Humanities desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

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.

October 27

Finding visual and audio sources

I am looking for historical reference materials in visual formats (preferably jpg format) and audio formats. I would appreciate any online resources that are generally helpful for this purpose. Additionally, I am particularly looking for visual and audio materials for pre-Civil War United States history and European entertainment during the late 19th to early 20th century. Thanks! Vassyana 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., you might try the American Memory web site from the Library of Congress.—eric 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Carrier Question

Does anyone know the first United States Carrier to have an INITIAL built-in angled flight deck? A lot of them were fitted later but I can't seem to find which was the first one to have an angled deck from the beginning.

--Doctorcherokee 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flight deck states that the angled flight deck "was tested on the American aircraft carrier USS Antietam (CVA-36), and subsequently adapted as the SCB-125 upgrade for the Essex class and SCB-110/110A for the Midway class. The design of the Forrestal class was modified immediately upon the success of the Antietam configuration, with Forrestal and Saratoga modified while under construction to incorporate the angled deck." So it looks like USS Forrestal (CV-59), while initially laid down with an axial deck, was the first carrier to be built with an angled deck. USS Ranger (CV-61) was the first built with an angled deck from the keel up. - Eron ^Talk 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "that" word

Resolved

I've been having trouble remembering a certain word that means something like "that which can be known but not taught". Any ideas? It's been driving me crazy for days! Kaiilaiqualyn 04:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When things like that drive me crazy, and I know that I know the answer, I usually don't ask other people, because it feels like cheating. A.Z. 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that's suppose to mean, but okay... Kaiilaiqualyn 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the answer is on the list of thought processes? A.Z. 05:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I couldn't find it there. The only way I can think to explain it further is this: think Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Outside of the cave are the high Ideas, which, according to Plato, can be taught, but even "more real" than these Ideas is the Good from which they are emulated (i believe this is Plato's "sun" in the allegory). This highest Form, the Good, is something that cannot be taught to others; a person must experience this Good for themselves, (and, according to Plato, only the best of the best can ever hope to "know", or I suppose I should use his thinking and say "recall", such as Socrates). The word I'm searching for is Plato's sun, that which must be experienced for oneself in order to be known... (Sorry, this was the only example that came to mind to help explain what I'm after). Erg, I'm antsy to have this word! Thanks for the help though. Kaiilaiqualyn 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intuition, maybe? I wish I knew the answer. A.Z. 06:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the word intuition matches your description. A.Z. 06:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talent? Wrad 05:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just brainstorming here. Both of the above ideas reflect the notion of innate-ness (if that's a word) - eg. composers seem to be born with the innate gift of being able to come up with great new melodies; they mostly can't describe where their ideas come from, and they can't teach other people how to do this. -- JackofOz 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just brainstorming. It looks that it's something that you don't know, then you have an experience, and from then on you know it, but another person can only get to know it if they go through the same experience. I think this is true for all kinds of knowledge, but the experience that Kaiilaiqualyn is talking about seems to be one that can't be induced by another person, as in teaching. A.Z. 06:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just brainstorming. It may be induced by another person, but you understand it at once, you have a sort of insight, an epiphany! A.Z. 06:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still brainstorming. It all sounds very buddhist. A.Z. 06:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for satori, A.Z.? :D -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be thinking of ineffable (incapable of being expressed in words)? - Nunh-huh 06:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Dear. God. THAT'S IT!!! Thankyouthankyouthankyou sooo much, Nunh-huh!!! That was driving me insane! I can now die in peace, (or rather, go to bed unfettered by this nagging guilt...). *Weeps with joy* Thanks everyone else, too! Kaiilaiqualyn 07:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Trotsky?

I would like to thank Clio for the stupendous answer she gave to my question on alternatives to Stalin (A different path?-26 October) and ask if she, or anyone else, thinks that Trotsky might not have been a more humane alternative to Stalin? Zinoviev4 05:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had an almost identical question two months ago, viz. - "I've read - and heard it said - that it would have been better if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin as Russian leader rather than Stalin. Is there any real reason to suppose that he would have been more humane?" Please see the archived thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 23#Trotsky or Stalin? Xn4 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What more needs to be said, other than I should really learn how to link past QAs myself! Clio the Muse 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a simpler way, but I went to Leon Trotsky, clicked on What links here and looked at the last few dozen linked pages - usefully, they seem to come up in chronological order, the oldest page being first in the list. Xn4 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip the fanatic

Somebody wrote here quite recently that Philip II of Spain was a 'religious fanatic'. I've learned that all such sweeping statements should be treated with caution, and wonder what the evidence is? 81.156.2.172 07:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know (or really care) all that much about the depth of his personal piety, but it's rather indisputable that he took steps attempting to imposing religious uniformity which had strongly negative effects on Spain's economic and political interests -- most notably, triggering the Dutch war of independence, which had the overall effect of ensuring that the economic powerhouse of Europe (as the Netherlands were at that time) would be working against Spanish interests, instead of for them. He also was responsible for such actions as taking Protestant sailors off of ships transiently visting Spanish ports and handing them over to the Inquisition. In the mid-16th century, Spain was pretty much the most powerful country in Europe, while during the 17th century it slipped farther and farther back with respect to other countries, and Philip II's narrowly rigid religious policies were part of the reason why... AnonMoos 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side-note here, the Dutch war of independence was not entirely about religion - as such, some its roots can be traced back further, to the policies of Charles. That said, old Philip can certainly be described as 'rigid' and he did a lot to aggravate the situation. Random Nonsense 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Philip's character, and his policies, were of a highly complex nature, and it is not at all helpful to describe him as a 'religious fanatic.' He was a Catholic, yes, and of a particularly devout nature, but he was also a man of his age, jealous of his power and determined that his subjects would follow his lead in religious and political matters, no different in this regard than, say, Henry VIII of England. In his own way, and in his own style, Philip established as much control over the church in Spain as Henry did in England. When he published the decrees of the Council of Trent in 1564, he did so with one crucial caveat: they were not to be implemented if they impinged on the authority of the king. Indeed, Pope Paul IV went so far as to complain of the 'most Catholic King' that 'he had abrogated to himself the right of interpreting the meaning of the Tridentine Decrees and that he meant to be Pope as well as King.'

Time and again Philip was to mount direct challenges to Papal authority, or ignore policies with which he was not in agreement. This might extend from anything to disregarding the Pope's interdict on bull-fighting, to denying his subjects the right to appeal to Rome, a clear statement about the limits of papal authority; he even reprimanded Paul over his decision to excommunicate Elizabeth I in 1570, the great heretic herself! Mindful of his own power, and his absolute authority of the dominions under his control, he was even distrustful of the Jesuits, whose allegiance was to the Pope and not to the King. Philip, in other words, saw himself very much as God's representative on earth, not as an agent of the Pope. Even the infamous Spanish Inquisition was as much an instrument for ensuring political as well as religious uniformity, operating more like an early modern form of the secret police than an agent of confessional orthodoxy. Philip was Henry, it might almost be said, without the marriage problems! As I have said; a complex man, a complex politician and a complex king. Clio the Muse 02:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare Philip II to Elizabeth of England, then Elizabeth said that she would "open no windows into men's souls" (meaning that she didn't care all that much what people's personal private religious beliefs were, as long as they didn't try to undermine the political unity of England), so that Elizabeth executed Catholics on grounds of political treason (not heresy), and she only acted against Catholics who, in her opinion, had intruded their religion into the political sphere, or had effectively allied themselves with foreign enemies of England. Elizabeth wasn't an exception to the view generally held in the 16th century that a bi-religious state could only be a divided and weakened state, and that tolerating diversity of public worship would be an opening for factionalism and civil war (as in France) -- but Elizabeth conspicuously refrained from taking actions on religious grounds which would have the effect of diminishing the power of her kingdom. Philip II did not show the same restraint... AnonMoos 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer and Hawkwood

I've not long finished reading Terry Jones' "Chaucer's Knight", where he argues that the poet had the mercenary John Hawkwood in mind for this character. He further argues that he had an ironic purpose here, as Hawkwood was far from being the chivalric figure of traditional romance, and readers of "The Canterbury Tales" would have recognised him for what he really was-a new type of shabby mercenary. Is this a good argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.124 (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the book, and thought it was a plausible and thoughtful theory, if not the most likely one. My friend, who is a medievalist with a PhD, read it after me, and she said that she was entertained but not persuaded by it- she said it was well argued but that the interpretation of the knight as an idealized figure, which is the more traditional reading, is more likely to have been Chaucer's intention. Good book, though, and not unreasonable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly entertaining, but it is quite, quite unhistorical, bringing to bare too many modern assumptions and preconceptions. There is sufficient evidence to show that Sir John was perceived and remembered as anything but a 'shabby mercenary'. If he was why on earth would Richard II have trusted him with several diplomatic missions, or indeed have requested that his body be returned to England on his death in 1394? Shabby mercenaries, moreover, are not normally honoured with impressive marble tombs in the Duomo of Florence. For William Caxton Hawkwood was one of the great knights of the age, as he makes clear in his translation of Ramon Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry. Hawkwood's high reputation was to travel unimpeached down the centuries; he even receives a favourable mention in Samuel Smiles' Self-Help of all places! Making his way into a classic text of Victorian self-improvement: not at all bad for a 'shabby mercenary.' Clio the Muse 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II-Descent from William I-closest relationship to other Kings and Queens.

Are other lines of descent used as opposed to the "direct royal line?" Through the direct royal line the Queen is a 29 greatgranddaughter of William I, not 22, and that throws off all the other generations. If closest relationship were to mean through other lines of descent, then George III would be a 3 greatgrandfather through Queen Mary, consort of George V, but a 4 greatgrandfather through George V himself. Lady Jane Grey is listed as a multiple great grand aunt, implying that a sister of hers would be a direct ancestor of the Queen, and I can find no evidence for this. If the direct royal line is used to establish the relationships, then most relationships above George III are incorrect. Can you help me with this? Thanks.

RButtemiller68.226.102.103 13:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check show that Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was descended from Lady Catherine Grey, Jane's sister.[1] There are almost certainly other connections. Rmhermen 15:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nunh-huh 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal in Spain

It's a fairly well established view on the political left that the Communists betrayed the Spanish Revolution of 1936. This contrasts with the view on the right, which is that Franco save Spain from Communism. I'm confused; did Stalin want control of Spain or not, and how are the political actions of the Communists to be interpreted, betrayal or realism? Qurious Cat 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the latter period of the civil war, the Communists who were running the government seemed to be more concerned with conducting NKVD purges against the ideological enemies of Soviet Bolshevism (such as Trotskyists and Anarchists), and with extracting the last of Spain's gold reserves to send it off to Moscow, than with actually winning the war against Franco. By that measure, the Communists pretty much deserved to lose... AnonMoos 16:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gold bit surprised me at first, but come to think of it, that makes sense in the Zeitgeist. The communist ideal was for all the world to unite (the Internationale, "workers of the world unite", that sort of thing). So if that wealth was in one 'communist' country or another didn't matter. And if there was the risk that the gold would fall in the hands of the fascists (the big enemy), then it made much more sense for it to be in a country that was much more securely 'communist'. Later, when all countries in the world would be (truly) communist, then there wouldn't really be any more countries and everything would be shared equally, so what did it matter where the gold was then? It takes a bit of effort to think back to the mindset of the people at the time.

Btw, somewhat off-topic, children were also exported to the USSR from the Basque country, to protect them against Franco's wrath. There, they were used as showcases and pampered, getting all the best education, food and housing. Yet, much later when they were old and a documentary was made about them, they all complained about being separated from their parents, saying that that was worse than any suffering they would have had to endure at home (which of course they didn't know anything about because they never experienced it, but still). DirkvdM 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing Stalin wanted in Spain was any form of social revolution, which would only endager the whole Popular Front policy that the Comintern had been pursuing since it abandoned the ultra-left Third Period strategy in the wake of Hitler's political success in Germany. His whole approach was an exercise in the most cynical forms of Realpolitik: he wanted to keep the war going as long as possible in order to tie Hitler down in the Iberian Peninsula, but in such a way that would not offend the western powers, particularly France, with whom he had recently concluded an alliance. The Communists in Spain may have had considerable powers in the background, but the outward face of the Spanish government was to be moderate and bourgeois. The struggle with the Fascists, on one side of the line, and the Trotskyists, on the other, also had the effect of giving added impetus to the Great Terror in Russia itself. All of this was far, far more important than helping the Republic to win the war. Indeed, Soviet aid was only just enough to keep it afloat, and no more. In return Spain was effectively swindled, as Simon Sebag Montefiore says, out of several hundreds of millions of dollars in gold, only to be sold armaments at hugely inflated prices in return. Once again Stalin was showing himself as the master practitioner of larceny on the grandest scale possible, perfecting techniques that he had once learned as Koba in the Caucasus. Clio the Muse 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do I alternate two colors for the sides of a triangle

I want a triangle whose sides alternate colors, but however I try two adjacent sides seem to share a color. How do I get green-red-green-red-green-red alternation as you go around the sides of the triangle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.78.229 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many sides does your triangle have? Where I'm coming from, a triangle has just three sides. Also, I think your question is not really a question in the area of the Humanities (history, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, music, and society) and may be more in place on the Mathematics section of the Reference desk. --Lambiam 16:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could borrow some tricks of M. C. Escher. 84.239.133.38 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divide each side into a red half-length followed by an alternating green half and make your way round.--Wetman 07:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draw the triangle on a two-sheet Riemann surface? —Tamfang 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race thoughts

The 'science' of eugenics has declined in appeal ever since its association with Nazi racism. It was, however, once the dominant intellectual fashion. I note with some interest that the first International Eugenics Conference was held in London in 1912, attended by Winston Churchill amongst others. I was wondering what attitudes leading British public figures like Churchill had towards issues of racial hygene at this time?Bel Carres 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure not to too closely associate eugenics of the early 1900s (esp. in Britain) with Nazi racial hygiene. Eugenics took on very different forms in different countries; in Britain it was almost always a less politically aggressive form than it was in places like Germany or even the USA. Eugenics at this time was seen as being very closely aligned with public health in general (public genetic health), and while there were of course some alarmists who wanted things that looked quite like what the Germans did, the run-of-the-mill eugenicist was more interested in what we might call genetic counseling today. --24.147.86.187 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) In early 20th century Britain, eugenics was not tainted by Nazi associations and was not associated with race. Francis Galton, drawing on half-cousin Charles Darwin's theories, published "Hereditary Genius" in 1869 and "Human Faculty" in 1883, both of which posit that human intelligence is inherited. Galton founded Eugenics as a philosophical movement which linked intelligence testing, demography and birth control, although it was largely supporters who campaigned for selective breeding in order to improve the 'higher' characteristics of human life. Concepts of race did not really enter the debate in Britain (they did in some areas of continental Europe, Scandinavia and the USA) and the controversy was largely centred on the effect on the lower social classes, who the eugenicists wanted to dissuade from breeding.

The Eugenics Education Society was formed in 1907, renamed the Eugenics Society in 1926, and has been known as the Galton Institute since 1989. The idea of 'social engineering' and evolutionary progress were associated with the progressive side of politics in 1912 so it is not a surprise to see then-Liberal Winston Churchill taking an interest.

Further reading: M. Freeden, "Eugenics and progressive thought: a study in ideological affinity" in Historical Journal, vol. 22 (1979), p. 645-671; G. Jones, "Eugenics and social policy between the wars" in Historical Journal, vol. 25 (1982), p. 717-728; D. Paul, "Eugenics and the left" in Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 45 (1984), p. 561-590; R.A. Peel (ed.), "Essays in the History of Eugenics", Galton Institute, 1997. Sam Blacketer 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the case, but a factor might be that the 'lower classes' (the poor) had more children. Combine this with the notion that were also more stupid and you can imagine the fear that humanity would gradually become stupid. Btw, racial hygiene (what a yuk word) has nothing to do with 'race' as we know it now - it refers to the German/Aryan race. Just in case anyone else is as confused as I was.

Somewhat off topic, once in biology class I asked if there weren't the risk that if people of lower and higher intelligence were more attracted to others in their 'own group' than in the 'other group', the two groups would gradually grow apart and two human races would evolve, one clever, one stupid. The question was brushed away in an irritated tone and someone whispered 'fascist'. I didn't get that then, nor do I now. I had to figure out for myself that a flaw in the reasoning is that there are not two groups but a continuum. You may see in this an argument against 'political correctness', something I will continue to fight, despite the continued threats I have to endure. Here endeth the lecture. :)DirkvdM 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one to wonder that. See Human race will 'split into two different species' Rmhermen 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which shows what happens when you get your evolutionary theory from The Time Machine. - Nunh-huh 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but there are more intelligent arguments about whether the use of genetic enhancements could eventually lead to species-splitting in books by Lee Silver. --24.147.86.187 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "race" has multiple meanings in early literature, ranging from "the human race" to "the Aryan race." Sometimes it was just used as a synonym to something like "genetic hyigene". In the German case it obviously was pretty politically awful from the start, but elsewhere it had multiple meanings.

As for the class issue, yes, it's the common bugaboo of eugenics—one group of "undesirable" people reproducing more than a group of "desirables," combined with the belief that what made them desirable/undesirable was innate genetic factors. So in the UK it was class, in the US it was class+race, in Germany it was race/religion. Exactly what the defining line is varied with the "undesirables" in a given context; hence in the US in the early 20th century the concern was with Eastern/Southern European immigrants (since that was a major demographic factor at the time), but after the Great Migration it was about African-Americans. I don't know the UK case quite as well but the class component was extremely strong, much stronger and explicit than anywhere else. No big surprise there, though. The UK movement was always much more tame than elsewhere; it didn't quite have the political tradition of people coming into power and legislating biology onto the populace, which was something that fit right into American Progressivism of the 1910s-1920s and German Nazism in the 1930s (which is not to imply that these ideologies are all that similar, but this was a common point of departure; at first a number of American Progressives thought the Nazis were extremely forward-looking except for their attitude about Jews, and only eventually realized that the Jewish question eclipsed almost everything else for the Nazis). --24.147.86.187 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was, in fact, a clear racial dimension to the 1912 International Eugenics Conference, in the sense that a given national community, or a race, was seen to be at risk of degeneration or 'pollution' from the weaker elements in its midst. Churchill, who opened the conference, had written that the "rapid growth of the feeble-minded and the insane classes...should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed." This was a view that was certainly shared by other important opinion formers. D H Lawrence went even further than Churchill, suggesting an immediate euthanasia programme. Other suppporters of 'racial pruning' included H G Wells and Bertrand Russell, who wrote a chapter on eugenics in Marriage and Morals, published in 1929; and Sydney Webb and his wife Beatrice, together with most of the Bloomsbury Group. For all of these people, both of the left and of the right, the rapid growth of cities was a particular problem, because of fears over miscegenation and a general lowering in the quality of the population. Eugenics was moving far beyond the older laissez-faire forms of Social Darwinism to a much more targeted exercise in biological and social planning. By the 1920s concerns were increasingly expressed in the press over the decline in the 'white race', coupled with the proliferation of the racially inferior, the feeble-minded, the disabled, the sexually deviant, the criminal and the poor. In addition to the other texts that have been mentioned in the above I would suggest Birth Control and the Population Question in England, 1877-1930 by R. Soloway (1982) and British Population Changes since 1860 by R. Mitchison (1977). I, too, would not choose to draw parallels between Brirish eugenics and Nazi racism; but it is as well to remember that the latter began with the very measures that Churchill and others had once called for. Clio the Muse 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the "clear racial dimension" is here in the 1912 — it still strikes me as a very loose use of the word "race", much looser than it would be used in, say, the United States (where it would mean the "five colors" races) or in Germany (where it would mean varieties of European stock). And note that in your quote he has focused on two rather inspecific groups, the mentally retarded and mentally ill—classic targets of eugenics work, to be sure, in the US, the UK, and Germany. And of course, the Nazis showed with great ability how the eugenic slipperly slope would work, but no other country that embraced eugenic measures against the mentally ill or retarded ended up going quite as far as Action T4 , much less the concentration camps. Which is to say, yes, the Nazi program had continuity with the programs elsewhere, but in many ways it was distinguished as an exception. --24.147.86.187 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No democratic society could ever go as far as T4, though there were points short of this, including sterilisation, still, I understand, in implementation at the Lynchburg Institute in Virginia as late as the early 1970s. I appreciate what you are saying, 24.147, and I have really no wish to get into a pointless debate over semantics; but in my mind the growing focus on eugenics, on the issues raised by urbanisation and the fears over deterioration in the quality of the biological stock, is also linked to the broader issue of race and racial hygene; or community, or nation, or gene pool; howsoever the concept is defined. The national community or the British race, the biological tree, if you like, was considered capable of improvement by 'pruning', a term I used quite deliberately to suggest the removal, by whatever means, of those considered to be less than perfect, defined, in some cases, not just by the physical defects of birth but by their poverty or by forms of anti-social behaviour. And, as I have indicated, the British press in the 1920s was more and more preoccupied with upholding the quality of the 'white race' and in the promotion of eugenics as a way of ensuring the quality was maintained. Clio the Muse 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree with the above, more-or-less, but my point is a semantic one—but an important one! If "race" means "human race" or talk of "improving the race" can be entirely non-racist (or even non-racialist). However if "race" means "whites" (and not "blacks") then it has a very different implication alltogether, and if "race" is really Rassen, well, that has its own specific "translation" (in the same way that we all know that Volk does not really just mean people). All I mean is that when Americans, Brits, and Germans in the early 20th century talk about "race", they are not always talking about the same thing—and even within national contexts the meaning can be vague. This is the sort of thing that one must beat into undergraduates who are working on topics like this, since they see the word "race" and automatically think that it has a straightforward interpretation (esp. in association with the Nazis), and then get baffled that people like W.E.B. DuBois also favored "racial betterment programs" of sorts. --24.147.86.187 03:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no disagreement with any of this, and I think any difference between us is paper thin. Clio the Muse 03:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for such things being possible in a democratic society, if it negatively affects a majority, then yes. That majority will simply vote it away because it is an important enough issue to become the major issue in people's voting behaviour (provided no other issue is so important that it pushes even this aside (such as the country being at war!), so it can slip through). Provided there is a fully proportional representation, which is not quite always the case. But T4 affected only a small minority. Plus their relatives, which makes it a larger minority, but still a minority. So if someone who is otherwise respected comes with a convincing story, then it could certainly happen. Consider this - do you know what happens in psychiatric hospitals? And do you care? And most importantly, if there were some malpractices there, and Labour would make this an issue but the others not, would that be enough to make you vote Labour? I doubt it.

Also, retarded people having children is something that is already frowned upon in most societies, to say the least (even if it is not through a genetic defect - and who determines what is a defect then?), and I assume it will be forbidden in most countries. But then I don't know. Mostly because I don't care enough because it doesn't affect me or anyone near me. So what safety against this does democracy provide then? Democracy is no guarantee that bad things will happen. It's the best political system I can think of, but that doesn't make it perfect. DirkvdM 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, T4 was essentially state-sanctioned murder of the weak. Even the Nazis knew they needed to hush that up, and even the politically subverted German people found that extremely distasteful. Add to it that many religions (esp. Catholicism) condemn such practices and you end up with a situation in which even though the group in question is a minority, people care about the practices used against them more than you would expect just from sheer numbers. Democracy is not, at all, simply about voting blocs—it's more complicated than that, there are a lot of factors which come into play on any given issue.

But I think the basic point about mental health policy is essentially true; most people don't know, or don't care what happens to people in state-run institutions, and most people, when pressed, really do think it is not a good idea for the severely retarded or severely ill to reproduce, though the terms in which they express this might not be genetic (and indeed, the terms of those who passed and enforced sterilization laws were not purely genetic, though this is not well known). A child born to a severely mentally retarded person, even if not retarded themselves, is going to require additional parenting, slack taken up either by relatives (at best) or the state (at worst). As is well known the idea that people could be sterilized for public good was even endorsed by the Supreme Court, so obviously many of the basic ideas are not incompatible with a non-totalitarian regime. --24.147.86.187 15:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterilization for eugenic purposes was not an aberration of only the 1920's. An illiterate African-American mother in Alabama in 1973 was persuaded by authorities to make her "mark" a form which authorized state medical workers to sterilize her daughters, aged 12 and 14 [2] [3]. The government was involuntarily sterilizing (at least without their free and informed consent) 100,000 to 150,000 poor people a year for eugenic purposes with federal funding. How many were sterilized a year for similar purposes in Germany in the 1930's? Edison 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?? 100,000 to 150,000 per year? Assuming an average lifetime of about 70 that would mean about 10 million over that time span and with a population of about 200 million that would be about 5% of the population forcibly sterilised. That would be monstrous, and I've heard a lot of bad stuff about the US, but I can't believe this. Your links aren't very useful. The first one requires a login and the second one only has a booklist, as far as I can see. Do you have a better source for that? DirkvdM 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stocks

How do owners of stock get paid by the company? Is it by a check in the mail or is the money sent right to the bank account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checks are usual, direct deposits becoming more so, but usually stockholders have to "opt in" for direct deposits. See dividend for information about stock or property dividends. I would expect direct deposit to eventually replace checks. - Nunh-huh 18:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends a lot on the country. In the Netherlands, transfers other than to a bank have not been done through checks for decades. Payment of wages and social security are done directly into the receivers bank account. I doubt it will be different for dividends. Checks are a rather stupid way to do this anyway, aren't they? The company would first have to produce the check, then send it to you, then you have to go to the bank, wait in line, bother a cashier with it, who has to file it, so someone else can copy the info into the system after which the the company's bank can be contacted, so it can do the transfer. Alternative: the company tells its bank (electronically), which then send the money to your bank. Done. DirkvdM 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many or most shareholders use a broker. In that case, the dividends just appear in the monthly statement as an addition to the value of the portfolio, in the form of an addition to the "cash" portion of the account. Some shareholders have the dividends reinvested to increase the shares owned. Owning the stock outright (having the share certificates in a safe or safety deposit box) is a bit "old school," but in that case the dividends could be sent as a check or direct deposited, however the owner directed the shareholder services department of the company. Dividends could be reinvested to purchase additional stock shares in that case as well, for many companies. Edison 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry IV Part II

In the death bed scence old King Henry gives his son advice including the following;

"Therefore, my Harry, Be it thy course to busy giddy minds With foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out, May waste the memory of the former days."

Please, what does this mean exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.3.19 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distract your foes with foreign affairs, and they will forget your youthful excesses. - Nunh-huh 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good interpretation to me. Harry was a real goof-off in Henry IV, but then becomes famous for his war in France in Henry V. In other words, he takes his Dad's advice. Wrad 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a statement that really has to be read both in the context of Shakespeare's history cycle, and English history from the late fourteenth to the late fifteenth centuries as a whole. The 'former days' the old king refers to is his own action in deposing his cousin, Richard II in 1399. He then assumed the crown himself, even though there were others who had a stronger right. As a consequence of this his reign was to be troubled with serious domestic conflict. Shakespeare is, of course, looking forward to Henry V's renewal of the Hundred Years' War and the victory at Agincourt, which did indeed waste the memory of former days, and the questionable origins of the Lancastrian Dynasty, by placing the nation behind the crown. But when victory vanished in the reign of Henry VI the memory returned, with disastrous consequences. Clio the Muse 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of Holy Roman Empire

So why the Holy Roman Empire article states that there is no capital? Cpcheung 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there wasn't one? :) It wasn't a single state, but a union of states. The modern equivalent (of sorts), the EU doesn't have a capital either, even though people regard Brussels as one. DirkvdM 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in the same sense, the capital was wherever the ruling emperor drew his personal power from, or wherever he felt like staying most of the time. Some of the major ones were Aachen, Prague, and Vienna. Adam Bishop 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some ancient and medieval states had an undisputed capital city, as the Roman Empire did for most of the time, but others didn't. The HRE's seat of power was, in theory, where the emperor was, but in practice the emperors (especially the later ones) had far more power in their own possessions than in other parts of their "empire". Even the Reichstag, or Imperial Diet, was peripatetic, meeting in places which included Aix-la-Chapelle (also called Aachen), Worms and Nuremberg, until 1663, when it was agreed that a "permanent Imperial Diet" would hold its meetings in Regensburg, which the English called Ratisbon. By then the power of the Reichstag was so limited that we can't think of Ratisbon as an imperial capital city. Xn4 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been outlined above, the HRE didn't have a capital. The centre of power was wherever the emperor lived or went. It's also important to keep in mind that the HRE was an elective monarchy, not a hereditary monarchy. This means that there was not always a blood line between an emperor and his successor. If an emperor was elected who was not related to the emperor he succeeded, it would mean a move of everything we associate with a capital: a bureaucracy, government institutions, etcetera. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys. Cpcheung 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by the way Aix-la-Chapelle is only the french name for Aachen.--85.180.45.143 11:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I was taught by old-fashioned men who preferred the good old name of Aix-la-Chapelle, which the benighted English have mostly used, as in the various Congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle. Perhaps this will die out, just as Ratisbon and Leghorn are vanishing. No doubt it won't matter, but humour me. Xn4 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the gentleman who wrote How I Brought the Good News from Aix to Ghent. :) Corvus cornix 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You leave me in deep waters, as both R. J. Yeatman and W. C. Sellar were (if you ask me) gentlemen! Xn4 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low Income and Equity

Hi there, I am a single parent with a high school education only and I work as a taxi cab driver and I have two kids, one is six and other is four. I need to know something: What are the monthly payments to the city of Toronto, government of Ontario and government of Canada? and what are the social programs provided by city of Toronto, government of Ontario and government of Canada? Please, I need the answers as soon as possible. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.24 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the umptieth time you've asked this? See here for an answer. DirkvdM 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there has been a large influx of Bengali widowers to Toronto lately. —Tamfang 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leather reds

I've noticed in old movies about the Russian revolution the communists are almost always shown wearing leather coats and jackets (think of Dr Zhivago). Is this to make them look more sinister, or did they really dress in leather? If so, why? 81.156.3.19 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that Trotsky promoted the use of the leather jackets and coats by the Bolsheviks. Leather was of course a good practical material in Russia at a time which saw thousands freezing (as well as starving) to death. Officers in the German Army also wore leather coats. In Dr Zhivago, we remember Strelnikov in a leather jacket, but Komarovsky in furs. No doubt leather struck the Bolsheviks as having more authentic proletarian roots. Xn4 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a practical reason for the leathers, which are, in fact, not that good in cold weather. In the early years of the Civil War typhus was particularly rife in Russia. The disease, of course, is spread by lice, which like to make their homes in fur and wool. Leather is far less accommodating! There is some detail on this, I believe, in A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes. Clio the Muse 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very credible. Leather is, though, good when you're on the move to keep out biting winds, while allowing the body to breathe. It's also hard-wearing and gives some protection from minor injuries... I don't think a louse would have dared to go near Komarovsky. Xn4 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was the biggest louse of all! Clio the Muse 03:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No contest. We could also say the biggest bloodsucker of all, as komar is a mosquito... Xn4 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambigramic song

Is there any song that's played the same upside-down and backwards, that is, it's its own retrograde-inversion? One of my classes at school is a piano class, and I think it would be fun, for my recital, to play the first half of such a song, turn the page (so it's upside-down and backwards), then play the second half. — Daniel 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a class of canons, called table canons, that consist of two voices, one of which is the retrograde inversion of the other (but possibly with a different key signature). An example is the Canon per augmentationem contrario motu from J. S. Bach's The Musical Offering, of which you can see the notation here as Example 36, while you can listen to a midi version using links in the Canon article. If both voices are notated together, you get a musical rotational ambigram. It fits your description of an ambigrammatic song to the letter, but this canon is not really set for keyboard. The genre once was quite popular, and so it is very likely that there are four-voice table canons, but I don't know of any examples. --Lambiam 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]