Humanities desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 30

What are some of Rama's (Hindu god) special powers/abilities?

I've tried to search this online, but I haven't been able to find anything useful. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesewu (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rama is an avatar, or Earthly incarnation, of the god Vishnu. His story is told in the Ramayana. I assume you've read all those articles? As an avatar, as opposed to the actual god, I don't believe he has any particular powers, except being a mighty warrior against the forces of Ravana, and later a just king over his subjects. Rojomoke (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lived in the forest for 14 years, so had decent survival skills. Maybe nothing supernatural, but special. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Yale a (moveable) corporation?

Given our article Yale and this political article http://www.nysun.com/national/scheme-of-connecticut-to-lay-tax-against-yale-may/89514/, could a University like it either move or reincorporate in another state to avoid the proposed levy? For example, many corporations move to states like Delaware for the low corporate taxes. Do we have any sources that clarify what sort of entity Yale is, and whether it could just up and relocate, as has GE? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universities can and do simply pick up and move, anyways. I can't, off hand, think of any that have moved across state lines, but Wake Forest University (currently in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, formerly some distance away in Wake Forest, North Carolina; Duke University (currently in Durham, North Carolina, formerly in Trinity, North Carolina, and the University of Michigan (formerly in Detroit, currently in Ann Arbor, Michigan). --Jayron 32 01:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that moving to avoid a levy would probably not make economic sense, if the university had to leave behind a bunch of not-readily-saleable real estate, land grants, and so forth. Neutrality^talk 03:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The university charter, available here, is detailed and quite lengthy. Any changes would need approval by the state, which they are unlikely to give to a proposal to move out of the state to reduce taxation. Warofdreams talk 03:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that both the governor of Connecticut and the lieutenant governor are members of the 19-member Yale Corporation. - Nunh-huh 00:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But only a 2/3rd majority is needed to change the by-laws so they don't appear to have any sort of veto [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in the opposite direction — that their position at Yale might cause them to oppose the legislature in its attempt to pass an ultimately harmful tax on wealth. But I have no idea of their actual position on the matter. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there's lots of examples throughout time...Yale is a private school too..wouldn't need any state approval to do so...entirely unlikely it would ever happen, of course...Ave Maria Law School moved from MI to FLA in 2009..68.48.241.158 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a public university but it is still accredited by the state, and still has to follow many state rules and regulations. --Jayron 32 11:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Maria School of Law has 270 students. That's about 45 times smaller than Yale, which would need many acres to fit in. Add to it, that you would not find a replacement for Yale's Collegiate Gothic campus' buildings. Unless relocating means relocating virtually to a new corporate headquarter. But the article linked above implies a physical relocation of the campus too.

Moving across state lines would also not make much sense, if taxes on college endowment and real estate is introduced nationwide, which appears to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scicurious (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My undergraduate institution moved interstate in 1880, but such relocations were much more common in the 19th century than in the 21st. Carthage College, located in Kenosha, Wisconsin, bears the name of the Illinois city where it was located until after the Second World War. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A milder way to reduce their tax burden is to open satellite campuses in other states or even nations, where taxes are lower. Of course, lower taxes are just one reason to do so. It might even make sense to open one in a location with higher taxes, if there are many rich students who would attend. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullochites

Who were the Bullochites? They were a religious group active in post-colonial Maine; the Nathaniel Hawthorne Boyhood Home in Raymond was used as one of their churches for a time (source; it's at the end of the third page), as was the grange in Hollis (source; second entry, third page), but that's all I can find about them. I encountered them in the Hawthorne documentation and had never heard of them before: nothing about beliefs, history, government, etc. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term is also mentioned Here but not elaborated on. Will try some Google-Fu and see what I dig up. --Jayron 32 14:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's likely an alternate spelling of "Bullockite", mentioned in one Wikipedia article Porter Old Meetinghouse, which also names the founder of the sect. This Google search turns up a likely connection to the Freewill Baptists. --Jayron 32 15:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 1901 special report from the Bureau of the Census (with the lengthy title "Religious Bodies: 1906, Part II, Separate Denominations: History, Description, and Statistics"), the Bullockites were called "Freewill Baptists" but were not formally linked to the better-known, mostly Southern group of the same name:

"The movement started by Benjamin Randall in New Hampshire in 1780, which resulted in the organization of the body known as "Free Baptists," spread to Maine, where a considerable number of churches were formed. In 1835 there was a division, and some of the ministers [named individually in the document] withdrew from the Free Baptists. These again separated under the leadership of Jeremiah Bullock and John Buzzell, and their followers were freqeuntrly nicknamed 'Bullockites' and 'Buzzellites.' The latter have practically disappeared as an independent body, but the former continue to exist in Maine, retaining the earlier name 'Freewill Baptists.' They have, however, no denominational connection with the churches of the same name in the Southern states."

The report goes on to say that in 1906, the denomination had 15 "organizations" (congregations?), 13 of them in Maine and 2 in New Hampshire, with 8 church buildings.

Our article on Free Will Baptist distinguishes between the Southern Free Will Baptists ("Palmer Line") and the Northern Free Will Baptists ("Randall Line"), which developed independently. They apparently emerged in 1935. Neutrality^talk 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up who Jeremiah Bullock was and found this report from the 1930s-era Federal Writers' Project. This indicates that "Elder Jeremiah Bullock and Elder John Buzzell" lived in the early 19th century. It describes their theology a little bit: they were fundamentalist dissenters whose church buildings were characterized "sincere simplicity." When the sect's church in Porter, Maine was build, "no provision was made for heat as it was the old-time belief that the love of God in the fervor of the congregation was sufficient to raise the temperature to a comfortable point" (they later installed a stove and piping). Neutrality^talk 15:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article and added appropriate redirects to clarify the meaning of the term. GREAT find. Well done. --Jayron 32 15:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool, thanks for updating the articles and making the redirects! Neutrality^talk 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy in Medieval Europe

This claim intrigued me. Are there reliable sources for medieval life expectancy? Our article on longevity doesn't have pre-Victorian era stats, although it does make the excellent point that any such statistic would need to strip out infant mortality to have any value when assessing the claims about the Templars. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 14th-century man in Halesowen, England who survived to age 20 could expect to live another 21-28 years, depending on social status. In the 15th century, this increased to 33 years after age 20 (i.e., 53 years of age total). Adult female mortality was greater because of death in childbirth and exposure to infections while caretaking for others. (see Gilchrist 2012)
Various studies estimated the average lifespans for monks as: 29-30 years (Westminister Abbey); 33.12 years (primarily Christchurch Cathedral Priory, Canterbury), 31 years (some other houses) - apparently lifespan depended on the wealth of the monastery (Oliva 1998).
McKitterick 2004 says that the records are better for men then they are for women and that "Fifty or fifty-five years was a lifespan readily attained by the greater and the powerful, who did not always take the best care of themselves. This would be true if kings or prelates ... and of fighting men active on the field of battle or in tournaments ... More telling still is the fact that, in 1194, an appraisal of the men at arms in the service of the king of France shows that 10 per cent of the sergeants were under twenty, 56 per cent were between twenty-one and thirty-nine, a further 20 per cent were in their forties, while 14 per cent were over fifty, each and every one of them still bearing arms."
Butler 2014 writes: "the life expectancy of those in later medieval England was quite modest. For men who survived the perils of infancy and childhood, one might reasonably hope to reach ... around forty years of age. Because of the dangers of childbirth, women's life expectancy was even shorter. Archaeological data proposed an average date of death for adult women of around thirty-three."
- Neutrality^talk 14:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That should be held up as the model Ref Desk answer: Loads of references, no personal speculation. Brilliant. --Jayron 32 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Neutrality^talk 14:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's excellent, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that, although few might have reached 'old age,' they recognised its existence. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin/Bonn

Why was the capital of Germany made Berlin? I'm sorry if I don't describe my thoughts in a genteel way, I'm sorry. But if West Germany was taking East G. in then why not keep the capital in Bonn? Both cities had the infrastructure for a capital city and such, sure. But if the "prevailing" (maybe not the best word) gov't was going to be West Germany's, why not just keep the capital in Bonn? Was it done, maybe in part, to stimulate the economy of the East (which, I think, wasn't the greatest after the Russian ownership/occupation)? Dismas|^(talk) 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin was historically the capital of Germany. Moving the capital there was an important symbolic act, signalling real unification, not annexation of the east. And yes, stimulating the eastern economy was also a consideration. After all, the GDR government vanished, so there was a significant loss in the local economy of the united Berlin. Moreover, Bonn, while nice in parts, is really just an overblown village near the western border of Germany. Berlin is a metropolis.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the reason that the move cost so much they'd already spent lots on building offices in Bonn though? Germany wasn't exactly being run out of tents in 1988... Blythwood (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We have Decision on the Capital of Germany and German reunification. They point to the Reunification Treaty as embodying the agreement to site the unified capital in Berlin, but does not contain much information beyond that. We don't seem to have an article on the treaty itself or the process of negotiation that led up to it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having a capital near the center of a nation, either geographically or by population, is often seen as a worthwhile goal. So, say Bonn voyage to Bonn. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn seems to have been considered a temporary solution from the start, with Berlin being the choice for the capital of a reunified Germany. Check the History since 1945 section of the Bonn article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of Internet research on this a while back, but only noted my conclusions, not my sources, so I can't cite them here. The first point is that in the 1940s not many people expected Germany to remain divided for over 40 years. One reason Bonn was chosen as the provisional capital was that it was always intended that upon reunification Berlin should regain its historic status as capital, and Bonn, as a small city, was not the sort of place people (in Europe) would think should be a capital. The alternative choices were Frankfurt and Munich, and it was felt that if either one became capital of West Germany then enough people would want to keep the capital there that it would be a problem. Some sources even say that West Germany's official capital was actually always Berlin, despite the fact that de jure even West Berlin was not part of West Germany. (Apologies if any of this is mistaken or misleading.) --69.159.61.172 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an additional factor was that it avoided making any individual big city the capital. For comparison: if Ottawa became unavailable as the capital of Canada, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal would all make energetic claims to take its place. You can see why a small-town compromise might be ideal to avoid leaving anyone more snubbed than anyone else. Blythwood (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go further back, you'll see that the original reason that Berlin was the capital was that it was the capital of Prussia, which dominated the North German Confederation, which was the origin of the modern German state. Prior to that, there had not been any unified German state, excepting perhaps the Holy Roman Empire/Kingdom of Germany, the seat of power of which was usually either Vienna (which was left out of Modern Germany for political reasons, due to the Austria-Prussian rivalry, among other factors) or Prague, which isn't even culturally part of Germany, even back then. --Jayron 32 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of asking why the capital was moved to Berlin, the question should be why it was moved to Bonn in the first place. Berlin is vastly more important in German history than Bonn, and has been the capital of most of the country's existence. Had it not been for Germany's defeat in World War II and the subsequent division, Bonn would never have even been considered a capital, Berlin would have remained the capital. JIP | Talk 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn not important? Good grief, Ludwig van Beethoven was born there, and his monument there was the very first public statue ever erected to a musician in Germany. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Beethoven's erection wasn't all that big, in fact Beethoven was known to many as being a bust in the bedroom. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The Bundesrepublik was never going to put any important people and functions permanently in a city surrounded by the Red Army. Blythwood (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Was it done, maybe in part, to stimulate the economy of the East (which, I think, wasn't the greatest after the Russian ownership/occupation)?" 26 years on, it still isn't the greatest. There are tons of gaps in all sorts of economic metrics between the "new federal states" (former GDR) and the "old" ones (West.) I was surprised to learn recently that the modus operandi by the "democrats" was basically the same as in all Eastern European countries - bankrupt, deindustrialize, close down, make redundant, loot, loot, loot, LOOT. Citation needed for "occupation" and how it was different from the "occupation" of Japan, say, which btw is still ongoing. Asmrulz (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which was not fully intentional, but partly due to the awful mistake of how the reunification exchange rate was set up. Kohl set an exchange rate that would benefit East German savers rather than East German factories (which had had 40 years of no competition and no environmental obligations worth describing). They went straight to having their costs fixed in one of the world's strongest currencies. Blythwood (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked both the former East Germany and Japan are doing fairly well, and far more money flowed into those regions that out. In the case of Japan, it ceased to be an occupation a few years after the war ended, and since that time the Japanese have had the right to ask all American troops to leave. Why don't they ? Well, it's a dangerous part of the world and without US protection they would be at the mercy of more powerful nations in the area, like Russia and China. Even North Korea, while not economically powerful, might lob a few nukes their way. StuRat (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, constant guilt-shaming over some xenophobic incidents in the early 90's by West German carpetbaggers. GDR = Confederacy. Asmrulz (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

More detail at The Spirit of the Berlin Republic by Dieter Dettke (p. 111) which says that it was the "subject of a major national argument". Bonn was favoured by younger voters and those in the south and west, while the rest favoured Berlin. An opposition proposal for a referendum was rejected by the government. The "suspense-filled eleven hour debate" in the Bundestag on 20 June 1991 was "decided by a bare majority of 338 to 320 (with two abstentions)". This is mentioned in our Reichstag building#Reunification article. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But note that the location of the official capital in Berlin was decided under the treaty; the debate in 1991 was about whether government and parliament should move to Berlin as well. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Einigungsvertrag"; not much of a capital without the government and parliament in my opinion, but wouldn't be unique. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can think of a neighboring country where the official capital has no official government functions at all. See Capital of the Netherlands. Except for two years in the 19th century, Amsterdam has never had any official national government function, but has always been the designated capital of The Netherlands. --Jayron 32 15:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Why is the Netherlands listed here? See Capital of the Netherlands and nl:Hoofdstad van Nederland for more info. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the article you just linked: "Only once during its history was Amsterdam both "capital" and seat of government. Between 1808 and 1810..." I don't know what else to add to that, since it does not disagree with ANYTHING I said. --Jayron 32 11:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry

Who needs it? And why should poets be paid to produce it?--178.101.224.162 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct venue to incite people into a debate. You are capable enough to read articles about poetry on your own and reach your own conclusions. This question is clearly an attempt to belittle anyone who would disagree with its premise as is the one below it.--Jayron 32 23:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for factual evidence of benefits of poetry to society.--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Suess has helped many learn to read, and that's obviously important to society. StuRat (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pity he hasn't got around to teaching people to spell his name (Seuss) correctly. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

If he had put the spelling in a memorable rhyme, I might have learnt it as a child, and still know it now. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Are there any songs that you like? Songs generally are poetry set to music. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like tunes with no words.--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who pay poets are those who buy poetry books or go to poetry readings. Plenty of poems are written without thought of payment, just for the joy of writing and the hope that others will enjoy it too; High Flight is an example where the author never sought publication. Alansplodge (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the same argument about most forms of entertainment, including professional sport and most artforms. Generally speaking, people pay for things they want. If people want poetry, they'll pay for it. If they don't, they won't.

The exception is government funding, which is when a government decides it's 'good for the people' for something to be paid for out of the public purse. That creates a lot of debate. See this for one example curiously missing from our Royal Opera House article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true: the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom receives annually "£5,750 and the barrel of sherry" according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one measly barrel is small potatoes in comparison with a tank on the roof and one beneath the vestry. Hardly counts as supporting poetry at all. Deor (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That idiom is actually quite offensive to us. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Why should footballers be paid to kick a ball around? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art

Whats the purpose of art in general (apart from escapism)?--178.101.224.162 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking bout why its important to humans.(not animals apparently)--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to nurture your creative side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was mused over in some detail by Brian Eno in last year's BBC Radio John Peel Lecture. To summarise, his working definition of art was 'anything that you don't have to do' and he suggests that art is vital in the process of our species producing creative responses to environmental change and acts as an inoculation against potentially stressful social events, thereby promoting survival. He also adds a couple of good Roxy Music anecdotes along the way.Blakk and ekka 15:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual_selection_in_humans#Geoffrey_Miller_hypothesis explains the idea that art and many other things can be explained via sexual selection. Essentially, the claim is that we do art in part to woo mates. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Not looking too good at the moment. Any other comments on why art is worthwhile??--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "art"? Are you just talking about painting or drawing pictures? Or all the traditional "fine arts"? Or Applied arts? Or any learned skill or technique (such as martial and dark arts? Iapetus (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art plays different roles at different times and under different circumstances. For instance you would be less likely to ask what the purpose of art was in centuries or millennia gone by. In the present time art includes not only the concerns of the past but additional concerns of the present. Just as you ask what the purpose is of art, so art also asks that question. It does so by pushing the boundaries of the definition of art. I don't think the art of the present gives up on the concerns of the past. It merely incorporates new concerns into old concerns. Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 30

Contents