Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 30

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< August 29 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 31 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


August 30 edit

Copyright edit

Without providing legal advice, can someone point me in the right direction regarding the following: What is the status of the copyright on this? Complicating the issue further, how would an American get permission (given the existence of embargoes, and such)? I can't quite work out who owns the copyright, who to contact, what jurisdiction it covers (and, in fact, whether marxists.org is violating copyright). Thanks, Llamabr 00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are asking about the text you linked to (a translation) and not the original text. The translator owns the copyright of the translation. This comes up in a lot of areas. For example, I have two copies of Dante's Inferno - each with a different copyright because they are translated by two different people. You need to contact the translator for permission to use his translation. It claims there are two translators on that page. I don't know if both have to give permission or just one. -- Kainaw(what?) 00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't assume that a copyright still belongs to an author or translator; it can be sold, and with works done for hire, it could belong to the hirer in the first place. For a derivative work like a translation, the original author's copyright applies as well. (For Dante that doesn't matter, due to the age of the work.) If the translation was done by someone friendly to the Castro's government, it seems entirely possible that it was for hire and the Cuban government, or maybe Castro himself, owns all rights. Or not. The point is that just my looking at the piece you can't tell; you actually need an expert to research it. And that's my illegal advice. :-)
Oh, one more point. I imagine that if Cuba granted you permission to reproduce it without you paying them royalties, you probably would not be falling afoul of the embarge -- but you'd need an expert opinion on that too.
--Anonymous non-expert, August 30, 2007, edited 02:30 UTC.
Cuba is a signatory to the Berne Convention so you can't assume its works are not copyrighted. You may in fact not be able to legally license the material in the United States on account of the embargo. --24.147.86.187 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government Regulation of raisins in Rasiain loaf bread? edit

A Friend of mine claims a Sun Maid package says that the government regulates the amount of Raisins in Raisin loaf bread. Long story short, we're in a bit of a bet as to whether a Democrat or Republican was closest to this regulation. I wonder if anyone would be capable of confirming or denying this rumor, and if so whether there was either legislation that created this (and if so a bill number or sponsor would be nice), or if it was some FDA regulation, if we can find whoever sponsored the bill that gave the FDA permission to regulate bread contents. Thanks for helping with such a strange request :). --YbborTalk 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 CFR 136.160—eric 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The online Federal Register does not go back as far as 1977, but Donald Kennedy was the FDA Commissioner under Carter's administration.—eric 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ybbor, regarding the second facet of your question, the one about who gets "credit" (Democrats or Republicans) it's probably a bit more complicated than finding out "who gave the FDA permission" because the scope of administrative authority is usually defined very generally, and such particulars are within the delegated authority of the relevant agency. Thus, you might have to trace back a bit further than the Carter administration if you want to assign "credit" to a particular party. dr.ef.tymac 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is administrative law rather than a bill on raisin density that went through Congress and the White House, I don't think you'll be able to say it was attributable to either party, so much as to the cultural norms of the federal civil service. Those norms tend to outlast any given administration. --Sean 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sound a bit surprised that there are regulations that fruit bread must contain at least so much fruit. But it has always been the case that the government sets and upholds trading standards. 70.16.220.156 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; here's a famous 8-page regulation on the permissible length, color, and curvature of a banana: [1]. --Sean 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? When you read the document it is actually quite sane. (And to say "eight pages" is something of a hyperbole, the first four pages aren't part of the standard. Page 1 - title page, Page 2 - revision history, Page 3 and 4 - preamble, Page 5 and 6 - definition of grades Extra, A and B, this is the actual standard, page 7 - how does a properly packed crate of bananas look like, page 8 - frequently encountered banana cultivars. Where is the problem again? 70.16.220.156 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khubilai Khan edit

who was Khubilai Khan enemies? and where were they in the world?


please email me at <e-mail address removed> it is for my assessment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.127.58 (talk) 06:19, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the correct spelling is Kublai Khan, and you can read that article now. If it still doesn't answer your question, ask again. 84.0.127.211 08:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Actuallly, "Khubilai Khan" is an acceptable variant spelling, and it more closely approximates the name's original pronunciation than the conventional "Kublai Khan". Marco polo 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, questioner, and welcome to Wikipedia. I suppose the precise response is that the Great Khan had a power beyond the reach of enemies! However, if you have read the article you will see that his empire in China expanded at the expense of the Song Dynasty, though campaigns against Vietnam and Japan were a failure. All of the Khan's opponents were in Asia, as one would expect, which existed largely as a self-contained world at the time of the Yuan Dynasty, despite the intrusions of Marco Polo; the Marco Polo, that is, not the one who appears above (sorry, Marco!) Clio the Muse 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

getting a work permit in Switzerland (Hungarian citizen) edit

Will I have trouble getting a work visa in Zurich as a Hungarian citizen?

Our EEA article says

However, the cited Swiss-EU bilateral agreement article does not give me any clues, not containing the word "Hungary".

Looking wider on the web I find this FAQ which reassuringly applies to me: "Citizens of the EU 8 are nationals of one of the following countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia. These questions mainly cover aspects, where regulations for the EU 8 and the EU17/EFTA differ." The first point reads:


The second point reads:

However, none of this tells me how hard it is to get the work visa! It says only that I have to apply, but is it worth the application? I haven't found any success/failure stories online, which is why I ask.

I would be teaching English - I'm a Native English speaker, which is why I think "Local worker priority: No local equivalent local worker (Swiss national or foreigner already integrated in to the Swiss labour market) is available to fill the position" may not be too odious a criterion. The other two points mentioned seem like formalities. But what I'd really like to know is what my chances are - it would be great if I could read success stories online, but I just can't find any (or accounts of failure, for that matter). Thank you!

84.0.127.211 08:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First, please see WP:IANAL. Second, my advice would be to e-mail the Office of Economy and Labor of the Canton of Zürich and ask directly. Their website is here. They even have an online form for work permits. Sandstein 14:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbachev and the fall of Soviet power edit

I read recently that Gorbachev aimed at the reform of socialism, not its destruction. How true is this?Bryson Bill 11:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite true, for the most part. He certainly wasn't aiming for its destruction; as to the extent he thought he could "reform" it, and to what he thought he could politically get away with, it changes depending on what particular time of his rule you are looking at. A great, genuinely fun read on the subject is David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb, which is primarily about the final days of the Soviet Union, but gives a great historical overview and a great behind-the-scenes look at the power politics involved.
In any case, Gorbachev was a true believer in socialism, up to the end, but he thought that one could take far less hard-line approach than previous Soviet leaders believed. In the end, he was, it seems, a bit wrong — adding in some elements of freedom while keeping many of the vestiges (and history) of the old system ended up driving the country into a severe state of political instability. --24.147.86.187 15:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the fall of communism had nothing to do with the 'pissed up clown' known as yeltsin - seems a little unfair to place the blaim on the 'ultimate beaurocrat' known as 'gorby'.87.102.14.233 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Yeltsin was very important to it too. I don't think you can really isolate Yeltsin and Gorbachev in considering the final days of the USSR, they played off of one another quite a bit. --24.147.86.187 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it seems to make you what if you think the head of state's task is to destroy the state itself - where did you get that idea?87.102.14.233 15:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it is entirely plausible that the USSR could have just become a run down Stalinist state, like North Korea, and persisted like that for decades longer. There was no strong political reason for Gorbachev to have instituted the reforms that he did, which clearly set the political ball in motion. Had someone more conservative taken power instead of Gorbachev, there might still be a USSR today, for all we know. Taking an overly macroeconomic approach obscures the contingency of history, and is a terribly teleological view of the past. --24.147.86.187 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gorbachev's Memoirs are a pretty good read (though partial, obviously) & make very plain his sincere belief in socialism (and union among the USSR's constituent republics). Through the lens of Russia's experience of Yeltsin and Putin, it's quite possible to feel that Russia's break with his policies & supposed plunge into democracy and liberal civil society has brought about something more undemocratic and illiberal than Gorbachev was tending towards. Wareh 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia, like any other state (US,UK etc) never really changes, and neither does (it seems) the desire amongst some (in the press mostly?) to believe that it is in someway barbaric, or run by barbaric people (cue diatribe about stalin perhaps?)213.249.232.26 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that it never really changes, it is that you can't just switch from one form of governance to another in the course of a year or two, especially when you are talking about a form of governance which essentially denied that there was an individual (communism) to one that elevates the individual to the most important central element of society (liberal democracy), without having major problems and repercussions. (Which doesn't mean I think Putin's approach was inevitable or positive in the slightest, but the conditions which allowed for him to move in that direction and for him to enjoy so much popular support in doing so are directly related to the difficulty of the transition and the short term losses in enacted upon Russian society.) Changes happens — and did happen in Russian society — but it is still constrained by the bounds set on it by the past, by history. --24.147.86.187 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Bill, that it is Gorbachev's tragedy that he truly believed that he could indeed reform the unreformable, to give fresh life to what was, in practice, a political and economic corpse. If you look closely at the history of the period you will see that he was acting on conclusions already reached by Yuri Andropov, his predecessor, who died before he could implement any policy changes. Alterations to the moribund system had to come, in one form or another. So, what went wrong? Well, let's have a look.

The first thing is that he was too ambitious: he opened so many doors that could not be closed again; to rooms within rooms, ever beyond. He began by looking for both political and economic change, whereas the wise thing would have been to renew the economy, the immediate area of concern, and leave political superstructures to a later date. He might, in other words, have adopted the kind of model being pursued with considerable success by the present Chinese administration. Attempting political and economic change at the same time was bad; it was far worse when one ran far ahead of the other. In Gorbachev's case political reform proceeded well out of pace with the rescructuring of the economy. To be more precise, the the whole Soviet economy went into a state of freefall, while a growing sense of political freedom opened the whole apparatus of Communist rule to acute forms of criticism that Gorbachev could simply not control. It was a self-reinforcing process; the more living standards declined the more critical people became. For some the pace of change was too fast; for others it was not fast enough. There was no strategy; there was no road map; there was no coherence.

Gorbachev was also faced with the inertia and lmitations of the whole system; an entrenched and sclerotic bureaucracy, and a population that over time had learned apathy as a mode of defence. The Secretary's attempt to appeal to 'the people' beyond the apparatus only incresed hostility towards him within the Communist Party, just as his wider social and political initiatives often had risable consequences. I am thinking here of the anti-vodka campaign, intended to reduce absenteeism and increase productivity. All this did was to give an added spur to the black economy, and draped poor Gorby with the unfortunate appellation of 'Lemonade Joe.' Unpopular within the system, and unpopular without, he went on to attempt to ride all of the horses of the Soviet republics and the People's Democracoes at the same time. Practically speaking, the whole thing was quite impossible.

Internal matters were made worse for Gorbachev by the falling world price of oil and gas, which reduced his room for maneuver still further. In international terms his inititives looked increasingly desperate, particularly his moves towards disarmament, which further weakened the Soviet military-industrial complex, and only confirmed to western leaders that the U.S.S.R was in serious economic difficulties. The cuts in defence spending also failed to have the intended effect, with little in the way of realignment towards the consumer economy. Shortages remained a feature of the whole system, made worse when reduced subsidies led to a sharp rise in the rate of inflation. Many ordinary Russian people, particularly those on fixed incomes, were effectively priced out of the market altogether. And here I think what I wrote in response to the question about the Roman historian Tacitus has some relevance: when it comes to a choice between freedom and security, between hunger and bread, there are few people who are satisfied to chew on abstractions.

Gorbachev certainly saw Communism as an ideal which could be renewed, in the same fashion that Christians throughout history have sought renewal in a return to the primitive faith. But Communism was-and is-The God that Failed. I think I should let the man himself have the final word;

When I became General Secretary, I admit that I was not free from the illusions of any predecessors. I thought we could unite freedom and democracy, and give socialism a second wind. But the totalitarian model had relied on dictatorship and violence, and I can see that this was not acceptable to the people...I wanted to change the Soviet Union, not destroy it. I started too late to reform the party, and waited to long to create a market economy.

How hindsight makes us all wise. Clio the Muse 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on terminology: Socialism is a much broader term. The USSR had State Socialism. And it wasn't communism either - it was meant as a precursor to communism. Also, the fall of the USSR just ended the state socialism in the USSR, not (state) socialism in general, as is often claimed - except that it is often called communism, which is extra confusing because it's impossible to end communism because it didn't exist in the first place (except on a small scale such as in the Israeli Kibbutzim). DirkvdM 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do all year-numbering systems commemorate some sort of historical and/or mythical event? edit

Do all year-numbering systems commemorate something? Such as the birth of Christ, or the creation of the universe, or an event in Muhammad's life, or something?

Like, for instance, the Jalaali calendar. The beginning of its year is natural (the spring equinox), but the years themselves are numbered from an event of religious significance. Do all calendars number years from something of religious and/or political significance? Why not take the most recent year in which an equinox occurred at the earth's perihelion to be year 1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.149.201 (talk) 11:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

For starting with religious/political significance, pretty much. I can't think of any exceptions offhand, unless you want to count the Unix epoch. See calendar era for more on that.
As for the equinox/perihelion suggestion, it's more or less as arbitrary as the others. Why not the solstice, or aphelion? Practically speaking, what would be gained by overturning an established (if arbitrary) system in favor of another? Are there benefits comparable to, say, those of metrification, or will it just lead to something as lame as BC/BCE edit wars? — Lomn 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unix time, as mentioned. Also, the "before present" used in radiocarbon dating has "present" fixed at 1950. --Sean 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wonder the English didn't use a calendar that started on 3 September 1189, which for a long time was the legally defined "time immemorial". -- JackofOz 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the most recent year in which an equinox occurred at the earth's perihelion" would be long before human history, and difficult to determine accurately. —Tamfang 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda wonder why historians use BC; it would be easier on the brain (imho) to cite Roman events in the Roman count from the legendary founding of the city. Did the French Republicans extend their new calendar to the past? —Tamfang 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom edit

Why is it that ordinary people are willing to engage in wars for "freedom" when they allow themselves to be controlled by their governments and, in many cases, religion? I really dont understand why people fight for something that doesn't exist, because every person who lives in say the USA is controlled by the USA's laws; and everybody who is a christian, is to an extent controlled by the teachings laid down in the bible. Any thoughts? Hadseys 14:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People often regard the referent of a word as quite secondary to the word itself. Examples:

  • In the USA, we went off the gold standard some decades ago, and the public did not storm government buildings claiming that they were being robbed of their gold.
    • What relevance does that have to the question?
  • Simply tell people to get up earlier and they won't; put Daylight Saving Time into effect and they will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.130.121 (talk) 14:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see how that has any bearing on why people fight for "freedom" in wartime
Ordinary people do not engage in wars. Governments and religions do. -- Kainaw(what?) 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to world wars, why does everybody group together to fight for something that isnt there?
See Causes of World War I and Causes of World War II. -- Kainaw(what?) 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Religions don't engage in wars. People do. The unsigned comment, above, seems to be echoing George Orwell's point in Politics and the English Language: the evacuation of signification from a sign reduces it to a feeling rather than a meaning. If we employ the signifier and switch signifieds over and over again, eventually the signifier becomes no more than a social gesture (a motive, an action, a marker of identity -- a transaction between persons rather than a limited or meaningful exchange of symbolic knowledge). Orwell was very concerned with Goebbels suggestion that people believe a Big Lie more readily than a small one.
However, "freedom" has received immense scrutiny in the United States. It was a very contentious term in the 18th century (Burke to Samuel Johnson, Locke to Hume), but it experienced a renewed fascinated gaze in the 1960's, when the original questioner's sorts of musings became fashionable again. "Are you really free, man?" Well, there is "free your mind," "free action," "free will," "free feeling," "free love," "free property," and "free spirit." Chris Christoferson said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," and that anti-accomplishment "freedom" was always lurking beneath the surface of the positive-attainment "freedom." You can be free by gain, or you can be free by loss. You can be free by being king of your domain, or by being a monk on a pillar in the Nitrean desert.
Part of the 1960's fascination was because of inequality and lack of freedom in laws (the absence of civil rights), and part was because people wanted a chance to step outside of the social network itself (the guru induced fascination) or outside of a complex system of control (what Kesey would call The Combine) (in communes and the like). After the 1960's fitful and disparate questionings, we came to other understandings of freedom. The quietism of self-improvement replaced the oddity of chanting, and people began to give up on collective freedom in favor of personal egoism, perhaps.
The most important element, though, is that the absence of total freedom does not mean that people are "not free." Total freedom is like total power: it is impossible to conceive or possess without an alternate state existing at the same time (free from what? in control of what?), and the fact that a person does not have entire freedom does not mean that a person is a slave. Utgard Loki 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if we had been controlled by Hitler who's to say we'd have been slaves; we'd have just been controlled by another form of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 16:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
  • You might also look at the Four Freedoms, which is closer to what many people think of as "freedom" than "license to do whatever one wishes without repercussion". No sane group has that latter state as a political goal; witness the famously freedom-loving Idahoans' rejection of their Senator's recent contretemps. --Sean 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell also said "Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defence against a homicidal maniac", but of course that didn't stop him from believing that sometimes wars have to be fought for political reasons. The greatest of those for his generation (as he saw it) was the defeat of fascism. In 1936, he went to Spain to fight for the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War, joining the militia of the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). In 1939, he supported the reluctant declaration of war against Germany by Britain and France and volunteered for the British army. Found unfit, he joined the Home Guard. Of course, his experiences in Spain also turned him bitterly against Stalinism. Xn4 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always great to have more Orwell. The original questioner seems to want to know why this abstraction, above all others, is the one that people will fight for. The problem, as I see it, is this sort of political metonymy. Taking a single word and turning that word into a goal is never satisfactory, whether it's "democracy" or "freedom" or "flag." Augustine said, "When no one asks me what (time) is, I know what it is; but the moment I am asked what it is, I do not know." Well, freedom is like that. While Freedom is an impossible abstraction, "Freedom from the domination of the Hun" or "Freedom from having those smelly people in our neighborhood" or "Freedom from having the Government tell me that I have to bow to a hat on a pole" is meaningful. Most of the time that people respond to the call to fight for freedom, they're conceiving of it, if it's a compelling call, not in an abstract term, but as part of a larger sentence. In world wars, for example, lingering xenophobia and rampant nationalism (i.e. both "those people are horrible" and "the way we are is the best") combined for WW1's call for "freedom." Freedom from the beastly Hun, freedom from the decadent royal houses, freedom from Austro-Hungarian expansionism, freedom from Anglo-French diminishment of natural rights.... In other words, each side could say it was fighting for "freedom" but mean a very different thing. Each side's "freedom" was not a hollow word. Each side's "freedom" was a real quality that they sought. We see from our distance that it was horribly foolish, and we should learn humility from that, but we shouldn't say that they were stupid. Blind, they were. Stupid, they were not. They did not fight for a word, but for a whole system of beliefs, and they shared a word in their different sentences.
At present, people may go to war to be "free from terror" or to "free Mecca from the infidel" or to be "free of foreign influence" or to "ensure the freedom of the repressed people" or to have "free access to our natural resources" or to "free the tribal peoples from being moved off their natural resources." People again are using that word freedom, but they're using it in utterly different sentences, and it is at that level that meaning adheres for those who go to fight, I think. Geogre 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, Hadseys, I do not think ordinary people ever fight for grand abstractions of any kind, no matter what their leaders may say. People go to war for a whole variety of reasons, usually to be located within their own emotional reactions to a given set of circumstances. But for a soldier crouching in a trench under shell fire in 1916, or walking on point in the jungles of Vietnam in 1968, or patrolling the streets of Baghdad in the present day, notions of 'making the world safe for democracy', or 'containing the spread of Communism' or 'helping the Iraqi people' would, and do, sound particularly hollow. Clio the Muse 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They may well sound hollow once the soldiers get a "real taste" of battle, but nonetheless such reasons do account for a large proportions of enlistments, when the would-be soldiers are still quite naive. As for the original question, freedom is a relative thing. While, as an American, I seem to have lost the freedom from having my phone calls monitored without a warrant, I can still call Bush an idiot without being executed. In many countries, insulting the leader would result in just that. Some think such things are worth fighting for. StuRat 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many countries? Some, maybe (which ones?), but not that many. In many countries it may be punishable to insult a leader (such as the queen in the Netherlands), but not quite that severely. DirkvdM 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some more thoughts on the notion that freedom is a relative term. It's easy to mock others who don't have certain freedoms we do have, but no-one is completely free. We don't live in a garden of Eden in which one is free to walk around buck naked or take fruit from trees at will (excepting that one tree). We live in societies in which pretty much everything is owned and therefore not free - ironically in the name of the free market. :) This is an illustration of how freedoms often collide. If I take the liberty to take something for myself then I take away that freedom from someone else. One always has to balance those things, so no-one is ever completely free. If I use jy freedom to smoke I take away other people's freedom to live in a smoke-free environment. But when those others use their freedom to drive their car around in my neighbourhood, they take away that same freedom from me.
Concerning the original question - the real reasons to go to war (unprovoked) are usually economic. But that sounds too much like stealing, so excuses are needed. Freedom is just one of those many excuses. When the others don't have certain freedoms we have then they 'need to be liberated'. And when they have freedoms we don't then they are immoral and need to be subdued. DirkvdM 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and according to War (band), "Freedom is to be free from the need to be free". Whatever that means. Just couldn't resist the quote given the connection between war and freedom. :) DirkvdM 07:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine, A vast majority of slaves predominently came from the Slave coast and the Gold coast, so all of them are of ghanaian, togolese, beninese and western nigerian descent? edit

followed by bantu's from congo and angola!!, huh!!??, So they did not come from no Mali empire, Songhay empire and Ghana empire? or southeast africa? Just the Slave coast and the Gold coast?!--arab 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please put your followup questions in the original thread. --Sean 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered this question several times now, but you don't seem to get it. The question in the title is nonsensical. It does not make sense. 17th and 18th century people do not descend from 20th century nations.
The slavers included African tribes and kingdoms, such as the Empire of Ashanti, and they got slaves from whereever they could get them. It is quite likely that this included slaves from the vast geographical area corresponding to the former Mali Empire, defunct at the time, the earlier Songhai Empire, or the much ear;lier Ghana Empire, which had ceased to exist several centuries before. However, the slavers were not bean counters who kept records of how many of the slaves traded came from where.
You seem to have a problem with words like "majority" and "predominantly". There is a difference between "majority" and "all". For example, a majority of Haitians is black. That means the same as that most Haitians are black. It does not mean that all Haitians are black. Some are white, but most are black. White Haitians form a minority; the majority is black.  --Lambiam 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
arab, I've kept out of this saga, but even for a passer-by it's getting wearisome... enough, now. Xn4 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the slaves came from coastal areas of West Africa. Most of the slaves from coastal West Africa probably came from the Slave Coast. However, I'm not sure that most slaves came from the Slave Coast. A fair number of slaves came from the area that is today Senegal and Gambia. Others came from areas outside of West Africa, such as Angola and present-day Congo. Some also did come from southeast Africa (present-day Mozambique). Feeding captured slaves during long journeys on foot was costly, and it seems unlikely to me that many of them would have come from the interior of West Africa, the region where the former empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai had existed. Probably a large majority came from within 200 miles of the coast. But no doubt some few did come from the interior. We can't know exact numbers, because detailed and accurate records were not kept. Marco polo 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Name of Chicago's McKinley Park Neighborhood on the near south side edit

I am writing a novel about the area known as Mount Pleasant whose boundaries would be from Ashland (Reuben) and Archer Avenue, Archer West to 35th Street, and 35th Street east to Ashland, Ashland North to Archer. This triangle of land was known as Mount Pleasant.

I've researched every database and/or website I could find and not one of them has the original name of the McKinley Park area.

I am not able to locate the original name of the area now known as McKinley Park, whose boundaries (approximately) from Ashland to Western, from 31st and Ashland South to 39th, 39th West to Western. From what I've been able to find, the Brighton Park area's eastern boundary was Western Avenue.

Can anyone help me?

Thanks so much


63.215.26.205 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (removed what looks like name and email address)09:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what time period is your novel set? Before the park was opened in 1902 (as McKinley Park), the site had been the Brighton Park Race Track, but apparently by 1900 the area consisted of open prairie and cabbage patches.[2]  --Lambiam 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. According to our Brighton Park, Chicago article, the race track had been built in 1855 by the then mayor of Chicago. 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the Research Center at the Chicago History Museum? --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, August 30, 2007.

Great depression in Europe edit

Please explain the cause and effects of the great depression of 1929 and after in europe. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.6.69 (talk) 20:40, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Please see our article Great Depression. It includes links to more detailed articles , such as Causes of the Great Depression, and articles on the Great Depression in individual European countries. Let us know if you have more specific questions after reading those articles. Marco polo 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Adolf Hitler as it can be argued that the depression gave the Nazi party cause to be popular. Extremeism doesn't function in a society that is working well... SGGH speak! 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The economic state of pre-Nazi Germany was due as much to the Treaty of Versailles as it was to the Great Depression, although I'm sure there was room enough for both. Plasticup T/C 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but our GCSE course said that Germany was recovering economically until the Wallstreet Crash. This may be the sort of thing they're looking for :) Skittle 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page on the Great Depression seems a little bit eclectic, Marco, with links to some countries but not others; a large article on the Netherlands, of all places; a tiny page on France, and a passing mention of Germany, arguably the most important case of all! Anyway, enough frivolity!
The effects of the Depression were profound throughout Europe, though the greatest impact was on Germany, Austria and Poland, where one in five of the population were unemployed as a result, and where output fell by some forty per cent. Inevitably this had effect on domestic politics virtually everywhere, especially in countries like Germany and Austria, where democracy had shallow foundations. Internationally it led to a rush towards protectionism, as each nation attempted to defend its own economic interests. By November 1932 every European country had increased tariffs, or introduced import quotas, to prevent further damage to their domestic economies. Competing trade blocks had a geo-political effect also, with the rise of more aggressive and predatory forms of nationalism and imperialism. This was made all the worse because international co-operation between the leading democracies was also weakened by protectionism and competition. And there was no powerful international body like the IMF to counter the effects of economic nationalism.
The sources of the problem can be traced back to the Firtst World War and the rise of international indebtedness. At the conclusion of the war the United States had become the world's banker. It is not quite true to say that the economic collapse in Germany was due to Versailles, as Palasticup alleges, at least not in the short term. Under the Dawes Plan the German economy had boomed in the mid-1920s, paying reparations and increasing domestic production. But the whole thing came to a sudden halt in 1929-30, when Dawes Plan loans dried up. This was not just a problem for Germany; for Europe at large had received almost 8 billion dollars in American credit between 1924 and 1930, on top of pre-existing war time loans. The problem of credit financing was compunded by slavish adherance by governments to the gold standard, the great economic shibboleth of the day.
Falling prices and demand induced by the crisis created an additional problem in the central European banking system, where the financial system had a particularly close relationship with business. In 1931 the important Credit-Anstalt Bank in Vienna collapsed, causing a financial panic across Europe and the rest of the world. In Britan the bank of England was forced to abandon the gold standard in September of that same year. Though this was a cause of much anxiety at the time, by reducing the value of sterling it helped fuel a recovery in exports, making Britain the first country in Europe to emerge from the deepest valleys of the Depression, and thus limiting the appeal of political extremism. Elsewhere, particularly in Nazi Germany, recovery was secured by the introduction of a modified form of the command economy, with the country eventually put on a war footing. Countries like France, Belgium and the Netherlands held to the gold standard right into the mid-1930s, introducing still more political problems at the worst possible time. Moreover, Britain and France, by retreting into empire, raised fresh demands from powerful and hungry outsiders. World War Two was coming. Clio the Muse 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's also good to add that the Depression mostly harmed capitalist countries, but it had little impact on the Soviet Union. — Kpalion(talk) 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed; for the Bolsheviks not only repudiated the Russian war debt, but they created an economy that stood outwith the international network, so important in the crisis of 1929. Clio the Muse 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, Clio, not that I'm being nationalistic (God forbid), but what's wrong with a large article on the Netherlands ("of all places")? :)
A note on that: the fall of the German economy also had its effect on South Limburg, in the Netherlands, where the German mark was a more common denomination than the official Dutch guilder - something that nearly ruined my grandfather in the early 1920's. But also in other respects are economies entwined, so a crashing economy will take others with it (never realised that therefore the USSR wasn't affected - maybe a decisive factor in the defeat of Germany later on). If I'm not mistaken, the Great Depression started in the US, a country that had such a strong economic link with Europe that the crash spread there. I now wonder if that was the sole cause for the European depression. DirkvdM 08:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at all wrong with love of one's country, Dirk, though patriotism is probably a better word than nationalism. I meant no offense, and would have made essentially the same point if there had been a similar sized page on, say, Belgium or Denmark. The article on the Great Depression in the Netherlands is actually quite good; but contrast it with that for the Great Depression in France, a country of far greater importance in political and economic terms. There is no article at all on Germany, where the impact of the Depression was of even greater significance for the history of Europe as a whole, or even a small country like Austria, where the collapse of the Credit-Anstalt in 1931 deepened the political and economic crisis across central and eastern Europe. I come back to the point I made to Marco at the outset: the whole page on the Great Depression, with the associated links, is eclectic and unbalanced. It was in that context my remark about the Netherlands should be understood.
On your second point I would ask you to read again what I wrote about the importance of the United States in the international credit system. I think it was John Maynard Keynes who wrote that when America sneezes the rest of the world catches cold. Well, in 1929 America did a lot more than sneeze. There were, however, European factors that contributed to the down turn, not least of which was the growing weakness in the agricultural sector from 1928 onwards. Clio the Muse 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note the smiley - I wasn't being quite serious. But now that you delved deeper, Wikipedia will always be a project under development, with new info going into ever deeper levels (with sub-articles splitting off as the higher articles get too big). And the amount of info on various subjects will always be out of balance, for example with more info on Internet technology than most other subjects, because of the sort of people who like to work on Wikipedia. In casu, there are more Dutch editors on the English Wikipedia than German ones. But there are twice as many articles on the German Wikipedia than on the Dutch one. Note that about half the German article on the Great Depression is about Germany. That half is about the same size as the Dutch article, which has only one line on the Dutch situation. Germans are more active at the German Wikipedia. But it seems the Dutch are more active in general (per capita), since there are about 6 times as many Germans. DirkvdM 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glencoe Massacre edit

How was it possible for such a thing to happen in late seventeenth century Britain? Was it the fault of the English? Lord of the Glens 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Massacre of Glencoe? --Sean 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little tired now, but I cannot resist giving an answer to this before trotting off to bed.

Your Lordship, the English were the very last people to blame for the Massacre at Glencoe. It was, from beginning to end, an entirely Scottish affair, that was approved by a Dutch king for reasons of strategic and political expediency. The scheme itself was conceived by John Dalrymple, Master of Stair, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who acted in conjunction with Thomas Livingstone, the Scottish commander-in-chief. The task was then delegated to the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot, a formation on the Scottish military establishment. This regiment's Campbell associations helped give the whole affair quite spurious overtones of clan rivalry, an act of deliberate obfuscation.

Why, then, did Dalyrmple conceive of this act? Because he wanted a quick end to the Highland war against William, and because he was looking forward to eventual political union between Scotland and England. The one obstacle on the path of both schemes was the Gaelic peoples of Scotland's 'wild west'; and that expression is not chosen by accident. If one wishes an analogy with what happened in Scotland in 1692 one could do no better than look to the United States and the policy towards the Indian tribes of the West in the nineteenth century. I imagine Dalrymple would have shared Philip Sheridan's sentiment with a slight adaptation, in that for him the 'only good Highlander he ever saw was dead.'

There was a huge and ancient cultural gap in Scotland between the English-speaking Lowlands and the Gaelic-speaking Highlands, with hostility and misunderstanding spread along the way. For many Lowlanders the Highland 'savage' was an embarrassment, an obstacle to progress and civilization. James V had pressed for the wholesale extirpation of the people of Clan Chattan, who had given him particular offence; and James VI had advanced a scheme for Lowland settlement in the Hebrides, based on the extermination of the local people, MacLeods and MacDonalds. These hostilities were compounded by the rise of Jacobitism, which divided the Lowlands of the south still further from the Highlands. In 1692 hatred, racism and the politics of cultural contempt finally acquired a practical and murderous form. Clio the Muse 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but could Dalyrmple ride [3] like Sheridan? Edison 07:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalrymple of Stair was an interesting man. James Hogg might easily have given him a part in The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner as an antinomian monster. But although Stair did indeed order the massacre, Dutch Billy and the poor old Campbells are popularly remembered as the villains of the piece. Stair, insofar as he is remembered at all, is thought well of. His work on Scots Law was of great importance, which is why the Stair Society (no article?) bears his name. As for the wild Gaels and ancient divisions, Dalrymple himself came from an area where Gaelic had been spoken until late, within 150 years of the massacre if the Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy (no article at Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedie alas!) is to be relied upon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, I do not suppose that anyone could ride quite as well as bandy-legged Phil! Clio the Muse 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angus, you seem to be climbing the wrong Stair! James Dalrymple, 1st Viscount Stair, was, as you rightly indicate, a Scottish jurist, author, amongst other things, of the Institutions of the Law of Scotland. It was not he but his son, John Dalrymple, Master of Stair, later 1st Earl of Stair, who was responsible for the infamous Massacre. I think I may be in part to blame for this confusion of identities, because I wrote James rather than John in the above, an error which I have now corrected. Clio the Muse 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Stair indeed! Confusedly, Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in a style of work edit

Are there any works that are written in a way to make the reader feel sympathy for the antagonist? I'm interested in reading how an author approaches this style of writing. HYENASTE 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice springs to mind. --Nicknack009 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hannibal Rising gives some sympathy to Hannibals character in the end, which I think ruins the interest of the character personaly. Evoking emotion and sympathy for an antagonist by showing an event where he or she suffered is a common tool for creating the feelings you mention, i.e. the fate of Hannibals sister. There are a number of historial books that are pro characters in history that most people are generally anti, and they might make interesting reading for you as the historian works to convince you of his or her point of view. To be honest, if you are skilled enough, you can create sympathy for any antagonist with the right situation, and vice versa. Just reveal that they parents died when he was young, or something! SGGH speak! 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is how L. Ron Hubbard's 10-volume Mission Earth series is written. The books are written as the confession of the antagonist. In a minor twist, he repeatedly states that he deserves no sympathy. -- Kainaw(what?) 00:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lennie Small could have been an antagonist if Steinbeck hadn't made him so incredibly pathetic. Plasticup T/C 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous instance of an accidentally admirable villain is Paradise Lost. Lord Byron noted that many readers found Satan to be the more compelling character, even though all were against him (and William Blake had made the same observation earlier, suggesting that Milton was "accidentally of the devil's party"). Byron worked up an essay on the subject, and the result was the Byronic hero. However, a more indelibly admirable "villain" is probably Hector in Iliad. Achilles, as John Berryman said, is a bore. Hector is a real man. N.b. that both of these require a change in the consciousness of the reader from the author's own worldview, and neither author was "of the devil's party." It is impossible to, as you ask, write in a way that is designed to make the villain the one you admire, because the very definition of villain is that he must be the one who engages the reader's antipathy. If you don't dislike or cheer against the villain, then that's not the villain. Geogre 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nabokov's Lolita is told from the antagonist's point of view. I agree with Geogre that it's fuzzy to speak of "villains" or "antagonists" when they're presented as three-dimensional human beings. --Sean 00:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think of H.H. as being the protagonist, albeit one with dark designs, as is the multi-talented Mr. Ripley. To me, an antagonist is someone who purposely thwarts, or strives to thwart, the protagonist in the pursuit of their goals. That is fully compatible with not being a cardboard cut-out, and does not require villainy.  --Lambiam 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and should have distinguished between "antagonist" and "villain". "Villain" is kind of a hokey word for literature, but I'm OK with that. --Sean 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word for it (in at least one form) is the Byronic hero. Basically, a character who has major flaws, but is still portrayed as somewhat admirable. Wrad 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "antagonist" implies the person who's opposed to the protagonist, so I don't think Humbert Humbert counts - he's the protagonist of the book, no matter how "villainous" we might consider what he does. Hector in the Iliad, and as I mentioned before, Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, seem to fit the bill better, because in both works they are opposed to, and eventually defeated by the protagonist, even though Hector is more admirable than Achilles, and Shylock more sympathetic than Antonio. --Nicknack009 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Booker, in "Seven Basic Plots" describes a tragedy as a story in which the protagonist becomes a monster and has fail. In that case one would feel sympathy for the antagonist. Particular examples might be Macbeth, where MacDuff might be the antagonist, although he comes quite late to the scene, or Frankenstein, where Mary Shelley presents an antagonist who has every reason to hunt down his creator. Much more recently Iain M Banks plays with the reader's sympathies in Use of Weapons. In any case, Booker's book is well worth reading by any aspiring author. SaundersW 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you guys mention Lolita, I actually can think of a book where the villain is made the protagonist first. The Collector, by John Fowles, is obviously influenced by both Nabakov and actual news accounts. It achieves its effect by splitting the narrative in two, where the same events are told from two different points of view -- those of the abductor and those of the victim. (It is not a novel for the faint of heart, but it's not as tough a book as Lolita.) Geogre 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar example, but an easier read (on many levels) is Stone Cold by Robert Swindells. (Incidentally, I keep finding that many of the books I thought about most as a child were written by Robert Swindells, although I was completely unaware of him as an author.) Skittle 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a big fan of anti-heroes! Very cool stuff. I think it adds a degree of creative style to a work when you have a good guy going at things the wrong way as opposed to a bad guy that's being a bastard just for the sake of it. Beekone 14:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of putting your link into a more convenient format. —Tamfang 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One villain-as-protagonist book along those same lines that I loved as a kid is Patrick Süskind's Perfume. --Sean 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw in J. P. Donleavy's The Ginger Man as a recent favorite. 38.112.225.84 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More recently we have the series of Dexter novels in which the protagonist is a really, really bad guy even though he uses his evil for good. --SGT Tex 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "hero" of Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books starts off his adventures by committing rape, then whines through the whole series. I was never able to get through two of the books, despite their apparent popularity. Corvus cornix 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you said "works", not just books, let me include a movie, Psycho, in which Hitchcock led us to sympathize with the insane murderer, such as when Norman Bates tried to conceal his victim's body in the trunk of her car and then sink it into a lake, but was having difficulty (although the first-time viewer wouldn't have known he was the murderer at that point). The victim also had a dark side, having embezzled $40,000 from her job. I only mentioned the film, since Norman's portrayal wasn't nearly as sympathetic in the book. StuRat 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've finally gotten as close as I think is possible to a hero being villainous and the villain being heroic. The Third Man is an inverted Christ story. (The "third person" of the trinity is reflected in the "third man" at Harry Lime's funeral.) In it, we have a Satanic man who has risen from the dead, and our hero must betray him to the authorities. In other words, because it's an inversion of the Christ story, the Judas figure (Rollo or Holly Martins) is the hero, despite being a "rat" who doesn't get the girl, and the anti-Christ figure, Harry Lime, is killed in a descent (instead of Ascension) in the sewers of Vienna. That's about as close as I can get, though, unless we start in on Flannery O'Connor's stories, and she basically doesn't have heroes at all. Geogre 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flamebait: Spike (Buffyverse), particularly in season 4. —Tamfang 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_August_30&oldid=1073423587"