Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 14

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.

September 14

most snobbish languages for an American to know and speak as a foreign language?

What are the most snobbish languages for an American to know and speak as a foreign language, in order please. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Queen's English would be a good start.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to Strine? --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Classical Greek. Even the Romans were impressed by it. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I said foregin, but fine -- The Queen's English is foreign enough, because -- it's 2011 why have a queen? So, first on the list will be the Queen's English, second is almost certainly French... And then? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish. --Belchman (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine, English, French, Spanish...and then? I really feel like you're drip-feeding me here, I'm asking for a pretty COMPLETE list. I want to know where Italian, where Portuguese fit in, etc. Please be more helpful and offer a more complete list. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think Latin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne, I meant modern language, but you can include any ancient language I guess... put it in Brackets. So maybe now we have: English, French, [Latin], Spanish or what? What about the rest of the languages... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is terribly subjective, and this is not a place to start a debate over which languages are "snobbish," much less what order they belong in, much less whether being multilingual is perceived as "snobbish" or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the other respondents know what I'm asking.

I think I do, too. But there's no way to create a "complete" list of the sort you're asking for, and it's entirely subjective. Much less its "ordering". You're asking for a debate. That's not what we do here. There is no such list. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no one true list, I'm asking for a subjective list. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

I do not mean to imply that the snob would speak all of the listed languages! For example, if I learned that an American speaks Italian as well, that would score pretty high snob points. I think the other respondents know what I'm talking about... As a visualization exercise, you can imagine that it's an educated American who was not raised with this other language/these languages, but learned them. (In fact I don't really care). 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would speaking Italian make you a snob? In my experience, most people who speak Italian have Italian parents or grandparents, and would definitely not be considered snobs by any normal polling (unless you happen to consider blue collar Bostonians to be snobs). A businessman who works with companies in Italy — is he a snob if he learned the language? You see what I'm getting at. This is entirely, 100% subjective, at least for any living language. We could say, as a whole, that anyone who speaks a Dead language, with the exception of a Roman Catholic priest or something along those lines, is probably doing so just for the educational value of it, which perhaps we could call "snobbery" (if we want to be anti-intellectual). But other than that? It seems really quite arbitrary. I don't think speaking a foreign language is snobbish. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the respondents, why are you even attempting to answer this question? It is much too subjective and there will be no concrete list from anything approaching a reliable source. For instance, it's perfectly reasonable for someone around my area to speak French since Vermont borders Quebec. Dismas|^(talk) 12:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on the subject matter being spoken about, but I think French has the most potential for off-putting snobbishness, to an American.

Americans are generally thought of as being rustic; the French are generally thought of as being sophisticated. France has a history of cultivated taste in a variety of areas—food and art for example.

It is the fact that the sensibilities of the two countries are so different. Americans pride themselves on being "straight-speaking". If a French person expounds upon the values that distinguish one fine wine from another, or one fine painting from another—an American's eyes glaze over. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, how is this an answerable question? The reference desk specifically requests that we do not ask, nor answer, questions which require opinions, and the OP is asking (and later clarified this point unambigously) that he is looking for people's subjective opinions, and not any facts or references. What is the point of this? --Jayron32 14:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is absolutely subjective. We are starting with one well-defined term—"Americans". That one term may be open to some interpretation, but only within limits. "Snobbishness" is also defined to some degree. So why can't we productively respond to that which corresponds to snobbishness in relation to the language of Americans, which is traditionally regarded as English? More than one response is possible, and one should not get too carried away with farfetched responses. But taking into account the problematic nature of the question, I think one can provide measured responses that would be appropriate uses of a Humanities reference desk. I think the question is acceptable.

Some things are quantifiable. I read there are 1,000 cheeses produced in France. Americans who are bred on American cheese, also known as Processed cheese, may find the French approach to cheese "snobbish". What other language but French provides this clash of sensibilities? Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The USA has more Michelin-starred restaurants than most nations (certainly more than the UK or Italy) and more varieties of wine than most. New York is the centre of the world art market (art's pretty snobby). Depending on definitions, the USA produces more arthouse films than any other nation. Its art galleries are richer than anywhere in Europe, particularly when it comes to recent purchases. Its operas and orchestras are world-class. It leads the world in modern dance. It's had some of the best classical music composers of the later 20th century, and the best novelists and poets (notwithstanding the prejudice of the Nobel judges). Its universities are among the best in the world (only the UK challenges). I could go on. Basically YOU ARE SNOBS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Relax...every list above puts English in the first place. After all, we're talking about an educated American in question to begin with (and what foreign languages this hypothetical american knows)...there's a reason for that :) 82.234.207.120 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

all right guys, here is my own (OP) list. Please add to it: English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese, [Latin], German, (and getting lower on the list), Russian, [Ancient Greek], Chinese, Arabic, [Sanskrit], (and getting much lower on the list) Hindi... and the bottom of the list is things like Korean, Thai, Bengali, Cherokee, etc.

I was hoping for someone to produce a list like this. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't English the language of America? Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's only the official language of Virginia KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, it is only in Virginia that English is the only "official" language. But in practice English is by far the defining language of America. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It was specifically "Queen's English" further up. And now the OP has made their own list and we can be done with this. Dismas|^(talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Without justification being provided, such a list is arbitrary and subjective. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I just gave some justification below, which is lengthy: 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't know where Hebrew goes, ancient and modern. There are a couple of approaches to getting the source of the snobbism. First of all, American culture has its background in Britain, and there historically the language of the court was English mixed with plenty of French at one point, and going back much farther you would get to Old English which was kind of Germanic. But that is going back quite far: in the meantime, the learned languages were Latin and Greek. Now I would say the "cosmopolitan" languages or lanuages of the world were mostly the colonial languages, which would surely be based around France, Spain, and Portugal (besides the UK). But if you go back just a bit farther you do get The Netherlands as a world power, so I think Dutch is an important language to include well before you get to Korean and Cherokee. German was a continental language (as opposed to a colonial one) and so figures lower on my list. Cultures largely cut off from Europe (e.g. asian ones continuing to the present day) during colonial times would figure lowest on the snob scale, with indigenous peoples who have now been supplanted by the colonial powers (as Native American languages) being lowest of all -- these languages are hardly taught or studied, in fact, as part of a general education (i.e. a bachelor's from Harvard in Art History or English Literature, you would not be surprised to find this includes learning French or Russian or Japanese, but including a Native American language to a high degree of mastery would be far rarer). These are just general approaches, but my list leaves, for me, much to be desired. Where we read widely of a literature, as Russia's, Chekhov, Tolstoi, Dostoevski, etc, that should seem to promote it as a snob language. Where we do not read a literature at all, as Punjabi, that pushes it down quite low on the list. Other considerations are, academic languages, languages of music and opera, languages whose poetry is studied at american universities in the original language after a period of study of the language by the students, etc. Also, nowhere in my list are the "rest" of the Romance languages, like Romanian, the rest of the Slavic languages, like Czech, etc, other Germanic languages, proud national languages like Gaelic (Irish), which would seem to me to score quite high on the snob list, etc etc. In total, I would like a complete listing taking all these factors into account, preferably of all the major languages of the world. My own list shows much ignornace and room for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

also my own list includes only some 14 languages and another 4 much closer to the bottom of the list. I'd like a more exhaustive list like my own with justification if you like, as I myself have given! Thanks... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Research approaches. You could look at what languages the Ivy Leagues teach. You could look at what languages academic works often cite in the original (certainly renaissance Italian figures here strongly). You could look at documents in which languages history scholars bother to learn enough of the original language to look at. You could look at patterns of art, travel, etc, as reflecting on the tastes of the rich, etc, etc. Did you guys even read the snob article? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Snobbishness doesn't always correlate with wealth; snobbishness can also correlate with an attained level of being "cultured". Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

very true, you'll note almost all of my examples are from culture and the arts, including higher learning. only one example (travel) is more closely related to being rich. still, there is some overlap... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OP, you'll have to work out your own list. Where will you place, for example, Finnish? Speaking a language immediately impresses people at a cocktail party. "Oh, you speak fluent French? How come? ... Ah, I see, your father is Canadian." (less snob value). "Oh, you speak fluent Finnish? How come? ... Really, you taught yourself in only six months?" (more snob value). In other words, snobbishness is an illogical, ephemeral, inconsistent thing. If you want to study it systematically, you must propose an appropriate research methodology. Simply asking for the impressions of random people on a helpdesk isn't a research method. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Canadian provinces and US States

Nova Scotia is called Mississippi of Canada because of its black population and the racism it faced so what about the rest of the provinces? Which states are they compared to which states of America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.99 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

on the Nova Scotia thing. --Jayron32 15:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Windsor, Ontario is allegedly the Florida of Canada.[1][2] Alberta is the Texas of Canada, based on its oil, political conservatism, etc. There seem some debates about whether New Brunswick or Nova Scotia is the Maine of Canada. And lots of places claim to the the Hawaii of Canada with considerable implausibility. (This is mostly based on googling "X of Canada", but the Windsorites seem quite serious.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I remember seeing lots of palm trees growing in Windsor. All of them indoors, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the Alberta as Texas thing, I've never really heard any of these (I'm Canadian in Vancouver). Refs on the Mississippi thing? Mingmingla (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As Douglas Hofstadter points out in Metamagical Themas, such analogies are pretty ill-defined. An example he used (he was writing in the mid 1980s) is Who is the first-lady of England? Was it Margaret Thatcher? Queen Elizabeth? Perhaps Margaret Thatcher's husband, Dennis?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oregon, of course, is California's Canada. Or is it Idaho's Portugal? --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, makes California Oregon's Mexico. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

These sorts of analogies remind me of the time when Lucy (in Peanuts) told Schroeder he was the Beethoven of music. His response was: "!" -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Beethoven was a bit loud.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Political parties of Europe immigration

Which political parties of European continent are pro-immigrant? I know that most of them are left-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.99 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd take issue with your last statement. They're only "left-wing" in comparison with the parties in the US, both of which fall far to the right of any right-wing mainstream party in Europe. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So far I know that Labour Party of U.K. is pro-immigrant because its has non-white members in the parliament like Rushanara Ali and other South Asian politicians, Socialist Party of France because the last time it was in power, it gained African and Arabs and Asians vote. --65.92.154.99 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)65.92.154.99|65.92.154.99--65.92.154.99 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two subtly different questions. At least in Germany, all the major parties are at least nominally "pro-immigrant". However, there is a lot more differentiation about the question of actually encouraging immigration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say any German party is pro-immigration in the sense they wish new immigrants (excluding soccer players and engineers). Although all mainstream parties are certainly pro-immigration rights, at least nominally. Quest09 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

True. Pro-immigrant, well all mainstream parties will say that they wish current immigrants well. Non-white MPs in Britain are mostly the sons and daughters of immigrants, therefore the link to current immigration is indirect. The Conservatives also try and recruit non-White people as far as possible. Pro-immigration is another question. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are also non-white Tory MPs such as one of my local MPs, Nadhim Zahawi. It's fair to say that all mainstream UK political parties are in favour of immigration, because as it's the policy of the EU to allow free migration between EU countries, we have to uphold it. However, attitudes towards immigration from non-EU countries vary. The parties in the UK who want zero immigration from whatever source are UKIP and BNP, and other fringe (nominally right-wing) parties. However, I think it's fair to say that no party would put up with a situation where jobs such as hospital consultant are not filled because of a block on immigration. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This lengthy article gives a detailed overview of the politics of immigration in the UK, albeit from a socialist viewpoint. Even they admit that in the 1950s and 60s, immigration was supported by large businesses who were short of labour, and opposed by the trade unions who feared unemployment. So for a while, the usual dynamic was reversed with the right "for" and the left "against" immigration. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific term for...

I was wondering if there is a specific scientific/sociologic term for the following (common/uncommon?) human behavior/attitude/tendency:

Crimes of people who are not related, or very distant (geographically but also ethnically?), are much more readily considered carefully thought-out, purposeful and caused by simple evil intentions than when this criminal behavior is shown by relatives or other people that we are close to or feel related to. In the latter case, we'll often think in terms of those people being "fundamentally a good guy/girl", but maybe "easily influenced by bad friends" or "having had a terrible childhood", or "a bit simple minded". Another manifestation might be when someone would show xenophobic (anti-Islamic, racist...) attitudes in general, but have no problems at all with close neighbors or acquaintances who nevertheless fit into the categories they otherwise despise. A sort of blindness for one's own selectivity combined with unconscious dehumanization. Sort of. At least it sounds like something that could have been studied extensively already.

170.162.35.250 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some ideas from List of fallacies:

• Mind projection fallacy
• Faulty generalization
• Association fallacy
• Genetic fallacy

Some more ideas from List of cognitive biases:

• Confirmation bias
• Expectation bias
• Stereotyping
• Fundamental attribution error
• Outgroup homogeneity bias

Picking through those you may find some insight. --Jayron32 17:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Outgroup homogeneity bias sounded closest at first and lead me to Trait ascription bias, which lead me to the Negativity effect, and the combination of these three seems to come close... But then I got to Fundamental attribution error eventually, and that seems to be it. People who we are not connected to in some way (not in one of our ingroups), we will tend to collectively "simplify". That is, we will easily turn a blind eye to all kinds of psychological complexities that we DO acknowledge in ourselves and in people that we know better, and furthermore the negative aspects will more easily be attributed to basic personality than circumstances. Sounds like what I was looking for. 91.177.162.240 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think the basic term for all this is prejudice. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are these American cities declining in population since the 1950s?

I was told on the answers to a previous question a while back, which by the way was not really a population question, that the reason that Chicago’s population is declining is because of gentrification whereas the reason that Detroit’s population is declining is because of bad economic conditions. I recently read that the metropolitan areas of these cities are growing though. A similar situation might also be happening to the metropolitan areas of population declining cities in the U.S. I also noticed that the population decline of Chicago and Detroit simultaneously began in the 1950s. I mentioned previously that in 1950, Chicago had a population of over 3.6 million people, and Detroit had a population of over 1.84 million, but today Chicago has about 2.7 million and Detroit has over 700,000 people. Now, to the point....

I discovered that Washington, DC’s population has also been declining since the 1950’s. The population at its peak was at 802,178 in the 1950s. In 2000, the population was 572,059. The population has stabilized a bit today.

The same declining population situation is also happening in Philadelphia. The population, as all the American cities I mentioned above, was at its highest in the 1950s, which was about 2.07 million. Today, it has gone down to 1.5 million people. The population has also stabled a bit today.

I found out that St. Louis has also been declining in population since the 1950s. In the 1950’s, the population was at its highest. It was 856,796, but today, it is 319,294.

I was told that Chicago’s population was declining due to a gentrification that’s taking over the city and that Detroit’s population was declining because it is really a city in decline, but what is going on with Washington, DC, St. Louis, and Philadelphia? Which of these cities is experiencing gentrification as a reason for population decline and which of these cities is experiencing what Detroit is experiencing as a reason for population decline? Also, why did all the cities that I’ve mentioned (Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C, St. Louis, and Philadelphia) simultaneously start declining their populations in the 1950s? What occurred in the 1950s that started the decline of many American cities and that is generally still continuing today? I know that there are other American cities that I haven’t mentioned whose population has been declining since the 1950s. However, I noticed that Boston hasn’t experienced that sharp of a population drop since the 1950s that other cites are experiencing. The city has had its downs and a bit of ups in population, but in the 1950’s its population was at its highest, 801,444. Today, it is 617,914. Willminator (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, DC, Philly and St. Louis -- as well as Chicago -- have parts of the city that are pretty much ghetto. In STL and DC, it's huge chunks of the city. Second, people generally take up more space than they used to. Families are smaller. Instead of 6 people in a 2,500-square-foot house, you might have 3 or even 2. The metro area is growing because there are more families and more houses. But in a built-up part of the area, the population will decline. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One possible answer: beginning in the 1950s, you start to see the rise of suburbanization — movement out of the urban core, into suburbs. That's what it sounds like given your comment on the metropolitan areas — you're seeing all of those little periphery places getting larger, while the core is depleting in terms of actual residency. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See: Jane Jacobs, Laissez-faire liberalism, Welfare state, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with the question at hand. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The big bad guy here is the GI Bill, enacted in 1944 to help out returning soldiers after WW2. It contained provisions making loans more likely for those Caucasians moving out of the cities into the suburbs than those remaining in the city (in part to help out automobile companies who wanted people to drive more). (The reason the population loss wasn't seen until the 1950's is that some of the millions of returning soldiers remained in the cities for a few years while they attended college, saved up money, etc.) 2.4 million veterans had home loans backed by the Veterans' Administration. This directly caused a population loss, as those people and their families moved to the suburbs, but also caused a more devastating long-term trend. Since the young, upwardly mobile white families moved out, this left older folks and minorities in the cities. This shrank the tax base considerably, as retirees and minorities have lower incomes. As generations passed, more people were born in the suburbs or moved there, while the cities were progressively more starved for revenue, and thus decayed, leading to even more "white flight" and a lack of people moving in to replace those who moved out or died of old age. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could give some support for your racist accusations, like showing how negroes were excluded from the GI Bill, rather than just making the assertion? μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Support is below. Also, you should avoid saying "racist accusations", as it sounds like I am making accusations which are racist, rather than "accusations of racism", which is the unambiguous way to state it. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, admitting the existence of racism is the equivalent of accepting it. Quest09 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I am sure you will be happy to show us a reference that explains how Negroes were excluded from the GI bill to support your racist allegations. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This was the 1950s. Racism was the norm. See African Americans and the G.I. Bill. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the state of that article, I would hesitate to use it to support any point, except that Wikipedia is a work in progress. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That article contains a large number of references, so, if you don't like the article, track down those references and read them. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I did read instead the talk page dispute about whether those sources were used correctly (or at all). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting edition of Scientific American magazine—on cities. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not that cities in the whole U.S. are shrinking, its that cities in the Rust belt are shrinking because, mostly, the jobs have left those areas. Cities in the sun belt are growing, major cities in the Southeast and Southwestern U.S. like Raleigh, Orlando, Atlanta, Las Vegas and Phoenix all experienced population booms at the same time that the major Northeastern and Midwestern cities were shrinking. Its not so much that cities are shrinking (indeed, the U.S. is more urbanized than ever before in history) it is that the population of the U.S. is moving southward. --Jayron32 01:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who answered. You're all helpful indeed, but if I may, 2 more things recently came to mind that needs some clarification after I read and thought about the answers and after I did more research.

First of all, Buffalo hasn’t been too lucky according to the Scientific American link I was going over with that was given to me by BusStop. Today, it’s half of the city in population that it once was in the 1950’s. I read there that it’s going through a Detroit kind of decline. But I realized that New York City, unlike Buffalo geographically not too far away, didn’t begin to lose population in the 1950s, and the city’s population is still booming, rapidly. It seems that its residents are not moving to the Sun Belt. I’ve learned that there are parts of New York City that are ghetto, such as in the Bronx. Yet, New York City’s population, and the Bronx especially, is still rising. It doesn’t seem as if the 1944 GI Bill and white flight affected NYC’s population growth. There are places in New York City that are undergoing rapid gentrification such as Williamsburg in Brooklyn, much of Upper Manhattan, Long Island City in Queens, SoHo, Greenwich Village, the Lower East Side of Manhattan, and many more NYC neighborhoods and places. Yet, New York City’s population and the population of these areas are still growing. The suburbs of New York City are growing and expanding, which is making the metropolitan area one of the largest in the world, but New York City’s population is still growing. New York City seems to have been and be going through things that has caused many of the cities I've mentioned to decline in population since the 1950's, which hasn't happened in New York City. Could New York City be an exception to the rules of city population decline? If so, why?

The second thing is why does it seem to me that some politicians in the population declining cities complain about the population decline if it does not always mean a bad thing (like the gentrification reason) at least in some of the population declining cities? Willminator (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, NYC does have some thriving industries, like tourism, entertainment (such as Broadway), banking, stock trading, and fashion. In some cases being "the biggest US city" and perhaps "the most well-known US city" have provided advantages that smaller cities lacked. Also, being on the coast, NYC was used as the major arrival point for immigrants coming by ship, many of whom stayed, leading to many immigrant communities which continue to attract new immigrants (even those who now come by plane and could just as easily fly elsewhere). StuRat (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New York City did suffer a major population decline in the 1970s, when crime was bad and the economy was horrible and so on. From 1970-1980 it suffered a population loss of about a million people. From about 1980-2000 it re-added that million as the economy (in particular Wall Street) picked up again. The population of the borough of Manhattan in particular declined pretty steeply from 1950 to 1980, and has had a moderate level of growth since then. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right that New York City had experienced population loss, but what I was trying to say was that New York City as a whole seems to be more lucky than those American cities who are still experiencing population decline since the 1950s. In the 1970s its population was 7.895 million, which was higher than its 1950s population which was 7.892 million. The increase was greater than the decrease. In the 1970s, the population declined again, but more sharply, but the population loss was stopped again. After doing some more reading, I found out today that Newark for example, which is a NYC suburb across the river from Manhattan, hasn't been so lucky. 442,337 was the city's population in the 1950s, but today it's down to 277,140. By the way, Manhattan had also experience population loss between 1910 - 1930. Its population was actually 2.33 million in the 1910's. I imagine it probably went down during this time because of the skysraper boom and possibly because of changes in immigration to the borough during that period. Willminator (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Declining populations pose real challenges to city mayors:

1) The city services and staff of city workers must be cut back accordingly. This means massive lay-offs (depressing the economy further) and then there remains the issue of how to continue to pay the retirement benefits for the large number of retirees.

2) The old number of roads and other infrastructure can no longer be maintained. So, how do you choose which roads to abandon, knowing that some people live along all the roads ? In Detroit, the mayor recommended moving people out of areas in the worst shape, but that didn't go over very well.

3) While gentrification can bring in people with higher incomes and thus improve the tax base, there the concern is that poor people and minorities are being abandoned and pushed out of the neighborhood. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A major difference between cities in the South and especially in the Southwest and cities in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest is that cities in the "Sunbelt" typically expand their municipal boundaries to capture areas of new development, whereas Northeastern cities' boundaries were typically fixed 100 years ago or so. Northeastern cities are surrounded by a ring of suburban municipalities jealous of protecting their more affluent taxpayers from the expense of supporting the needs of the central cities' poorer populations. This circumstance may create a vicious cycle of deterioration in the urban core. New York City is something of an exception because it is such a center of highly paid employment, art, and culture. New York City is a very desirable place to live for affluent people and for middle-class people who enjoy those cultural amenities. The jobs involved in providing services to all of those businesses and affluent people is a magnet to immigrants, who really account for most if not all of New York City's population growth. Also, while New York City's municipal boundaries are more than 100 years old, the metropolitan area is so large that commuting from new suburban development on the metropolitan fringe into the central city is too time-consuming to be really feasible for people with family responsibilities. (New suburban development on New York's metropolitan fringe provides housing almost exclusively to people who commute to jobs in other suburbs.) Therefore, the dynamism of New York City's economy has led to increasingly vertical development. There is some infill, but buildings in trendy neighborhoods are also being built taller than their predecessors to accommodate population growth. That just doesn't happen in any other American city, except to some extent in Los Angeles. Marco polo (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New York City also has the "advantage" of having its central business districts on an island, which adds a lot of time to a driving commute. It's easy to get in and out of Buffalo or Detroit from a leafy exurb. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also note that now the businesses have largely moved out of Detroit, too, so the need to commute is gone. I imagine this has happened in other cities, too. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Last follow up post.... Have businesses also largely moved out of cities like Chicago whose population decline is partly do to bigger housing space and increase in gentrification? Also, did ghettofication really begin in the 1950s in many of those population declining cities? If not, how did it cause the 1950s population decline? I was told above that one of the reasons for the population decline that began in the 1950s was because part of those cities are ghetto, but I imagine that its possible that they had ghettos before the 1950s, but I could be wrong. Willminator (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All large cities have, and have always had, poorer sections, sometimes called ghettos. The difference is that some US cities are now almost entirely ghetto, with no tax base to improve things. In the case of gentrification; large, old businesses like factories might still close down, but may be replaced by many smaller service-oriented businesses for the new rich. They all need restaurants with insulting waiters and dog-groomers, after all. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Roman punishment

Near the end of Livy 28:29 it says for a punishment: These were stripped to the waist and conducted into the middle of the assembly; all the apparatus of punishment was at once brought out; they were tied to the stake, scourged and finally beheaded.

1. What is all the apparatus of punishment?
2. What is the meaning of tied to the stake, especially the stake? Was it a common practice then for severe punishment for criminals to be tied to a stake?
3. "scourged"? Were criminals then burned at the stake?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding points 3 and 2, to Scourge is to whip. Jesus was scourged. Presumably they were tied to a stake to hold them in place while being whipped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And the apparatus of punishment must have included a stake, unless there was one already present, a scourge (whip), and an axe for the beheading. "The stake" rather than "a stake" is normal English but perhaps a bit old-fashioned now. Joan of Arc was "burnt at the stake". Itsmejudith (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The most serious Roman whip was called a Flagrum, about which we have a brief article. A Google search for "Flagrum" brings up lots of sites, many religious (connected with the Passion of Christ) but some of a (ahem) "special interest" nature ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the answers, thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Latin is nudi in medium protrahebantur et simul omnis apparatus supplicii expromebatur. deligati ad palum uirgisque caesi et securi percussi

I don't particularly agree with the translation you have there. The phrase nudi in medium protrahebantur means "They were dragged (protrahebantur) naked (nudi) into the center (in medium)." There is no phrase to indicate they were stripped to the waist. Perhaps your translation didn't want its readers to assume the mutinous soldiers were not completely naked, which from the Latin, it appears that they were. The verb protrahebantur is from protraho protractum. It's where we get the word "protracted" which means drug out over a long time. The image here is more than conducted. These soldiers were dragged forcibly and naked into the middle of the assembly of soldiers.

The second phrase simul omnis apparatus supplicii expromebatur means "and at the same time (et simul) every instrument of punishment/torture (omnis apparatus supplicii) was brought forth (expromebatur). Simul, where we get the word "simultaneously" gives the impression that all at once were these naked soldiers dragged out into the assembly with all the means to torture them at the same time. Livy’s use of expromo gives the sense of taking something out for display and spectacle. The root for our modern word promotion follows the prefix ex which means out.

The last phrase, deligati ad palum uirgisque caesi et securi percussi means "They were bound to the stake (deligati ad palum) and hewn by a green tree branch commonly referred to as a switch (virgisque caesi) and cleaved by an axe (et securi percussi). The use of the conjuction que for "and" rather than the full et seems to indicate that the binding of the mutinous soldiers to the poles and thrashing them with green tree branches was a complete action as in "bound & thrashed." The use of virgis tells us that the instrument was not a scourge as in the medieval torture device, but just a branch designed for whipping, a green and flexible one. He verb caedo, cedidi, caesum is often used with axes to mean to cut, but can also mean to strike a mortal blow, beat, or cudgel. You must imagine that they were really going after these soldiers with these branches and inflicting wounds on their bare skin. The instrument for what can be implied as beheading was indeed an axe.

For your first question, apparatus here means equipment or a thing of preparation. It doesn’t mean a machine as our modern meaning has it, although in some Latin contexts it can mean a machine, just not here. There was no crazy torture machine, just instruments of torture.

For your second question, the palum or "stake" was a large piece of wood in the ground upon which soldiers could practice use of their sword, or where people could be tied for punishment. The article "the" is not present. I suppose if Livy wanted such emphasis, he would have use the pronoun ille, but there is none here. It could well have been translated as "bound to a stake"

For your third question, the soldiers were being thrashed with green branches to cause intense pain before they were executed. It was a harsh treatment for the purposes of not only punishing those who had rebelled against Scipio Africanus, but it was a spectacle meant for the other soldiers so that they would regain discipline. Our word "decimate" has the Latin root of decem meaning "ten." It was a practice among the Roman legions to kill every tenth man as an act of discipline if they did something like loose a battle. Livy is giving us one of many descriptions of a general enacting a severe form of punishment to maintain discipline in his ranks and command the utmost loyalty and respect. Gx872op (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, great detailed explanation of these items and events. I corrected Publius Scipio to Scipio Africanus his son. The mutiny at Sucro took place in 206 BC; whereas Publius Scipio (father to Africanus) was already killed in 211 BC. Here is my question then:

Did the whipping of the green branch burn? (really, I'm serious on this question).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Gx872; I really enjoyed that response. Bielle (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never had a switch to the back, so I can't say for sure. It may depend on the type of wood used. This was green wood so it would have been both flexible and possibly wet with sap. Livy's word choice describes the cutting or hewing feature of the tree branches on the soldiers, so I think it did more than sting. Salt on a wound does burn, and so if they were sweating during this time, sweat and tree sap may have caused their shredded backs to burn. Methods of torture and discipline would be a good research project, but I'll leave that for someone else. 8 semesters of Latin was enough for me. Gx872op (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Might one refer to this as the similitude of burning?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of green branches implies they were fairly or very flexible, so not the equivalent of beating someone with a cudgel (which the Roman military also sometimes engaged in). So the punishment would've been most similar to birching (or switching which has some different nuances). Our article on birching says "According to some accounts, even the legendary sting of the cat o' nine tails was less feared than the birch in certain prisons" (in the 1800s), but also that "Judicial birching in 20th-century Britain was used much more often as a fairly minor punishment for male juveniles" (with a smaller and lighter birch). Like the punishment Livy describes, 19th and 20th century birching was carried out on the bare skin, and was much more likely to cut the skin than caning (but would bruise less), and would definitely sting. The article also mentions the tradition in parts of Scandinavia "to strike one's own body with soaked birch twigs in the sauna as a form of massage and to increase blood circulation and open the pores. The twigs are chosen carefully and do not have their leaves removed, and are often softened by keeping them in water prior to use. Being struck by the twigs induces a pleasant stinging sensation but very little actual pain". So again a stinging or burning sensation for this use of green twigs/branches, although at the opposite end of the scale for severity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tangentially related, I believe Scipio Africanus was one of the first Romans to appear on a Roman coin while still alive. I think he appeared as a bust, although this was minted in Spain I believe. Sulla appeared but not as a bust. I think Julius Caesar was the first to appear as a bust and minted at Rome rather than a province. Gx872op (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Doug, you keep asking if there is any burning, but I can find nothing in the original text (either the English, or the Latin that Gx872op has provided) that mentions burning. Do you have a particular reason for wanting there to be burning involved? --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gx872op has answered my curiosity as to a "similitude of burning", which looks to me to be stinging that would feel something like burning. I can just imagine being whipped with a green flexibly branch and it would definitely feel like much of a sting (similar to burning).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)