Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 2

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.

November 2

George Bush speech and history

George Bush recently said the following (which had been attacked by Hillary Clinton), and I was wondering to what extent this is true: "History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia — and the world paid a terrible price. In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews — and the world paid a terrible price," Bush continued. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is: Will we listen?" [1] I was wondering how much is correct and how much is wrong, as I (perhaps incorrectly) thought a) It would not have been possible, nor especially desireable, for major powers in 1917 to interfere in the Communist revolution in Russia in any way from the outside. b) Hitler never announced any of the above in the 1920s. How much of Bush´s speech is historically accurate, and is the analogy fair anyway? Thank you. --AlexSuricata 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all hyperbole, Alex, with no relationship at all to real history. As late as the winter of 1916/1917, the very threshold of the events that brought the fall of the Tsar, Lenin was of the belief that there would be no revolution in his lifetime. Besides, what was the Bush-minded reader of, say, What is to be Done? or Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism to do; go and kill the author? Hitler, moreover, made no such statements in the 1920s; it would have been altogether too obvious. Mr Bush clearly needs a better class of speech writer, or a better class of historian! Incidentially, the Allied powers did make some attempt to overturn the Bolsheviks, with not very impressive results. Clio the Muse 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mein Kampf was published in 1925-6... AnonMoos 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so it was. I assume that observation is offered in support of the Bush perspective; but such a spin would demand a retrospective reading from the heights of 1945. Now, a contemporary reading would suggest that there was at least one man who took the first part of the Presidential message seriously: that Communism was a danger. Not just that, but here was a man who was not complacent, and was just as anxious to tackle the 'Axis of Evil' as good old Dubya. As for listening to Bin Ladin's words, well, Bush listened so hard that he invaded a country actively hostile to the message, whatever other sins it may have been guilty of. Those who live by rhetorical banalities die by rhetorical banalities. Clio the Muse 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Assume for a moment that Bush was 100% accurate about his examples of "evil words." The result is a retrospective analysis with extreme selection bias. There have been millions of people spouting evil words and being ignored, Almost all of them go no further than words. There have also been millions of people spouting "good" words and being ignored. A few of them have gone on to do horrific evil. By Bush's logic, the world would be a better place if we pre-emptively shot all of these people who speak evil or good. -Arch dude 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Hitler and Lenin were of minor prominence compared to Bin Laden today. The analogy is ridiculous. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Were the Carribean people part of the Black Mafia? Black gangsters or just African Americans?

--arab 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, arab. Could you clarify? "Black Mafia"/"gangsters" and African Americans aren't mutually exclusive categories. Which Caribbean people are you talking about? Wikipedia has articles on Bahamian American, Cuban American, Dominican American, Haitian Americans, Jamaican American, and Puerto Ricans in the United States, as well as articles on African-American organized crime and Black Mafia with further links you might be interested in reading. There's also Category:African American mobsters. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The questioner has edited such articles in the past,[2] with an understanding of the issues that is commensurate with that displayed in the above question. I hope he will not expand his scope of activities to even more articles.  --Lambiam 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Government Bonds and Interest Rates

Hello. How do interest rates (prime lending rates and overnight lending rates) affect government bonds? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 03:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, treasury security bonds (commonly just called savings bonds) have a fixed interest rate. I do not know of one with a variable interest rate. While the interest rate is fixed once you purchase the bond, the interest rates go up and down depending on the Federal interest rate. Since the maturity is usually a very long time (30 years), it spans the ups and downs of the normal economy and the fluctuating interest rate has little effect. I have no idea about government bonds in other countries. -- kainaw™ 03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

US Government bills (short-term), notes (intermediate-term) and bonds (long-term) are auctioned. Bills are auctioned at a discount, i. e. bid USD9900 for a note worth $10,000 at maturity of 90 days = 4.04% per (360-day) year (100/9900 x 4). So the rates are determined by the bids in the financial markets. The stated rate of the longer-term notes and bonds is based on estimated market rates to sell the desired quantity of bonds, but at the auction, bids may still be higher or lower. E. g., 10-year note at 5.00%. The bidders may pay more than face value, resulting in a true yield of less than 5%, or pay less than face value, resulting in a true yield of more than 5% (because full face value is paid at maturity). So, in effect, the yields are determined by conditions in the financial markets at the time of issuance. (Global financial markets, as US Govt. securities are bought in many other nations.)

Those who wish to sell an existing bond before maturity will find the sales price determined by the same factors.

Short-term obligations tend to move very closely with short-term rates such as the prime rate and Federal funds rate. Longer-term obligations may move more slowly, influenced more by perceptions about the long-term prospects for inflation, etc. Unimaginative Username 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Short story about the study of logic versus love

We read a short story in high school (more years ago than one cares to remember cough) about a young man taking his first course in logic, who forces his new knowledge on the lady of his interest. Later, he makes his plea for her affections, but in each of his pleas, she finds a logical fallacy (Argument from ignorance, appeal to pity, etc.), because of what he has taught her. Can't for the life of me remember the story's name or author. Does anyone else know the name, author, where to find it, etc.? Thanks, Unimaginative Username 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember it being about a 1940's college student and the fatal raccoon-skin coat (a revival of a 1920's fad). Google searching turns up "Love is a Fallacy" by Max Shulman (e.g. [3]). AnonMoos 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

YESS! -- the link you gave is indeed it. Now that you mention it, it does sound like something Shulman would have written -- I should have thought of that. Thanks for ending the brain-racking. Unimaginative Username 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

meaning of a name in latin

What is the meaning of the name "mundi universitate" which is a book by Bernard of Tours, the philosopher. 78.109.196.169 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It should mean "University of the World". Steewi 06:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Also I believe it is a large volume of books, not unlike an encyclopedia, unless I am thinking of something else. Dureo 06:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The title is missing a word, "de", which puts "universitas" in the ablative. For Bernard "universitas" probably doesn't mean a university yet, and given the nature of the author and the book, it probably means "wholeness" or "completeness", or "about the world as a whole" since the two parts of the book are the Megacosmus and the Microcosmus. Unfortunately I don't think there is a standard translation of the title in English, it is always just referred to as the "Megacosmus". Adam Bishop 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Finance

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this but here goes: Has any (publicly traded) company lost 70% of its share price and not defaulted on its (long term) debt? What about 60% or 50%? Any country and any time period. Zain Ebrahim 09:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Lots of companies did that when the market crashed in the 1970s. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I just read Stock market crash of 1973–4 but there was no reference to defaults or debt. Could you please provide with me a reference or an example?Zain Ebrahim 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Offhand -- without looking it up -- didn't the Dow Jones Industrial Average lose 90% of its value in the 1929 crash? Don't think that blue chips like General Motors or AT&T defaulted -- maybe check that out. Unimaginative Username 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Elected kings

In 1776 Americans began a war against George III, allegedly a 'tyrant' in their view. Would it be true to say that they end by creating their own tyranny in the form of the Presidency, far more enduring than that of the British kings? 86.147.185.218 11:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because Presidents have to be elected. Kings don't have to stand for election, so the term "elected kings" is meaningless. Lurker (said · done) 11:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There were many elective monarchies throughout the world and throughout history. As for whether the presidential system of government in the US is a form of tyranny or not, is a matter of opinion, not fact. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be said that in the formulation of the Constitution Anericans created in the Presidency a substitute for kingship; and furthermore that as history has seen the decline in the power of the one it has amplified the power of the other, one of the more subtle forms of irony. For example, Benjamin Franklin said that after his vist to Europe in 1761 that he could understand the sovereignty of the Crown but not the authority of Parliament. In his biography of George III (1972) John Brooke took this observation one stage further, saying that the "fathers of the American republic were the heirs of the Tory tradition in British politics", adding "Perhaps the only true Tories in the world today are to be found in the United States."

You see, at its simplest, the problem was one of perception, or misperception, it may be more accurate to say. The Americans of 1776 placed far too great a weight on the person of King George, who was not the executive but, in the deepest sense of the evolving English Constitution, merely another 'branch of government.' In short, all of the complaints laid out by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence should really have been directed against Parliament, not the Monarch or the Monarchy. But notions of monarchy reached deep into American consciousness. In 1797, Benjamin Franklin Bache, Frankllin's grandson, was to write that the Americans had created a constitution before they "had sufficiently un-monarchized their ideals and habits" (The italics are his).

So, what were the practical results of this? It meant that the Founding Fathers-setting aside the example of the Republic of Venice and the elective monarchy of Poland-drew on the model of constitutional monarchy for their own style of government. Kings, Lords and Commons it was, an avoidance of the hazards of 'pure democracy' at all costs. But checks and balances established the Presidency as an independent power in the Constitution, one that has occasionally overshadowed the other elements, a far more complete form of authority than that ever possessed by George III. His Excellency George Washington was merely a republican version of His Majesty King George. William V, Stadtholder of the Netherlands, was among the first to recognise this, when he said to John Adams "Sir, you have given yourselves a king under the title of president." It was not long before the Americans began to recognise this themselves; and when Andrew Jackson became president his opponents often depicted him in the crown and robes, the true despotic monarch. Is it any surprise, then, that his main opponents were the Whigs, calling to mind constitutional struggles that had been fought out in England in the seventeenth century, not against the limited powers of George III but the absolute powers of Charles II? Clio the Muse 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Americans of 1776 understood British government perfectly well, they being born-and-bred British subjects and all. And Thomas Paine was practically just off the boat from Britain when he wrote Common Sense. No need to blame it on "notions of monarchy [that] reached deep into American consciousness": it was the guy fresh from London who in 1776 first dared to call the king a "royal brute." The reason the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King and not to Parliament was not due to "misperception": it was because the Revolutionaries had already moved beyond the notion that Parliament had any authority over them. For them, the king was the symbolic last link to the empire, and it was this last link that they were breaking in the Declaration.

But yes, the Americans created a form of government that, in time, created a very powerful presidency. President George Washington certainly had far less power than the king he replaced. So, probably, did Andy Jackson. But, as the United States grew in power, so, correspondingly, did the power of the presidency. When exactly the scales tipped so that an American president had more power than kings of old—and thus more potential for tyranny—is an interesting question. And who (if anyone) became the first tyrant is also interesting: I'm guessing Thomas DiLorenzo would say that the first presidential tyrant was Abe Lincoln.

In American entertainment, we sometimes portraty our presidents as tyrants because it makes for good entertainment, as in the series 24 or Oliver Stone's films JFK (LBJ is the tyrant) and Nixon. These three examples are closer to Shakespeare than reality in their portrayal of a president as a tyrant: poetic license is necessary because Richard III is more fun to watch than Richard Nixon. In entertainment at least, we still look to British kings for our tyrants. ;-) —Kevin Myers 06:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And long may you continue to do so, just so long as you recognise your own fictions! Please do not misunderstand me, Kevin: I fully appreciate that the Declaration of Independence had a clear political purpose, one best achieved by addressing itself to the real person of the king in concrete terms that ordinary people could relate to and understand. The point I am making here, perhaps not as clearly as I would have wished, is that colonial reverence for monarchy did not die with the Revolution, or with the creation of the Republic. I hope you will not take this the wrong way when I say that I can detect in American politics of the day-Thomas Paine notwithstanding-a sense of frustrated love, of inverse admiration.

Well before the Revolution Americans did not look to the British Parliament for their notions of legitimacy, but directly to the person of the king. Was it not Oliver Wolcott, one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence, who wrote that the reservoirs of respect for George III were so deep that 'the abilities of a child might have governed' the colonists. George III may have been rejected in the Declaration of Independence, but he seems to have stood in spirit among the formulators of the Constitution, an unacknowledged Founding Father! People like John Adams looked to incorporate a monarchical elements, as did Alexander Hamilton. Even Thomas Jefferson, that most 'republican' of presidents, was to hold his own royal levée in 1805. The essential point is that the 'monarchical element' in the Constitution perpetuated concepts of kingly authority, it might be said, which were already in decline in the fluid constitution of England itself. America, in other words, may be said to have cast off a perceived tyrant, only to incorporate elements of tyranny, or steady monarchy, or perpetual kingship, however one defines it, into the Constitution. Did not Patrick Henry write;

If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute. The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him...Away with your president! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch.

Just think: control of the army and virtually a freehand in foreign affairs, the power to make treaties, appoint ambassadors and grant pardons. To find that level of monarchical power in England one would have to go all the way back to the early seventeenth century, all the way back to the reign of Charles I and the divine right of kings. The potential was there, and it really makes no difference if the first to recognise this was Jackson or Lincoln or Roosevelt. Has not the court of George IV involved the United States in foreign adventures that no British king could ever have contemplated? How the ghost of George III must be laughing...or crying. Clio the Muse 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxes for international traveller

If you live more than 183 days in one country, you have to pay taxes there. But what if you live between three countries about 120 days in each? Can people escape the claws of goverment taxes this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get 183 days from. The law will vary considerably from one country to another. Also there are several different kinds of tax, some of which apply immediately to everyyone, regardless of how long they are in the country.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the question refers only to income taxes. But, why would someone pay taxes in a country if he is only a couple of days there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

183*2=366, or just over half a (non-leap)year. Also hasn't this question been asked over and over? It doesn't even mention country, there is no international tax law, I suggest you phone your local Inland Revenue or national equivalent. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, for example, the basic rule is that you pay income tax on all your income if you are resident in Canada, and on your income derived from Canadian sources if you are not. But it's the Canadian authorities who decide if you are resident in Canada. If you used to be resident in Canada and then you told them that you were now living 4 months at a time in successive countries, they might very well say that until you establish a permanent residence somewhere else, they will still deem you to be resident in Canada, and demand their taxes. Another country might have quite different rules but could also decide what they liked if you did something odd like that. --Anon, 11:13 UTC, Nov. 3, 2007.

Afterthought: Does anyone know what country or countries Paul Erdős paid taxes to? --Anon, 11:15 UTC.

operation thunderbolt

What was operation thunderbolt? something to do with the eastern front in the first world war i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.24 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, its another name for Operation Entebbe. See the article for details. Lurker (said · done) 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There may also be an Operation Thunderbolt which is something to do with the Royal Navy, as the name Thunderbolt has been used for HM Ships. A first class sloop launched in 1842 and wrecked in 1847 was called HMS Thunderbolt, and also a Second World War submarine, previously HMS Thetis. Xn4 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a common name. There was an Operation Thunderbolt at the beginning of American involvment in the Korean War. As mentioned by Lurker, the Israeli hostage operation was called Operation Thunderbolt (name changed after completion of the operation). There was even a railroad merger named Operation Thunderbolt. All in all, "thunderbolt" is too common a word to be confined to a unique event. -- kainaw™ 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation Thunderbolt is an arcade game :) Exxolon 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Second World War rather than First, and thunderclap rather than thunderbolt? If so, that was the plan - using the word very loosely - for the German 6th Army to break out of Stalingrad to link up with the relief effort, Operation Winter Storm (Operation Wintergewitter). And after that, now I see that we even have an Operation Donnerschlag article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was an Operation Faustschlag-translated into English as Thunderbolt-on the Eastern Front in 1918. During the negotiations that would eventually lead to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Communist delegation, headed by Leon Trotsky in his capacity as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, continually delayed reaching a settlement with the Germans, in the daily expectation that the 'World Revolution' would come to their aid. Trotsky was encouraged in this view by the wave of strikes that hit Germany in January 1918, in which the leaders called for a 'peace without annexations.' In reality the strikers were tired of the war rather than anxious for revolution; but Trotsky, against the instincts of the more hard-headed Lenin, read into it the signs he was looking for, with disastrous consequences. Russia would not sign; neither would it fight. There would be neither peace nor war. Demobilisation of what was left of the Russian army was even announced on 29 January. On 9 February a German ultimatum was issued at Brest-Litovsk, requiring the Bolsheviks to sign the treaty by the following day. When this was allowed to pass Faustschlag was launched.

In the eleven days after 10 February the Germans swept forward to a predesignated line. Bolshevik forces in White Russia, the western Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Donetz Basin were overwhelmed, as the Germans pushed on, all the way to the River Don. It was to be the most rapid, and deepest, penetration of enemy territory in the whole course of the war. Trotsky's misjudgement came close to unravelling Bolshevik power. Under the cover of German protection, a number of national minorities established their own governments. The failure of the Bolsheviks to resist persuaded the western Allies to send their own forces to Russia. Finally, and most important of all, the scattered anti-Bolshevik elements took heart and began to organise themselves. This was the beginning of the Volunteer Army, which came close to destroying the Communists in the ensuing Russian Civil War. Clio the Muse 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeavering Bell

Clio the Muse, thanks for your answer on the Lockerbie Lick. I'm looking at border history in general and I keep coming across mention of things I cannot trace. Do you know what the battle of Yeavering Bell was? Donald Paterson —Preceding comment was added at 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles Yeavering Bell, Battle of Yeavering and Battle of Humbleton Hill may help. 86.21.74.40 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Donald, make sure that you draw a clear distinction between the Battle of Homildon or Humbelton (1402) and Yeavering (1415). In the latter a large raiding party was intercepted by Sir Robert Umfraville in the valley of the River Glen at the foot of Yeavering Bell, part of the Cheviot range, two or three miles to the west of Homildon. Umfraville was heavily outnumbered, but he had 300 longbowmen who made good use of the restricted ground. Some sixty of the raiders were killed and almost 400 taken prisoner as the remainder were driven off, pursued twelve miles back to the border. It was a foretaste of things to come. Clio the Muse 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Help identifying a Beethoven piece

I need help identifying a piece supposedly by Beethoven that was included in volume 3 of the piano Suzuki method of teaching. Here is my rough midi file of the piece. The piece in the Suzuki Method was just titled "theme", and I was told the piece I was playing was part of a theme and variations - and the theme was played with strings only. I've looked on the Internet in book catalogues but all they say is "arranged from work by Beethoven", without specifying the work. Any help identifying it would be appreciated. Graham87 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the theme from Beethoven's Prometheus or Eroica Variations (for piano), but it (or a slight variant) is also used in the last movement of his Eroica Symphony. AndrewWTaylor 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it - I've found a midi file of it. Graham87 15:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven originally wrote the theme in his ballet The Creatures of Prometheus (1800-01), and he also borrowed it for the 7th of his set of Contredances written around 1801. He used it again in the Variations (1802) and finally in the "Eroica" Symphony (1804). That symphony was the first work to be given the subtitle "Eroica", and the Variations were retrospectively nicknamed "Eroica" some time later. As Andrew says, they were also known as the "Prometheus" Variations at an earlier time. -- JackofOz 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite so - I was rather surprised to find 'Eroica Variations' used as the title of the article, as I'd always thought that was just an informal name based on the fact that the tune was used in the symphony, as JackOfOz says. I can't find my copy of the music (Edition Peters) at the moment but I'm pretty sure the title there is something like "Variations on a theme from Prometheus". AndrewWTaylor 10:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If "Prometheus Variations" is another designation used for the Eroica Variations, this ought to be mentioned in the article, and the redlink should be a redirect.  --Lambiam 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How fascinating. I've heard this work played a gazillion times on radio and in concert, and I have recordings of it. I've never heard or seen it referred to as anything other than the "Eroica Variations". (My score is inaccessible right now so I can't check). Yet when I consult my trusty Grove V (1966 printing), in Beethoven's Catalogue of Works it's simply called "15 Variations with Fugue, on a theme from 'Prometheus', E flat major", with no mention of any "Eroica" nickname. In a separate article titled "'Eroica' Variations", Grove gives the history and concludes with The name "Eroica" Variations is thus not a title, but is useful for identification. Back to Beethoven's catalogue of works, and the "Pastoral", "Appassionata", "Waldstein", "Les adieux", "Hammerklavier" and "Emperor" concerto are all shown as if these names were part of their original titles. Yet the Appassionata was not so named until years after Beethoven's death, by a publisher; similar story for the Emperor concerto and most of the others. They get it right with Sonata quasi una fantasia in C-sharp minor, Op.27/2, which has the words "so-called Moonlight Sonata" in brackets. This all leads me to suppose that the Eroica Variations have acquired this nickname comparatively recently, but it now has stuck so firmly that it would seem inappropriate to name the article by the original title that would mean little or nothing to most people any more. Whether this accords with Wikipedia's naming policies is another matter. -- JackofOz 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

btw, I've alerted others who might have an interest in this at Talk:Eroica Variations. -- JackofOz 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the Eroica Variations mentions the history of the theme, the catalogue title first and "commonly referred to" title second. I don't think a change is needed here, but I'm also flexible. The other nicknamed works above have the luxury of also being numbered works (e.g. Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), Piano Concerto No. 5 (Beethoven)), so there was never an issue of the appropriate title for the page as there is here. Using the full catalogue title of the piece as the title of the article might be confusing to readers. Certainly it can't hurt to flesh out the title discussion in the article, though. At present, its all there, but perhaps a bit too terse. We can continue the discussion on the talk page there if any discussion is needed. DavidRF 02:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems my memory was completely wrong what on the Edition Peters book says: it has "Fünfzehn Variationen" as the main title and "Eroica-Thema; mit Fuge" as a subtitle. Not a word about Prometheus. It also has the dedication 'Dem Grafen MORITZ von LICHNOWSKY gewidmet". AndrewWTaylor 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

British Royal family

If Prince Charles were to die before Queen Elizabeth, would William be the heir to the throne, or would it pass to one of the Queen's sons? --82.36.182.217 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy. If Charles was to die before his mother, Queen Elizabeth, then succession would automatically pass to his brother Prince Andrew Duke of York and then on to Princess Beatrice. Exactly similar to the situation of succession during the abdication crisis of Edward VIII. Prince William's succession depends entirely on his own father being King at some stage (even if uncrowned). The published line of succession is only valid within certrain presumptions.83.148.88.37 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Prince William is second in line to the throne, so he would become the Heir Apparent. See Line of succession to the British Throne. AndrewWTaylor 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hypothetically, if the entire royal family were wiped out in an explosion or something, who would become the monarch then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In the event of a mass extinction of the House of Windsor, the matter would probably be handed to the Garter King of Arms who would track backwards to find the closest living descendant that fulfills all relative obligations. This would be 'overseen' by the Duke of Norfolk (Earl Marshall of England and Premier Duke). The findings would be presented to a constitutional committee of parliament and the Prime Minister. Both houses of Parliament would be required to agree on the selection, if not, then back to Garter King to search again. Dukes of Norfolk can not be made King as they are also the senior 'lay' catholics in the realm. I would imagine that this information on succession is already known and kept 'ready' - just in case!83.148.88.37 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "entire royal family" you mean "all living descendants of the Electress Sophia" - and that would be one hell of an explosion, then Parliament chooses who, if anyone, would be monarch. - Nunh-huh 15:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be impressed by anyone who managed to get all thousand plus people into one country let alone one area to bomb them. It amuses me to see so many germanic names on the list for a country so fiercely proud of such silly figureheads. (I know that is a generalisation, but we still have them sponging around so I feel it's justified.) Lanfear's Bane | t 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox. 80.254.147.52 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See the article Act of Settlement 1701. That's a remarkable anachronism, as it excludes all Roman Catholics (and those married to Roman Catholics) from the British throne. So your "entire royal family" amounts to "all living Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover who aren't married to a Roman Catholic". There are hundreds of such people, so the chance of the bloodbath happening is pretty remote, but in that event I should say the heir with the best claim to the throne would be the present King over the Water, that is, the heir of James II, who was the King dispossessed by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. That heir is Franz, Duke of Bavaria, a German born in 1933, whose heir is his brother Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria, born in 1937. I can't believe there would be the political will now to refuse to accept Franz because of the old religion. Max's heir presumptive is Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, born in 1967, who has a university degree in English. Her eldest son is Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, who was born in London in 1995.

We have a problem with the Act of Settlement, 1701. I've heard it said that if Prince William were to want to marry a Roman Catholic, then the Act would quickly be amended. But once we abandon the principle that we can't have a Roman Catholic monarch, then the whole claim of the present Royal house becomes shaky, compared with that of the Duke of Bavaria. And there's a precedent for a remote cousin inheriting a throne. When King Henry IV of France (1553-1610) came to the French throne in 1589, following a distant cousin, his claim was based on being the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King Louis IX (1215–1270). Failing the descendants of James II, one would have to go back to the other descendants (ruled out in 1701 because they were Roman Catholics) of Princess Elizabeth, the eldest daughter King James I and VI. The best claim may be that of Margherita, Archduchess of Austria-Este. Xn4 17:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If Prince Max's heir presumptive has a son, then surely that son would be Max's heir apparent? Or does it no longer work like that? 80.254.147.52 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because an heir presumptive can be displaced. In theory, Max could still have a son, who would then become his heir apparent. Xn4 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the Archduchess Margherita is a Roman Catholic? Corvus cornix 19:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That, indeed, is where we have a problem with the Act of Settlement. But if all descendents of the Duchess Sophia are gone, it doesn't help us. Xn4 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider the second question in this thread to be quite tenuously hypothetical, since as a matter of practical politics, if just the queen and the first dozen on the list were blown up, that might very seriously call into question whether Britain should have a monarchy at all. Also, the French monarchy's history of succession is no precedent for the UK monarchy, since the French monarchy was purely patrilineal ("Salic"), while the English and Scottish monarchies weren't, and the UK monarchy isn't... AnonMoos 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The OP hasn't asked us to speculate about whether the UK might become a republic, and in any event I see little support for that. My point about the accession of King Henry IV of France is not that the Kingdom of France had a different system of inheritance, but that it shows a country can accept an astonishingly remote cousin of the monarch as heir to its throne. Xn4 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, someone would instantanously accede to the throne. The question of moving to a republic would come later, and maybe the new monarch would then have to be dethroned. The Act of Settlement also contains the (admittedly never tested) anomaly that a person who becomes a Roman Catholic is disbarred from acceding, but if they renounce Catholicism they're back in the list - whereas a person in line who marries a Roman Catholic is disbarred forever, even if their Catholic spouse dies or is divorced before they would otherwise have acceded. That is, having ever been married to a Catholic - even for a day - is a permanent disbarment, whereas being a Catholic is only a temporary disbarment. -- JackofOz 21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No one can instantaneously accede to the throne if everyone in the line of succession designated by Parliament is dead. There would be an interregnum until appropriate legislation was passed (or until someone seized power). You misstate the law regarding "Papism": you lose your place in line forever by either marrying a Catholic or being one (i.e. professing the popish religion): "all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown." Renouncing doesn't get you back in line. The interesting anomaly is that if your spouse converts to Catholicism after you are married, you're still good to go. Unless, presumably, you re-marry her. Being married to a Catholic is not a problem. Marrying a Catholic is. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The question was what if the entire Royal Family were wiped out. The vast majority of people in the line of succession are not members of the Royal Family, or even British subjects. So I do think that whoever came next in line would become monarch instantaneously - even if it were Hank Jones of Dry Gulch - and it wouldn't need Parliament to confirm this. The law says who accedes to the throne when the monarch dies, not Parliament. Parliament can of course amend the law - which it had to do to enable Edward VIII to abdicate, because it was impossible for him to do so unilaterally - but the existing law at the moment of the monarch's death would determine the matter. And there's no way Parliament could amend the law in advance of the blowing up of the entire Royal Family unless the majority of members of parliament (a) had advance knowledge of the atrocity, and (b) either were party to it or at least had no objections to it, which in either case means they'd be acting treasonously under the pretence of parliamentary legitimacy. -- JackofOz 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right, it depends on the definition of "royal family" vs. "Royal Family". I was envisioning the death of everyone descended from the Electress Sophia, Catholic and Protestant alike, for the sake of simplicity :) Parliament could of course amend the law at any time: it needn't be a party to any dastardly plans in order to decide that a more extensive provision for succession is needed. (Not that I think one is). - Nunh-huh 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone descended from Sophia? Hmmm, that would probably be millions of people by now. Even discounting the Catholics and those who married Catholics, there'd still be millions of her descendants who'd qualify to be in the line of succession. Our list only shows the first 1289 people, but the line is theoretically limited only by the population of the Earth whose descent from Sophia can be demonstrated. -- JackofOz 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The total is around two five thousand. Poor Sophia was a woman, and not a rabbit. We can notice that she was the heir to the throne herself from 1702 until 1714 and came within a whisker of inheriting it at the age of 83, dying less than two months before Queen Anne. If Sophia had outlived Anne, she would still be the oldest British monarch of all time. Xn4 07:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was ever so slightly hyperbolic with "millions". The article says "Presently there are almost 5,000 descendants of Sophia although not all are in the line of succession". We know the line has at least 1289 members. I'm interested to know how you estimate it's "around 2000". -- JackofOz 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As the list includes those skipped, without numbering them, I roughly estimated how many of them there seemed to be. Perhaps someone has counted them all and arrived at the higher number. Whichever it is, no doubt there are even more illegitimate descendants. Xn4 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

William Addams Reitweisner's comprehensive 2001 list, which omits bastards but not papists, contained 4804 individuals. There are probably a few he's missed, and certainly some born since, so about 5000 seems a reasonable statement. - Nunh-huh 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the answer is obviously King Ralph. :-) --Anon, 11:22 UTC, November 3, 2007.

Proper Flag Etiquite

When at a sporting event where there is a permenant American flag posted and then you have a color guard which flag do you salute or follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.103.24 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's kiss and tell acquittal

Where can I find more info on Wikipedia's recent acquittal in Paris for having outed 3 celebreties as gay (that's all I know)? Keria 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

here, and here. The ruling actually was that Wikipedia is an Internet host that is not responsible for the actions of its users. The next logical corollary, of course, is that the users are responsible for their own actions, which is precisely Wikipedia's position. - Nunh-huh 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

North American Standard Account Ratings

Hello. Why is there no R6 on credit ratings? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

R5 = 120 days *or more* late. Not too much need to give specifics for accounts more than 4-5 months delinquent, because at some point, those are going to go to collection, judgment, or write-off, and hence be R9. Unimaginative Username 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Was there used to be an R6 credit rating; but someone took it away? Or were credit ratings arranged in a manner that R0 is too new to rate, R1 to R5 determine how late credits are paid, R7 to R9 determine how deep in trouble is one debtor, and O's and I's meant open and installment respectively? Thanks in advance again. --Mayfare 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference Service History

who was the first reference librarian in the USA, in which library did he work, what year? Can you help me please answering these questions? My e-mail is (removed because the guidelines at the top of the page say not to leave email)

UK publics view on Northern Ireland

What are the results of any opinion polls done in the UK, asking if people want N.I to remain part of the UK, or become part of the Republic of Ireland? And how have the results changed over time? If the majority of the UK population 'wanted rid' of N.I., do you think that would be a justification for the U.K 'abandoning' the territory, even if the majority of the N.I population still wanted to stay in the U.K? Willy turner 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because that's not the way politics works. In the run-up to a general election, all the parties publish their manifestos, which are basically stating what the electorate can hold them to if they win the election. If any of these manifestos were to advocate withdrawal from N Ireland, then that policy would be voted on along with all the others. If the manifesto of the winning party were to include a policy of withdrawal, then yes - it would be justified. Governments are not run by opinion polls.

The only other possible scenario would be a referendum. If the question of withdrawal were to be put to the electorate, and a majority voted in favour, then again withdrawal would be justified (from a purely electoral standpoint). In practical terms, the likelihood of either of these scenarios occurring is pretty remote. I don't know the answer to your question about opinion polls. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have slightly misunderstood the question, maybea its my fault. I obviously wasnt saying that the province would leave the UK merely because of an opinion poll result! Obviously there would be a vote in the commons etc, or a referendum. And by the way you attach way too much importance to the contents of a parties manifesto. What i meant was really to do with democratic legitimacy and the idea of self-determination. ie do the views of the 60m population of the U.K (or their representitives) count for more than the views of the 2m population of N.I., or should the views of N.I, the territory in dispute, count for more? Does a territory have a right to remain part of a larger state, even if the people of that state dont want it? Willy turner 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The UK parliament and successive governments have made their position very clear. As long as the majority of the population wish to remain part of the UK, then parliament will protect that right. Should such populations decide otherwise, parliament will respect that decision. This goes for Gibraltar, Falklands, Channel islands etc. However with the advent of the European Union a decision to leave would be somewhat 'academic'83.148.88.37 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In Can terrorism be legally justified? (above) I said - "The principle of self-determination is recognized in international law, viz., that nations have the right to choose which states they belong to, where necessary in a free and fair vote. But what amounts to a "nation" and which groups of people have the right to sovereignty are contentious questions. Sometimes self-determination is stalemated by the principle of territorial integrity, which is part of the UN Charter (in Chapter 1, Article 2)." I don't believe you could make out the case that Northern Ireland is a nation - it's a region carved out of Ireland, artificially created and designed expressly to have a loyalist majority - but the explanation of the partition of Ireland is that the Northern unionists were willing to fight to stay British ("Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right"). For more than eighty years, the UK has honoured the choice it made then to support them. A British government would have the greatest of difficulty in throwing out of the UK a population which had voted (as NI has done at every election for generations) to be part of the UK. Of course, demographics change and the world moves on. Conor Cruise O'Brien used to argue that the boundary of NI should be changed, transferring parts of it which have a nationalist majority to the Republic. That idea appealed to many people, including some unionists who saw that it would fend off the day when NI as a whole might have a nationalist majority, but it didn't find favour with the British or Irish governments... Xn4 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"...it's a region carved out of Ireland, artificially created and designed expressly to have a loyalist majority"—What is artificial about it? Why does the island of Ireland have to be one state, any more than Iberia or North America? Nationhood rests on the self-consciousness of a group of people sharing a national identity—of course it was designed for a loyalist majority that's the reason for it existence. The Ulster-Scots of northeast Ireland do not identify themselves as part of an Irish nation apart from the United Kingdom—they are consciously distinct from the rest of Ireland in that they are British and wish to remain so. They are self-evidently a nation. To Willy Turner, all opinion polls I've seen have shown a majority in Great Britain for a united Ireland. I doubt the rightness or otherwise of NI being a part of the UK has influenced successive British governments than the threat of rebellion by Ulster Protestants (as in 1912-14) if the British Government tried to force them into an all-Ireland state.--Johnbull 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing that's artificial about it is that the present border (dating from 1920) could go somewhere else, achieving much more precisely the purpose it was created for. Indeed, I'd say the arguments about repartition are much more interesting and revealing than those about the Partition of 1920. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, we can only start from where we are. I have far more sympathies with the Ulster unionists than most British people do. I can't see anything inherently permanent about what was agreed in 1920. Xn4 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

with genuine respect i think its a bad idea to start debating whether N.I is a nation or not. Unless we want to start our own reference desk version of 'The Troubles'. I agree youve hit the nail on the head that its not the rightness or wrongness of the issue but the fear of huge violence from unionists if the British pulled out. You could make an attmitidly callous point that it wouldnt be our problem anymore. But i think any unionist resistance to the Irish authorities would fade away sooner than people presume. Violence from republicans lasted so long because they genuinly thought they had a chance of achieving a united ireland. If britain pulled out i think unionists would have far less hope that britain would ever come back. Regarding the opinion polls thats very interesting. I think id always subconsciously presumed that the UK public would favour the unionists, just because British parties do. Willy turner 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is - people on the mainland just don't care - NI ranks below wondering if we can pay our gas bill, it's only when the IRA were murdering people that us on the mainland cared (and even then only if you lived in cities - if you lived in the country like me, you didn't give that much of a thought). NI is an issue that greatly concerns politicans and people living there but it's an issue that the rest of us don't give a toss about - sorry. --Fredrick day 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

but does the un charter say anything about the rights of a state to decide which territories it wants to be a part of it? and what specific dificulties would we have in 'throwing it out'? The unionist mp's would be upset, but big deal. there would be initial violence in N.I., but im sure it would fizzle out when they realised we were gone for good. i personaly think repartition is a more rational solution than most people think. i agree most people dont give a toss about most political issues. but perhaps if someone made the economic argument for the UK disowning N.I.? until recently public spending accounted for about 50% of its GDP. Willy turner 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A personal comment - I think the PIRA have done more than any other organization to promote Unionist sentiment on the mainland, and Ian Paisley has performed a similar rôle in promoting sympathy for Irish Nationalism. DuncanHill 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What examples are there of surreal, bizzare, or funny things that have happened during a war?

like the guy surfing in appocolypse now. the story that brought this question to mind was from the korean war. british troops were fighting the chinese. they were vastly outnumbered, and had just run out of amunition. their commander instructed the troops to throw their tins of processed cheese at the enemy, in the hope they would be mistaken for grenades! obviously the chinese werent fooled when they failed to explode. but can you imagine the look on the chinese soldiers faces when they realised the crazy british were throwing cheese at them! Willy turner 21:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Surreal? How about the Angel of Mons or the (now debunked) disappearance of the Norfolk Regiment at Gallipoli. -- JackofOz 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the Sandringham Company of the Norfolks which 'disappeared' into the morning mists. As you say, Jack, that legend was debunked, it turned out that the Sandringham men had been overwhelmed by the Ottomans and any prisoners taken had been shot in the head on the spot. Xn4 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The remarkable Christmas Truce, even if the legendary football match can't be vouched for. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing into the mist; sounds like that story influenced the film Deathwatch. And from what ive read the football match definatly did happen. Willy turner 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Willy, the film you want is All the King's Men (1999), which is by that superlative director, Julian Jarrold. Xn4 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

btw the story of the Christmas Truce is one of the saddest things ive ever heard. for a few hours they realise theyre all just the same, and become friends, then they have to get back to massacring each other. They made a film about that too didnt they? i bet its pish though. Willy turner 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That was Joyeux Noel, nominated for Best Foreign Film at the 2006 Oscars. The episode was also featured in Oh! What a Lovely War (1969), not much remembered these days, but a minor masterpiece that is still mandatory viewing for those of an anti-war bent. -- JackofOz 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And available on DVD, after years of being generally unsourcable. :) The marketing of Joyeux Noel puzzled me, as it seems to claim that the Christmas truce was almost forgotten. I seem to remember it coming up a lot in just about anything to do with war or the first world war, even fairly frequently at Christmas. Is it generally little-known outside Britain, or is the film just trying to sound more important? Skittle 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahah, partly answered my own question. Apparently, it is in France that the story is little-known. Skittle 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

War being always chaotic, and soldiers being generally pragmatic, there are thousand of instances of humour as a result. My favourite if the surrounded force of paratroopers at Arnhem in WW2. Facing a couple of SS Armoured Divisions the fate of the 30 or so un-injured men at the bridge appeared 'bleak'. The German commander sent an envoy to discuss surrender terms- he was told by the british that they could not possibly accept their surrender as the small building they occupied was unsuitable to hold that many german prisoners!83.148.88.37 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well if its french its bound to be brilliant. those guys seem almost incapable of making a bad film. Willy turner 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny? Well, let me see now. During the Second World War food production was clearly of considerable importance to the British government, and civil servants were directed towards co-ordination of the national effort, sending out directives and instructions to the farming community. In the spring of 1942, in the face of yet another official directive, one farmer wrote back, saying that he was unable to comply because he was in the middle of the lambing season. 'Delay lambing season', was the message that came by return. Clio the Muse 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) that is rather amusing. certainly says something about the misunderstanding between town and country folk Willy turner 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I always found stories such as that of Shoichi Yokoi or other Japanese holdouts bizarre, though not necessarily funny. For holdout farces in film, I strongly recommend Underground (1995). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of the Milvian Bridge, at which God is supposed to have appeared before the Emperor Constantine, quoting in hoc signo vincit, and showing Constantine a cross, at which Constantine had his soldiers put crosses on their shields, and the battle was assured. Corvus cornix 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a battle where Attila fled the field because the sun stood still? Corvus cornix 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean he had the time to look at the sky?! Clio the Muse 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever hear of the Russians attempting to utilize dogs with bombs strapped to their backs against German tanks in WWII? The dogs had been specially trained to run and crouch beneath tanks, whereupon a large lever on the explosive device would be triggered by physical contact with the undercarriage. So the story goes, the Russians made a significant mistake in training the dogs using *Russian* tanks as props. Supposedly, Immediately after the dogs were set loose on the battlefield, they turned around and made a beeline for their own tank column, causing several minutes of panic as the Russian soldiers attempted to shoot the dogs in their tracks before disaster occurred. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-tank dog? It never happened. dr.ef.tymac 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There's the curious story of the role of the Czech Legion in the Russian Civil War. That's right -- the Czechs. These were POWs and deserters from the Austro-Hungarian Army who were being organized before the October Revolution to fight for the Allies. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks agreed to let the Czechs travel east via the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok, where they would board a ship for the U.S., cross America by train, then get on another ship for the Western Front. Not all of the Bolshevik militias got the message, and after a tussle in the Ural Mountains, the Czechs would up taking over the town. Then they took over all of the other stops eastward along the railroad from the poorly organized Bolshevik forces. The Komuch government in Samara, one of several anti-Bolshevik forces in the country, convinced the Czechs to help them drive the Reds out of the Volga region. With the rise of the Red Army and destruction of the Komuch, the Czechs were driven back to Siberia. Eventually, the Czechs paid the Bolsheviks for passage to Vladivostok, and most of them were able to arrive in their homeland -- more than a year after its independence. -- Mwalcoff 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Antonov A-40 flying tank.

As always Wikipedia has a list of random amusing things that happen in war. Read Wikipedia:Unusual articles#Military. The flying tank and Bat bomb are two of my favorite. --S.dedalus 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two similar medieval stories/legends - one takes place in the 12th century where Frederick Barbarossa is besieging Alessandria, and a guy named Gagliaudo feeds all the grain in the city to the cows/sheep/pigs/whatever, knowing that when he takes them out of the city the besieging army will kill them. They do, and discover all the grain in their stomachs, and so they assume the city must have vast amounts of grain if they can waste it on the animals. Surely the city will outlast a siege, so they go home. A similar story is told of Herculanus of Perugia, who tried it when his city was besieged by Totila in the 6th century, but Totila figured it out and had him skinned alive. Probably not true in either case, but still bizarre. Adam Bishop 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.48 (talk)

British History on American Revolution

I was just wondering if somebody could tell me generally what is taught in British schools or universities on the American Revolution. For example, do they not teach the US was a country until the treaty ending the war was signed? Do they mention the Declaration of Independence? Are Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al made out to be rebel nuissances with horrible characters? Any information would be appreciated. A web link somewhere with a British perspective would be great too and I'd be happy to do the research and reading myself if I could be pointed in the right direction. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can remember as a) a pupil and b) a teacher - the answer is that next to thing is taught about it - it might be covered in a couple of hours but that's about it. We don't also tend to teach our history as good guys or bad guys (as your question suggests) but we look at the social context behind what occured. --Fredrick day 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From my own experience in school only (up until 1995), the only American history that was taught was in relation to slaves, Roosevelt, WWII and Vietnam. All of this was touched on as optional units in Secondary school before the reintroduction of History as a separate subject (we just had one subject - Humanities - in many non-public schools for a while). Following the re-introduction of the separate subject, pupils are now taught some American Civil War events as part of Key Stage 3 History (curriculum here) mainly revolving still around the emancipation. I think someone else may step in for info on Key Stage 4, College and University topics. 86.21.74.40 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

86.21.74.40 would be pretty much right, I remember teaching about Roosevelt when covering for a history teacher. A quick check reveals that a couple of the exam boards teach "The American West, 1840-1895" but that's about it. Again, while the americian revolution will be taught on some university courses, they would never take such a simplistic position as "they were rebel nuissances with horrible characters". hopefully someone else will turn up and provide the links you need --Fredrick day 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember being taught that the Americas were a colony that successive governments failed to govern correctly. That the source of the revolution was more british error than colonial intransigence. Clearly remember being taught that if it wasn't for the meddling French we would have won! On a serious note I think this is probably true, but that it would have just delayed the inevitable split.83.148.88.37 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive no idea what if anything they teach in schools. universities obviously mention the D of I, and they dont slur your leaders. im not sure what you meant by the first question. regarding generally what is tought at universities; i would say the complete objective truth. its not like we still have a big hang up about the event. or that education is distorted by any bias. Willy turner 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When I was at school, the American Revolutionary War was an option in the curriculum for the O & C Board's GCE A-level. It was well taught by my school's youngest and most earnest history master, and of course the subject couldn't possibly have been covered without reading the Declaration of Independence (that hyperbolic document). I'd say all the leading players, including Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, were given a fair crack of the whip. We had an older history master who was of a more whimsical turn of mind, and his line on American independence was that it was the greatest possible blessing for the mother country, and even the timing of it couldn't have turned out any better. Xn4 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 161. Yes, I did work on American history, both at school and as an undergraduate at Cambridge. I know how the subject is taught in the States, and the almost religious reverence with which the Founding Fathers are approached. I suspect, therefore, that you may be looking for a counter-perspective from a British angle? But this is a foreign country; we do things differently here! For example, we would never-assuming we still made films on our own-, produced anything quite as dreadful and unhistorical as Mel Gibson's The Patriot, in which we Brits seem to be the precursors of the Nazis. It's unthinkable. There is very little 'nationalism' in the teaching of history this side of the pond; it all tends to be quite modest and self-effacing in good-old Anglo-Saxon style. No passion, please! We do not have the American reverence for the likes of Washington and Jefferson; but we still recognise them as figures of considerable historical importance. Our general approach, however, is altogether more objective, seeing the Revolution as much of a civil war as a war of national liberation. I cannot give you a web link to a British perspective. However, you might care to get a hold of Rebels and Redcoats: the American Revolutionary War by Hugh Bicheno and Richard Holmes, which offers a challenging alternative to some of your most cherished preconceptions. I have no idea if it is published under this title in the United States. Clio the Muse 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebels and Redcoats: the American Revolutionary War is available in the US under the same title, and twelve US booksellers have it today at amazon.com. Xn4 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Xn4. I was clearly too lazy to check myself! Clio the Muse 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Back when I was doing O and A-level History, back in the mid-70s, the American Revolutionary War was before the start of history (which was in 1867 and 1815 respectively, for the two exams!), though I vaguely remember doing the Boston Tea Party and the rest in a week or so, back in my third-year pre-O-level history, but that was mostly just a continuation of our study of the Seven Years War... -- Arwel (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

French and Indian War I think you mean, Arwel! Clio the Muse 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the responses it must depend when and where you went to school. I did History throughout my secondary schooling in the late 1990s/early 2000s (including for GCSE) and I wasn't taught the American Revolution at all.--Johnbull 03:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Holmes book: for American viewers, there's also a PBS video version, hosted by Holmes, called Rebels & Redcoats - How Britain Lost America. Holmes, a military historian, is great when he's talking about battles, but he embarrasses himself a bit when it comes to the politics of the Revolution. He's apparently not kept up with the scholarship since his own schooling -- no Bernard Bailyn or Gordon S. Wood for him. And so his American Revolution-bashing seems rather old-fashioned on this side of the pond -- American writers and scholars first went through that phase in the 1920s. (See, for example, William Woodward's George Washington: The Image and the Man [1926]).

The best British books on the American Revolution, like Piers Mackesy's War for America (1964), tend to have a more military and more global perspective than American histories. For Americans, the Revolution was about what happened to them on their own turf; for the British, the war was another in a series of worldwide imperial conflicts. Most Americans don't know that holding on to Jamaica was a major British concern in the war, or that the last battle was not at Yorktown, but off the coast of India. Traditionally for the British, what the Americans are pleased to call their "Revolution" was just a minor bump on the road to the greatness of the British Empire. It was about events, not ideas. Who has time to care about republicanism or the writings of Thomas Paine when you've got the Empire to build and maintain! I wonder to what degree British students still get this imperial perspective. It's probably passé, but hearing Richard Holmes talk about George Washington rather reminds one of Churchill talking dismissively about Gandhi.

How the Revolution is taught in the U.S. depends on the age of the student: young kids get the nationalistic mythology, high school kids get a bit more of the politically correct stuff (more on slavery particularly), and in college, anything goes. American kids today probably learn more about Sally Hemings than they do George Mason! The only picture of a Revolutionary soldier in my college history textbook (in the 1980s) was of Deborah Sampson! I wonder if the British approach to history is similar: national mythology for youths, politically correct stuff in the middle, and then perhaps a few challenges to the standard narrative in college. —Kevin Myers 05:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So Holmes thinks that George Washington was a half-naked fakir?! Sorry; I could not resist that! Actually, Kevin, I offered Rebels and Redcoats not as the 'best' or the most scholarly treatment of the subject-which it clearly is not-but as the kind of perspective view that I think the questioner is looking for. I did not see the series you refer too, but I did watch Holmes on Wellington, which managed, at least in my view, to balance the military and political dimensions of the Iron Duke's career quite well. But in general telly history is, well, telly history, not the sort of place one should look for deep scholarly insight.

I must confess that your contention that the American Revolution was only a 'minor bump' for the Brits on the road to imperial greatness is a novel one for me, as it is, I suspect, for most people who work in this field in England. It was certainly a part of a prolonged struggle with France-sometimes referred to as the Second Hundred Years War-but it is perceived as a unique event in its own right. So, let me respond to your wondering: there was no detectable Stufenplan in the British imperial project, not one that I have ever detected in my own studies of the rise of Empire at any rate. As for your second point of wonder, I thought, perhaps, I may have gone some way towards addressing that in my initial contribution. However, for the sake of clarity, I will make the same point again: there is little or no nationalism or national mythology in the teaching of history in England (not at my school, anyway!), though I do not know if this is also the case in Scotland. Clio the Muse 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnbull has said "Judging from the responses it must depend when and where you went to school." Don't forget there are also differences between the various examination boards. Xn4 07:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

May I recommend an excellent fictional approach to this topic, Robert Graves' historical novel Sergeant Lamb of the Ninth? Rhinoracer 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio says "The Patriot" was "dreadful and unhistorical" and it may have made the British look like Nazis, but considerBanastre Tarleton whose war crimes were the inspiration for the bad guy in the movie, and who would probably have been right at home with the worst excesses of the Third Reich. The article speaks for itself. Of Tarleton's deeds at Waxhaw, a British surgeon wrote ""... Tarleton with his cruel myrmidons was in the midst of them, when commenced a scene of indiscriminate carnage, never surpassed by the ruthless atrocities of the barbarous savages." Edison 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on The Patriot:

Ben Fenton, commenting in the Telegraph on the sadistic character of Colonel William Tavington, purportedly based on Colonel Banastre Tarleton, wrote: ‘there is no evidence that Tarleton, called "Bloody Ban" or "The Butcher" in rebel pamphlets, ever broke the rules of war and certainly not that he ever shot a child in cold blood.' Liverpool City Council, led by Mayor Edwin Clein, called for a public apology for what they viewed as the film’s ‘character assassination’ of Tarleton, a former local Member.

Of greatest concern was the film’s anachronistic transposing of Waffen SS atrocities into the Revolutionary War, including the heavy emphasis on the killing of prisoners, wounded and children, culminating in a group of townsfolk being burnt alive in a church, in a scene that closely resembles the massacre of Oradour in German-occupied France in 1944.

The article continues in a similar vein. 80.254.147.52 11:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You and I are surely mature and objective enough to realise, Edison, that things happen in war, and in the heat of battle, that would not otherwise be condoned; that ordinary men do things which in normal circumstances they would not be capable. Yes, the Waxhaw massacre was bad, but the facts are by no means as clear cut as you suggest. If Banastre Tarleton was to stand accused of anything it would be that he lost control of his subordinates in the midst of combat. Bad, yes; but that is in no way comparable to rounding up women and children and, in a cold blooded and deliberate fashion, burning them to death in a locked church, the kind of thing that was a regular feature of SS anti-partisan campaigns in Russia. 'Bloody Ban', the myth of 'Bloody Ban', and it is a myth, served a useful propaganda purpose at the time for the Patriot cause. But for Gibson to be perpetuating myths and lies two hundred years later, yes two hundred years, is, as I have said, both dreadful and unhistorical. If you care to make a home for Colonel Tarleton in the Third Reich, then can we not also make a place there for Light Horse Harry Lee, the father of Robert E Lee, whose men fell upon loyalists heading to join Lord Cornwallis in early 1781, cutting down scores despite their attempts to surrender, and hacking some of those who had already been taken prisoner to death? And what about Francis Marion, upon whom the Gibson character in The Patriot is based? When the historian Christopher Hibbert, pointed out that good old 'Swampy Fox' committed atrocities just as bad, if not worse, than Colonel Tarleton, Michael Graham, one of your delightful radio hosts, responded in vigorous style,

Was Francis Marion a slave owner? Was he a determined and dangerous warrior? Did he commit acts in an 18th-century war that we would consider atrocious in the current world of peace and political correctness? As another great American film hero might say: You damn right.

So, Marion is to be celebrated not despite but in the face of his record? In that case why not him or her? Perhaps the time has truly come for the English to remember Colonel Tarleton as he really was: a hero, a good soldier, a decent man and a loyal subject of the crown, free of the obloquy in which he has been unfairly covered. As for Gibson, well he is quite adept at purveying anti-English prejudice in one form or another, is he not?; from The Patriot to the even more ludicrous Braveheart. Clearly a man of many talents...and many prejudices, both on screen and off. Clio the Muse 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarleton violated the then-understood rules of war. His excesses actually aided the patriot cause, with the battle-cry of "Tarleton's Quarter." To now glorify him as a "hero" is reminiscent of recent Japanese revisionist history, and of Russian glorificati0on of Stalin. Edison 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Both the point I was making-and my use of irony-have clearly escaped you, which, I regret to say, does not really surprise me. But, for the wider community, I will try to make mself just a little clearer: If Tarleton 'violated' the laws of war so, too, did many others, on both sides. When Nathanael Green took command of Rebel forces in the south in December 1780 he reported on "dreadful, wanton Mischiefs, Murders, and Violences of every kind, unheard of before" as society crumbled under the impact of war. If the war was not already lost by 1781 the Loyalists could conceivably have invigorated their campaign with calls of 'Lee's Quarter!' Tarleton is no more than a victim of contemporary propaganda, a convenient scapegoat. American condemnation of Tarleton, and his alleged 'violation of the laws of war', has not stopped you elevating Marion as a hero. You can maintain all the anti-English rhetoric you wish, but your final point is cheap. I would have thought that your obvious sense of denial is far more reminiscent of the examples you conjur up than my defence of Tarleton. Clio the Muse 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio goes too far in trying to rehabilitate Tarleton, in my opinion, but her larger point is correct: wars are messy, and even otherwise good guys do things in war that may seem ugly in less sanguinary times. Tarleton certainly oversaw a massacre at the Waxhaws: most Revolutionary battles killed about 6-7% of combatants, but 75% were cut down at the Waxhaws, many slaughtered while trying to surrender. But as American historian Col. Mark Boatner wrote, "a successful cavalry charge exploited by a bayonet attack is bound to be messy...." And Tarleton's intentions are open to question. As historian John Ferling writes: "Tarleton did not order the slaughter that ensued, but he did not stop it either." Today, Tarleton would probably at least be investigated for war crimes, especially if the slaughter was caught on camera, but the same applies to many actions on both sides of the Revolutionary War.

To generalize, I think it's fair to say that overall the British and Hessians treated American prisoners and civilians worse than Americans did to the British and Hessians (David Hackett Fischer writes that British soldiers inflicted an "epidemic of rape" on American women), but Americans cannot really claim the moral high ground when it comes to the conduct of the war, especially when you take into account how some of them treated their Native American opponents. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. —Kevin Myers 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All very well, but don't forget that this discussion was originally about The Patriot, which is as villainous a piece of black propaganda as Hollywood has ever produced. You sit there talking about cavalry charges, when the film depicts women and children being shut in a church which is then burnt to the ground. That is neither historically accurate nor equivalent to the "violations" you speak of. Malcolm Starkey 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone here has actually defended the historical accuracy of The Patriot, although it still clearly touches a nerve, because you can't have a discussion on Wikipedia about the Revolution without a Brit bringing up Gibson's silly film. ;-) (I say Gibson's film, though of course it was actually directed by a German.) If Brits are concerned that Americans took the film's cartoonish villain seriously, they shouldn't be. Never in my 40+ years have I heard another American voice any anti-British sentiment. We take the villan in The Patriot about as seriously as any James Bond villain. I know above Clio says that the British approach to history is "No passion, please!", but it's the Brits who are still passionate about The Patriot. Americans watched the movie and then went back to hating the French. ;-)

By the way, I've never read a film review that accurately identified where the church burning scene in The Patriot comes from. Some have compared the scene to the infamous massacre of Oradour, but come on, the filmmakers of The Patriot clearly didn't know enough about history to mine it for ideas. Hollywood hacks don't read history books -- they borrow from other films. In this case, I'd bet that the scene from The Patriot was actually lifted from another silly film, the Sean Connery movie First Knight, featuring a screenplay written, as it happens, by a Brit. Funny that. :-) —Kevin Myers 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So it was a Hessian, was it? Oh, well, that would seem to explain everything! I suppose I must confess to some passions; and seeing my countrymen likened to Nazis produces a gut reaction, no matter if the countrymen in question are long dead, no matter if the film is quite as silly as The Patriot. It's particularly hurtful when such depictions come from our closest ally. I assumed that, as it was no longer fashionable for Hollywood to beat all hell out of the 'Redskins', the English were an easy substitute! But I take your point, Kevin, and, speaking personally, will now lay the matter to eternal rest. Clio the Muse 01:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My unfavorable opinion of Tarleton predated the motion picture "The Patriot" by decades and has nothing whatsoever to do with any depiction of the burning of people in a church. It is based on the historical record of his actions in the American Revolution. Criticism of one rogue officer from 230 plus years ago should not be taken as a general bashing of all things British, any more than criticism of William T. Sherman's American Civil War excesses should not be taken as a general criticism of all things related to the United States.Tarleton was consistently a rogue. He plundered and burned the town of Pond Ridge, New York, for instance [4] although, happily, the townsfolk were able to exit before the torch was applied. Tarleton was certainly not seen as just another British officer. After the British surrender at Yorktown, the Americans sat down to a dinner with the captured British officers. Tarleton was not invited, because of his history of atrocities. [5] says "he practiced total war -- burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means -- when the European ideal was limited war confined to a field of battle. In effect, he was probably no more brutal then some other British officers and even some American officers. But, at the Waxhaws, his reputation for brutality stuck, as Patriot officers encouraged fear and anxiety of "butcher" Tarleton for propaganda purposes." I expected a little higher level of discourse than the bashing of other editors along the lines of "Both the point I was making-and my use of irony-have clearly escaped you, which, I regret to say, does not really surprise me.". Please address the subject under discussion without attacking the intellectual ability of other contributors to the discussion. Edison 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear; I've obviously hurt your feelings, Edison,-judging by the number of times you have come back and forward here over several hours-which I truly regret. I was not in any sense attacking your 'intellectual ability' or 'bashing' you, as you have expressed it. I was, rather, commenting on the extent to which you seemed to have completely overlooked what I had written in response to the truly ludicrous contention that Tarleton would have been "right at home with the worst excesses of the Third Reich". In consequence, I gave 'heroic colour' to his career, with deliberate ironic intent, which, again, you failed to grasp with your subsequent points about historical revisionism. Look, at the risk of amplifying my offense, can I draw your attention to the point made in your second link: that Tarleton was "probably no more brutal than some other British officers and even no more brutal than some American officers." No more brutal, in other words, than Light Horse Harry Lee or Francis Marion, which is precisely the point I was making all along. Practitioners of total war, perhaps; Nazis, no. All I was asking you to do was think beyond the black propaganda.

I have a vigorous and relentless style in debate. In my professional life I make few allowances for more tender souls, people who are, perhaps, a little less robust than I, a little less used to 'gladiatorial dialetics'. I confess it is something of a failing on my part. I think it best, therefore, if I make no further comment on anything you may write on the Humanities Desk in future, to avoid misunderstanding and wounded feelings. More than that, I think it best, Edison, if we avoid one another altogether from now on...for both our sakes. Regards. Clio the Muse 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)