Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 25

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.

January 25

Humourous Map of Europe in 1914 (German)

This is a link to the picture.

Now can anyone tell me... when was this map made, who made it, and is there a place I can get a proper translation into English of the text at the bottom of the map? Is it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, or are its creator(s) notable enough for one?--Emerald Continent (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there are a series of similar maps as well, possibly by the same artists, that you can find by searching the text at the top of this map in Google. I have got the high-resolution versions of all of them if people need them for reference.--Emerald Continent (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The information is there on the map. Humoristische Karte von Europa im Jahre 1914, that's "Humorous map of Europe in the Year 1914". The publishers are "Leutert & Schneidewind Kunstanstalt, Dresden", and it's by K. Lehmann-Dumont. It's a First World War map dating from (you guessed it) 1914. The curious presence of Japan in the North Atlantic is explained in the legend: "Japan was drawn into the European theatre of war by England and snarls furiously in the direction of Germany, baring carnivorous teeth". Xn4 (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the top part translates to, word-for-word. I can't fluently speak French or German, but these two languages I can definitely understand some entire sentences of without too much work. Also, I realise that it's a map portraying Europe in 1914, but does that guarantee that it was actually drawn in 1914? The 'propaganda' factor may serve as evidence towards it being made at that date, but there isn't a date given of when it was made, just a date of what it depicts.--Emerald Continent (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The only hit at Google books for K. Lehmann-Dumont seems to be this, which is about this very map and confirms the date as 1914. Lehmann-Dumont has seven hits, two of them for "Lehmann-Dumont, K." (Anfang 20. Jh.), which means early 20th century, which suggests that very little is known about Lehmann-Dumont, so he or she doesn't seem to be terribly notable, unless of course it's a nom-de-plume. Xn4 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a better scan of the map here, without the odd rubrication of the text for Denmark. Xn4 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about that map other than the obvious (such as that its depiction of Russia is laughably propagandistic), but the general idea goes back a long way (see File:Europe as a queen map.JPG, for example)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Stadtarchiv Hildesheim displayed the poster in an exhibition on war proclamations/announcements titled "Helft uns siegen!" (Roemer-und-Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim). The specifications in this pdf-file are: "Political poster, 36 x 49.4 cm, design: K. Lehmann-Dumont (1914), print: color lithography or offset printing, printer: Sächsiche Verlagsanstalt GmbH, Dresden." I found a partial translation here, but haven't checked it. For some more propaganda, how about: "Belgium, whose people shows itself to be a poisonous toad, has already been skewered on the German fixing pin in order to be incorporated into the German collection.". ---Sluzzelin talk 08:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm reluctant to call it propaganda, it has at least some wit and charm. See Sardinia depicted as a tin of sardines, the Indian snake wrapped around the British bulldog, and the Irishman with a bottle of beer in one hand and a pair of shears in the other as he prepares to cut the chain binding him to Great Britain. It clearly does belong to the early part of the Great War, before it turned so nasty. It's a relic of the ancien régime. Xn4 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you probably mean the belle époque. The ancien régime was France pre-1789. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was the Old European Order, and I see Old Order redirects to ancien régime, which concedes that it doesn't necessarily apply to France. But perhaps belle époque is better. Xn4 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here [1] is a (reasonably accurate) translation. Search for "Lehmann" or scroll down to the relevant part (3rd map from the top). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done in finding that online translation. It's more or less all right, but slightly off-beam on a few points. For instance, grimmig isn't "grimly", it's "furiously". Xn4 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen

Is this the picture of the 2nd wife of William Ernest, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach? Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's the Grand Duchess Feodora, the second wife he married in 1910, the daughter of Prince Frederick John of Saxe-Meiningen, not to be confused with Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen (1879-1945), a grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, or with Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen (1839-1872). Xn4 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

do some people not know wrestling is fake?

else why kayfabe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

there are of course Children, who still believe in Santa Clause and stuff like that. Also, there are some people who have a willful suspension of disbelief; in the same way that some people become invested emotionally in their favorite TV show characters, there are others for whom wrestling serves the same purpose. No one really believes that Lost is real, but people still earnestly "believe" in the internal consistancy and "realness" of the "Lost universe". Likewise with wrestling. An it should be noted that, while scripted in terms of the outcomes of the matches, the endeavor still requires the wrestlers to be in peak physical condition. It may not be "real" but its still not something "I" could do with any skill. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe Lisa Simpson compared it to ballet: whilst it's scripted, no-one doubts that a great deal of work still goes into it. (Your point entirely!) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes i used to believe it was real till i was about 15. i watched it on TV on a Sat afternoon. No one said it was fixed. How would i know?--GreenSpigot (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm from a country without professional "wrestling" and my first encounter was zapping into a TV match from USA as a grown up. For about a minute I was amazed what was happening in this apparent sporting event. It took a couple of minutes before I became convinced it had to be staged. Now I'm amazed this type of show is being produced like that and is so popular. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched loads of wrestling up until my early teens (I was also one of those kids who tried what they'd seen on TV at home/in the schoolyard, FWIW - back then, I wanted to be a pro wrestler when I grew up). At the time, I believed that whilst the storylines were just (over)acting, the fights themselves were real. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So, when did you decide to watch creatures with more intelligence fighting, and move on to seagulls ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, not all wrestling has this match fixing culture. Greco-Roman wrestling and freestyle wrestling are Olympic sports. Xn4 (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call professional wrestling "match fixing". You'll never find a bookie who will give you a line on a WWE match! It's "fake" in the sense that it is scripted, but its not like they are trying to make you believe that it is real in the same way that "real sports" like actual competitive wrestling is! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

An atheist U.S. President?

Could an atheist be a viable candidate for POTUS? Paul Austin (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This question was asked a few days ago, maybe at Misc. The general consensus was that while there's nothing legally holding an atheist back from running, he or she would be unlikely to be nominated by a major party, at least in today's cultural climate. So no, they would not be considered viable. T-T-Teeth _(t-t-talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the point that "could" looks to the future rather than the past or the immediate present, and we can't really be sure what the future holds on such questions.

An interesting comparison: more electors in the US believe in God (and think religious belief matters from a political point of view) than in the UK, where we've had atheists in leading positions without people here much noticing or caring. Michael Foot, for instance, led the British Labour Party into the general election of 1983, and the reason Labour lost seems to have had nothing to do with his being an atheist. Ken Livingstone had some big victories as Mayor of London, and it was the upsurge in support for the Conservative party and its charismatic candidate which brought him down, not religion. There are quite a few basic similarities between the UK and the US, and it must be at least possible that the future will see more convergence between them on this point. So I should say that even if an atheist couldn't be a viable presidential candidate in the US now (which I don't know enough to be sure about), it's probably better to answer the question "perhaps", rather than "no". Xn4 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it does require very little to "sway" public perception of characteristic X (where X may stand for atheism / homosexuality / and, needless to say, skin pigmentation). It simply requires a respected and integer public figure to state (without much ado), "...and as to certain rumours, fellow Americans, ´No, I do not believe in God´", Period.

Of course, this may not work very well in the election for the President of the Vatican :o) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Up until last year nobody thought an African-American would ever have a serious shot at the Presidency, much less a better one than a white woman, who didn't have much of a shot either. And look where we are. It's easy to come up with polls that say, "we're not ready," but a lot of it depends on the spirit of the moment and the nature of the candidate in question. Most Americans two years ago almost certainly wouldn't have been inclined to vote for a Black man, but in the personage of Obama they see something more complicated than just that. One can scarcely imagine a vehement, anti-religion style of atheist getting a major nomination, but one who knew how to make alliances and draw attention to other issues, especially in times of perceived national crisis, probably could make it work (in the same way that Obama did—it really is inconceivable that he would have won if the US was feeling comfortable with the status quo). The issue with relying on historical statistics regarding politics is that the sample size is too low—for as long as I've been aware of politics we have been continuously told how "unprecedented" certain things are (gaining of seats in a mid-term election by an incumbent president's party, for example), but in the end this sort of fact-mongering has the same quality of sports score-keeping, and very little to do with the dynamics of actual political change, if that makes any sense. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, 98.217.14.211, but if Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM feels an atheist presidential candidate in the US would need to say something frank about not believing in God, then for me that underlines the different way the British and Americans approach such matters. Here in the UK (I'm thinking, perhaps, of the mainland), people don't expect politicians to talk about their religion or lack of it, and it seems odd when they do. Of course, our head of government is effectively chosen by whatever majority can be put together in the House of Commons, after general elections in which the perception of the political parties' leaders is only one of the issues, and hardly ever the biggest one. Here, indeed, most Green Party voters have not the slightest idea who the leader of the Green Party is, despite the recent election. Xn4 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When discussing politics and religion with Americans -- yeah, I like to stick body parts into wood chippers, too! -- I often say this right off the bat to kind of illustrate our cultural differences so they have a point of reference: here in Finland, no serious politician really talks about God except in the most abstract or personal sense, and even then, pretty much only if they're asked about it. We actually have a political party that's Christian by definition, and even they don't do it. Nobody with even the tiniest hope of an actual political career would ever present an argument against or for anything based on God's will, unless the matter at hand was strictly religious -- and even then it would be done very carefully, because that's easily considered crackpot talk over here. I mean, you can talk about traditional family values, for example, or even traditional Christian values, and that's one thing. And you can say that you have faith, and that's completely cool. But if you can't back up your argument with facts, or at least convincing rhetoric, and resort to "because God says so", you're a joke. Even when we passed the law on registered partnership, which is essentially gay marriage except by name, the Christian political opposition to it was based on traditions and what marriage means and all that crap. It wasn't about whether homosexuality is a sin -- sure, that was pretty much the underlying message, but if you say it, you come across like a crazy person... and an asshole to boot, really. It would take a really exceptional individual to be able to succeed with that kind of talk.

So, the American political rhetoric often seems bizarre and disturbing to a lot of people over here, because religion plays such a big part of it. And it's not like most Finns aren't Christian -- according to the CIA World Factbook, that's about 85% of the population, which is actually a higher percentage than in the United States. But religious fervor doesn't go over well with most people over here, and it certainly wouldn't be something the political parties here would want their members to express. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One factor that has escaped attention in this discussion is how much of a stranglehold churches have on social activities in the States. Particularly in rural areas church activities are pretty much the only game in town. It's an existing organizational structure that christian candidates can exploit. An atheist would have to either win over each individual to chose him instead of what their organization told them they should choose or the other choice would have to so royally annoy the Christians that they would refuse to campaign for him/her. For an atheist to create a network that rivals that of the established church organization would be a tall order. But lots of things have happened that no one thought possible before. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I am not aware of any prominent U.S. politician who is openly unapologetic in embracing atheism. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Former US Senator Mike Gravel is an atheist.[2] He ran as a long-shot in the Dem primaries in the most recent election, though he did very poorly. I think in his heyday in the 1970's, he was actually considered a serious presidential prospect because of his stand against Nixon. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

American Gods Character Question

I'm having trouble pinning down the identity of one of the divine characters from Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods. He's described as clean cut and generally nondescript, and every mundane character in the novel forgets him/his features/the content of their conversations with him immediately after turning away from him (other divine characters don't seem to have this problem). He seems to be a god of commerce, or chance/gambling. A question about his identity has already been posted on the novel's talk page, with replies stating that Gaiman has not and is unlikely to answer the question himself. I'm hoping my dear, sweet refdesk editors can shine some light on this subject, as to whether the god is grounded in some actual mythology or wholly fabricated. Thanks, T-T-Teeth _(t-t-talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been ages since I read American Gods, and I don't remember that character at all. But lets give it a shot: when you say "God of commerce" and/or "God of chance/gambling", the knee-jerk reaction is always going to be Hermes or Mercury (it should be noted that theres a bunch of other religions that have similar figures, but they're essentially just variations of the same character). He'd generally fit your physical description (young, clean cut, attractive man), but I don't really know what to make of the strange "curse" you describe. Hermes was something of a trickster though, and that seems to be a useful trick to be able to do if you're a trickster (not being remembered, that is). And we all know how much Gaiman loves the tricksters! The entire damn book is brimming with Anansi and Loki and their ilk! He even makes Odin into a trickster, which, you know, he wasn't!

Also, the way you describe it, he reminds me slightly of Cassandra and her curse, but I think that's just me making strange connections in my head.

Can you give us any more information on him? Perhaps even a small excerpt? And are you sure he's one of the "old gods" and not one of those new-fangled gods that pops up throughout the novel? Belisarius (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the novel in question, but jumping on Belisarius's explanation, I might imagine that the "forgetting after turning away from him" might be an allusion to Hermes as psychopomp and bringer of dreams, which are usually forgotten afterwards. - Nunh-huh 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In the American Gods there are several instances at which Shadow instantly forgets, or thinks he has forgotten, whatever he just saw or heard. I can't quite figure out which instance you are talking about, though. Where in the book does it happen? I have a paperback edition of AG at home, so I'll look it up. By the way, showing Shadow forgetting things is probably just Neil Gaiman's way to emphasize Shadow's humanity. I vaguely remember Roger Zelazny using the same method to emphasize Sam's humanity in the Lord of Light; or maybe I'm just conflating the two novels :( .... Anyway, please give us (RefDesk) the context and we'll figure it out. All the best, --Dr Dima (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

One of my housemates is borrowing the book, so until he comes home I won't have an excerpt for you, but from memory, there are three separate passages that emphasize the "curse" so to speak. First, Shadow drives several divine characters: Kali, the king of the elves from Norse mythology and our mystery man from the House of the Rock to a restaurant for a interfaith summit and finds that after turning away from the man after speaking with him, he can't remember what the man looks like, or what had been said, only that the man was there and that there had been a conversation. Later in the book, Gaiman describes the mystery man wandering Las Vegas, first in the counting room of a major casino (this is where I picked up the god of gambling idea), then at a bar...in both instances his presence barely registers with the mundane humans there. Further, he gives a waitress at the bar specific instructions on how she can quickly, effortlessly come into a small mountain of cash, and later she has only the vague idea that after her shift she should go to this certain location as a lark. In that passage he's described IIRC as nudging probability towards this desired reality (more weight in the chance/gambling pile). Doctor, in this instance, it's likely that Shadow's ability to remember the man at all is Gaiman's subtle hint that he's actually Baldur, or some other Norse god/demigod. But that's an interesting note about Zelany...I'll check it out. Thanks s'more, T-T-Teeth _(t-t-talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The other guy in the car wasn't an elf-king, it was Alviss. Algebraist 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rats and double rats, he was described in the novel as the king of the dwarfs, I just couldn't remember how to spell Alviss, because Shadow kept calling him Elvis...T-T-Teeth _(t-t-talk) 01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, T-T-Teeth, I have good news and bad news. Good news is that I have found the passage you are talking about. The bad news is that I couldn't figure out who it was with Shadow, Kali, and "Elvis" in the car... Now, seriously, I really like Belisarius' idea that it was Hermes (not Mercury, but specifically Hermes). What worries me is that he carried none of the standard attributes of Hermes. Another possibility is that he is simply a deity Neil Gaiman has come up with, as a sort of "invisible pink unicorn" construct. Here is what I mean: in the American Gods universe, the deities that are forgotten cease to exist. If no-one can remember the-deity-sitting-next-to-Alviss, how come the-deity-sitting-next-to-Alviss still exists?! So he must be both memorable and forgotten; both pink and invisible. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW I really don't think Shadow is Baldr. I think he is one of the more human sons of Odin. Baldr could not have possibly done what Shadow did. Loki metaphorically pictures Shadow as Baldr in the "sharpened mistletoe twig" speech, but that is more a confession of a persistent hatred and lack of remorse on Loki's part than a hint to Shadow's identity. If Neil Gaiman wanted to give us a hint, I'd rather he gave us a more subtle one. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More subtle than revealing that Shadow's real name is Baldur in The Monarch of the Glen, you mean? Algebraist 10:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just by a hair, Algebraist, just by a hair. Doctor, during the scene with the carousel in the House of the Rock (just before the car ride) I think Gaiman includes a description of the mystery god in his divine form, along with Anansi and Odin, etc. If you have a moment to dig that up I'd appreciate it. Hermes is a great suggestion, him being mercurial and all, but there's so much iconography associated with him...anyway, Thanks. T-T-Teeth _(t-t-talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've finally found my copy. The only gods who get such descriptions at that point are Odin, Anansi and Czernobog. Algebraist 17:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The man's first appearance, from the car scene:

'[In the back were Alviss] and another man, in a dark suit, who Shadow could not remember. He had stood beside the man as he got into the car, had opened and closed the door for him, and was unable to remember anything about him. He turned around in the driver's seat and looked at him, carefully noting his face, his hair, his clothes, making certain he would know him if he met him again, and turned back to start the car, to find that the man had slipped from his mind. An impression of wealth was left behind, but nothing more.'

Algebraist 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's not just the man himself who has this effect. Shadow is also unable to recall Wednesday's explanations of who and what the man is. Algebraist 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm rather baffled by this. Hermes/Mercury still to me seems to be the most likely suspect because of the "impression of wealth" part. If one interprets this strange effect not so much as a "curse" but more as a "trick" (he doesn't want people to remember him), that could also fit the profile. But I can't think of any deity that is mentioned having this particular attribute, either as a curse or as a trick.

There is one other possibility though. What if the passage is a reference to Herostratus? Herostratus was a young man who burnt down the Temple of Artemis in order to become famous. Seeing as this was his goal, the Greeks realized that using traditional punishments would be useless, as he wanted them, he desired the infamy. Instead, they tried to erase his name from history, make him a nonperson (the exact opposite of what he wanted). Obviously, they failed miserably, since it's now 2350 years later and there's a Wikipedia article about him (this is still a topic of some controversy, lots of people do horrible crimes to become famous and there's often a debate on the suitability of the media reporting the name of the perpetrator in those cases. The Virginia Tech shootings is a good example).

It's seems feasible that this is what Gaiman is referring to, a man who is cursed to be forgotten from history (although one should note that Herostratus is in no way a god, which would sort-of run counter to the idea of the book). But if that is the case, he's missing the point of the story. The point isn't that some people get their names wiped out of history, the point is that it is virtually impossible to do so. Herostratus wasn't forgotten. Internet users might know this as the Streisand effect.

Another thing I thought about was that maybe Gaiman is playing with our minds. The whole point of this character is that he is instantly forgotten, so if this was a real god, obviously we wouldn't know who it is, because we (as humans) wouldn't be able to remember him! A sort-of "Men in Black"-thing, you know? Sneaky bastard! Belisarius (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The description rings a bell although I've never read American Gods. You might want to check Good Omens. If there's nothing in there then Terry Pratchett used the same device in one of his novels/characters. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Gods who shrink away and eventually disappear when they are not believed in appear in Small Gods by Pratchett. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Law of Property Act 1925

Hi

Many buy to let and commercial mortgages are written under Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA) legislation.

As a debt adviser I have encountered situations where people can lose their homes without a court process as a result of the mortgage on the property they occupy being LPA rather than Administration of Justice Act 1970(AJA)where repossession can only take place after a court hearing.

The position seems anomalous. In the case of a commercial lease, I understand that repossession of the premises that are used by the lessee as a residence as well for business (e.g. a pub) must include a court hearing.

My own view is that legislation is required to ensure that repossession of owner occupied premises must include a court hearing, even where the mortgage is LPA.

Does anyone have any views on this?

Jim

82.152.255.233 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Above question was asked at Talk:Law of Property Act 1925. That means it's a question of England and Wales law. I've moved it here. I have two thoughts:
  • Firstly, you may not get responses here since you seem to be asking for opinions rather than facts, and ref-deskers aren't keen to offer those.
  • The question doesn't ring true to me. I'm certainly not aware of any repossessions without a hearing. Also the question seems to imagine two types of mortgage: one under LPA and one under AJA: but that surely can't be right. AJA isn't even a property-law statute. AndyJones (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)