Humanities desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3

How did King Moshoeshoe II die?

Lesotho#History says he died in a car 'accident', but the New York Times says "no foul play was suspected". What's the real story? thanks F 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to contradict that New York Times story, though Moshoeshoe II's obituary in London's The Independent is silent on the cause of his death. Evidently, the US Ambassador, Bismarck Myrick, believed it was a road accident. Supposing that's true, it's hardly surprising, as Lesotho is a very mountainous country with a great many dangerous roads. It seems the King was driving back to Maseru through the Maluti Mountains late at night in what we can suppose was a powerful car. One can see some parallels with the deaths of Grace Kelly and Diana, Princess of Wales.

The Moshoeshoe II article is a bit thin and has no references at all. I'll add a few things, like his full name (Constantine Bereng Seeiso) and one or two external links. Xn4 07:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no inconsistency between a car accident and absence of foul play. I don't see the problem. -- JackofOz 23:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "car 'accident'", meaning an assassination staged to look like an accident.F 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I now see the problem. -- JackofOz 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Smiles

In Samuel Smile's book on self-help, who does he think is responsible for the poverty in England and what does he think can be done about it?

66.53.209.95 05:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Amy[reply]

Here maybe able to help. Dureo 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...but don't cut and paste text for this homework assignment. --Wetman 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I thought quoting the text you're supposed to be analyzing was a good thing? Algebraist 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Help is, in essence, what it purports to be: a manuel directed at the improvement of the individual, full of uplifting examples. It is not, therefore, concerned in any direct sense with the structural causes of poverty, or the perception of need as anything other than self-inflicted. It is a text that really belongs to the high-noon of Victorian capitalism. Yet he did come from a radical tradition, and was an admirer of Richard Cobden, the Corn Law reformer, amongst others. Smiles own preoccupations in the area of social policy tend to be a reflection of his background and education. His training in medicine led to concerns over issues of public health. Some of what he writes in this regard is at least the equal of Dickens;

When typhus or cholera breaks out, they tell us that Nobody is to blame. That terrible Nobody! How much he has to answer for. More mischief is dine by Nobody than by all the world besides. Nobody adulterates our food. Nobody poisons us with bad drink...Nobody leaves towns undrained. Nobody fills jails, penitentiaries, and convict stations. Nobody makes poachers, thievs and drunkards. Nobody has a theory too-a dreadful theory. It is embodied in the words: laissez-faire-let alone. When people are poisoned with plasrer of paris mixed with flour, 'let alone' is the remedy...Let those who can, find out when they are cheated: caveat emptor. When people live in foul dwellings; let them alone, let wretchedness do its work; do not interfere with death.

Though a believer in at least one form of laissez-faire-that of economic liberalism-Smiles was prepared to concede that legislation was necessary in some cases to remedy abuse. Clio the Muse 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese expansionism in 1930s and 1940s

Was this motivated solely by ultra nationalism? K Limura 06:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was certainly the leitmotiv of the Tokyo trials. As far as I am aware the earliest attempt to revise this view came with the publication in 1966 of Japan's Quest for Autonomy: National Security, and Foreign Policy, 1930-1938 by James Crowley. Crowley's contention is that the outward expansion was motivated less by militarism and nationalism and far more by economic factors and traditional reasons of state. Those in favour of overseas expansion included important civilian leaders, not just those in the military. Our understanding of the complex range of factors that determined policy in this area was deepened still further by the publication of Gordon Berger's Parties Out of Power in Japan, 1931-1941, an examination of how notions of realpolitik shaped and influenced domestic policy. In his view the forms of national defence and the planned economy that emerged in the 1930s was a measured response to new European concepts of total war, not ultra-nationalism. There are few people who work in this field now, I suspect, who would resort to the simplistic interpretations favoured in the past. Clio the Muse 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If David Bergamini is to be believed it was for no other reason than expansion/sustaining of the Japanese empire. His book", "Japan's Imperial Conspiracy" (1971) is fascinating reading and a remarkable work considering that he was not a professional historian. (Blawearie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.251.98 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese weren't expansionistic between the early 17th century and the middle of the 19th century. I guess they saw the expansion of the Europeans and tried to maintain themselves. If you don't eat, than you will be eaten yourself.Daanschr 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guns, Germs, and Steel question

In the prologue to Guns, Germs, and Steel, the author states the following:

Today, segments of Western society publicly repudiate racism. Yet many (perhaps most!) Westerners continue to accept racist explanations privately or subconsciously. In Japan and many other countries, such explanations are still advanced publicly and without apology.

Could someone give an example of what the author might have meant by these explanations that are advanced publicly? I haven't seen one in the text and I'm curious where he came up with this. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Japanese biology textbook entitled Evolution: from the Ape to the Japanese. Rhinoracer 13:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this. Racism may be taboo, but in the United States at least there's plenty of public and unapologetic nationalism. Given the degree of demographic overlap, I'm not sure I could tell the difference between Japanese racism and Japanese nationalism at first glance. Why not call it nationalism, thereby erasing the difference? I'm sure a lot of it is actually racism, but I'm equally sure that a lot of people who say they're proud to be Americans are really proud to be WASPs. -- BenRG 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia Koreans in Japan and Ainu. --Wetman 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guns, Germs and Steel specifically tries to counter the unconscious (generally) racist thought that European dominance in the world is due to some inherent European superiority. Corvus cornix 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus, I don't see what your response has to do with my original question. Wetman, thanks for the links. I'm still a bit confused though. Dismas|^(talk) 11:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Diamond is considering most theories regarding European dominance when he made that statement. In most texts I've read the actual mechanism for why Europeans have been so successful has either been couched in carefully euphemistic terms ("The people are no different, it's just that their societies are backward), swept away with blatant generalizations ("It's too hot in Africa for folks there to invent things...", "It's too cold in Siberia for folks there to invent things..."), or simply never touched on (presumably because the question leads to an answer the writer knows to be racist). Those are the racist explanations he's talking about. Before you read the book, why did you think Europeans took over the world? Just random chance favouring them again and again and again?

As distasteful as it is for me to admit, I guess I'd accepted that it must have been due to some kind of innate superiority, if only because there really wasn't another theory out there to supplant it. Maybe I didn't think about the question very much precisely because I didn't like that answer. I'm very grateful to folks like Diamond who not only decide to think about stuff like that, but who see through two centuries of various levels of racism to arrive at answers. Matt Deres 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James_D._Watson#Opinion_concerning_the_possible_links_between_race_and_intelligence and The Bell Curve spring to mind. -- Diletante 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Peel

Would it be true to say that Robert Peels greatest error was to believe that government could rise above party? 217.42.104.154 09:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it the unenviable fate of Robert Peel that he has been judged as a 'great statesman' by posterity and a 'traitor' by his political contemporaries and one-time allies. I can now detect the same process at work with Ramsay MacDonald, another 'traitor' from a different tradition. It takes a bold politician to stand party politics on its head by going against policy once, as Peel did over Catholic Emancipation; it takes a foolhardy one to do it twice, as he did in the repeal of the Corn Laws. Conceivably the best assessment of Peel ever written was that of Benjamin Disraeli, his political nemesis, who wrote in his Lord George Bentinck: A Political Life that in resisting reform to the very last minute, and then conceding at the very last minute, he was responsible for measures introduced in turbulence and implemented in haste. Furthermore, Disraeli writes, in seeking to place himself beyond the ties of party Peel weakened the whole process of parliamentary government, the very thing he wanted to preserve most. I suppose in some ways that Peel belonged to a past age, an age where good government was above and beyond the importunities of Party. It was not a mistake that was to be repeated by William Ewart Gladstone, the greatest Peelite of them all. Clio the Muse 03:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What means "you have a solution and you are searching for a problem"

In the context of critizising Philosophy. So what does it mean? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"X is a solution in search of a problem" means "X is useless". Here are usage examples from Google. It's a play on "a problem in search of a solution", meaning a problem that nobody knows how to solve. -- BenRG 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a typical analytical approach to philosophy. Somehow the analytical school seems to be religious. If there is no god, than there can't be a solution, because all things appeared without having the need for consciousness. I agree with you if you critisize the analytical school of philosophy.

Spectrum of Theistic Probability

Richard Dawkins states

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

which is a quotation from Memories, Dreams, Reflections. I have always assumed it meant Jung was certain there is no God. Was I wrong? - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. My understanding is that Jung was certain there is a God. 'I do not believe, I know' could be paraphased as "The question of belief is irrelevant when there is certainty about something". Just how he was so certain is something many atheists might wish to question him about; but theists would have no issue with it. -- JackofOz 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the Jung sentiment expresses certainty that God exists, not certainty he does not. But some theists will not like the nature of that God - a gnostic kind of God, "a God beyond good and evil, just as much dwelling in myself as everywhere else", and might well take issue with it. For background on the statement itself, see this page. The pertinent part of the 1959 BBC interview with John Freeman in which the statement occurred:

    Freeman: And did he [your father] make you attend church regularly?
    Jung: Always, that was quite natural. Everybody went to the church on Sunday.
    Freeman: And did you believe in God?
    Jung: Oh, yes, yes.
    Freeman: Do you now believe in God?
    Jung: Now? …[pause] Difficult to answer. I know. I needn't… I don't need to believe. I know.

- Nunh-huh 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will we be known as Elizabethans?

In 100 years time when people look back and study the history that we are making, will we be generalised as Elizabethans? Does it still match that British people will be categorised under which monarch was on the throne during their lifespan?

I am sure that as a child they did a piece saying this was the case and that if/ when Prince Charles becomes king we will known as Carolines... is this just a dream from my childhood or is this true.... and if it is true, what indeed will the nation be known as under the rule of Prince William?

Thank you very much in advance for your help.

Kate Phipps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.69.129 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the only historical periods to be commonly named after the (English/British) monarch of the time are the Elizabethan era, the Georgian era, the Victorian era, and the Edwardian period (plus perhaps the Regency period). Thus it is by no means a foregone conclusion that periods are named after monarchs. Algebraist 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Algebraist is quite right, Kate; historical periods are not automatically named after monarchs. More than that, I rather suspect that particular convention is now a thing of the past. There has been no serious attempt, for instance, to call contemporary Brits 'Elizabethans'. Clio the Muse 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, we're all supposed to be global citizens now. I think this naming convention only ever applied in anglophone countries. Do the French, for example, use the term "l'éra victorienne"? I doubt it. -- JackofOz 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do refer to "l'ere victorienne", but only in reference to Britain and its Empire. SaundersW 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've often thought that if the human race is still around in 100 years, as they search for clean water and food or other people to eat, that they might call us something like "plenties" (because we lived in a time of relative plenty). --Fredrick day 00:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading the remarks of one historian, Frederick, I can't remember which, that some distant archaeologist might coin the term the 'Ring-Pull People', along the lines of the Beaker People, to describe us, because ring-pulls would be the only evidence that we ever existed! Clio the Muse 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ring pull people? I already don't know what a ring pull is. You mean a pull tab, right?Rmhermen 14:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pull tabs? I suppose I must, Rmhermen. Anyway, the thingies we pull to open cans. England and America; two nations divided by a common language! Clio the Muse 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A ring pull is the early type of pull tab that was removed from the can and discarded -- all too often, in any place that was not a proper litter container. --Anon, 23:23 UTC, Nov. 6.

Chiz, chiz, as everyone kno the 1950s were the New Elizabethan Age. We New Elizabethans live in a Golden Age of Discovery and Skylons and Dan Dare and giant computers called LEO and power too cheap to meter and Whizz for Atomms!. Or something like that. I learned most of this from reading Molesworth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"New Elizabethans" was kind of a slogan of 1952-1953 and the next few years, reflecting the fact of recovery from WW2 (rationing finally came to an end), and feelings of hopefulness coinciding with Elizabeth's accession. I'm not sure all that much was heard of it after Suez and the dismantling of the British empire in the late 1950's / early 1960's... AnonMoos 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be at all likely, as Elizabethan has such a wide use already for the age of Elizabeth I. On the same lines, 'Georgian' doesn't refer to the reigns of George V and George VI (1910-1952, with a tea break for most of 1936), but to the first four Georges (1714 to 1830). Xn4 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but do not forget the Georgian poets and Georgian Poetry! Clio the Muse 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Charles has stated that when (if!) he becomes monarch, he will be taking a new regnal name, likely George, as the previous two Charlies were not all that popular. So it's unlikely we'll ever be known as Carolines either way. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Britten wrote an opera called Gloriana in 1954 to celebrate the accession of Queen Elizabeth II. Although the plot was based on events in the reign of Elizabeth I, maybe we can borrow the title and call ourselves Glorians. -- JackofOz 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Earth Abides (I think - that or another post-apocalyptic novel, maybe A Canticle for Liebowicz), we are known as 'the Road Builders'. Steewi 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

What were the causes of War of Devolution, War of the Reunions, Franco-Dutch War, War of the Spanish Succession and War of the League of Augsburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.115 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at War of Devolution, War of the Reunions, Franco-Dutch War, War of the Spanish Succession and War of the League of Augsburg? -- Arwel (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French ambition. What else? Clio the Muse 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of my surname

My surname is Durose ,which I believe may have originally been of French origin.I am trying to find if it has any meaning or translation into anything english . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.145.131 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it is French. It basically means "The Pink". However, that does not mean that the family had some fascination with the color pink. It may very well have been that "Durose" in French was the closest translation of a non-French surname when the family came to France. -- kainaw ™ 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durose really doesn't make sense as du Rose, as rose is a feminine word, so it would be de la Rose. There is, though, the French name du Ros and also the medieval English name de Ros. For hundreds of years, very few people anywhere could read or write, and in an English-speaking country either of those names could turn into Durose. I suspect there must be other possibilities from other languages. Xn4 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Xn4's explanation is the most interesting so far it is possible to have a literal translation of your name from French. Keeping with the meaning of "rose" as "pink", du rose could be translated as "some pink" as in tu pourrais ajouter du rose: "you could add some pink". This translation is literal but I doubt it is the appropriate one. You could have a look at the word rose or ros as a replacement for Roi or in old French Roy for "King" in which case it could be a coded way of identifying supporters of the monarchy in unfavourable times (du as a supporter of or servant of). This is however purely speculative. Some people make a living of finding the origins of a name so maybe you could try there as well. Good luck Keria 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rose" as a color name did not signify "pink" until the C17. Robert de Ros (died 1227), a son of Everard de Ros, possessed lands in Yorkshire including Ros or Ross in Holderness. (He was one of the barons signing Magna Carta.) The title Baron de Ros, created by writ in 1264, is the oldest English barony that survives today. --Wetman 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name for music style

I don't know how to describe it but if you have ever watched Tom and Jerry or any other animated series you will know what I am talking about. When tom chases jerrry we have fast, high pitched piano music going on in the background. Does this piano music have a specific name to it? Please help me with it. Wikilinks are very welcome. Regards from a fellow Wikipedian --Kushal^t 19:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... --Kushal^t 00:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I will get some response when the weekend ends. --Kushal^t 01:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Scott? AnonMoos 02:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wikilink above. I continued my research and I found this

Bradley expressed considerable pride in his "funny music" and believed scoring for animation offered far more possibilities to the serious composer than live-action films.

from Scott_Bradley but it did not go into much detail or use technical terms. --> --Kushal^t 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lets wait and see ... ---Kushal^t 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 3

Contents