that has ever been passed and is still on the statute books could also be said to be part of the Constitution. That's my take. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is a bit of a stretch to claim that "every law" is part of the constitution. The constitution (according to Constitution) is "a system for governance that establishes the rules and principles of an autonomous political entity." A law against speeding does not set a system for governance. Only laws that set the system of governance are considered part of the constitution. The Statute of Westminster set up a system of self-governance for Australia. I don't know the particulars. I just know it was the first step of the British Parliament in getting out of messing with Australian affairs. Then, the Australia Act 1986 finished the job (as far as I know). Both of those are very clearly "constitutional documents" that are not part of the Australian Constitution. Looking at Constitution, it uses the same documents as an example of why the Australian Constitution is uncodified without explaining it in detail. -- kainaw™ 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Constitution contains various provisions that allow Parliament a certain degree of discretion. For example, s.7 says there are to be six senators for each state “unless the Parliament otherwise provides”. The Parliament has so provided, twice. The number was raised to 10 in 1949, and again to 12 in 1984. Would you say that the laws increasing the number of senators were part of the Constitution? I wouldn’t. They certainly have more than a little to do with the way our country is governed, but that in itself does not make them part of the Constitution. It’s arguable that these particular laws had a much greater impact on ordinary people than either the Australia Act or the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act.
- There are other examples. Take s.29: "Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of any State may make laws for determining the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen, and the number of members to be chosen at each division." NSW, Victoria, Queensland and WA did in fact pass one such law each. They ceased to have effect when the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 came into force. Would you say that these four state laws, which at the time had more than a little to do with the way our country is governed, were part of the Australian constitution? Again, I would disagree. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, 81.156, I certainly understand exactly what you are driving at, and the concept of the 'Unwritten Consitution' has a meaning and resonance in British history, regardless of the fact that some parts are contained in statute, and thus 'written', and others transmitted by custom, precedent and convention.
However, it is not quite true to say that Britain has never had a written constitution, in the sense that all of the elements have been contained in a single defining document. After the execution of Charles I in 1649 the Commonwealth of England went through a variety of constitutional experiments, all of which failed. In the end some kind of political balance was restored when Oliver Cromwell was created Lord Protector in 1653. His rule was based on a new document, The Instrument of Government, which, as the Wikipedia article says, was the first codified and written constitution in the world. This was replaced in 1657 by the Humble Petition and Advice, which must therefore rank as the world's second codified constitution! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Modern swords?
Are there any modern swords? I don't mean swords re-made, and modeled after swords from the past, like katanas, but new designs. Maybe that use newer technology like molded rubber grips. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I heard about this on a Modern Marvels episode... there aren't any modern swords with the exception of exhibition swords. The technology topped out and then was rendered obsolete. The closest thing to a modern sword there is is the Marine Corp sword, but even that is designed for no purpose other than to be aesthetically pleasing. Beekone (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Knives, on the other hand, remain in wide use by military personnel, and there are hundreds of new designs for the things. See Ernest Emerson for a Featured-quality article on someone who's made a career of designing new bladed weapons. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are also entrenching tools that have been designed for secondary use as weapons. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, in the 80s the KGB apparently perfected their 'Throwing Shovels' - practical and deadly! Lord Foppington (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the Marine Corp's sword just a mameluke sword? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) It appears that the Marine NCO sword is distinct from the mameluke officer's sword (and it's "Corps", not "Corp"). — Lomn 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes. I wouldn't consider that sword modern though, or even better than existing swords. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, hello, lightsaber? Totally awesome, totally modern, (totally fictional). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, lightsabers are from a long time ago. — Lomn 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if I understand this question correctly, but my initial reaction is to ask if there are no fencers among you? I have used both a Foil and an Épée in competitive fencing, and both weapons seemed entirely modern in design! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- in particular, most modern foils have a pistol grip. This was developed well after the era of foils as actual weapons, but if you really wanted to kill someone, a "live" foil with a pistol grip would be an excellent choice. -Arch dude (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Do those pistol grips offer an advantage over a more traditional hilt? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe so. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There are actually manufacturers out there who make swords that incorporate modern technologies. I'm talking about swords that are not meant to be "wall-hangers", too - but rather swords that are built with the idea that they will be capable of being used as weapons in real combat situations. One such manufacturer/distributor is Museum Replicas, based out of Atlanta. They specialize in selling newly made swords from history that are as authentic as possible, but they also carry a line of "Fantasy" swords that are more along the line of what you were asking about. However, it's been my experience, as someone who has a small sword collection, that your best deals are to go to fairs, conventions, or festivals where there may be merchants selling swords in booths. I have purchased swords at very cheap prices by going on the very last day of the event - as the merchants are actually packing up their goods - and then casually asking about a sword I'd scoped out earlier to see if the merchant might consider selling it at a discount. This is a good strategy, because at this point the merchant has usually figured he's sold everything he's going to sell for the event, and the prospect of serendipitously selling one more item at the last minute is usually a very good incentive to drive the price down drastically - sometimes just dollar or two over his cost. The thing about buying swords at these events though is you have to be very sure that what you're getting is worth it - test it out a bit - the balance should be good (just above the handle), it should not have any play in the connection between handle and blade, and the dealer ought to be able to tell you what the sword is made of. For more info about all this, go to Bladesmith. -- Saukkomies 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I checked out the site, but I didn't see anything there that was a "modern" sword. Even the fantasy section didn't have anything. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still confused what you're looking for, because this sword seems to me to fit the bill - it incorporates old technology with new. -- Saukkomies 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The way I understood the question was that modern technology was applied to the sword to make it more practical than anything that had been used before the weapon fell obsolete to gunpowder. The last practical adaptation of the sword that wouldn't have been inented by someone in past times (i.e. pistol grip) is the bayonet (sp?), and even that could be classified more as a spear. Light saber though, that was a good call! If it could be done a light saber would be extremely practical,probably enough to replace guns.... until someone invents a laser gun of course. Beekone (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, modern technology applied to a sword. Rubber grip perhaps, pistol grip, light weight materials, saw tooth back maybe, etc. If anyone could build a lightsaber, yes that would be a good weapon. I can't imagine how it could be done though, besides using a plasma window, but it would take an incredible amount of energy, and the heat of the plasma would prolly burn you if you held it close. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, a working light saber is impossible without considerable training and ability in using the Force. Nothing outside of mitachlorian induced psychokenesis can control it. Beekone (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lightsaber#In_the_hands_of_non-Force-sensitive_users and also General Grievous64.236.121.129 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, a working light saber is impossible without considerable training and ability in using the Force. Nothing outside of mitachlorian induced psychokenesis can control it. Beekone (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, modern technology applied to a sword. Rubber grip perhaps, pistol grip, light weight materials, saw tooth back maybe, etc. If anyone could build a lightsaber, yes that would be a good weapon. I can't imagine how it could be done though, besides using a plasma window, but it would take an incredible amount of energy, and the heat of the plasma would prolly burn you if you held it close. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The way I understood the question was that modern technology was applied to the sword to make it more practical than anything that had been used before the weapon fell obsolete to gunpowder. The last practical adaptation of the sword that wouldn't have been inented by someone in past times (i.e. pistol grip) is the bayonet (sp?), and even that could be classified more as a spear. Light saber though, that was a good call! If it could be done a light saber would be extremely practical,probably enough to replace guns.... until someone invents a laser gun of course. Beekone (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Materials is a good point. Most swords are I presume still made with steel (probably stainless). Would titanium be better perhaps? I presume some of the stuff used by knife makers such as Ernest Emerson would be applicable but not all and there would be a lot of stuff exclusive to swords. But given the limited use of swords in this day and age for real life purposes, I don't know if anyone has really done that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Cultural Relations
I was thinking about Palladianism. I guess it was brought to Britain by travellers. I wonder what qualifies as a cultural relation. Surely travelling qualifies. Were there any significant relations before mass travel and if so can it´s impact (if any at all) be noticed today?--Tresckow (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Though travel was not on the scale it is today, tourism was still popular, especially for the upper classes, particularly young males, see our article on the Grand Tour. Artists moving from country to country brought ideas with them, not only about architecture but fashion, new inventions etc. Lord Foppington (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- No doubt rich travellers did take up Palladio's ideas, but his own four volumes on architecture, I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura (1570), copiously illustrated, were influential with other architects and builders, who were less likely to travel overseas than their patrons. Xn4 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Palladian revival in the 18th century was undoubtably spurred on by Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington, who went on three Grand Tours between 1714-1719, carrying with him Palladio's work. When he returned his patronage saw architectural works on Palladianism published more frequently, William Kent's 'The designs of Inigo Jones' (1727) and Isaac Ware's translation: 'The four books of Andrea Palladio's architecture' (1738) - as well as Colen Campbell's 'Vitruvius Britannicus' (1715-1717) Lord Foppington (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Differences between abaya, burqa, and jilbab?
What is the difference between an abaya, a burqa, and a jilbab (in style and cut, parts of the body covered, garment material, context of usage, geographic distribution of usage, etc.)? I've been reading the articles, and the distinction is not at all set out clearly there, especially between an abaya and a burqa. I asked this question on the talk page of the abaya and burqa articles two months ago, and nobody ever answered the question. Also, it would be nice if whoever answers this question could add that information about the differences to those three articles. —Lowellian (reply) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, if I'm understanding the articles correctly, abaya and burqa are singular, but jilbab is plural, with the singular form being jilaabah? Shouldn't the "jilbab" article then be moved to the title "jilaabah" for consistency and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)? —Lowellian (reply) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- To make things worse, we also have articles Djellaba, Jellabiya and Galabeya, which are all local variations on the same basic thing, but the style and cut, parts of the body covered, garment material, context of usage, geographic distribution of usage, etc., are all subject to local variations, and the influence of fashion. Also, these words sometimes swap meanings, like English chicory and endive. Therefore it is as hard to give any definite answers as it is to answer the question how long Western women's skirts are. Only if you focus on some specific narrow and non-urbanized region, is it possible to say something concrete.
- I don't know if the information about singulars and plurals is correct, but if it is, then jalabib is the plural of a plural. The general rule for the names of Wikipedia articles is that we should preferentially use the form that is the most common one in English texts. Google reports about 434,000 English pages for jilbab against 13 for jilaabah. --Lambiam 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think jilbab is the commonly used word (sing and pl) in Bahasa Indonesia - usage gets a bit mangled in borrowing, especially between singular and plural (see yesterday's discussion on the Language Desk). My friend's use of jilbab is simply a hair covering, while an abaya covers the whole body except the face, and a burqa (burqah) covers everything except the eyes (and may have a meshed eye covering). Original research, no back up. Steewi (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really want to get sidetracked by a singular/plural discussion. My main question here is about the differences between the garments. Thanks for the info, Steewi — though it seems to contradict some of the information elsewhere (for instance, the jilbab article says that a jilbab is a long coat, not a hair covering), which is not to fault Steewi, as the articles themselves are confusingly-written. Could more people with knowledge of the subject chime in, please, about the differences between the garments? —Lowellian (reply) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, it varies from place to place. The same name will be used in one place for a piece of garment that covers most everything, and in the next place for just a simple shawl. If you say: how are these terms used, specifically, in Kandahar, there may be more definite answers. However, they may (and very likely will) be totally different from answers you get from Egypt, Indonesia, Somalia or Thailand. --Lambiam 21:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- In Malaysia tudung meaning headscarf is usually used to refer to the headscarf and of course hijab used to refer to the dress requirements in general. None of the other words are commonly used AFAIK. You may want to read Islam in Malaysia for further info on the specifics in Malaysia. Also hijab and List of types of sartorial hijab both have brief descriptions of the types and names give in various countries although both are largely unreferenced Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nil Einne. That list of types of sartorial hijab article is useful. It'd be nice if we could get more references into these articles. —Lowellian (reply) 04:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sex scandals
Sex scandals are the small change of the English tabloid press, particularly the 'kiss and tell' story, where women cash in on the reputation of rich or influential former boyfriends. I imagine this is a fairly recent thing though I would be interested to know of any past examples in English history of the gold digging mistress. Ta. Theodora B (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Emma, Lady Hamilton comes to mind. Corvus cornixtalk 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Anne Boleyn was involved in many sex scandals during her time. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you both for such a quick response. I am thinking, though, of women who cashed in, or attempted to cash in, on former liaisons with men in the public eye. Emma Hamilton and Anne Boleyn do not really qualify as 'kiss and tell' mistresses. Theodora B (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The courtesan Harriette Wilson wrote her memoirs and sent the draft around to the rich and notable men mentioned in them. Some paid her off, but the Duke of Wellington famously replied "Publish, and be damned!". SaundersW (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- A. Conan Doyle's A Scandal in Bohemia is a Sherlock Holmes story revolving completely around this idea. I don't know that you'll find anything much earlier than the Victorian Period on this, though maybe a few in the Romantic period. Lower classes were kept on a pretty tight leash much earlier. The closest parallels you might find in early literature would probably be married women who flirt with famous knights because they are so famous, as happens in Lanval and SGGK. Chivalric codes, however, demanded that such affairs remain secret. Wrad (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This brings to mind a paper I wrote as an undergraduate on social and sexual mores in the Georgian era. Harriette Wilson was certainly one of the people I touched on, and her attempts to extort money from her former lovers with her Interesting and Amorous Adventures. It was all rather sad really: her looks had faded and her annuities had stopped. Her book was little more than a desperate attempt at a pension scheme.
Sally Salisbury also deserves a mention here, for the simple reason that the 1723 An Account of the Tryal of Sally Salisbury is the first example of hack reporting of a sex scandal, demonstrating that the public had a taste for this sort of thing.
Margaret Leeson, whose real name was Peg Plunkett, published her own autobiography, Memoirs of Mrs Leeson, Madam, in 1795. Her clients included the high and the even higher; bankers, judges, merchants and noblemen, the Duke of Rutland being the highest of all.
She had the example before her of Fanny Murray, whose lovers had included Beau Nash, John Wilkes, Sir Francis Dashwood and the Earl of Sandwich. Her autobiography, Memoirs of the Celebrated Miss Fanny Murray, published in 1759, is particularly revealing, because she attributes the beginning of her 'downfall' to being raped by the disreputable Jack Spencer, grandson of Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough.
Julia Johnstone's story was just as unfortunate, though her social origins were quite different to those of Fanny Murray. The grand-daughter of Lord Carysfort, she was seduced by one Colonel Cotton, by whom she had several children before being abandoned. Thereafter she moved in with Harriette Wilson and, impressed by the success of her memoir, wrote her own Confessions of Julia Johnstone. But poor Julia was far too priggish, and her sexual secrets too tame, to cash in on the public mood.
These memoirs and confessions came at just the right point in history. In the past revelations of this kind would have been impossible because of the social and criminal penalties attached. The Georgian period was not only one of far greater sexual licence but publishing was becoming ever more important, with a new public, literate and prurient, eager for scandal of all sorts. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No line defines the gray area between "hot" memoirs and "hot" pseudo-memoirs: in 1702 the Chevalier de Mailly was given some papers— recognizably those of the adventuress and singer Julie d'Aubigny— to work into a "hot" memoir, which turned out to be too hot to publish, and the wife of a bookseller who gave him the raw materials took him to court over it. --Wetman (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Christians?
If christians believe in turning the other cheek, why did they start the Crusades? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.161.113 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, don't generalize all Christians into the historically contingent circumstances that led to the Crusades. But anyway, the short answer is, "because Christianity is a bit more complicated than just turning the other cheek" and "because the Crusades—like anything else—did not boil down only to direct interpretation of scripture." You could also throw in "because human beings are horribly flawed in many ways" if you wanted to. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Pope at the time (Urban II?) confronted this issue. He used several of St. Augustine's arguments justifying certain types of Christian warfare. This doesn't really make the slaughter of the Crusaders look any better in modern eyes, however. Some Christians are just not as peaceful as others. Eventually, it became part of the Chivalric code to slay an unbeliever/heathen/infidel on sight when meeting one. No wonder so many Jews were slaughtered in Europe during the Crusades, eh? Wrad (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- "At the time?" The Crusades spanned two centuries, from 1095-1291. This is the same span as 1815-2007. Do you think that a single set of values can span that amount of time? Even if we grant that the world changes faster today, think about the difference between 1957 and 2007. -Arch dude (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that was ever part of any chivalric code! At least, if the infidel was as chivalrous as you, it was perfectly alright to let tem be. Jews will killed during the first few crusades because, well, sometimes people are just jerks and were looking for any excuse to attack Jews, and some of the less intelligent members of society didn't quite understand why a Jew was different from a Muslim. But there was no code of chivalry saying all infidels had to be killed. There were military orders of knighthood but that is quite different from "chivalry". "Chivalry", the way you're probably thinking of it, did not even exist at the start of the crusades. Part of the problem was that French knights were going around killing each other, which is not very chivalrous at all. Urban wanted to find something else for them to do. Notions of chivalry, like going off to die in exotic land for the love of an untouchable maiden, came about due to the influence of the crusades themselves (and sometimes due to the imaginations of artists who never went on crusade...). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here's exactly what the code I'm referring to said.
- The Pope at the time (Urban II?) confronted this issue. He used several of St. Augustine's arguments justifying certain types of Christian warfare. This doesn't really make the slaughter of the Crusaders look any better in modern eyes, however. Some Christians are just not as peaceful as others. Eventually, it became part of the Chivalric code to slay an unbeliever/heathen/infidel on sight when meeting one. No wonder so many Jews were slaughtered in Europe during the Crusades, eh? Wrad (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Ten Commandments of the Code of Chivalry from Chivalry by Leon Gautier:
- I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
- II. Thou shalt defend the Church.
- III. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
- IV. Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
- V. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
- VI. Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
- VII. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
- VIII. Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
- IX. Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
- X. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
-
- Commandment VI has the most relevance. Wrad (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no crusaders ever followed all those, I can tell you that! And some of them certainly did not follow any of them! Adam Bishop (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Commandment VI has the most relevance. Wrad (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, 69.205, the Crusades emerged as part of a defensive reaction to developments in the Middle East, specificlly as a response to an appeal from the Byzantine Empire for aid against the Turks, who had been on the offensive ever since their victory at the Battle of Manzikert. Second, on your wider point, Christianity has long harboured notions of the Just War, a concept first developed by St. Augustine in The City of God. There are some battles, in other words, that need to be fought, and some causes that have to be defended. Third, and perhaps most important of all, there are few religious doctrines observed in every degree; and Christians are no more perfect than any other set of human beings. Or, it it might be better to say, they are perfect in the recognition of their imperfections. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. You can't exactly blame the church for the reactions of many of its members, especially at this period of time when religion was slowly becoming more personal and different ways of expressing devotion were being explored. Incidentally, the Sixth Crusade ended rather peacefully when Frederick II negotiated a truce which allowed Christian pilgrims to peacefully visit their Holy Land. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who mentioned blame, or the church? But now that you mention it, what exactly did the church do again to keep its members from slaughtering non-Christians? We know it did not say: "Sorry, that is a matter of personal freedom of expression of devotion in which we must not interfere." --Lambiam 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Clio's answer sums it up perfectly, but we also have lengthy sections on origins in the crusade and First Crusade articles (though they are perhaps not very good and perhaps not reflective of the most current scholarship). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- As for the crusaders slaughtering non-Christians, didn't they also attack a few Christian cities along the way? Edison (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, in the Byzantine Empire mostly (although also in Hungary, which was Catholic). Mostly this was done because they were famished and the local merchants were extorting ridiculous amounts of money for bread, etc. That wasn't so much slaughter as two hostile groups fighting with each other, not so different from anywhere else in Christian Europe. As for the Empire, well they conquered it during the Fourth Crusade (along with Catholic Zadar), by design or by accident depending on who you believe. (But some of them refused to attack Zadar, and in COnstantinople some were more concerned with attacking synagogues and mosques, so they get an A for effort I suppose.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
December 19
Ancient Greek architecture
01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)64.119.14.185 (talk)What are the names of those statues of ladies holding up a temple in ancient Greece? G.H. Smith
Where did it come from?
D: so many ppl edtited this idk the truth D: i hate wikipedia now.
Bible
Hi there, I am a Muslim and I want to read the Bible but the problem is: every time I read a Christian article, they referred it to the Bible, like Matthew 15:20 and Matthew 19:20. Would you explain me this? Is this some kind of book with chapters like book of Matthew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.101 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. The Bible is divided into books, the Book of Matthew is also called The Gospel of Matthew. The numbers refer to the chapter and the verse within the chapter, so "Matthew 15:20" means Verse 20 in Chapter 15 of the Book of Matthew, and "Matthew 19:20" means Verse 20 in Chapter 19 of the Book of Matthew. Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The articles Bible citation and Chapters and verses of the Bible may also be helpful to you. DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's exactly (well, almost exactly) the same idea as suwar in the Qur'an. We refer to "Sura 6:73", meaning the 6th Sura (which can also be referred to by name, Al-An'am), ayah 73. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- But unlike the Qur'an, which is a single book, the Bible is a collection of books and other scriptures (like letters) written or compiled at very different times and in several languages. --Lambiam 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I heard a story once, which may be anecdotal, that the divisions between verses in the Bible was done by a Medieval Italian Monk. However, he did not really use a very standardized set of rules as to when to insert a break to divide verses up. He was doing this as he transcribed the Bible - in other words, he was copying the text, and when he decided to insert a break he did so. Often the breaks were inserted because he would go eat lunch or pray in the chapel or visit the loo. So there's no real logic behind why the verses in the Bible are divided up the way they are. THe chapter, however, do have more logic to why they're divided up, but even then sometimes it is hard to see why a particular chapter in the Bible ends and the next one begins - other than to imagine the Medieval Monk suddenly having to go pray for Vespers. Again, this all may be an urban legend... -- Saukkomies 11:00, 19 December, 2007 (UTC)
- Stephen Langton created the chapter divisions, and the verses are based on the Hebrew verse divisions. The Italian you are thinking of is Santi Pagnini (a Renaissance Dominican scholar), but in English the verses are based on the divisions in the Geneva Bible. In the Middle Ages the Bible, which was often memorized in full like the Qur'an, was quoted by giving a bit of text, ("as Isaiah says, blah blah blah") and assuming your reader knew exactly what part of what book you meant (and it is fun to see how the quotes differ from the standardized Vulgate of the 16th century, which I imagine Muslims would not think is so fun to do with the Qur'an). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Bible is a collection of books by different authors, written at different times in history, with different purposes. Some of the books are good stories, some are good poetry, some are good spiritual wisdom, and some are breathtakingly boring. You don't have to read them in order, and it's okay to skip the boring ones unless you really want to be a Bible scholar. If you're interested in insight into Christianity, it might be useful to start with one of the gospels- Luke and John are both very readable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
American colonial contact and discovery films
I'm interested in finding a list of colonial period films (in English), whether about Columbus, the Spaniards, Portuguese, French and British...
I know of...
- 1492: The Conquest of Paradise (Depardieu)
- The Mission (De Niro)
- Apocalypto (Gibson)
- The New World (Farrell)
- Pocahontas (cartoon)
- Shakespeare in Love (Fiennes)
- The Last of the Mohicans (Day-Lewis)
- The Patriot (Gibson)
- The Scarlet Letter (Alley)
- Blackbeard (classic)
- Pirates of the Caribbean (Rush)
- Robinson Crusoe (Brosnan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There's also a film about Benedict Arnold and John Andre, the loyalist spies--but I forgot that name too.
After asking this question, I'm quite sure there are numerous British colonial period films about other parts of the empire, like Gandhi, the Jungle Book, Tarzan and Quigley Down Under...but please restrict trivia answers to the American colonial experience. No, please don't list the horrendous Viking film "Pathfinder". Thanx! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there was a second Columbus movie in 1992: Christopher Columbus: The Discovery starring Georges Corraface, with Tom Selleck as Ferdinand. It's supposed to be pretty bad. --Anon, 07:33 UTC, December 19, 2007.
Here is imdb's keyword="colonial-america" list sorted by rating. (I'm disappointed that Knickerbocker Holiday didn't make it). I also thought of Black Robe and Aguirre, the Wrath of God, though the last one isn't in English. You can play with and combine keywords at imdb too. For example "native american" & "south america" or "1600s" & "caribbean". ---Sluzzelin talk 07:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Carry on Columbus springs unfortunately to mind. 11:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)
- If you are including cartoons/animations, there is The Road to El Dorado. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Here are some contributions to your list
- Drums Along the Mohawk
- The Crucible
- Captain Kidd (1945 film)
- Treasure Island (1990 film)
- The Headless Horseman - supposed to be one of the worst movies ever made
- Sleepy Hollow (film)
- Johnny Tremain (film)
- Janice Meredith (film)
- The Lady and the Highwayman
- The Scarecrow
- Captain Clegg
-- Saukkomies 11:27, 19 December, 2007 (UTC)
- Black Robe (film) was apparently well received. SaundersW (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is the rare exception when Hollywood comes out with any historical film that has any resemblance to actual events. "The Patriot" is just another example of Hollywood' (and other film centers') complete lack of having historical accuracy be a big priority to them. Script writers and directors insist that their right to have the freedom of "artistic license" to alter historical events to make a sexier plotline is what is to blame for this. Another of Mel Gibson's historical movies that was a complete and total joke from the historical accuracy department was "Braveheart". Oy, don't get me started!!! -- Saukkomies 16:41, 20 December, 2007 (UTC)
- What always puzzles me is that the stories are quite dramatic enough. There is simply no need for the silly embellishments. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There are probably a few Daniel Boone flicks. Are there any other popular ones, or pirate ones? I'm really looking for Spanish, Portuguese and French colonial flicks. There's a French Canada one with Gerard Depardieu. Are there any with the Haitian, Mexican or Brazilian empires?
Quatre Cent Vingt-et-un
This is either a card or a dice game which Graham Greene mentions in The Quiet American and A Burnt-Out Case. I've not been able to find it on wikipedia or elsewhere on the net. Does anyone know more about this? Donald Hosek (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pontoon is a card game in which the aim is to make a hand of 21 points, and the name derives from "vingt-et-un", French for 21. The four hundred in front is a bit confusing, though. SaundersW (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's an online version of the dice game here, inviting you to win and claim up to six euros towards your post and packing on an online purchase. You have three dice and you are allowed to throw each one separately. The idea of the game is to get a four, a two, and a one within a maximum of five throws. Quatre-cent-vingt-et-un means four hundred and twenty-one in French. William Avery (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Donald, have a look again at chapter one, page one of The Quiet American, detailing a meeting between Fowler and Vigot at Le Club on Rue Charner in Saigon. After ordering a drink for Fowler Vigot asks him "Play for it." Fowler agrees "...and I took out my dice for the ritual game of Quatre Cent Vingt-et-un. How these figures and the sight of the dice bring back to my mind the war years in Indo-China. Anywhere in the world where I see two men dicing I am back in the streets of Hanoi or Saigon or among the blasted buildings of Phat Diem..." Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote "card or" largely because I didn't care to look it up, but I had a vague notion that it was a dice game. Most of the time Greene just mentions the name, and in In Search of a Character he consistently writes "421" as the name and notes that he learned the game in Viet Nam (and introduced it to the priests in the Congo). It seems worthy of an entry in wikipedia, if only because of its being referenced in two of Greene's novels (maybe more... I don't think that it's mentioned in The Comedians, but it might be in Travels with My Aunt). Knowing the rules is a bit helpful in getting the game. It strikes me as being an interesting probability problem for advanced beginners... if I ever teach probability again, I may use this as an example or problem. Is the game played head-to-head or is it each player dicing individually betting on their making 421? Donald Hosek (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot say for certain; but my reading is that it is played head-to-head on a system of scoring, with 4 2 1 being the optimum. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- French Wikipedia has the article, by the way: 421 (jeu). This game isn't limited to Greene, but found its way into high literature as well: In Asterix and Cleopatra, Asterix can't belive Getafix (Panoramix)'s luck at throwing IV·II·I again! Blunder in the 2004 English Revised Edition; the translators had changed the text in the speech bubble to: "VI·VI·VI Again, it's like magic!", but the illustrated dice don't correspond with the text. See Mistakes: Asterix and Cleopatra for more details. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aha, I'll have to look at the French article. Doing some google books searches, it's rarely mentioned in English. Most of the citations of the phrase are in discussions of Greene's work, Greene's work itself, and one short story from the early 60s in Best American Short Stories. Donald Hosek (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- French Wikipedia has the article, by the way: 421 (jeu). This game isn't limited to Greene, but found its way into high literature as well: In Asterix and Cleopatra, Asterix can't belive Getafix (Panoramix)'s luck at throwing IV·II·I again! Blunder in the 2004 English Revised Edition; the translators had changed the text in the speech bubble to: "VI·VI·VI Again, it's like magic!", but the illustrated dice don't correspond with the text. See Mistakes: Asterix and Cleopatra for more details. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Napoleon's downfall
What was the single most crucial factor in the downfall of Napoleon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.144 (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Failing to do his own homework? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What was the most important factor in the downfall of Napoleon? Why, an impossible obsession. After the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, realising that he would never be able to defeat England by a war at sea, he decided that he would have to resort to a new kind of war on land; an economic war. By the Continental System he hoped to destroy British trade and manufacturing. But the Continental System was hopelessly ambitious. It required control, and absolute control, of the whole of Europe, from Lisbon to Moscow. It required all powers, all territories, all dependencies, all allies, no matter how reluctant, to fall in behind what was effectively a French economic dictatorship. Bit by bit the whole impossible project came apart. Portugal was the first to break rank, beginning the French tyrant's ruinous involvement in the Peninsula. Next to go was Russia, the ally of occasion. To bring Tsar Alexander I back into line Napoleon broke the first rule of warfare-never march on Moscow. Russia's success in defeating French aggression also freed Austria and Prussia from the grip of the Continental System, enabling them all to join together in the War of the Sixth Coalition. Abandoned on almost all sides, Napoleon was overwhelmed at the Battle of the Nations.
How did his economic blockade affect the British? Hardly at all; for new markets were found in the Americas. Besides, smuggling into Europe was highly effective. More than that, Napoleon was forced to grant exceptions to his Berlin and Milan decrees, for the simple reason that he depended on British manufacturers for the supply of his army's boots! Contrary to Napoleon's intentions, moreover, such economic hardship as there was came in his own country, with food shortages, loss of business and high prices adding to his growing unpopularity. And that is how the mighty are fallen! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clio, I've edited the link to the War of 1812 in your reply since that's the article about the American War of 1812. --Taraborn (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! Thanks, Taraborn. Perhaps that should be the second rule of warfare-never march on Washington! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I do think that Clio and others are correct in addressing the OP's question from one angle, but there is another way to look at the question, too, which is from a psychological point of view. Perhaps one could say that the single most crucial factor in the downfall of Napoleon was his own inner drive to want to become another Alexander the Great, or something like that. This may have come from his early life experiences and family background on the Island of Corsica. In his own words he wrote about some of the violent experiences he witnessed growing up: "I was born when my country was dying. Thirty thousand Frenchmen disgorged upon our shores, drowning the throne of liberty in a sea of blood; such was the hateful spectacle that offended my infant eyes." Perhaps his relentless drive to become the Emperor of France and all the rest of the planet was born out of this environment. And it was really that internal drive that led him to do the things he did, including overstretching himself by invading Russia, etc. But like I said, perhaps this question could have more than one possible answer... -- Saukkomies 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nazism / Hatred
What in deep layers and fundamentals of Nazism is wrong and cause the hatred? tell the things that you got yourself ,each in one line. Flakture (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The aim to exterminate a group of people logically causes tension among the Nazis and the target group. --Taraborn (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this user may be asking something along the lines of, "Do the tenets of Naziism naturally lead to the kind of race-hatred that happened in Nazi Germany? Could a Nazi party exist without the hate, or is the hate fundamental to its doctrine?" At least, I believe that is what she's asking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually not, a person that not yet lose the human values and nature, so meeting anti-values excite his disgust and rise a determination to repulsion, that's the question. Flakture (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nazism is a particular strain of Fascism, one that contains within it extremely strong components about biology and race. I don't think you can divorce Nazism from its racism — you end up with just a dialect of Fascism.
- The general critique about Fascism is that it is undemocratic. The Fascists, of course, don't see that as a "wrong" thing—they characterize Democracy as "mob rule" and see it as a "wrong" thing. Philosophically Fascism is a form of collectivism mixed with nationalism—a belief that the fundamental political unit is the state (not the individual, not the people, not the class, not the Volk, not the race—note that this last point is where Fascism and Nazism diverge a bit), and that all individuals, as members of the state, owe their allegiance and support to the state. The state itself is stewarded by people well versed in how to steward a state, by their definition. I know it can be a rather distasteful thing to say but it has more in common with something like Marxist-Leninism (except there the fundamental political unit is supposed to be the class, though in practice I think it ends up just being the state as well) than it does with any sort of free-enterprise society. Anyway, there is some food for thought to chew on. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Flakture, your request, as I understand it, touches on the impossible. But if you really want a one-liner about the Nazi mind-set then here you are: "I hate, therefore I am." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the question ,if you really "got a thing yourself" there's no need to demonstrate and prove to yourself, also details will be faded. the request is not telling the nazi mind-set. Flakture (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Flakture. Look, please forgive me, but what you have written does not make an awful lot of sense. It would seem clear that English is not your first language, and I suspect you are attempting to make a direct translation from your native idiom? Unfortunately it's coming across in a quite ungrammatical fashion. I hope I haven't wounded you by my frankness; I simply want to be as helpful as I can. Might I suggest that if you are still looking for information that you reduce your question down to a hard and simple core. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Max Lerner: "When evil acts in the world, it always manages to find instruments who believe that what they do is not evil but honorable." Xn4 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, here's my try at this: Politicians that play on peoples' fears get support, and to justify those fears there must always be a scapegoat. -- Saukkomies 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should ask the OP to "suitly emphazi" his question. (Sorry, I know we agreed to NEVER AGAIN utter these words here, even in jest, but it is the silly season.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't do that, he might loose his patients! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should ask the OP to "suitly emphazi" his question. (Sorry, I know we agreed to NEVER AGAIN utter these words here, even in jest, but it is the silly season.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Valeri - Curious about Latin Translation
I met a woman named "Valeri" the other day. While I had never seen that particular spelling of "Valerie," it is not unheard of (see Valerie). What was unusual to me was that at first glance I thought it was not a name but a Latin phrase of some sort.
My question is this: Is "valeri" a valid Latin word? The Valerie article indicates it descends from "brave or courageous," so I'm guessing there's a Latin root out there somewhere.
Thanks,
--KNHaw (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong. Valerii (or Valeri) is the vocative (or plural nominative) for Valerius, a
cognomennomen. Pallida Mors 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong. Valerii (or Valeri) is the vocative (or plural nominative) for Valerius, a
- Yes, it's vocative, and an alternate form of the genitive of that name. It would also be the passive infinitive of the verb "valere" (to be well, to prevail), but I don't think that can be made passive. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's also a surname, eg. Carl Valeri. (I only know this because I used to work with Carl's mother.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- ...and strangely evocative of the song Volare! ( /silliness ) -- Saukkomies 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- ... the words to which were not written by Paul Valéry. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- So, Latin 'Valeri' is English 'The Winners'? -66.55.10.178 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Mad all his life
The english writer samuel johnson described himself as being mad all his life. Do we know what he suffered from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitt the Youngest (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Ed., Vol. XV. (see [9] ) "He had inherited from his ancestors a scrofulous taint" "Before the young man left the university, his hereditary malady had broken forth in a singularly cruel form. He had become an incurable hypochondriac." In fact the whole essay seems to be a catalogue of ill health! SaundersW (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There are so many possible explanations for Samuel Johnson's afflictions, some more convincing, others less convincing; Tourette's syndrom being the least convincing of all, at least in my estimation. Some medical experts have conjectured that his tics and spasms could have been caused by St. Vitus' Dance, or some related condition, just as others have suggested that the scrofula he contracted in his infancy could conceivably have had an effect on his later mental health. The truth is we do not know, and we will never know. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The quotation continues - "mad all his life, at least not sober". As Clio says, we don't know. I have an idea that Dr Johnson was rather pleased with the idea of being thought mad. He would have known King George II's famous quip about James Wolfe - "Mad, is he? Then I hope he will bite some other of my generals", but not, of course, J. I. M. Stewart's much later line "The mad often notice significant things which the sane ignore". The second, I think, he would have taken as a compliment after his own heart. However, Johnson (according to Boswell) suffered, like his father, from what he called "a vile melancholy", so his line about madness can also be taken as referring to depression. Xn4 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- You will find this entry, Xn4, in Johnson's diary for Easter Day, 1777: "When I survey my past life, I discover nothing but a barren waste of time with some disorders of body and disturbances of the mind, very near to madness." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's an excellent further quotation, Clio, which helps us to answer this question. The one the OP quotes, "mad all his life", is from the introduction to Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson LLD. He says: "Mr Michael Johnson was a man of a large and robust body, and of a strong and active mind; yet, as in the most solid rocks veins of unsound substance are often discovered, there was in him a mixture of that disease, the nature of which eludes the most minute enquiry, though the effects are well known to be a weariness of life, an unconcern about those things which agitate the greater part of mankind, and a general sensation of gloomy wretchedness. From him then his son inherited, with some other qualities, ‘a vile melancholy,’ which in his too strong expression of any disturbance of the mind, ‘made him mad all his life, at least not sober.’" Xn4 09:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he didn't mean he was mad as in crazy, but mad as in angry. Here's one of his quotes: "I am willing to love all mankind, except an American." Since he lived during the American Revolution, this would perhaps explain his anger towards Americans, and maybe this is what he was mad about. [/humor mode]. -- Saukkomies 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Cultural Diffusion
I'm trying to find good examples of groups that have successfully resisted cultural diffusion of popular customs. Immediately, the Amish came to mind, and I wrote about them. I still need another though. I sifted through some wiki articles on cultural diffusion, and mainly found cultures that had either been taken over or that had gladly accepted a new culture. No help!! So, in conclusion, I'm looking for an article about a group of people that have successfully preserved their culture from diffusion of popular customs. Thank ya very much in advance.
SubtlyChaotic (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)SubtlyChaotic
- The Andaman Islanders (I hope that comes up blue) may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- it does, and the specific group you should look at are the Sentinelese. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Uncontacted peoples is a decent list, although they haven't necessarily resisted cultural diffusion, having experienced considerably less of it. For a group that is currently undergoing quite late cultural diffusion, see Wanniyala-Aetto, aboutthe Veddahs from Sri Lanka. Steewi (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- it does, and the specific group you should look at are the Sentinelese. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Andaman Islanders (I hope that comes up blue) may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There are groups that have done this with different levels of success. There are very few groups in the world that have been able to completely resist cultural diffusion of popular customs - even the Amish (and there are different groups of Amish that have different accepted practices) use some modern things such as gasoline powered weed trimmers, electric powered milk coolers, kerosene powered refrigerators, and even some who have telephones in their homes! I would say that a couple of other groups that have done a fairly decent job of resisting cultural diffusion would be the Hopi Indians of Arizona, the Laestadian Lutherans, the Mennonites, The Farm hippie commune in Tennessee, the Old Believers - sort of Russian Orthodoxy's version of the Amish, as well as various Monastic Orders, including Christian, Buddhist and Hindu (and many others as well). -- Saukkomies 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UC)
- Expanding on the comments of the previous poster, Saukkomies: It may be argued that it is the prime essence of all major religions to resist this diffusion of their historic cultures and values (and power).
- Latin, until quite recently, was the liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church and Old Hebrew is used in Judaism for the same purpose; both, of course, are extinct languages. In God´s own country there seems to be a significant proportion of people - including potential presidents - who unequivocally support creationism. There are also some processes in the Islamic world which may be interpreted as a withdrawal of some Muslim groups, eschewing "Westernisation", to the roots of their own traditions.
- As a working assumption: Many "modern" folks are but physically living in the third millennium but their thinking is largely determined by almost medieval concepts. What if Cultural Diffusion / refusal to accept "modern" values were to be measured by some questionnaire:
- Do you understand the laws of Isaac Newton ?
- What about Darwinian evolution ?
- How does Special Relativity affect humankind ?
- Can you talk 5 minutes on genetics ?
- and so on...
- I tend to think that the inertia of the human brain is vastly underestimated. The OP and Saukkomies himself talk of "popular customs", referring, I guess, to the "visible" culture of tangible hardware. For what it is worth, I think that all of us - some more and some less, some visibly and some mentally - are great refusniks when it comes to cultural diffusion in the active sense of positive acceptance.
- People and their life may look quite differently when you observe a rural community in Dutch Pennsylvania, a bunch of rappers in the Bronx and a gathering of cosmologists in Princeton. They may be less different than they seem to be. Maybe the cultural software in their minds is virtually identical.
- There is a lengthy discussion above on the "superiority" of cultures which may give the OP some - rather oblique - ideas concerning competition / survival / drop outs or those who seek alternative options.
- And now, having progressed from the SubtlyChaotic to the SublimeChaos, I will stop waffling nonsense. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking for study or news item about zoning in Los Angeles that is hurting food consumers
I don't remember it real well, which is part of the problem. I read something about a year ago that said some weird zoning laws in LA that were meant to help build communities were actually hurting poor consumers. The law was either relating to restaurants, meaning that the only restaurants in poorer areas of LA were fast food joints, or about grocery stores, meaning that poor people had to travel long distances to buy groceries. Any healp would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.108.184 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here are some articles that appear to address a zoning proposal raised by Jan Perry of the Los Angeles City Council in September this year: [10] [11][12] [13] Also, a 2005 academic review The use of zoming to restrict fast food outlets: a potential strategy to combat obesity, and the Urban & Environmental Policy Institute's report, The persistence of L.A.'s grocery gap on the subject. Rockpocket 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Rockpocket. The first ones are the opposite of what I'm looking for, but the last one was pretty close, and it helped me narrow my own search to find other useful links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.108.184 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
December 20
Cosmetics and culture
Are there cultures in which, if you give a woman makeup as a gift, it's offensive because it implies she's unattractive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.166.44 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Offensive" isn't quite the word I would use. In North America, we give perfumes as gifts to both sexes, though that may be a holdover from the days when the elements of perfume were costly and rare. Now there are rare and costly perfumes, to be sure, but there are also many that are quite accessible to the population at large, and all of them are in my elevator every morning. Make-up I would not give at all because I hate it, but, if I were to give it, it might be an appropriate gift for a young girl for her first trials. Once past that age, women who wear make-up generally are quite brand and product loyal, so it would be risky to give anything not from a list. Teenage girls, though, often give each other make-up, and in that case, the gesture is usually friendly. Perhaps other cultures are different. Bielle (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not cosmetics per se, but in the (Christian) gift-giving spirit of the current holidays, be aware that women's clothing can also be dangerous for the giver. Many (most?) women are sensitive about their size, and some will choose to think the worst no matter what you give: Too large? You think she's gaining weight and will soon be able to wear them. Too small? You want her to lose weight so that the clothes will fit. Fit just right? What are you, some kind of pervert who went thru her drawers checking sizes? Of course, you don't know if you are gift-giving to such a person until it's too late.... Cosmetics and/or perfume is a MUCH safer gift. -SandyJax (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bear in mind both of these answers are only really applicable if you don't have an existing close relationship with the person. I presume if you do you may already know their size and if you do, I don't think they're likely to think your a pervert (well unless they never told you and you really do know because you went through the person's drawers). Of course you still have to be careful to make sure you get the right size and if you remain unsure it might be helpful to make sure the item can be changed if it is the wrong size and to make this clear when giving the gift. Similarly if you have a close relationship you're likely to know what brands and products of makeup they like. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine arts
with the tchnological advances of the 21st century, how will the fine arts be affected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.95.190 (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean future technological advances or present ones (since we're only a few years into the 21st century)? But in either case, it's worth noting that the trend between technology and art has been quite mixed. On the one hand there are going to be those who will try to immediately integrate new technologies into art (and probably be denigrated in the short term for it), and there will be those who insist that the fine arts are defined in part by their old heritage (even though some aspects of it are much newer than others). That's not a great answer, and certainly not a specific one, but maybe it's a start for thinking about the interplay between new technologies and art. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's already a lot of exploration into the possibilities of fine arts in New media, including computer generated arts, computer assisted design and computer-designed art, micro-art, flash art, technologically themed art (in fashion, etc, such as clothing with built in electronics, even a TV), as well as incorporating digital effects and concepts into classical music. As 24.147 says, some leap into the change, while others resist. Steewi (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Use of logaritms in economics
What role do Logarithms play in economics? What exactly do economists mean when they use expressions like "log of growth rate"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutesonu (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Logarithms do a few useful things - they turn multiplicative relationships into additive ones, they turn a log-normal random variable into a normal one, and they take things which are centred about 1 and make them centred about 0, which in some circumstances can make analysis easier (the first two properties are more useful than the third). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another note: Because economics is heavily influenced by humans, many of the distributions are logarithmic. A very basic example would be distribution of taxes. Say the upper class pays $100 billion in taxes. The middle class pays $50 billion. The lower class pays $33 billion. That is a logarithmic distribution. If you plot it on a normal x-y axis, it looks like a curve. If you plot it on a graph where the y axis is a log-scale (1, 10, 100, 1000...), it becomes a straight line. Logarithmic distributes are extremely common in nature (as well as anything that humans strongly influence). I believe Zipf was the first person to do a lot of studies on this phenomenon. -- kainaw™ 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- A note on Econometrics (which is the main topic where such expressions as "log of growth rate" may appear): You take logs of variables for a series of causes, mainly:
- Logs reduce scales, and thus reduce possible heteroskedasticity issues.
- Double-logaritmic regressions give out direct values of elasticities, which may be handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallida Mors 76 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- A note on Econometrics (which is the main topic where such expressions as "log of growth rate" may appear): You take logs of variables for a series of causes, mainly:
- Many time sequences, also in economics, display exponential growth, or something close to it. If you have something that exhibits exponential growth at a steady growth rate r per time unit (for example, per year), then you get a geometric sequence like A, Ar, Ar2, Ar3, ... . By taking logarithms, this sequence is transformed into an arithmetic sequence. Putting B = log(A), and d = log(r), you get instead the sequence B,
,
,
, ... . The arithmetic increment d is the log of the growth rate r.
![[1]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://z.about.com/d/cruises/1/0/t/A/2/venice024.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cruises.about.com/od/mediterraneancruisephotos/ig/Venice--Italy/venice024.htm&h=375&w=500&sz=71&tbnid=dMYU68pKDWKmBM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgondolier%2Bimage%26um%3D1&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3){kind=link}
GRE in the UK
How common is the Graduate Record Examination in the UK? Is there an equivalent to the American GRE?217.168.3.246 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be fair to say that it is virtually unknown in the UK. Graduates here would quote their degree, degree class and their university and the employer would make a judgement based on their perception of the relative valuations of the three. SaundersW (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The GRE has nothing to do with employment. It is used as part of the admission process for graduate school (Master and PhD programs). Our article claims "Many graduate schools in English-speaking countries (especially in the United States) require GRE test results as part of the admission procedure." I don't know how true that is. Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- My comments apply equally to postgraduate qualifications. There are very few places that could be regarded as graduate schools in the first place. One exception might be Cranfield Institute of Technology. In general masters degrees are run by the same departments as undergraduate degrees, and PhDs are generally run on an apprenticeship principle, that is by individual supervision. SaundersW (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Think of graduate schools as a colllege within a university. The U.S. has relatively few stand-alone graduate-level schools as well. But simply getting a degree at a university/college will not qualify you to begin work in its graduate division (often refered to as a school or college). A separate admission process is required - just like applying to undergraduate but (usually) using the GRE test instead of the ACT or SAT test. My question remains: Is our GRE article incorrect about the wide use of the test outside the U.S.? Rmhermen (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like the GRE is not so widely used as the articles states. Probably it is more of an American thing. And not even that, depending of the university, the GRE is highly relevant or not relevant at all.217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Think of graduate schools as a colllege within a university. The U.S. has relatively few stand-alone graduate-level schools as well. But simply getting a degree at a university/college will not qualify you to begin work in its graduate division (often refered to as a school or college). A separate admission process is required - just like applying to undergraduate but (usually) using the GRE test instead of the ACT or SAT test. My question remains: Is our GRE article incorrect about the wide use of the test outside the U.S.? Rmhermen (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- In New Zealand, if you have a local degree your GPA and class (if you did honours or Masters) will usually be the main factors taken into account. The university won't matter much (we only have 7). The type of degree does of course matter, if you majored in Chemistry you might need to at least do a graduate diploma before undertaking further work in Biology for example. If you're degree isn't local, they used to ask graduates from universities outside New Zealand they don't trust (India I think was one but I'm guessing many developing countries fit the bill) to do a graduate diploma first before undertaking a Masters. Now that you usually do a postgraduate diploma first (well unless you have a Honours degree) and then a 1 year Masters instead of a 2 years Masters I don't know whether things have changed. I don't think GRE is used much if at all for entry into local universities. It may help if you're applying for scholarship although even then I suspect it'll only be a minor advantage. GRE does appear to be used in Singapore for entry into postgraduate programmes but only the general part not the subject specific part. [14] Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- My comments apply equally to postgraduate qualifications. There are very few places that could be regarded as graduate schools in the first place. One exception might be Cranfield Institute of Technology. In general masters degrees are run by the same departments as undergraduate degrees, and PhDs are generally run on an apprenticeship principle, that is by individual supervision. SaundersW (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The GRE has nothing to do with employment. It is used as part of the admission process for graduate school (Master and PhD programs). Our article claims "Many graduate schools in English-speaking countries (especially in the United States) require GRE test results as part of the admission procedure." I don't know how true that is. Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nazi voters
What sort of people voted for the Nazis and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.3.178 (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The articles Hitler's rise to power and Nazi Party#Rise to power: 1925-1933 will be able to answer this question for you. User:Krator (t c) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The base of support was largely middle-class, from the traditional Mittelstand to the new white-collar workers. Politically speaking the Nazis managed to reintegrate a group that had largely fragmented after 1918. For further reading I would suggest the following; Thomas Childers, The Nazi Voter (University of North Carolina Press, 1983) and (ed) The Formation of the Nazi Constituency (University of North Carolina Press, 1986); Conan Fischer (ed) The Rise of Nazism and the Working Classes in Weimar Germany (OUP, 1996); Richard Hamilton, Who Voted For Hitler? (Princeton University Press, 1983); Michael Kater, The Nazi Party (Blackwell, 1983); Helen Boak,’Women in Weimar Germany: The “Frauenfrage” and the Female Vote’ in Richard Bessel and E.J. Feuchtwanger (eds), Social Change and Political Development in the Weimar Republic (Croom Helm, 1981). Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What did the Marxists get right?
While acknowledging that Marx and his immediate followers had insightful things to say about commodity fetishism, the nature of the bourgeoisie and so on, I have never seen Marxian science, namely its historical and economic theories, greeted with anything less than derision. I'm familiar with some of the howlers (labor theory of value, communism taking root in the most advanced country, a dialectical certain path from feudalism to stateless communism etc.) but what I'm interested in finding out is what, if any, non-obvious, empirically verifiable scientific predictions did the Marxists get 'right? Skomorokh incite 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for one thing you're using a different definition of science than they are. Their "science" of history is not what we would consider a natural science at all and shouldn't be judged as such. In any case, some Marxist approaches have proved fruitful in the field of history, but it's overall neo-Hegelian "this will happen and it is inevitable" program is, well, trash, at least to this historian. The only time there are "laws of history" are when you are either ignoring the complexity of it (either purposefully or accidentally) or you are saying things so broad as to be useless.
- Now if you want to talk about natural sciences, it actually is a more complicated question. Aside from all of the bad science done in the name of Marxism—let's just get Lysenkoism out of the way here—there actually was quite a lot of good science done in its name and, according to practitioners, according to its values and based on its ideological preoccupations (e.g. dialectical materialism). A Western scholar would probably say, "well, the correctness of their scientific findings/theories is coincidental/incidental to the philosophy under which it was done" but this can be a somewhat problematic argument to put forward, at least if one takes philosophy and history of science seriously and isn't willing to simply divide science into the "facts" and its "context" with no real back-and-forth between the two.
- If I can venture an opinion—Marxism is simply not a "science" in the more methodologically limited way we use the term in the West and especially in the modern period. Treating Marxist historical approaches as one of many arrows in an analytical quiver, at least for a historian, is no big problem; treating it as the only system that produces correct answers is, of course, ludicrous. Marxist approaches have informed American historiography to a point where much of it is not really noticed anymore, but none of its "big theories" about history are taken terribly seriously, except by that occasionally Cold War holdout, the academic Marxist (sad bunch, them). --140.247.240.65 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think any of classical Marxist theory is about "empirically verifiable scientific predictions", including the derided labour theory of value, which was normative rather than predictive. How so did Marx' expectation fail that communism would first take root in the most advanced country? Unless you believe that history is over, you can still hope that some day, somewhere, people will realize that the current dog eat dog mega-greed-driven system steamrollering over cultural diversity and all values on a human scale, demanding unlimited access of international corporations to the world's resources in the name of freedom and democracy – never mind how the local population feels about it – is a dead end, and replace it by a system embodying the maxim From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. If that ever happens, it is most likely to start in one of the most advanced countries, and unlikely to start, let alone be successful, in countries struggling to supply basic needs to all citizens. The main contribution (if any) of Marxism today is that of a method for analyzing developments in society, including both historical and economical aspects. --Lambiam 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It should be noted that Marx got his economics from Smith, etc.; in Das Kapital, the "labor theory of value" was very explicitly credited to Smith and called a great discovery of the economists. (I.e., not his discovery.) Moreover, it is true to the extent that it was significant within Marx's theory; it has been rejected by economists only because it is not precise enough to handle what economists do with economic theory (manage financial institutions, etc.). Marx was not trying to predict prices, only to explain the basis of the difference between the price of labor and the value of labor. His explanation of the discrepancy seems adequate to me, even if he fails to take into account the fact that value varies with the quantity of production; we could interpret his work as having merely made the simplifying assumption that quantities of production are fixed (which certainly makes sense as far as the production of the means of subsistence is concerned) and that would solve the problem. (That is, the problem of falsehood; not the problem of being useless to the Fed.) Most of Das Kapital seems to be Marx's verbose, tedious rendering of Econ 101 as it was understood in 1860; the only worthwhile passages I have come across are basically asides dealing with the psychological consequences of the commensurability of labor and commodities.
- In any case, I suspect that most people who hold opinions about Marx have not read any of his work. My advice to you is not to listen to anyone who won't tell you what he has read. (I suppose I should add that I say the above based on an incomplete reading of Das Kapital.) —Jemmytc 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I can only answer from the perspective of historical scholarship. What did the Marxists get right? Why, nothing; nothing at all. Now, how is that for a sweeping value judgement!? Radical comprehension still continues to be popular, though, at least in some quarters, in a way that the old prophet could never have predicted. But if you want to know the value of the Marxist and Hegelian model of history as a telelogical process, then you could do no better than look at this. On second thoughts I'm sure, Skomorokh, you could use your valuable time much more productively. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Ho hum, I guess I overstretched in couching my question in such empiricist terms; I take Lambiam's point about post-Soviet communists still holding out, unrefuted for a Marxist alternative; I also take anon's point about using a different conception of science than the Marxists ere. To reformulate, coming from an economists background wherein Marxian economics was accorded such respect as a major school of thought (see academic Marxists comment above) though I could see, following the Muse, no value in it, I wish to know which falsifiable predictions/analyses/whatever Marxist theorists - in any field - made that are deserving of merit when viewed from our vantage point. My concern is that I am one of those identified by Jemmy who deride Marx's work (and, unquestionabl, Hegel's) without having read it, and I'm interested in hearing alternative points of view, or at least a devil's advocacy. So if I were to drop the term science and ask simply, what did the Marxists get right, in the broadest sense, that no one else did? Although I remain unsated, thanks ever so much for your responses thus far Skomorokh incite 01:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Your question has a certain flaw in it. Marx was not someone who worked in the Natural Sciences, or Hard Sciences. Instead, his work was within the Social Sciences, or Soft Sciences. In the Natural Sciences the goal of researchers is to arrive at ways to empirically predict the outcome of various phenomena that occur in the universe. In Social Science the goal of researchers is not to predict, but rather to understand the underlying forces that work within human society and in individual human lives. The reason there is a difference is that the Social Sciences study human behavior mostly through Qualitative Research, and to a lesser degree through Quantitative Research. In the Natural Sciences the focus is to formulate and work with rules and laws that are natural in origin. Because of mankind's freedom to choose how to react or behave (as opposed to being driven purely by instinct or natural laws), it is impossible to predict behavior except in certain very generalized cases that involve huge numbers of people, and only then in certain circumstances (such as predicting the outcome of an election based on polls). But even then, it is quite often the case that predictions made within the Social Sciences turn out to be incorrect.
So, in other words, one cannot say that Marx made any "empirically verifiable scientific predictions". He did make some predictions through Dialectic Materialism about the evolution of society from Capitalism to Socialism and then on to Communism. And he got some (not all) of those predictions wrong. There were reasons for this, and much has been written elsewhere. However, I am one who believes that Marx came up with a number of things that are worthy of study, and which may be said that he "got right".
In Sociology Marx's ideas are the basis for the incredibly influential Conflict theory and its related Social conflict theory, which still - even after the collapse of Soviet style Communism in the 1990s - continue to be used quite extensively by sociologists and others to understand changes and movements within human society. Another contribution of Marx that is still very influential is Historical materialism, something you touched a bit on in your question. Because Marx has fallen out of favor so much, some scholars and theorists try to distance themselves from him, even though they use theories that Marx espoused. There are a number of such fields of study where Marx's influence is very great, but he is not credited for them. If you look at the article on Post-Marxism it talks more about this.
Now, one of the ways to know whether someone really understands what Marx was talking about is if the person says that Marxism is completely dead and has completely failed as a philosophy. By no means is this correct. There are many scholars who are of the opinion that Marx might have been wrong about the timing of things, but that overall his theory of progression from Capitalism to Socialism is going along right now, and that ultimately there may come a day when Capitalism no longer will have the overriding influence that it does now. The underlying idea that Marx pushed so strongly that stated that under Capitalism it is unjust how the few are able to exploit the capital and labor of the many, while maintaining a certain percentage of the population in poverty and starvation is a very powerful concept. The principle that the worker should have stronger say in how his or her capital is put to use is also very powerful. These ideas have not gone away, no matter how powerful capitalism may seem right now, it is highly doubtful that it will last forever, and what will replace it might very well resemble something along the lines of what Marx was predicting. I include all this not to try to push my own point of view, but to balance out the conversation a bit, which seems to have gone all one way. Myself, I appreciate what Marx has to say, especially I love reading quotes from him, but I am not a Marxist. However, one cannot be a serious student of history without first fully understanding Marx. He operated at such an all-encompassing level that in order to comment or debate his philosophy, one must rise also to that level, and that is something that many people do not want to do. This is why Marx is so misunderstood today. In my opinion, of course... -- Saukkomies 20:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I must take exception to Saukkomies' dichotomy between natural and social sciences. Many within the social sciences are rigorous in their methodology seek and establish predictive laws, just as in the natural sciences, and certainly seek laws which have their origin in nature. There is overlap, in other words. See the Journal of Experimental Psychology for example. Edison (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would love to take credit for my "dichotomy" between natural and social sciences, however it is entirely NOT my idea at all. I merely pass on what has been considered to be standard accepted agreement among academic scholars for over a century. Not only was this precisely what I was taught in my Introduction to Sociology class in college, but it also reflects the common perception among the vast majority of people who hold professional degrees in the Social Sciences. If you have reason to dispute this, take it up with them, not with me. As far as pushing my own theories, I would say that if anyone is guilty of this it would be you in using such a pitififul example to support your thesis as citing one journal out of countless others in the field of the Social Sciences to support your claim.
- It is true that in recent years there has been more of a "blurring" between the two fields of the Social Sciences and the Natural Sciences. For instance, it says this in the very first paragraph of Wiki's article on the Social sciences. But this still does not mean that what I stated was my own opinion, as you seemingly wish to attribute it to me. Thank you, but no thanks - this is very much something that is common knowledge in academia - that there is a substantive difference between the two fields, and that this difference hinges on the fact that in the Social Sciences the aim is not to try to predict but to understand what is happening within human society and among human individuals. -- Saukkomies 20:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am willing to be unfashionable and acknowledge some value in Marx's work. I agree with critics that his historical predictions are mostly wrong. Also, I think that his work has to be viewed critically and not as scripture. Where I think Marx is valuable and still relevant is in his analysis of the dynamics of capitalism. His theoretical framework helps make it clear how capitalism works and how the benefits are divided. In Marx's framework, for example, "exploitation" is not a meaningless word with an emotional charge. It refers to the relationship whereby an employer pays a worker less than the value of the worker's labor. The difference between what the worker is paid and what the employer gains from the worker's labor is surplus value, which is the basis for profit and for capital accumulation. In an unfettered competitive market, employers will outcompete and buy one another out until there is a virtual oligopoly or monopoly of employers in a given industry. The limited number of employers can force workers to compete for jobs by bidding down their wages toward a subsistence level. The only way to counter this trend, as Marx pointed out, is for workers to organize industrially and politically into blocs that can demand better wages and a greater share of the value of their labor. This insight was crucial to the success of labor unions in the 20th century, and it is to this insight that most of us in the industrialized countries owe our standard of living. This was just one of Marx's valuable insights.
- Another was his recognition that capital accumulation can reach a state called overaccumulation. This is a state at which capital yields a declining rate of real return, largely because, by maximizing surplus value, capitalists minimize the income available to workers as consumers. At this point, productive capacity exceeds effective demand. One of the explanations of the Great Depressions of the 1930s and the 1870s is that a speculative financial boom led to overinvestment. A financial boom brought with it an expansion of debt (as speculators borrowed to invest into a rising market). Eventually, however, as workers' incomes failed to rise proportionately, the returns on these investments were no longer sufficient to service the debts on which they were based. The result was widespread insolvency, bankruptcy, and liquidation, which became a vicious cycle of shutting down productive capacity, further eroding workers' incomes, requiring additional shutdowns of productive capacity and so on. We may very well be at the end of another cycle of overaccumulation, this time due to overinvestment in real estate, financial instruments, and productive capital in East Asia that cannot possibly yield a return sufficient to service the debt on which it is based, because real wages for the workers who are expected to generate that return have failed to rise while the prices of the assets based on those expected returns have soared. If so, this insight of Marx's will be borne out yet again over the next decade or so. Marco polo (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
When, I wonder, can we expect to see the end of Capitalism in Communist China?! Ha! Ha!
Alas, my problem is that I seem to have read too much Marx, even Das Kapital (well, most of volume one), to come anywhere close to understanding what he is talking about. I am left with notions of Capitalism that seem devoid of understanding how real economies work, or of understanding the way in which they adapt to circumstances. I am left with notions not of a dynamic and historically evolving set of relationships, but of an Entity moving blindly, preprogrammed towards destruction. I confess, though, I was always puzzled by the adaptability of the Monster and the increasingly desperate attempts by the Marxists to keep up with its evolutions; for the theory, in other words, to capture and imprison the practice. Was imperialism, then, the highest stage of Capitalism? No, not quite. It had to be Fascism, then, the last stage of degenerate monopoly Capitalism? Again, sadly not. Who now believes that the rise of Hitler was a function of the conscious interest and intentions of Big Business? Oh, yes; I almost forgot. There is always David Abraham and The Collapse of the Weimar Republic! Capitalism goes forward, drawing on new sources of strength. Business is simply a way of doing business. Marxism tries to keep up with all of the enemy's subtle permutations; it falters; it atrophies; it turns into slogans; it dies. A theory that prides itself as a vehicle for changing the world becomes little more than a rather out-moded way of interpreting it; the vanity of moth-eaten dons in university common rooms. Ironic, is it not?
Yes, of course; I'm being highly polemical; it's one of my arts, after all. Marxism, for me, is an intellectual dinosaur, and we surely understand, from our reading of twentieth century history, that it is not a path and a method that should be chosen by the careful and the wary. For it is a dialectic that moves in ever more dreadful circles; from Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot; to politics and systems that make even the worst forms of Dickensian Capitalism seem harmless and benign. Give me Scrooge and give me Gradgrind! Do not, please, give me Marx, who in his dissertation On the Jewish Question seems to take on the mantel of a materialist Martin Luther, loving only what he hopes to destroy.
I am a historian; I look at these matters historically and in practical terms. Social being does not determine consciousness, which is a multi-faceted and complex phenomenon. Social classes do not trot on and off the stage of history, playing the wooden parts allotted to them by Marxist materialism. I know of no area of serious historical scholarship where Marxism is of any practical use, other than in a highly etiolated form, dependent for its survival on liberal transfusions of the life blood of 'Bourgeois' theory. I'm not even sure that we have any clear idea anymore of what Marxism is, beyond a vague series of precepts handed down in the nineteenth century. Who, now, are the heroes? Who has the authority to interpret the holy writ? Holy writ? An appropriate description is it not, for something that begins to resemble a debased form of Christianity. What, after all, is distinctive about Marxist historiography? Is there a Marxist historiography? I recall some words I read in a paper headed Chronicles of a Death Foretold, which concludes;
On the whole, the effect of the 'death of Marxism' has been to fold what used to be Marxist history writing back into the general body of historical scholarship, distinctive only on those occasions when it resolutely refuses to acknowledge the reality of its own disappearance, and shamelessly reproduces the clichés of the forgotten past. In that respect it is simply inadequate history. In a Tolstoyan vein, then, one might conclude that, for the time being, all good histories resemble one another, but each bad history is bad in its own way. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I completely believe you when you say that you do not have a clear idea of what Marxism is, Clio. However, I do believe that you are overlooking a lot of what Marx contributed (and is still contributing) to the analysis of history and the study of economic theory. Of course, this may be due to your not having a clear idea of what Marx was talking about, which is understandable. Let me put it this way: if one is prepared to accept that the ultimate and finest system that can possibly be achieved is Capitalism, then there really is no way that one could perceive what some of Marx's greatest contributions were. If on the other hand one sees the results of Capitalism are to continue to maintain a system in which a certain percentage of the world's population is to be kept below the poverty level, to make certain that a certain percentage of babies are starved to death each year, and to continue to insure that the working person's labor/capital is stolen from him or her and used to aggrandize the filthy rich Capitalists, then perhaps Marx's ideas have not completely died. Capitalism is unjust, unfair, exploitative, and it will eventually die just as slavery did because people will insist on taking ownership of their own capital. Not this year, not this Century even, but some day this will happen. Of this I am sure. And when it does, Marx will be seen as the one who originally invisioned it. -- Saukkomies 20:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, well; irony is clearly a dying art! I understand Marxism all too well, its theory and its practice. It seems to me to be a pernicious and benighted illusion that justice lies just beyond the horizon of a particular mode of economic organisation; that absolute bad is on one side and absolute good on the other. And if Marx envisaged paradise he also envisaged hell; for hell, practically speaking, is what he bequeathed in the pursuit of perfection; that is what all attempts at perfection encompass. Anyway, your rather emotive style of argument is not one with which I am comfortable. You and I clearly have nothing more to discuss. I think it best if I leave you with dreams of a Marxist paradise. I do offer my apologies, though, for wounding your sensibilities. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do apologize if I came across as seeming to be too emotional. Perhaps I was too tipsy, since I'd written that after just returning from a winter solstice celebration that involved a couple of glasses of champagne. No, quite the contrary, Clio, I find it quite invigorating to discuss Marx - his flaws and his good points both. And I'll be the first to say that those who have called themselves Marxists have been some of the most wretched examples of any resemblance to a fair and just society. Marx to me is sort of like Wagner - it is unfortunate that both of these men have had a legacy of other people who came after them using them as inspiration to do evil. For myself, I believe the biggest flaw in Marx's theories was that he could not foresee that the earth's resources would be limited. To him (and almost all others of his day) the world was full of an endless supply of untapped natural resources, and such things as pollution and overexploitation of the fisheries and global warming never occurred to him. Another major flaw of Marx was that he assumed that industrial development would happen more quickly than it did. He assumed that within a short time that nobody would be doing any manual labor anymore because machines would be doing everything. When this didn't turn out to be the case it became impossible for anyone to subsequently follow what Marx's plans for a proletarian revolution were. When one of the most technologically backward nations in Europe (Russia) became the nation that assumed the role of leadership in bringing about Communism, it was so totally against what Marx had preached about as to be a ridiculous travesty. Nobody has practiced what Marx was teaching and hoping for, and nobody could because he did not accurately predict what was going to happen even within a couple of decades after his death. However, as I mentioned above, there are still things about his theories that are worth looking at. He wasn't a complete bone head in everything. Sorry to cause any offense or defense - I have nothing but respect for you Clio. I do hope you will continue to share your ideas and discourse with this lowly Caliban. -- Saukkomies 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, "what Marx preached about" (say in the Communist Manifesto) was the proletariat seizing power and overthrowing the bourgeois class. That is what happened in Russia, is it not? The problem may be that dictatorships are inherently prone to corruption; anyway, that is often said, although I don't know that it's true. (Are they more prone to corruption than democracies? Haven't there been dictatorships that were not prone to corruption? The tendency toward corruption may be a feature of the society rather than the form of government.) Cuba's communist government seems to be genuinely serving the Cubans, although the idea that communism is, as Marx put it, "the definitive resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man; the true solution of the conflict between existence and essence, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species" is really quite pushing it. All the Cubans have done is solve poverty, and it is clear that communism is not the only possible solution to poverty.
- Yet Marx's point about "social being determining consciousness" as Clio put it, in denying it, actually seems to me quite a good one. Erich Fromm's book Beyond the Chains of Illusion elaborates on this with many quotations from Marx. (It is much more fun to read Marx when someone has edited him down to short quotations.) It is often said that "you are what you do" and it is merely taken for granted that "what you do" is what part you play in the capitalist economy. Does the stunning fact of this cliche prove that "social being determines consciousness?" Well, I'm not sure exactly what that means; in any case, as Clio says, it is very complex. But I'm not sure Marx had nothing to contribute here. Perhaps at least he popularized a good idea. Here is what Fromm said:
- <<[Historical materialism's] main postulate is that the way in which man produces determines his practice of life, his way of living, and this practice of life determines his thinking and the social and political structure of his society. [...] Marx's idea that man is formed by his practice of life was not new as such. Montesquieu had expressed the same idea in terms of "institutions form men"; Robert Owen expressed it in similar ways. What was new in Marx's system is that he analyzed in detail what these institutions are, or rather, that the institutions themselves were to be understood as part of the whole system of production which characterizes a given society. [...] Man himself, in each period of history, is formed in terms of the prevailing practice of life which in turn is determined by his mode of production. [...] Marx's main criticism of capitalist society is precisely that this society makes the wish to "have" and to "use" into the most dominant desire in man; Marx believed that a man who is dominated by the desire to have and to use is a crippled man. His aim was a society organized in such a way that not profit and private property, but the free unfolding of man's human powers are man's dominant aims. Not the man who has much, but the man who is much is the fully developed, truly human man.>>
- I think there's some merit here. Look at the sort of men capitalist society produces today, and compare them to the sort of men that we read about native American societies producing. Is it possible to produce the latter sort of people and yet retain the whole edifice of high-tech industrial capitalism? Or could you take the one form of society, add industry to it, and yet retain its culture? Is that possible to imagine? Not to me, although I am told that "the friendly and flowing savage" is a myth, anyway. I suppose ultimately we can reduce the principle to the rather obvious fact that economic institutions and culture develop interdependencies in their evolution, or rather that economic institutions are not distinct from culture at all and it all evolves together--but then you have to admit, economic institutions are quite more limited by "material" factors than "culture" is normally said to be. So, yeah, I think there is some merit here. —Jemmytc 13:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- - quoting Jemmy: "what Marx preached about (say in the Communist Manifesto) was the proletariat seizing power and overthrowing the bourgeois class."
- I think that it was more complicated than that. There are several areas in which Marx's theories went, one of which was yes the area of class struggle between the proletariat class and the rest of society. However, one of the other areas that Marx explored was precisely how this was to take place, which he believed would be an inevitable process as Capitalism basically transformed itself into Socialism. Marx believed that this transformation was something that could not be stopped, just as the transformation from Feudalism to Capitalism had been an unstoppable force. He felt that Capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction, and that given enough time these seeds would sprout and bear fruit, resulting in the eventual transformation of society into Socialism. What Marx was trying to figure out, though, was how to speed the process of this transformation up. He theorized that through revolution social "progress" could be expedited. He had as his working model for this the French Revolution, which did actually speed the process of transforming French society from Feudalism (which was dying out in France in the late 18th Century) to Capitalism. He felt that if the Proletariat could seize the reins of power in what he called a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", that they could hasten society's transformation through the passage of laws and creation of government programs and entirely new social systems to create a Socialist - and then ultimately a Communist - society.
- What he envisioned was that this would take place in a highly industrialized country in which Capitalism was at its peak. This would allow the transformation process to be much more successful because it would insure that much of the process would already have been put into play. Far from hating Capitalism, Marx felt it was a fantastic thing - it produced enormous gains in the production of goods and services. What he wanted to do was to transfer the ownership of production from the elite few to the working class many. Of course, none of this played out. Russia had only about 3 or 5% of its population in the Middle Class, and was very backward in terms of being capable of its manufacturing and industrial capability at the time of its revolution.
- A reporter once asked Marx what he thought about the Irish struggle for independence from Great Britain (this was before Irish independence of course). Marx replied that before Ireland could have its revolution, that first Great Britain must have its revolution, and then naturally the Irish would have their's as a consequence of that. What this means is that Marx felt that countries with little or no industry (such as Ireland in the late 19th Century) could not successfully adopt his model of change from Capitalism to Socialism - that this must FIRST be done in industrialized and highly Capitalist countries such as Great Britain. Since Marx died before the Russian Revolution and then the takeover by the Bolsheviks, he wasn't around to comment on what he thought about it all. However, one may take what he said in this above case to show that he probably would have NOT APPROVED of the Bolsheviks' revolution in Russia - that he would have said - "First the revolution must take place in Germany, and then in Russia" - or something to that effect.
- The fact that the Communists' push for power in Germany failed after WWI - and also in Great Britain - was the death knoll for Communism in Europe for the 20th Century. What took place in the Soviet Union had only a twisted, farcical resemblance to what Marx had envisioned. The Soviet Union was a travesty of Communism. As a result of the botched efforts by countries that were only in the periphery of Capitalism in the early to mid 20th Century (Russia, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc.), the result was that Communism and Marxism was NOT successful, and moreover, it created a "taint" that has lasted to this day. However, no nation on earth has yet to date actually practiced (or come even close to practicing) what Marx preached. However, there is one thing that is still moving along the way that Marx predicted: Capitalism is in the process of becoming increasingly more powerful until it will take over all the earth. Marx predicted this. Part of the process that will take place, according to what Marx theorized, is that the struggle that will ensue between the Capitalist rich elite and the working masses will ultimately create transformations in society that will lead to Socialism. This is a process that has increasingly made slow changes in societies around the planet as Capitalism reaches it maturity. It's a slow, organic process, but it is happening - even in such very strong Capitalist hold-outs as the United States, which is getting prepared to adopt National Health Care probably within the next decade (as just one example).
- Although Marx's theory that this process could be sped up through a Proletarian Revolution has failed, it does not mean that history has stopped - it does not mean that the process of society's transformation from Capitalist to Socialist has halted. And in this regard perhaps Marx was indeed correct: that eventually the "progress" of human society will move on to the next phase, and in a few hundred years or so Capitalism will have gone the way of all the other stages of human society in the past (such as Feudalism and Slavery), and the world's nations will be Socialist. Who knows for sure, but there are indications this is indeed how things are developing around the world. And if this is the case, then Marx has by no means become irrelevant. His perceptions of social change and historical development are still important to understand - even if one disagrees with them. -- Saukkomies 09:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Second Arbitrary section break
I certainly don't mean to say that the seizure of power by the proletariat is all that there is to Marx. Yet that is what he called for, and it is what happened in Russia. In the end, it didn't work out the way it was supposed to. I don't know that its preindustrial status was the reason for this; it may have been, although I don't see why it would be. (It's interesting to note that all successful communist revolutions have been in largely preindustrial societies. Perhaps they are just more susceptible to revolutions?) To try and suggest that the development of the welfare state fits into the Marxist model seems a bit of stretch to me. Marx couldn't conceive of capitalism as anything but unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. The existence of a minimum wage, of child labor laws, of the official shortening of the work week, and also of the techniques used to manage currency and interest rates, tax and spend jobs policies, and outright welfare--these all invalidate the foundational premises of Kapital and its predictions of the progressive immiseration of the proletariat, production crises, etc.. The welfare state, far from constituting revolution, actually only makes it all the less likely. Ousting the bourgeois on your model would perhaps mean (and would at least have to mean) abolishing inheritance. Yet the bourgeois clearly have enough control over the state to prevent this. The welfare state provides the means to the bourgeois class to ensure the welfare of the proletariat without altering the social order. The bourgeois cannot increase wages simply by increasing wages in businesses, for that would be suicide to any individual business; but it can increase wages as a class, through collective action with the participation of every business enforced by the state, and doing so ensures its ability to survive as a class. Economists would say that the welfare state is a public good for the bourgeois class. Of course it is good for the proletariat as well. In any society, it is good for the powerful to keep the powerless happy. —Jemmytc 16:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's where we are in agreement, then, Jemmy:
1. There is more to Marx than the Proletarian seizure of government.
2. Marx was opposed to labor unions, the passage of child labor laws, shortening of the work week, and anything else that would ameliorate the complete despondency that the working classes were heading towards, which would ultimately put off their support for revolution.
3. The powerful use welfare programs and support labor laws in order to keep the working class happy and avoid revolution.
Here's where we disagree (and please correct me if I've got this wrong):
1. That there has ever been a successful revolution that truly represented Marx's philosophy. (I don't think there has, and I believe it seems that you do).
2. A national health care system is part of the welfare state and not a socialist program. (I believe it is a socialist program, and hence something that we have inherited indirectly from Marx's ideas, and I believe you feel that it is a welfare program).
3. This we don't necessarily disagree over, but I'm including it: that Russia's (and other so-called Communist) revolution failed due to its being pre-industrial. I believe it did, you I think don't.
Now, as per the last point, I would also point to what Lenin himself admitted after the Civil War following the Bolshevik's seizure of power in 1918 - 1922. The Soviet Union's economy had completely gone down the toilet, and Lenin's government was facing incredibly grim times if it was to succeed. In 1921 Lenin pushed through a policy to change how the Soviet Union's economy would be run. His program was called the New Economic Policy, and it incorporated certain aspects of Capitalism to provide a boost to the Soviet economy. Lenin, describing why he was doing this, said "We are not civilized enough for socialism". By that he meant that the Soviet Union had not acquired a strong enough Capitalist base before trying to adopt Communism. Lenin felt that if the Soviet Union could somehow build up a strong Capitalist economy - under the watchful eyes of a Proletariat Dictatorship - that it could more speedily arrive at a point where it could then transform itself into true Communism. This was sort of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to take backwards Russian society and pushing it to fit into a Marxist/Communist model. It didn't work of course. And neither has any other attempt at Communism worked, because (as we've both pointed out), every country that has tried to make Communism work has each been an undeveloped country in which Capitalism has not had a chance to take full effect.
Now, if one looks at what is going on right now in China, it is quite interesting to see that their country is adapting to Capitalism with leaps and bounds, and may ultimately surpass European and North American economies in sheer economic power. Does this mean that Communism/Marxism has died in China? Why is the government still Communist? Why does the Communist government allow all this Capitalism? The answer is that the Chinese Marxists are successfully pulling off what Lenin tried to do in the 1920s - allow their country to develop through its Capitalist phase under the watchful eye of a Communist government with the goal of eventually reaching the point where they will be at able to successfully move from Capitalism to Socialism of a kind in which everyone has enough of the necessities of life so that the economy can afford to do this. In addition to this, the current policy of Chinese Communists has been to abandon the approach of violent revolution as a means to achieving their goals through the application of a policy called China's Peaceful Rise. Deng Xiaoping addressed these points in a speech he gave in 1984 at the beginning of the internal push to enact the reforms in China we see taking fuller fruition today. He stated:
"What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism." — Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping on June 30, 1984[27]
If any country will ultimately pull off an economic transformation of the kind that Marx envisioned, it could very well be that China might be the one to do it. If, as some here have claimed, we are to completely throw out all study of Marx's teachings, advising people who come here with questions to not bother studying Marx or Marxism, then we as Wiki Reference Desk editors would be making a big mistake because Marx's philosophies are still being used as a reference guide by the country with the second largest economy in the world. How can anyone with integrity state that Marx's ideas are unimportant or not worthy of study when we are faced with the possibility of China doing what it said it will do: to make long range goals of using the strength of a highly developed Capitalist economy to propel it into a Socialist transformation? I say that Marx is incredibly relevant today, and if people neglect to study his philosophies, they will be unequipped to understand the world that is unfolding in the 21st Century. -- Saukkomies 14:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
More on the crusades
I am interested in some of the points being raised above about the crusades. Would it not be possible, I wonder, to put a positive interpretation on the movement? After all it was only an attempt to recapture christian lands that had fallen to the muslims after the battle of Yarmouk. I would appreciate your views.86.151.240.196 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is possible to put a positive interpretation on anything. Humans are great at rationalizing things. -- kainaw™ 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It played an important part in renewing religious vitality in Europe. It also brought the west in closer contact with Islam. Both of these things were key to the rise of Scholasticism, which was a medieval Renaissance of sorts. Wrad (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That may depend on which Crusade you mean, also. The Children's Crusade was, at the very least, a lot of wasted effort. As Wrad mentions, there were some silver linings to the affair, and you can find fallout of both positive and negative effects from just about every major event in history, but then you have to consider the ends vs. the means issue also. ◄Zahakiel► 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It played an important part in renewing religious vitality in Europe. It also brought the west in closer contact with Islam. Both of these things were key to the rise of Scholasticism, which was a medieval Renaissance of sorts. Wrad (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Textbooks typically mention that the Crusades helped to reopen long-distance trade between Europe and the Levant (which in turn spurred trade within Europe). The growth of trade spurred the rise of cities, and with it a general increase in prosperity and population. Contact especially between Italy and the eastern Mediterranean ultimately (200-300 years later) led to the rediscovery of classical learning and the adoption and adaptation of Muslim learning that produced the Renaissance and helped shape the modern era. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What goes around comes around. I've been here before! Addressing myself specifically to your final statement, 86.151, here, slightly adapted, is what I said.
It does not seem to me to be in any sense legitimate to attempt a direct comparison between the Muslim occupation of the Holy Land after Yarmouk and the incursion of the Crusaders at the end of the eleventh century. This cross roads between Africa and Asia has been fought over for centuries; and of all the invasions that of the Muslim armies was, as far as I am aware, far less destructive of human life than the original incursion of the Jewish tribes at the time of the Exodus, or the wholesale massacre carried out when the crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099, or even the invasion of the Persians earlier in the reign of the Emperor Heraclius. Indeed, far from the land being Christian in any unified sense it had, prior to the Battle of Yarmouk, seen an intense factional dispute between the local Monophysites and the orthodox authorities in Constantinople. The Monophysites, who rejected the doctrine laid out by the Council of Chalcedon, settled down with very little resistence to Muslim rule, and the Byzantine state made no attempt to recover the lost heretical provinces.
The Crusades, therefore, most assuredly, did not follow follow from the conquest of Yarmouk, but came almost five hundred years later ( a time span which seperates contemporary England from the reign of Henry VII), and under very specific historical circumstances. Under pressure from the Turks in Anatolia, who had been steadily moving westwards ever since the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus appealed to Pope Urban II for military aid. He wanted professional mercenaries; he got something quite different. Urban conjured up a popular movement at the Council of Clermont. Thus the crusades began, and with it began centuries of massacre and atrocity, from the pogrom of the Jews in the Rhineland, moving through the wholesale murder and rape of Christian communities in the Balkans, to the ultimate sack of Jerusalem. And so it continued.
In view of all of this it would hardly be surprising if the word 'crusade' had negative conotations. But it has not; at least not until recently. It was used in positive terms for centuries, long after the atrocities and outrages had been forgotten, as something good, noble and Christian, a myth of purity washed clean of blood. The negativity now associated with the word comes as a consequence of ever closer western military engagement with the Islamic world. From memory, I believe George W Bush actually used the 'C' word in the early days of the Iraq conflict, until he was reminded of the implications of this for Muslim people, and the history he was bringing to mind. I think it safe to assume that many Islamic people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are threatened with a new crusade. We have now, it would seem, created Outremer once again; and it remains to be seen if it will be as long lasting, or if, in the end, Baibars will walk over the ghost of Richard the Lionheart. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please, let's not use the term "Dark Ages". -- Saukkomies 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lots of these things are not exactly true about the Crusades, since Europe already had plenty of contact with Islam - in Spain. Spain was the source of all the Latin translations of Arabic manuscripts originally translated from Greek; the Qur'an was translated into Latin from Spain; crusade-like events had been happening there long before 1095. For some reason we never really hear about that in school, it's always the story that Italy benefitted from increased trade in the 12th century and that led to the Renaissance, etc. That's true, but there was already lots of trade in exotic goods coming through Spain, and Italian cities like Venice and Genoa already had extensive trade with the Byzantine Empire (where they had autonomous trade centres, just like they did later in crusader cities), as well as with the Fatimids in Egypt. But it is true to say the crusades helped, especially since it was an aborted crusade that led to Venice's total dominance of the sea after they captured Constantinople (which also benefitted Genoa, and, by the way, directly led to the plague entering Europe!)
- Clio says that the crusades did not directly follow Yarmuk, but one of the current vogues in crusade historiography would argue the opposite. This goes all the way back to the original crusade histories in the 12th century, actually. William of Tyre begins his history with the war between Heraclius and the Persians, and the subsequent fall of Jerusalem to the Arabs. Even back then (perhaps especially so) they realized the connection. And now some historians would argue the same thing, that the threat of Islam overrunning the whole world was imminent, and the crusade was a reaction to the fall of Jerusalem in the 7th century, which for various reasons took 400 years to manifest itself (and meanwhile was developed in fits and starts in Spain). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is all true. The vast majority of translations from Arabic came from Spain. Only a few came from the Crusades, and most of those were medical ideas, as Europeans encountered medical needs in Arab lands. Even so, Crusaders were less interested in translating ideas a more interested in religious zeal, commerce, and saving their skins from the angry Arabs surrounding them. Spain probably churned out way more medical translations than the Crusaders. Wrad (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think they do to some extent. Personally, on top of not having much time to improve the crusade articles lately, I find them almost impossible to maintain. They are constant targets for vandalism, and for edits by well-meaning people who just don't know what they are talking about. If you can improve them, it would be appreciated! Adam Bishop (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Some concrete non-mystical rationales for the first crusade were:
1) Christians remembered that Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah had destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009.
2) After Manzikert, some strategically-minded Christians were worried about Christian Europe being caught in a pincer of Muslim advances through both Spain and the Balkans. Part of the idea of the crusades was to take the battle directly to the enemy on his own home ground.
I don't know how many Europeans had the battle of Yarmouk specifically in mind, but in general the whole history of Islam was a continuous 450-year span of aggression from the Christian point of view of 1095 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Domestic life in Georgian England
Could anyone recommend books (fiction or non-fiction) which describe domestic & married life in Georgian England? I'm specifically interested in the middle- and upper-classes. Thanks, --Kateshortforbob 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can I call you Kate?! Anyway, Kate or Bob, for a question of this nature I would always suggest that you begin with the novels of Jane Austen, a great social commentator as well as a great writer. I am thinking in particular of Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park and Persuasion. Though less well known Susan Ferrier's 1818 novel, Marriage, is an interesting exploration of contemporary attitudes. Looking now at matters from a quite different, and altogether more radical perspective, there is Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Mary Wollstonecraft's fictional continution of some of the themes she outlined in A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Wollstoncraft also deals with marriage in her other novel, Mary: A Fiction. Be warned, though: she is a great radical thinker; she is not a great novelist!
- As for non-fiction, there is a wealth of material you might choose from, depending on how you wish to approach the issue. I would suggest Sex in Georgian England by A. D. Harvey; The Gentleman's Daughter: Women's Lives in Georgian England by A Vickery; Wives and Daughters: Women and Children in the Georgian Country House by J. Martin; and High Society in the Regency Period by V. Murray. To put matters in a slightly wider context I would also recommend English Society in the Eighteenth Century by R. Porter. And that, I think, is enough to be going on with! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Clio, thanks so much for your recommendations! Jane Austen's novels are actually what's got my mind onto this track (sorry, I should have mentioned that!). I'm reading Jane Austen: The World of Her Novels at the moment, which I'm really enjoying, but has just piqued my interest. Marriage, in particular, and all of the non-fiction you suggested seems just what I was looking for - I think you've sorted out my Christmas holiday for me! Thank you once again (oh, and I'm a Kate, rather than a Bob!) --Kateshortforbob 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Happy reading, Kate (and I'm glad you are a Kate!) Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Kate, I agree with Clio on her choices, just adding to the list: Evelina by Frances Burney is a precursor to Austen, with the heroine nicely positioned to comment on and compare the middle and upper classes. Also Wollstonecraft's Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark deals with marriage and the care of a new-born son. Hope these help Lord Foppington (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lord Foppington, much appreciated! I've never read anything by Mary Wollstonecraft before, and Evelina looks like a great read.--Kateshortforbob 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
December 21
Countries
Why do you guys believe in countries? Countries aren't real. They're just pieces of land surrounded by imaginary borders. 58.165.54.132 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- People believe in countries because nationalism is the key to rule over masses of people. It leads to self-identification with the state bureaucracy. --Taraborn (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Like the equator, countries do indeed have imaginary borders. Unlike they equator, they seperate land that is goverened by individual countries, staties, or counties, and laws apply therein. Countries are indeed real. Whether you like the idea or not, they're 100% vital and important. How else would you be able to know where you were going to? You'd hear "A car bomb went off in that desert place nowhere near you killing 12" on the news and go WTF!? We couldn't use coordinates, they are imaginary, too. Perhaps a good read on countries would aid your misconception. Oddeven2002 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tinkerbell effect? William Avery (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I remember reading a piece by Buckminster Fuller, in Evergreen Review, I think, in which he argues that borders drawn upon the Earth's surface are meaningless. His argument is that if the Earth were a cube instead of a rough sphere, it would be impossible to divide the solid earth beneath the surface since each face could claim it as lying directly beneath its land area and thus within its borders. And therefore we cannot divide the Earth into countries. I had to go through his argument several times to convince myself that that was what he was really saying. Hm. Perhaps I'll read it again and see if it wasn't I who was mistaken.--Rallette (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would be best. With all due respect to Bucky and yourself, one of you must be mistaken imo. I don't see how whatever might be the case if the Earth were cubical could possibly be relevant to our actual non-cubical world. The logic is a bit like "If a cat were a dog, it wouldn't miaow, and therefore cats don't miaow". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the article on Nationalism outlines a number of rationales. The presence of people greatly complicates things beyond "just pieces of land". William Avery (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are countries not real? Countries have just as much a claim to reality as the territorial boundaries of a wolf pack or the nesting grounds of Emperor Penguins. The lack of there being actual demarcated lines drawn on the surface of the earth to distribute the land according to different social groups does not mean that those boundaries do not exist. Throughout all of nature we can find the existence and importance of geographical boundaries, from the plant, insect, reptile, fish, mammal and human levels. Humans are no different from any other species in wanting to set up boundaries where others may not come and exploit resources or impinge their will. If you're looking for something that is "real", then perhaps the best approach would be to try to come up with a definition of what you believe "reality" is, which is much more difficult than it may seem at first glance. If someone used the same measure that you have in discounting national boundaries as being "not real", then there would be many things that would also fail that test such as language, love, beauty, and yes "truth" itself (which after all is a concept, not something that you can point at). -- Saukkomies 12:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nation-states assert sovereignty over their claimed land and are able to enforce this by using coercion if necessary. At the bedrock that is what makes the lines non-arbitrary and non-imaginary, though in reality it is extremely rare that it has to come to that. In the end it comes down to a projection of power, a projection which has real effects over people's lives and how they live them. You can't call power of that sort "imaginary." --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We have been around this, though, in another way: privileging nation-state over other ethnic/national identity. For example, we describe Salvador Dalí as a "Spanish" painter rather than a "Catalan" painter. (Although we usually don't push that to the point of absurdity: Antoni Gaudí, an arch Catalan nationalist is at least described as "a Spanish Catalan architect"; he would certainly have rejected the former term, though there is no question that it was legally his citizenship. - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hair dyeing and straightening cost
I'm a guy with curly brown hair and I want straight blond hair. How much is the cost generally of both hair dyeing and hair straightening?--69.148.16.245 (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you live? There is a huge difference in price from city to city, between city and small town and between say New York and London. In southern Ontario (Canada) I can pay $400 for a haircut or $15. It depends on the salon, the sytlist, the part of town and sometimes, the day of the week. Bielle (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course if you skip the straightening it will be cheaper. I quite like guys with curly hair. :) --Candy-Panda (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am a guy with long hair, it stops just before my butt. I went for a cut-and-colour I also had it straightened, it cost me about £70 and the straitening only lasts one day. it would be easier to buy your own straiteners and do it yourself everyday. I am sure your sister/girlfriend can show you how to use em, as you dont want to burn all your hair off. GHD make good products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can get your hair permanently straightened - it uses the same chemicals as perming. Bear in mind dying and perming your hair can wreck it's condition. Exxolon (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Parents Rights
There are all kinds of articles and laws to protect children's rights when there is seperation in the family. I have been looking all over for parent's rights when it comes to abusive or disrespectful children. Specifically what are the obligations of a child towards his parents. And in my case where the marriage ended up in seperation, what are my obligations towards a disrespectful child. If more clarification to the question is needed, please let me know. I live in Canada in the province of Quebec if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easyone49 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your child has obiligation to follow the law of Quebec and Canada which means, for example he or she probably can't do things like hit you. However your child has no specific obiligations to you as an adult that I'm aware of anymore then you will have obligations to your child once your child reaches adulthood. 'Dispectful' or not you will likely be required to financially support your child if you are able to do so. Ideally you should also provide a home and the other necessities of life (including an education to your child) but if you are unable or unwilling to do so and attempts to patch up your relationship fail, most likely the other parent will be given sole custody or if this is not an option, another guardian may be appointed if there is an interested party or if not, your child will probably be places in foster care. If it helps, remember that you're the one who chose to have sex or otherwise have a child. Your child didn't chose to be born or have you as a parent. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your obligations towards your child? To love & cherish him, to put food in his belly, clothes on his back, and a roof over his head, to be on his side no matter what. I could go on, but we have a rule against posting diatribes - so I'll just add that Nil Einne got it pretty much right. DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, here in France there is an actual legal obligation for children to care for aged and/or infirm parents-- the principle is that of "solidarity between generations". Rhinoracer (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you are unhappy with the child, you may want to ask the child's other parent to take custody. You would still be obligated to contribute financially toward the child's support, probably until the child finishes university, if the child attends university. If the other parent won't take custody, if you can afford it, you could try sending the child to boarding school and/or hiring a nanny who could look after the child when he/she is not in school. However, this solution, while getting the child out of your hair, would not really solve any of the child's problems and would keep you from healing what after all should be one of your most important relationships. As for the child, the child has no legal obligation toward you except to obey the law, as has been said. Once the child reaches adulthood, you could cut off contact with him/her, but that would be a sad step.
- A better course might be to seek counseling, both for yourself and for your child. You might want to see one counselor (psychologist/social worker) on your own, preferably a person who can help you develop parenting techniques that will improve your relationship with the child. You might want to hire a separate counselor for your child, who can help to uncover the reasons for the child's animosity and to help the child (and you) toward a more positive relationship. If these options are too expensive for you, I still think that you should seek outside help from someone with wisdom on these matters, preferably someone with parenting experience. (That would rule out Catholic priests.) Perhaps you could try talking to older women (grandmothers, for example) where you work or that you know in your life. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- This questionner appears to be looking for advice about what a child's obligations towards his parent(s) are, if any. The only enforceable obligations would be legal ones, I suspect, if there are such things under Quebec's Napoleonic Code. (Quebec is not governed by variations on English Common Law, as are the U.S. and the rest of Canada, for example.) Wikipedia does not offer legal advice. Everything from "Honour thy father and thy mother" on out is a moral (ethical, social) constraint, and is not enforceable except by the child's acceptance of a community standard of behaviour. Bielle (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Theories about Values and Ethics in Youth Work
I am currently working with a group of youth workers and want to explain, in simple terms, values and ethics in youth work, linking theory to this. Does anyone know of any simple explanations of different theories or sites where I can get this information from? Would like the information to be referenced accurately. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMansell (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you want an ethical justification of youth work? Or reasons why youth work is valuable and ethical?--droptone (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Livy in english
Is the historian Livy "ad urbe condi" books in english online someplace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.205.64 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Check out the links at the bottom of our page on Ab Urbe Condita. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Lasting legacy of our greatness
Is there an organization that proposes to rebuiild or restore the seven wonders of the world. Or an organization that would like to create and 8th, to leave a mark, of our society, for the rest of time, much like the egyptians left us the pyraminds. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The wonders are restored over time. Consider the Great Wall of China. It was falling apart and the stones were being taken for other construction. The Chinese government stepped in and restored a large section of the wall. As for building new wonders - you don't build a wonder just to build a wonder. The pyramids had a purpose. The Great Wall had a purpose. Building a wonder just to build a wonder would be a stupid waste of energy and resources. However, it is possible that something we currently have that meets some purpose (such as the International Space Station) could be considered a wonder at some time in the future. -- kainaw™ 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the creation of monuments such as Mount Rushmore National Monument, the Crazy Horse Memorial, or the monumental bust of dictator Ferdinand Marcos at Benguet in the Phillipines, there was a desire to create a monument which would stand for millenia. History shows that this desire sometimes ends like the statue of Ozymandias, as in the destruction of the Marcos bust after his fall from power [15], [16]. "The rest of time" that a "wonder of the world" survives can be very short given politics and modern explosives, like the Taliban destruction of the 1700 year old world's largest statues of Buddha at Bamiyan. Edison (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the remnants of the Apollo 11 lunar module in the Sea of Tranquility Base is a pretty good bid for one of the Great Wonders of the World. -- Saukkomies 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong world! --Anon, 19:07 UTC, December 21, 2007.
- Heh. I take your point. Perhaps there ought to be another list of the Wonders of the Universe that include non-Terrestial artifacts. -- Saukkomies 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lol cats! 82.198.250.4 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Umm - the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World are not restored over time - the Pyramids are the only one of the seven to have survived into mediaeval times, and the Great Wall of China, being unknown to Europeans until rather recently, was not among them. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the Pyramids have been restored before. bibliomaniac15 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- to restore the pyramids we will need to cover them in Limestone slabs, and top them with gold. i thing can be done for a few million, which is not all that much. as long as we use as few beaurocrats as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.98 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
novelists getting published in C17 Europe?
How would a writer have gonebout getting published in 17th century France? Did he/she submit to a slushpile? Were there editors, subeditors etc in the publishing houses? Who were the publishing houses one was most likely to submit to?
Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You might take a look at French literature of the 17th century, which gives a lot of context as to who would have been writing in the first place. I don't know the 17th century very well but I do know that publishing was still extremely expensive and had a very small audience until the 19th century in general; most of our ideas of how publishing works or should work come from this later period, when publishing becomes effectively "modern". --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That is some help, and a great article, thanks for that Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Captives in the war of the kingdoms
The massacres of the Irish royalists at Drogheda and Wexford by Cromwell have left a lasting impression. I was wondering if a different standard applied in England, or in Scotland, over the treatment of captives at this time? Irishbard (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have always felt, and please forgive me for saying so, that what happened at Drogheda and Wexford has been accompanied by a 'mood of martyrdom’, if that's the right expression, which has done more to obscure than reveal the historical significance of these events. Yes, they were bad; yes, there was a mood of deep hostility in the English Protestant army to Irish Catholic rebels; but in themselves these incidents were not untypical of warfare in the seventeenth century. Indeed, as I have said before, they are as nothing compared with the truly dreadful Sack of Magdeburg during the Thirty Years War.
- Generally speaking, though not always observed, soldiers taken captive in wars between nations could expect to be treated with a degree of mercy, especially where some ransom could be obtained. Civil war was different for the simple reason that those in rebellion against the legitimate authority of the state were technically traitors. At the beginning of the English Civil War there were those on the Royalist side who were tempted to take such an approach towards captured Parliamentarians, though a sense of realism prevailed, an understanding that reprisals would only be followed by counter-reprisals. Both sides, then, accepted the principle that those who surrendered on quarter were safe.
- However there were degrees of surrender; surrendering at quarter, was one thing; surrendering at mercy, quite another. In the latter case-defence to the last extremity-it was up to the victorious commander if the prisoners lives were spared or not. Mostly they were, but sometimes they were not. There were notorious massacres in England at Hopton, Bartholmey, Bolton, Leicester and elsewhere. In Scotland the fall of Aberdeen in 1644 and Dundee in 1651 were followed by a sack, in which at least some of the civilian population was caught up.
- There was also the more general problem that arose from the capture of large numbers of prisoners. Many died from neglect, not because of the deliberate cruelty of their captors, but simply because there was no process and system in place for dealing with captives on any scale. After his victory at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650 Cromwell attempted to deal with the problem by allowing many of those considered less dangerous to go home. Even so, a great many of those who were left died in captivity. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
December 22
1964 World's Fair
In the 1964 New York World's Fair there was a Time Capsule. It seems like I remember signing a journal, with thousands of other tourists, that was to be put into the capsule. Probably a micro film (or digital) of the books were placed in the capsule. Is there a record anywhere of the people that signed this or copies of those books where perhaps one could look through? Are the original journal entry books someplace like National Archives?--Doug talk 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is (or was) a replica of the time capsule at the George Westinghouse Museum in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania; however that museum's website is down, so there's no easy way to determine if it still exists or if it included a replica of the signatures. A year ago, it was suggested that the museum's contents would be moved to the Heinz History Center. - Nunh-huh 07:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer - that now gives me some clues of perhaps whom to contact. Maybe they will know something on this.--Doug talk 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Bob Considine
I've been trying to sort out whether the Bob Considine who was son of vaudeville impresario John Considine (Seattle) is the same one who wrote Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. John definitely had a son Bob; standard short bios of John's grandsons, actors John and Tim Considine, routinely mention him as their uncle. However, they often refer to him as a "sportscaster". We don't have an article on Bob Considine / Robert Considine, although the author and columnist clearly deserves one.
[17] says the Bob Considine in this family wrote The Babe Ruth Story. [ His IMDB page] give his date and place of birth as "4 November 1906, Washington, District of Columbia, USA". The Find-A-Grave page on the Bob Considine who wrote Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo gives the same DOB. But someone might have been confused: these are not the strongest of sources. Does anyone have something more solid? - Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Riley, S.G. (1995) Biographical Dictionary of American Newspaper Columnists lists "Considine, Robert Bernard" (14 Nov. 1906–25 Sept. 1975), born Washington D.C., writer for INS, author or editor of more than 20 books including The Babe Ruth Story (1948) and Thirty Seconds over Tokyo (1953). His autobiography is: Considine, B. (1967). It's all news to me; a reporter's deposition. New York: Meredith Press. OCLC 1083315. Sorry, no mention of any family, but i'll keep looking.—eric 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Jahangir nanak
WHo is this Jahangir nanak in Bangladeshi politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.52 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this Jahangir Nanak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the income range for middle, upper middle and upper classes in America?
Is there a simple chart that records income by class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.233.199 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- These are arbitrary distinctions. The fashion is to pretend that everyone who works is middle class and that everyone who doesn't work is poor (as opposed to rich). A valid (that is, non-arbitrary) class distinction is that between the bourgeois (who obtain income by means other than wages: dividends, inheritance, etc.) and the proletariat (who obtain income only by wages, or perhaps contract work). Yet, within the proletariat there are clearly distinctions of class. These may have little to do with income; education is more important as what separates them socially. A grad student who makes next to nothing is nevertheless comfortably within the "middle class," whereas a factory worker who makes three times as much money likely is not. (This is true even if the grad student is studying literature and headed for a low-paying career, so long as it is an intellectual one; but if he winds up waiting tables then he becomes déclassé, de-classed.) Likewise, extremely well-payed workers (upper management types, CEOs) may socially mingle with the bourgeois; of course, at a certain level of wage income, non-wage income becomes an easy possibility and thus practical reality. The highest wages go to celebrities; here the simple unipolar measurement of class becomes ridiculous. Celebrities are not within the same class as CEOs or as old money bourgeois, even if all these classes have more intersection between them than with the lower classes, and celebrities may or may not have any money or income but retain their status. The analysis of the upper classes can't treat them as one bloc in the same way that is sometimes more feasible with the lower classes.
- Perhaps the best marker of class within the proletariat, that is of being "middle" rather than "lower" class, is the schools to which one sends one's children: those in the middle class proper (which might be called the "upper middle class" by those who maintain the above-mentioned fashion) send their children to primary schools in which practically all well-behaved students (those who are not extremely stupid) attend universities and the most intelligent and well-behaved attend "good" universities. Within the lower class proper (which is likely to be called the middle class), the primary schools do not guarantee college admission to all of their students, but only to the best of them. The upper class would, in this system, be those who can afford to send their children to private primary schools which guarantee admission to the "good" universities. —Jemmytc 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am interested to read that there are, apparently, so many fine distinctions in American society. For example, I have never heard the term déclassé used in the sense Jemmy describes, either informally, or formally in any sociological study. The separation between "bourgeois" and "proletariat" also strikes me as, well, arbitrary. As for the highest wages going to celebrities, I rather think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, using just two examples, are right up there with any celebrity on an annual basis, unless you are defining "celebrity" to mean anyone who is known to make a lot of money. I'd appreciate some references where I might read further about these class divisions. Bielle (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what Bill Gates' salary is, but I imagine it is much less than a film stars. Of course, he's made a lot of money through capital gains, which are not wages. AFAIK, Warren Buffet does not receive wages at all; all of his income is through dividends and capital gains. His wages are zero, which is less than a waitress! I certainly didn't mean to say (nor did I say!) that celebrities have the highest incomes. The highest incomes are not wages; I did not mean to say otherwise! The distinction between bourgeois and proletariat on the basis of their source of income is arbitrary only in the sense that every distinction is arbitrary; I just meant that it is qualitative and concrete, unlike (say) some arbitrary amount of income. It is also a damned important distinction in sociological analysis!
- As far as my use of declasse, its literal translation from French is "declassed." The first definition in the American Heritage Dictionary is "1. Lowered in class, rank, or social position." Its use to refer to someone who was born into a certain class, but has lost his class status, is (despite what you have seen!) quite common (considering that the word is uncommon) and is a simple literal usage of the French. The usage that refers to behavior unfitting of one's class status is secondary and metaphorical. In any case, when one refers to people rather than behavior as declasse, it always has the first meaning. —Jemmytc 01:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Social class and income are both extremely hard to measure and make sense of, if it is even possible at all. However, you may be interested in the following articles:
-- zzuuzz (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was Jemmy describing U.S. society? I certainly don't find that explanation to ring true. "...primary schools in which practically all well-behaved students (those who are not extremely stupid) attend universities and the most intelligent and well-behaved attend "good" universities. Within the lower class proper (which is likely to be called the middle class), the primary schools do not guarantee college admission to all of their students, but only to the best of them.' What? Rmhermen (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am indeed describing U.S. society. What kind of question is "what?"? I will certainly agree that education is as arbitrary a marker as anything else; but if you look at American middle class you will see that I am not alone in assigning it a central importance (which is not to say that there is any sort of consensus either). Anyway, I emphasize that I only suggested it as a marker, as one indicator which I consider to be the best single indicator, though certainly not the whole story. It will correlate quite well with many other indicators, obviously. I think it is certainly far better than any dividing line based on quantity of income; does anyone disagree with that?
- Oddly enough, I did assume that by "wages" you meant "wages", Jemmy. 'Tis true that wages are not capital gains, though they may include stock options, bonuses and commissions. 'Tis also true that, for the purposes of classifying people according to income range, as requested by the questionner, the difference is likely only of interest to Infernal Revenue. Distinguishing between the "bourgeois" and the "proletariat" based on the source of their incomes ignores a lot of crossover: the retired, and those with family money who also hold down jobs. Many of the people whose income is solely from inheritances, dividends and the like are the retired, especially the retired who have created their own "pension funds" through investment. Does this make them bourgeois? Do those who have inheritances, dividends and capital gains, but who also work at salaried jobs (like Queen Elizabeth, for example, though she is not an American, or many of the Kennedys) become a member of the proletariat by virtue of their wage? I wouldn't disagree that education, both the "where" as well as the "what", may be a class indicator, but I do not know of any primary school that "guarantees" admission to university or of any sociological study that equates good behaviour in primary school with admission to university. As for the class to which a graduate student belongs, my own observation would be that the student takes the class of his parents to school with him and, as post-graduate studies are expensive, most of such students will be at least middle class. Any such student who relies on scholarships and hasn't the money for the right clothes or the time to hang out in the right places will not be viewed as middle class, almost no matter what he studies. I would reiterate, these are my own observations; this is not a field in which I have expertise. I would be pleased to take a look at the studies on which you have based your conclusions. (Because we are wandering rather far afield from the original question, it might be more appropriate if you share your sources on my talk page.) Bielle (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Coming at this from another angle: "upper", "lower" and "middle" are only one way of coming at things, and income is only one determinant of class. I have some friends who we jokingly refer to as "lowest middle class" because they are economically poor (some would technically be considered homeless), but definitely have educations and middle-class values, and (as long as their health is OK) could certainly at any time decide to re-enter the more mainstream economy and would be firmly in the economic middle class within a year.
Also, the amount of money you need to lead a particular lifestyle varies wildly between a city like NYC (where even a shabby studio apartment typically goes for well over $1000/month) and Detroit (where that same amount of money will rent you a house quite sufficient for a large family) or a rural area (where that's a more than adequate mortgage payment).
That said, for a typical middling American city, I would say a person living alone needs to be able to spend about $20K a year in cash or equivalent (e.g. artificially low rent, informal barter, etc.) to have the choice of managing their money carefully and leading what I would consider a lower middle class life. More income needed if they are older or have health issues. Probably another $10K for additional people in a household. Again, this is very rough, but anyone below that level, I'd consider basically poor. Anywhere from that up to about $100K a year (plus, say $30K each for additional household members, and again I'm talking expenditures, wherever the money or equivalents is coming from), someone is probably living a basically middle-class existence, but one with more and more perks: eating out when you want to, owning your home, owning a car, giving to charity, buying nice electronic stuff, increasingly expensive hobbies, increasing ability to pay someone else to do tasks you find unpleasant, the chance to travel, etc. At the top end of that range, poor people would consider you rich, but even at the top end of that range, there would still be a lot of things you could only do if you budgeted carefully. Somewhere around that $100K money starts to translate into power not only on a personal level but at a societal level, if you choose to spend it that way (simply not an option below that level).
Or at least that's how it looks to me. Naturally, though, tastes enter the picture. If you like to keep six cats as pets and three of them are diabetic animals that need a lot of health care, they can be as expensive as raising a child. If your idea of a good time is sitting at home reading a book, then you may effectively live a much higher-class existence on a given amount of money than someone whose idea of a good time involves several rounds of drinks in a nice bar. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I see there has been a lot of discussion of this topic, and yet there really is not a simple breakdown of the different levels of income in U.S. society, so I thought I'd provide that as succinctly as possible. Sociologists generally measure U.S. income to be broken down into five different divisions, called Quintiles (which if you follow that link does provide some brief graphs of income range). However, there are some Sociologists who feel that the breakdown into five divisions does not properly reflect American society's cultural perceptions of class, and so they favor a breakdown that combines the three middle quintiles to create three separate divisions instead of five, so that it looks like this instead:
20% of population with highest income
60% of population with medium income (combines the middle three categories, each with 20%)
20% of population with lowest income
So one may choose either way to represent these figures: either 5 divisions or 3, depending on your intended audience and what you're trying to illustrate with your thesis. -- Saukkomies 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking for source of quote.
I'm looking for a source of this quote, purportedly by H.L. Mencken, "Public opinion, in its raw state, gushes out in the immemorial form of the mob's fear. It is piped into central factories, and there it is flavored and colored, and put into cans." I probably read it somewhere in one of those quasi-reliable trivia books like the Bathroom Reader and it shows up on some quote pages on the internet (though not Wikiquote). Besides confirmation that it's something he did say (so I can add it to the WQ page), I'd just like to know what work it came from so I can read the rest of the piece. Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mencken, H. L. (1926). Notes on Democracy. New York: Knopf. p. 192. OCLC 182664—eric 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Thank you very much! Matt Deres (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships
What are some examples (businesses) in the United States that are sole proprietorships or partnerships? 76.247.73.237 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I found 5 partnerships in my yellow book: "the anonymous lobster-catching business that I found in a news article", "potbelly's", "partners in pediatrics, LTD", "Martin Painting & Coating Co.", "Digger & Finch Pub".76.247.73.237 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Law firms, medical practices, architectural practices are all examples of the types of businesses that tend to be partnerships. Sole proprietorships are often the self employed, where the business's principal asset is the activity of the sole proprietor. Seamtress, a writer, a computer consultant (or another other kind of self-employed consultant) are examples. Bielle (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- In respect of the partnerships you found in your "yellow book", it is unlikely that "Partners in Pediatrics LTD" is a partnership, in spite of the use of "partners" in its name. "LTD" normally stand for "Limited" which refers to a company whose owners have limited liability, and that is definitely not part of a definition of a partnership. The same proviso applies to the business entitled "Martin Painting and Coating Co." where "Co." is short for "company" and a company is not a partnership, either, so far as I know. The lobster business might well be a partnership, but I'd be surprised if the pub were one. I have no idea about the business named "Potbelly's". Bielle (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
December 23
Mistakes in Holy Books and Proving Religions False
I’ve heard that one way you can know, test, prove, discover, or find out that a religion is false, that it is not the “one true religion”, is by finding, looking for, and searching for mistakes and errors in its holy religious book or books. By mistakes and errors, they could probably be, for example, scientific, historical, archaeological, chronological, or logical mistakes and errors.
There are so many different religions in the world today. Many of them have so many believers, millions and millions of them around the world. Many of them have existed for such a long time, for hundreds and thousands of years throughout history in the past to today. Religions have had such a big impact on the world’s history, art, music, societies, culture, recreation, holidays, people, philosophy, politics, government, and countries.
So I don’t understand. Is that it? Is it that simple? Can religions be disproved, proven wrong and false, and proven not to be the one true religion so simply, easily, and quickly?
Bowei Huang (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Most people can't think critically. It's sad, but true, and that affects every one of us. They are little more than trained animals. Despite any amount of evidence they will continue believing in that nonsense, which is either a false theory or a non-falsifiable theory. All believers share one basic false belief: the belief that the outcome of events are somehow affected by a mystical intelligence. Scientific tests prove this to be false, only random governs such things, but the populace will never accept that, they aren't intelligent enough. Something similar happens with the proof that 0.999...=1. Most people simply can't understand that, and will never be able to. As Max Planck noticed, new ideas triumph not because you convince your opponents, but because older opponents die and are replaced by younger people. --Taraborn (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be assuming that there is in fact a single religion that is the 'true religion' or that any religion is provable. Just about every religion claims to be 'the religion' or 'the chosen people' and that all the others are mislead. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Past experience suggests that the many errors which have been found in scripture have no great effect on belief. - Nunh-huh 06:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
(To answer the original question): Obviously not. If that were the case, everyone would have given up their religions by now. Sure, there are people who try to maintain that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old and that Noah had dinosaurs in the Ark. But many, many people who accept basic scientific principles also maintain their belief in religion. How? Well, some simply accept that the Bible, for instance, was written by human beings who lacked modern knowledge of astronomy and geology. But while rejecting the literal truth of the Bible's historical accounts, they maintain their belief in the religion itself because of its moral principles and because it is the tradition of their ancestors. Others refuse to take the Bible's historical accounts literally. In Jewish tradition, for instance, it's common to assume that the "Garden" of Eden, the "man" Adam and even the "days" of creation were not a garden, a man and days like we know them in the physical world. After all, if God is all-powerful, certainly He can mess with time and space to create humanity by way of the Garden of Eden in a metaphysical sphere and still make the physical world look like we came from Homo erectuses. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah many religions are either ambigious or support evolution Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies (not very good article but does cover it somewhat) even tho it appears to contradict the teachings of many religions particularly Abrahamic ones Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The bigger issue here is that religion often attempts to claim a place for itself afforded to no other system of belief, in the sciences or otherwise: that contradiction, historical errors, and other things we would normally use to discount a scientific theory are somehow not applicable. The paradox is that while religion is free to make scientific propositions about the creation of the earth, man, and historical events, it is not held accountable when those propositions fall through. For a good discussion on this, first try Stephen Jay Gould#Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), then try this article. To be honest, I find the "non-overlapping Magisteria" principle silly - if religion should make scientific predictions, it should be taken accountable when errors are found. Your mileage may vary - precedent seems to say it doesn't matter anyway, people will still believe in stories contrary to scientific fact. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Non-overlapping magisteria is not itself a new idea. Paul H Hirst proposed the idea of "Forms of knowledge" ("logically discrete forms of rational understanding" see here)in 1965. He was not original in this idea either, but he was when he suggested that school pupils should be taught the different forms of knowledge, and that they should learn to think as scientists, mathematicians, historians, moralists, etc, and thus that they should be able to distinguish between situations in which the different modes of reasoning were applicable. ("It is because the concepts are used in a particular way that any proposition is meaningful. The concepts on which our knowledge is built form distinctive networks of relationships. If we transgress the rules of the relationships which the concepts meaningfully permit, we necessarily produce nonsense.") The existence of this question seems to indicate that he had a point. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The bigger issue here is that religion often attempts to claim a place for itself afforded to no other system of belief, in the sciences or otherwise: that contradiction, historical errors, and other things we would normally use to discount a scientific theory are somehow not applicable. The paradox is that while religion is free to make scientific propositions about the creation of the earth, man, and historical events, it is not held accountable when those propositions fall through. For a good discussion on this, first try Stephen Jay Gould#Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), then try this article. To be honest, I find the "non-overlapping Magisteria" principle silly - if religion should make scientific predictions, it should be taken accountable when errors are found. Your mileage may vary - precedent seems to say it doesn't matter anyway, people will still believe in stories contrary to scientific fact. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The difficult is that 'truth' is not the only real thing in life. Whether or not religions are disproved really doesn't alter the value they bring to many people (and yes problems too). We must remember that those with religion have their culture just as those without religion do. I would say to me this is the same idea as who is (or isn't) factually your family. By simple DNA you might tell a father his son of 20 years is actually not his at a.., but someone else's. Will that 'fact' alter their belief in who is their son? Often not. Why? Because the fact alone is not why they are their son - it is the years of shared-experience, the closeness, the connection etc. Similarly in religion if you suddenly had 100% proof that religion Y is based on false evidence will those who have put 30 years of belief into it convert? Not likely. They will consider the 'lie' to be worth as much as the 'truth'. It isn't a case of lacking intelligence or being resistant to change/ignoring new information - it is that there is bond in religion (as in most cultural groups) beyond the mere 'facts' which gets into many more aspects of life. In short it is not that simple, because proof isn't what many people are looking for. ny156uk (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Fox on Barbados
Why did George Fox visit Barbados in 1671 and what was the impact of his visit? Major Barbara (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here (http://www.quakerinfo.com/barbados.shtml) might help get a bit more info. ny156uk (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is also an online copy of Fox's journal where he discusses this time period. -- Saukkomies 11:13, 23 December 2007
Hamilton and Montrose
First Question: Is there any obvious reason why James, 1st Duke of Hamilton should have been such a poor military commander and James, 1st Marquis of Montrose such a talented one, considering the first had more campaigning experience than the second?
Second Question: What was the reason for the decline in trust between Hamilton and King Charles I? Thank youDonald Paterson (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
the promised one of Islam and the Seal of the Prophets
Muslims, to the best of my knowledge, are waiting for a "Promised One" of some sort, eg. Shi'a Muslims are expecting the return of the 12th Imam, and Sunnis the Mihdi, and/or the return of Christ (please correct any errors I have made here). However, they also regard Mohammed as the Seal of the Prophets, that is, the last prophet. How can they await the appearance of a Promised One if they also believe their prophet is the last? 203.221.127.216 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see a contradiction here: the Mahdi is the prophesied "redeemer", not a prophet. Skarioffszky (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Italian army in WW2
The performance of the Italian army in WW2 was generally very poor. The various failures over a number of fronts suggests a lack of preparation, surprising considering the militant nature of the regime. Is there any evidence, then, on the structure, organisation and levels of investment in the armed forces before 1940? Were there specific command or logistical problems that could explain successive defeats? Henry Henryson (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)