Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2018 February 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

February 23

From 1898 to 2002

In a story where a 24 year old writer from 1898 ends up (for whatever fictional reason) in 2002. What would be his most likely behaviour and what would be the main aspects to take into account to show that he is indeed confused. I understand that TV, cars, and mobile phones are three of those things. This is set in London, btw. And how is he most likely to behave. (Maybe this is not the right way to ask the question, but...well...the only way I could come up with. If you need more info, just let me know). Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean 1898 (as per your question) or 1989 (as per your title)?--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have corrected the header to the intended 1898 for archival purposes. μηδείς (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Frederick Bremer was already driving his home-made car around Walthamstow in 1894, [1] so your hero would be aware of petrol motored cars, even if he hadn't seen one. Expected behaviour might well depend on social class. Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's 1898, one thing that would be striking is the change in the ethnic make-up of London, which was quite multi-ethnic in 2002, but not much so 100 years earlier. The city was also known for its air pollution in those days, but the air and the Thames River are much cleaner now. There have been a lot of new very modern buildings constructed downtown as well (although many of the more striking ones are more recent than 2002), which is in contrast to some other major cities (think Rome or Paris for example). --Xuxl (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a request for speculation, which we are supposed to avoid. Given that time-travel is a frequent trope in sci-fi and fantasy, maybe you could satisfy your curiousity that way? List of time travel works of fiction is a good start and there are links to external sources you might have access to. Matt Deres (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I meant 1898, Phil Holmes Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I think that might do. Sorry, Matt Deres, I wasn't aware of that rule. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 17:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Miss Bono, see Adam Adamant Lives! which had a similar premise. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As your hero is male, I suspect the first thing he would be shocked by would be the grossly indecent way most women were dressed (by his standards). Then the speed everything moves at, the absence of horses - and once it gets dark the astonishing level of artificial lighting. Wymspen (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the character scientifically literate? If not, many things might just be sorcery to him like mobile phones. If he is, they can be explained and he could adapt after the initial shock.

In both cases, a trip to Old Compton Street where 2 guys might French kiss on a restaurant terrace could give him a heart attack, though. --Lgriot (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and the nonexistence of the British Empire would be another shock. --Lgriot (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the question might have been phrased to ask how fiction writers have described the reactions of educated Brits from the 1890's somehow jerked into "modern times," you should watch Time After Time (1979 film) in which HG Wells pursues Jack the Ripper from the 1890s to 1979. He catches on pretty quickly. I liked the part where he told a cop his name was "Sherlock Holmes" and it led to trouble. He just used the name of a fictional detective he had read a story about, never imagining that people in the distant future would remember the character. Did your character remember to bring a supply of coins he could sell to coin dealers?How well can an "undocumented" person get along in the UK? He would have trouble getting a job or welfare or medical care with no papers. He would effectively be part of the 300,000 to 500,000 illegal migrants. See Illegal immigration to the United Kingdom. With good English skills he might compete effectively for the jobs the illegal migrants work at with false or no papers. If he was fluent in some foreign language he might impersonate a refugee and try to get legal status that way. Could someone who looks Brit and talks Brit (though old-timey) give himself a knock on the head and say he had been robbed and beaten, and get papers as a John Doe with his fake amnesia? The nasty looking but not that bad lump on the head and laceration with a big dressing could be used to explain away his confusion about using mass transit, computers, phones, and credit cards. I don't know how well down and outers fare in London, but in San Francisco an undocumented person could live in a blanket under a bridge and get meals and medical care donated, as well as access to a library to catch up on things so he could pass. Edison (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"If it's 1898, one thing that would be striking is the change in the ethnic make-up of London, which was quite multi-ethnic in 2002, but not much so 100 years earlier. "

While the ethnic make-up has changed, London did not lack diversity in the 1890s. Per our (underdeveloped) article on 19th-century London: "As the capital of a massive empire, London became a magnet for immigrants from the colonies and poorer parts of Europe. A large Irish population settled in the city during the Victorian era, with many of the newcomers refugees from the Great Famine (1845-1849). At one point, Irish immigrants made up about 20% of London's population. London also became home to a sizable Jewish community, and small communities of Chinese and South Asians settled in the city."

Several years ago I took an interest in the ethnic backgrounds of the various victims and suspects involved in the Jack the Ripper case, something that is often overlooked. Everyone knows that Mary Jane Kelly was Irish, but few note that Elizabeth Stride was a Swedish immigrant. And the main witness in her case was Israel Schwartz, a Hungarian. The suspect George Chapman was a Polish immigrant using an alias. The suspect Aaron Kosminski was also a Polish immigrant. The suspect Michael Ostrog (for whom we do not have an article) was a Russian immigrant. The suspect John Pizer (for whom we do not have an article) was another Polish immigrant. The suspect Francis Tumblety was Irish-American and was in London for business (and since he was arrested for gross indecency, probably looking for male lovers). The suspect Carl Ferdinand Feigenbaum was a German merchant seaman, and his job required him to visit several port cities. The suspect David Cohen was another Polish immigrant. The suspect Alexander Pedachenko (whose existence is disputed) was supposedly an agent of the Okhrana in London (and an ethnic Russian). The suspect Walter Sickert was a German immigrant, though he had both Danish and British ancestry. The suspect Joseph Silver was another Polish immigrant. All of them ended up in London. Dimadick (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The specific breakdown of ethnicities would be much different today, though. Many more Londoners today are from South Asia, Subsaharan Africa or Arab countries, the diversity of skin tone in modern London would be quite shocking to someone 100 years ago. --Jayron32 03:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's not just numbers that may shock people depending on the specifics [2] Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• In 1898, many buildings were completely black, including the houses of parliment, due to the coal soot, The air was foul with soot and the smell of horse manure and urine, and the streets were grimy with the same. In 1898, there were a number of black africans and east asians who had arrived as merchant or naval sailors, so the their presence today might not shock. It would take our newcomer awhile to decode our clothing well enough to realize that today's today's racial mix is not as restricted to the lower classes. -Arch dude (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Self closing since as I acknowledge in my last post, I missed that this was in 2002 not the present day. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Although if they happen to be literate, it may not take them long to realise the heir apparent's son is engaged to a "half black" divorcee who used to be an actress. If they're not, well now that Page 3 has ended I guess they'll just have to realise that all those photos are of the Queen and other members of the royal family and not they aren't always flattering intentional so. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Actually, it probably would take our hypothetical Time Traveller a long time to realise these things, because in the UK none of them are of much concern to anyone – I myself (a 61-y-o resident Brit) hadn't even registered the divorcee thing (we're all over Wallis Simpson by now, thanks), and the other two aren't mentioned on a daily basis. Also, Ms Markle isn't "half-black" in British terms; we don't have the US-style "one drop" attitude, and her mother isn't 'fully black' (as if would matter anyway). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC) She's half black in her own terms. If the Brits want to force her to abandon her own ethnic identity to take up British citizenship and marry into the royal family, that's their choice I guess, but as it stands, her article still mentions her own self identification which was where I copied the term from. As for your other claims I suggest you read the Daily Mail or some other tabloid since I can assure you they regularly mention these or imply them in some fashion. E.g. yesterday [3] "Trevor Engelson in 2004. They married in Jamaica in 2011 and divorced after two years in 2013." A few days before then [4] "Her ex-husband, film producer Trevor Engelson, will not be on the guest list." About 14 days days ago [5] "that Meghan's ex-husband and film producer Trevor Engelson is making a show". Actually this show seems to be something they can't stop talking about [6] [7]. On Valentine's day [8] "The article was written at a time when Meghan Markle was single having divorced her first husband Trevor Engelson in 2013". A few days before, actually this isn't even direct from DM but AP (not UK, but of course many UK newspapers do use the AP so could easily print some variant of the story with some variant of that wording) [9] "Markle's ex-husband, producer Trevor Engelson, is not expected to receive an invitation". Slight beforre then [10] "Your first husband was a film producer called Trevor. Which famous British Trevor used to read the News At Ten on ITV?". And this isn't something new. 3 months ago [11] "Meghan's ex-husband goes to work in Hollywood as her engagement is announced". August last year [12] "not long after her divorce from Hollywood producer Trevor Engelson". And in case the time traveller happens to hate DM, The Sun [13] "Meghan Markle’s first husband". Express [14] "Now her sister Samantha Grant has revealed details about her first husband Trevor Engelson". Metro [15] "What did Meghan Markle’s first wedding dress look like for Jamaican wedding to Trevor Engelson". Mirror [16] "secret link between Megan Markle's ex-husband, Trevor Engelson". These are online. But I find it hard to believe British tabloids don't regularly talk this same crap in the print papers because, well that's what they're know for. Frankly the idea this is somehow not British is just weird, since while you do get this crap all over, British tabloids are the epitomy of it. In fact, a lot of this junk in NZ actually comes from said tabloids. As for the black thing, well I don't know if papers use that term much. I chose it as a way to bring up that she is part black, in the manner I felt would be the least contentious way. I wasn't aware at the time that apparently per your comments, unlike the rest of the progressive developed world, the UK has rejected people's right to describe their ethnicity in the way they feel fits them best and is going to demand Markle stop self identifying in that way. My mistake. But anyway, that's largely beside the point. However you want to call it, the fact that she is part black is definitely something that gets mentioned or at least implied in the UK in a semi regular fashion. (At the very least, mixed-race or similar.) After all it was only a little over a month ago there was that kerfuffle about the leader of UKIP's girlfriend's SMSes. And that was just before there was that kerfuffle about that brooch someone wore. There seems to be some kerfuffle over Ann Widdecombe in between then too. And again, I'm fairly sure these stories originated at least in part, and probably mostly, from UK tabloids. Meh and I probably should mention this rather than beating around the bush. Many stories on her do have colour photos. Then are going to be fairly amazing to the time traveler themselves. But they also mean the time traveler is going to see photos of her. While her skin isn't that dark, I find it hard to believe the traveler wouldn't wonder, especially if they've read a story about her being mixed-race, whether part of that mix is 'black'. After all she herself has noted that the colour of her skin meant she had difficulty getting part since she was seen as neither black nor white. Obviously this was the US, but is there any reason to believe a traveler from 1898 UK is going to have different perceptions? (And I also find it hard to believe a large percentage of people from 1898 aren't going to feel similar to the way a number of racists nowadays feel. While the UK wasn't exactly like the US was at the time, it was still hardly an egalitarian place when it came to "race" and we are talking about the royal family here. In other words, it is the sort of thing they are eventually going to pick up on.) Oh and when trying to remember those junky stories, I found a very recent story about how the police are treating as a hate crime someone sending her a racist letter with white powder. The Guardian [17] and I suspect other more mainstream papers simply mentions her as mixed-race. But Metro [18] says her mother is African-American. Actually this Daily Mail story from the Press Association [19] suggests that wording probably wasn't uncommon. (I don't know how well our time traveler will pass this, but I imagine racist plus African may be a big clue.) And I'm fairly sure I've read other stories appearing to originate from the UK itself about racists being unhappy with the upcoming wedding in some fashion. On see the view of one Canadian [20]. (It does mention many of them were wink-wink nudge-nudge, but it also mentions one example from the Daily Mail showing some were more direct.) As for 'actress' not being regularly mentioned, are you joking? (Well I presume that's what you meant, I only mentioned divorcee, actress and "half black".) The tabloids are all the time talking about something or someone or whatever that is somehow connected to her from Suits, or her former co-stars, or whatever other junk. And for obvious reasons, it often comes up when her husband is mentioned. Well unless you meant it would take a while for the traveler to realise Harry's precise position in the royal family. But while it's true that something that people are expected to just know, I'm not even convinced that it would take that long to realise either presuming the traveler had some idea of how royal succession works which I would imagine someone literate in those days probably would. The clues are likely to be all over. P.S. Here in NZ the Daily Mail stories show up as being Daily Mail Australia and with AEDT time zone. However I checked them, and they don't show up like that from a UK IP. This weirdness does mean I can't rule out that some of them were originally from DM Australia since it's possible even real DM Australia stuff shows up like that in the UK. However I'm not sure if DM Australia stuff ever shows up outside the Australian section. And again, I find any implication that the UK tabloids aren't full of this shit just bizarre. P.P.S. I just noticed that the OP did say to 2002. That was a long time before anyone had even heard of Meghan Markle so in that fashion, it is true it's going to take the time traveler a long time to learn, and one would expect that by that stage they'd be a lot less shocked by it all anyway. Also to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with British people using ethnic terms in the manner they see fit. Simply pointing out the British empire is long dead, and so I would have expected the British people to accept not everyone uses terms in the way they do and aren't going to change just because the British demand it. So in particular, if an American woman chooses to marry into the royal family and adopt British citizenship, she may (or may not, who knows?) prefer to keep her own ethnic self-identification which she feels best describes her. Regardless of whether it entirely fits with British norms. At least a lot of the world is trying to move to allowing people to do that. P.P.P.S. I probably should also mention that the specifics of both actress and black wasn't actually the main point anyway. Again, I find it hard to believe that a traveler isn't going to be very surprised to find someone who is "mixed-race" where "mixed" is understood to be something "exotic" and not Greek or some such, is marrying into a high position in the royal family. Likewise, the fact that she had a career beforehand and wasn't just waiting around to be picked as a wife. And I still don't believe it will take that much reading of British tabloids that our traveler is going to start to realise these things. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC) BTW I also just noticed now that the OP also specified writer. So literate and for the time likely fairly educated (so my comment on knowing a bit on the royal succession) would likely apply. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• The "time traveler" or so to speak ends up in 2002. I don't think the Harry story would do. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes very, sorry I belatedly noticed this as mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• In 1898, London was still one of the busiest seaports in the world, so the The working parts of the Thames would be packed with ships, and many of them would have still been sailing ships with 150' masts. If our time-traveller had a view of the river, would this be instantly noticeable? I'm not a Londoner. -Arch dude (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not so much, if he was in central London, because the ships came into the London Docks to be unloaded; they were hidden behind the high brick walls. The river would have been much busier, but mainly with barges. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

He's in Candem Town, Itsmejudith. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That gives you lots of possibilities. The Regent's Canal would have been very busy with brightly coloured narrowboats carrying cargo. Camden Lock was a major interchange, and now is a popular street market. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Assuming the preent day hero here was in coma for a long time (not that long as for 104 years of course!), and suffers from amnesia. He meets the owner of a bookshop, even if hidden, he might work there? I was thinking of that idea you pointed out about him being an illegal migrant. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Medeis, btw. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no mention of an airplane yet, so am mentioning it. Buddy would have to initially wonder whether it's a bird or superman. Even weeks later, the idea of flying heavy metal would probably still seem baffling to someone who hadn't seen flimsy wood take off yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please, IndelibleGunk, that's just crazy talk. They were looking for flying machines since the late 18th century. That a practicable one had been found would not be a shock. Jet enginery might have been unexpected. They were so close to prop-driven biplanes in 1898 your assertion is mere merishness. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

People have been talking about flying cars since probably the 1950s or earlier. I can tell you if I time traveled to 2150, I will be incredibly shocked if flying cars, at least anything like those depicted in fiction actually exist or ever existed in any real common form. From speaking to family and friends, I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. IH did specify that any airplane may have been a shock, so this maybe makes it much less likely, but still I think we have to be cautious about what even an average someone likely relatively educated (as I assume this person is being a writer at the end of the 19th century), is surprised by. Especially if we are largely basing it on modern understanding. As for IH's final point, well how well someone adapts to the surprises from the modern world would seem likely to vary. But I don't think it's completely implausible that even if they aren't that surprised by flight itself, that massive planes extremely regularly travel between continents, with Heathrow itself handling about 650 of them, enabling even relatively poor people to travel for a short holiday to Thailand may very well take some getting used to. This is not to say it will be as hard as a bunch of other things, but still..... Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's Camden Town, BTW. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)