Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 31

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 31

What has changed?

Reading Julia Cherry Spurill's Women's Life and Work in the Southern Colonies it has occurred to me that not much has changed for women, except in the realm of courtship, since the 17th century. I feel this makes a fine basis for a thesis, but I must add some qualifiers that are not based on textual evidence from the reading. What other things have changed, not necessarily for women, since the 17th and 18th centuries? schyler (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't be serious. What hasn't changed? That's a rhetorical question; of course some things haven't changed, but so many have. Just considering women, they have the right to vote and equal legal rights in all but a few areas. Most women now work outside the home. Many have positions of leadership in commercial and political settings. An unmarried adult woman is no longer an object of pity or shame. Women have much greater control of their reproductive and sex lives. I could go on and on. None of this was true during the 17th and 18th centuries. Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Did I hear an anguished cry emanating from Boston just before this post was written? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Contraception. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See History of women, History of women's suffrage in the United States, Women in the workforce, Women in the military, Women in politics, Women in philosophy, Women in science, Women in engineering, Women's writing in English, etc. etc. etc. Shall we go on? Dismas|^(talk) 02:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the things though, MarcoPolo. There are examples of women voting, owning places of business and being planters in their own right, as well as respected women in their old age (as opposed to old-maids, wherein you are right). I'm asking about big ideas that have changed, and women's rights is not one of them. Not even atheism or homosexuality are anything new. What, really, is a big deal today that wasn't even imaginable in the 17th and 18th centuries? schyler (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are different questions you've asked schyler. So you'd like an example of a big idea about women's rights that hadn't been contemplated in some form, however rare, in the 18th century. Voltaire probably covered most of that territory by his mid 30s. Maybe you could be more specific about the number of angels on this pin. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cell phones. Coca Cola. "Them Niggers lording it over us decent folks" on the Supreme Court and as President! Computers, Oh yes, judicial review. Of course if you say "cell phones are just another way of talking", "Coca Cola is just another drink", "Obama is just another human, and President is just another leader", then you can discuss any big change away. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy has it. The pill gave women control over their fertility. Biggest change ever explicitly for women. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The pill, really? How about gender equality. Being allowed to go to school, get a job in any field, and be taken seriously. Actually, sex whenever you want it doesn't sound that much worse.

Besides pills though there have always been condoms to prevent pregnancy. Well, at least there have been condoms since some time in ancient days when someone came up with the idea to make them out of fur.

The pill gave women control over their fertility for the first time. Using a condom depends on a cooperative male. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That remembers me of Julian Assange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to say equal rights, followed by contraception, followed by abortion and not having to wear ridiculously constrictive clothing.(unless your Muslim)AerobicFox (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In 18th century England (and so probably in the colonies too), a wife was legally regarded as a chattel (ie personal property) of her husband. Beating your wife was quite acceptable. Divorce from a brutal husband was virtually impossible. Single women had no social standing and were reliant on the charity of male relatives. Unmarried mothers were obliged to give their babies away and pretend it never happened. So quite a lot of change actually. 11:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The point I think the book makes is that there were examples of liberation for women existing in various societies at various times: however, these were merely outliers in a statistical sense, and in no way were they the norm at the time. In these modern times, with improved communications and information, not to mention technology, they are now the norm rather than outliers. You may wish to call these early examples "trailblazers", to give you a sense of how change takes time. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone here is trying to disprove my thesis rather than find it remotely agreeable. I don't blame you, though. I usually go with the more radical of ideas. The question I originally posed was "What other things have changed, not necessarily for women, since the 17th and 18th centuries?" And then followed it up with "What, really, is a big deal today that wasn't even imaginable in the 17th and 18th centuries?" I never asked how I was wrong, or what has changed for women. I in fact explicitly said "not necessarily for women." So when TammyMoet said "...with improved communications and information..." that came closest, but the other answers, while enlightening and enjoyable to read, do not answer either of my questions. schyler (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a big deal today that wasn't even imaginable in the 17th and 18th centuries? How about spaceflight? Pais (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're off by at least about 1500 years. See True History. I suspect profound social changes are much harder to imagine than mere technological advance. See Star Wars, where medieval archetypes play out their fairy tale in space ships and with blasters... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I meant actual spaceflight rather than fictional spaceflight. Even nowadays where actual spaceflight has occurred, there's a pretty big gap between it and fictional spaceflight. For example, with the exception of 2001, science fiction movies & TV shows never seem to remember there's no sound in space. Pais (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing which has not been touched upon is the improved social conditions for children. Beating a child for the most minor infraction was the norm in all classes; poor children were sent out to work in mines and factories as young as four or five; many children lived in orphanages and workhouses, a large percentage were homeless and survived by begging and stealing. Education was available to the middle and upper-classes...I could go on and on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the improvements regarding working conditions for children. As regards frequent beatings, it's worth noting that school corporal punishment is still legal in twenty U.S. states. Even though most schools don't use corporal punishment even in those states where it's legal, it is still used on hundreds of thousands of occasions every year. Whether beatings for minor infractions was considered more normal in past centuries remains unclear; I think William Ewart Gladstone mentioned that he was only beaten once in his seven years at Eton College in the early 19th century, despite the then headmaster John Keate apparently having made "vigorous and frequent use of the birch". More shocking to modern sensibilities would be the widespread use of capital punishment for minors in the 19th century and before; some countries do still execute minors now, but it seems to be very rare. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no "big ideas" which haven't been around since humankind. Since the first caveman decided he owned the women in his tribe, there's probably been women thinking "this sucks, we can't we work this out so we're equal". The battle between egalitarianism and oppression is likely as old as civilization itself. The difference between today and the past is the realization of those ideas. In most western countries, women are guaranteed equal rights under the law, guaranteed equal pay, and equal sufferage and access to power. That certain random times in the past there were women who broke through the oppression to leave a mark in history doesn't mean that their world was some how fundementally the same as it is today. There are still some real obstacles to women, even in western democracies. But can you imagine someone saying, today, "She couldn't even be the leader of her country, she's a woman!" And yet, as soon as 50 years ago, people really thought that way. This represents fundemental shifts in societal values. --Jayron32 15:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The question depends on the asker's definition of a "big" idea and has no answer.--Wetman (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Electricity. The combustive engine. The internet. Wikipedia. etc, etc. AerobicFox (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"There is nothing new under the sun." [1] True enough in terms of human aspiration: peace, prosperity, love, security, equality. But the OP asked "What other things have changed... since the 17th and 18th centuries?" Modern medicine, e.g. antibiotics, and surgery dependent on anaesthetic. Instantaneous global communication. Easy and safe travel, relatively cheaply. The expectation, in developed countries, that pregnancy and childbirth are not life-threatening, and that the baby will live into old age. The elimination of diseases such as smallpox. The elimination of famine, in wealthy countries. (The last one in England was 1728, according to List of famines.) How much more evidence of change do you want? BrainyBabe (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

schyler, your question is so vague you're only going to get vague (and likely unsatisfying) answers. Until you narrow down your criteria, you're not going to get a consistent answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. schyler (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Spot (Treasure Island)

Hi. I'm interested what definition of a black spot is in "The pirate dictionary" by Terry Breverton. Unfortunately Google Books don't display this particular page (or it's not available in my country) and I don't have an access to it by any other means. Any chances for anyone to get these 3-4 sentences of definition for me? Black Spot (Treasure Island) in en-wiki doesn't have "The pirate dictionary" as a source and possibly iy could benefit from it (as well as my pl-translation of this article, being sketched right now). If anyone could, please e-mail me or leave me a note in my pl-wiki talk page. Thanks in advance! Masur (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

http://imgur.com/xGAux - I am forbidden to edit your pl-wiki page because my entire ISP is range-blocked on pl-wiki. Marnanel. (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Syria and Egypt

Given that Syria and Egypt were (very briefly) united in the United Arab Republic, would it be reasonable to expect the current revolt in Egypt to have some sort of special resonance in Syria (beyond, of course, similarities in economic and political conditions)? I know the UAR was short-lived and based on my cursory knowledge it doesn't seem like its collapse left a lot of amity between the two countries... but the Baath party is based on pan-Arabism so maybe they've "rehabilitated" the UAR to some extent? 96.246.68.89 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Egypt is widely considered, politically, the most important Arabic nation, the lynchpin of the region. It has the largest population of any Arabic country by a long shot (almost 80 million vs. 35 million for Algeria, the next most populous Arabic nation). So yes, the problems in Egypt are having a HUGE resonance across the Arabic world, Syria included. There are serious questions right now on whether the Egyptian situation is going to spill-over/inspire a sort of "pan-Arabic" revolt in many Arabic nations. --Jayron32 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no intimate connection between the two nations. Unrest in Syria is equally likely to be a reflection of the revolution in Tunisia.--Wetman (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on Jayron, the UAR history has not left Egypt with any special influence over Syria. However, as the main center of the Arabic-language media and entertainment industries (apart from Qatar-based al-Jazeera), Egypt has an enormous cultural influence throughout the Arabic-speaking world, far greater than that of Tunisia. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As it has been said, if there will be any uprising in Syria, it's because of the Domino effect which started in Tunisia, and gained a huge boost in Egypt. As for the UAR, its political and popular legacy is insignificant if not nonexistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.83.20.127 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

sharing money vs. sharing time + information

Isn't it amazing that many people are willing to share their time + information, but not their money? Since time + information = money, why does this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sharing information is not a huge deal, since it is not limited. But considering that information added with time is more valuable than money doesn't mean that you won't share it. Giving money away is not entertaining. Passing some time discussing a topic with someone, yes. Quest09 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with the premise. Charitable donations of money are as common as the volunteering of time. I give part of my income away every month (i.e., share my money), and so do millions of others. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they really equally common? How often do you ask others for information and how often do you ask others for spare change? Quest09 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly disagree with the premise that time + information = money. Neither time nor information alone, let alone the sum of the two, will pay the rent or buy the groceries. Pais (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd question the premise too. In my experience, it's easy to get parents to donate goods for a raffle, buy items in a school fundraiser or send in a small donation for the class's worthy cause. Ask for volunteers to come into school and help out, and very few step forward (usually the same few). Karenjc 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, time + information can be converted into money (think about a qualified employee). In some the equation is actually time + information + money = more money. Sometimes it is money + information = more money. Or also money = more time for you. As a matter of fact, valuable things can be somehow converted from one form into the other (I'll say that this is even a tautology). 212.169.190.130 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people have a lot of time and no money. Some have a lot of money but little time. And while some people's time is very valuable, other people's time has little value. And how much money could the average person earn in a few spare hours? Time and information tend to be sold in large units, e.g. signing up for a full-time job; if you have 2 or 3 hours spare a week it may be easy to help out with voluntary work but employers will want people who can make a larger commitment (in part this is explained by the fixed costs of labour - training, uniform, payroll, expenses in hiring, etc - which do not depend on hours worked). Plus many people do the reference desk while they're at work, I'm told. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that Australians are descended from criminals?

If so, how is it possible for them to have made a stable government all on their own? Wouldn't they have anarchy? ScienceApe (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See Colonization of Australia. The first British settlement there was a penal colony at Port Jackson, but it was heavily colonized later. Grsz 11 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Why would they? Criminals often have non-criminal children. Anyway, as our article on Australia will tell you, there were already aboriginal people and not all of the people who went to the country were British criminals. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(After e/c)

The obvious answer here is that being a criminal is not genetic.

But at least as important, they weren't all criminals. A lot of people showed up in the gold rush or as colonists at other points. (And let's not forget the natives!).

The History of Australia is pretty interesting.

(Also, Britain had Penal colonies in North America as well.) APL (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OP, your question displays many ape-like qualities, but unfortunately no scientific ones. Anyway, I have criminals in my ancestry, but we're quite proud of them nowadays. My 4-greats grandfather has an official monument to the memory of his post-prison works. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

All right, fess up, Jack. What did he do? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This society is named after him, and there's more about him here. In case you were wondering, you won't find my surname anywhere there. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch for that. CTRL+F did not return a single hit for 'Oz'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Seven years transportation for burglary?! Hope he burgled something really valuable at least! I'm required at this point to mention a (probable) ancestral distant cousin, pirate captain William Fly, arrr. 'Course piracy got you hanged and gibbeted--a bit harsher than transportaion... Pfly (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite what the first ref says, he was found not guilty of burglary but guilty of stealing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

[After an edit conflict] Some more points from an Aussie: One of the clichés about transportation is that some of the crimes for which people were sent (to America) or Australia were things like stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family, and other "offences" that wouldn't even get you a custodial sentence these days. In my lifetime, knowing you had a convict ancestor has gone from family secret status to public boasting status. The bigger impact on Australia's early population growth came from the gold rushes of the 1850s and onwards. If you were transported as a convict, it meant surviving a very long sea journey, plus often starvation conditions when you arrived. If you made it, you were probably from pretty tough stock. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are. And you are too, no matter where you are from. It is a matter of how much you're going back in time until you find any kind of ascendants.212.169.190.130 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a clear correlation between eighteenth/nineteenth century criminals and anarchy? 90.195.179.70 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than total anarchy, it has been suggested that Australians have a lot less respect for authority and power achieved through money than might be said for Americans. We certainly don't have the same reverence for our Prime Minister that Americans show towards their President. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

But equally, we're not in the habit of shooting them dead. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah. Why would you bother? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You do seem to lose track of them though. Pfly (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but he did leave a legacy - The Harold Holt Memorial Swimming Centre in Melbourne. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh come ON... its been years since a President was shot dead. Americans don't do that sort of thing anymore. Hardly EVER... It's almost like there was a law or something. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, there have been four assassinations of US presidents. Gotta be an Australian connection somewhere. Lincoln: Attempt to rally the remaining Confederate troops. Garfield: Shot for not appointing an insane guy ambassador to France. McKinley: Shot by an anarchist inspired by fellow anarchist Gaetano Bresci's assassination of the king of Italy (ah ha!). JFK: Well, everyone knows he was assassinated by the CIA, KGB, Mafia, Israel, Fidel Castro, LBJ, and J. Edgar Hoover. Impressive teamwork. The Australian government has apparently managed to cover up its contribution. Pfly (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add Elvis.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been 30 years since anyone actually shot a sitting President, and that one, like the recent incident in Tuscon, was motivated by madness, not politics. Only 5.5% of Aussies own a gun, compared to about 25% of Americans, which there are a lot more of in the first place. More guns+more people=more lunatics who can easily acquire a gun. And that's not even counting all the illegal or unregistered guns out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning one of, if not the most revered and certainly the most recognizable icons of "outback Australia" is Ned Kelly. Vespine (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No one in America has heard of him.AerobicFox (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, fair suck, mate. Ned Kelly (2003 film) starring Heath Ledger was released in the USA on 22 screens in March 2004. It grossed the grand total of $44,000, or about $2,000 per screen [2]. It must have had a run of less than a week, and had paltry attendances to boot. The marketers were obviously hardly trying at all; or maybe they were deliberately trying to make a loss. Now, while this was not exactly an unqualified success, it's evident that there are some 3,000-odd people in the USA who have actually heard of Ned Kelly. Which is about 2,975 more than have heard of me.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, I'm American and I've heard of Ned Kelly. I'd agree that most Americans haven't heard of him though. Pfly (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I've heard of Ned Kelly. I even saw the film starring Mick Jagger along with his dreadful rendition of a Cork accent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why we're even discussing this anyway. The measure of notability, particularly of non-American subjects, has never been "the number of Americans who've heard of the subject". From various reports, many Americans can't distinguish between Australia and Austria, which gives me little confidence in using what they know about stuff as a guide to anything. There are of course many magnificent exceptions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Why the increased American interest in things Australian? Why, Oprah, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Aussie chic" in America predates Oprah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"I know those words, but that sentence makes no sense!" Adam Bishop (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Land der Snowy-Berge, Land am Murray-Strome? Pais (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Since (a) many transportees had families who remained in the UK and had families of their own, (b) not all criminals were transported and (c) crimes were committed in Britain before we had transportation and are still happening, you can be reasonably certain of finding at least one direct ancestor who aroused the wrath of the law in some way if you go back a few generations. (I was chuffed to find one who was once dragged off to London in irons and locked up for his radical activities - everyone needs a black sheep in the family.) Most of us could probably dig up just as many "criminals" in our families as the average Australian, and the fabric of our society seems no more likely to spiral into anarchy then theirs, so far. Karenjc 11:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American who grew up in a law-abiding family. My maternal gr-gr-gr-gr-gr-gr-grandmother, Marguerite Bellanger was a Baleine Bride. She was either a prostitute or felon transported in 1721 on the La Baleine to Louisiana from Paris' La Salpetrière prison as a prospective bride to a French colonist. She eventually married twice. All of us most likely have a bit of notoriety somewhere in our family history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My great-great-grandfather and his brother laid in wait and shot and killed their brother-in-law, the brother stayed behind in Tennessee while my gggfather fled to Arkansas. The brother was found not guilty, my gggf was never extradited back. We probably all have skeletons in the closet which make for amusing reading these hundred or so years later.  :) My grandmother was not happy when, while doing family tree research, I discovered that her grandparents were not married at the time of her father's birth. In fact, her grandfather was married to her grandmother's sister.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)