Humanities desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

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 12

Donner Party

Yes, i know that there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.233.246 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caught mid flow, not, I hope, yet another victim of the Donner Party! Clio the Muse 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he just got hungry and stopped for a snack? --24.147.86.187 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so that's the reason for the name of my favourite late night snack. I always had my suspicions... Cyta 08:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting England for the first time in 1986, my then wife (a lifelong resident of California) and I cracked up when we saw that food item advertised. The locals were not amused when we explained. —Tamfang 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jesus a "legitimate" Rabbi?

I recently viewed the "Passion of the Christ" again. In it, Jesus is called "Rabbi." It is my understanding that to become a Rabbi, one must study under another Rabbi. Is there any historical evidence to confirm or disconfirm that Jesus had studied under anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.213.2 (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To become a Rabbi, technically, one must have been given semicha by someone who received semicha themselves, in an unbroken chain that theoretically goes back to Moses. Did Jesus have semicha? Going further, however, the term "Rabbi" just means teacher, so could be applied to anyone who taught you something. The Talmud tells us that if someone teaches you anything, you need to give them respect and stand up when they come into the room! In his lifetime, Jesus clearly taught a lot of people a lot of things, which would give credence to this idea. Whether that gentler definition would also apply (in a "legitimate" way, as you put it) to someone who then teaches you messages directly contradictory to Judaism (as discussed here recently) is beyond my knowledge. --Dweller 07:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the 1st. century A.D., "Rabbis" means pretty much leaders of the grouping called by others "Pharisees" / "Perushin" (but who didn't usually call themselves that) -- i.e. scholars of Jewish religious law who did not claim any special authority because of priestly genealogical lineage, and who maintained a tradition of "oral law" in addition to the written Bible. Paul considered himself to be a Pharisee of sorts, but Jesus clearly didn't... AnonMoos 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian outpost

Why did the nineteeth century Russian outpost in California fail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.38.137 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your start on this, see Northern California: Russian era and John Sutter. The Mexicans were technically in possession of California at the time (see Alta California), and there was a Mexican governor, but it was something of a wide open space. In 1839, the estimated population of what is now California was only about 30,000, nearly all Native Americans, with about a thousand Europeans. In 1840, an attaché to the French embassy in Mexico City, one Eugène Duflot de Mofras, explored the west coast of North America and wrote "...it is evident that California will belong to whatever nation chooses to send there a man-of-war and two hundred men." (He hoped, of course, that that would be France). In the event, California was almost inevitably caught up in the westwards expansion of the US, and the Russians just had to come to terms with that. They effectively sold out to Sutter in 1841, and the first large party of American immigrants arrived overland in the same year, long before the famous Donner Party (see thread above). The US annexation of Texas in 1845 led to the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848, the US gaining California. In all this, the Russians would have been marginal, if they hadn't abandoned their ambitions in 1841. Xn4 10:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Patriotic War

In what ways did involvement in the Second World War give fresh stimulus to Russian nationalism? Zinoviev4 06:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a homework question to me - we are not supposed to give people the answers to their homework here as it is cheating and you don't learn anything. Please search the internet and look for some information and if there's anything you don't understand, we can help you with it but it's not right to give you the answers. GaryReggae 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly early on after the German invasion Stalin recognised that he was fighting for the very survival, not of Communism, but of Russia itself. Always the brilliant political tactician, he understood that people are moved not by abstract ideas, not by notions of world revolution and human progress, but by older, more rooted symbols of identity. With the enemy advancing on Moscow the war was described as 'Patriotic', calling to mind the first Patriotic War against Napoleon. Appeals were made not for the defence of Socialism but of the Motherland. Even the word Soviet was dropped. To encourage Russian identity the campaign against the Orthodox Church was ended, and it was allowed to play its own part in reawakening national feeling amongst the Russians. The heroes invoked in propaganda were all from a glorious pre-revolutionary past; from Alexander Nevsky, who defeated the Teutonic Knights, to the great Tsarist generals, Suvorov and Kutuzov, all of whom had medels named after them. The Order of St. George also reappeared, along with the pre-revolutionary military uniform. So, yes, nationalism was reborn, a vital contribution on the path to victory. Clio the Muse 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Amy Bjork Harris, Co author of Staying OK

Respected Sir, I would like to know about the life of Amy Bjork Harris, The co-author of "Staying OK". Regards, Ritu1 Singh 08:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few details at Thomas Anthony Harris. Xn4 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boer victors

Is it true to say that in the south african conflict of 1899 to 1902 the boers lost the war only to win the peace? Cetawayo 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. The British achieved their objectives of a unified South Africa as part of the British Empire, and South Africa remained a close ally of Britain even after it became a Dominion and secured its independence. It was not until the electoral victory of the National Party in 1948 (nearly half a century after the end of the war) that the Boers really asserted themselves politically. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Coloured inhabitants of the Cape Colony had, and retained the vote until the Nationalists got in (and, in theory, thereafter, but the Nationalists manipulated it into ineffectiveness; see our article). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, a convincing argument can be made along these very lines. The Peace of Vereeniging, by which the war was concluded in 1902, contained some important concessions to the Boers, chief amongst which was the agreement to shelve any proposals to enfranchise non-Europeans until the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were once more self-governing. So, in practice, all black, Asian and mixed race people in these two provinces would remain without full civil rights, an anticipation of the future policy of apartheid. The British, anxious for both peace and co-operation with the Boers, were quite cynical about the whole thing. Sir Alfred Milner, the British High Commissioner, remarked "You only have to sacrifice 'the nigger' and the game is easy." In 1903, delivering a speech in Johannesburg, he asserted that "The white man must rule, because he is elevated many, many steps above the black man; steps which will take the latter many centuries to climb, and which it is quite possible that the vast bulk of the black population will never be able to climb at all." Even before the Union of South Africa was established in 1910 the Afrikaners were becoming the dominant political force, with the victory of the Het Volk party in the elections of 1907. White supremacy was established; white supremacy would remain. The victory of the National Party in 1948 was only one further stage in the whole process. Clio the Muse 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acctually, the boers were winning the war throughout, and had very very few losses unlike the british who lost countless nnumbers, this was because the boers dug trenches and wore green clothing, and were thus virtually undetecable, where as the british attacked in long lines, dressed in bright red with drums and trumpets and wre thus cutt down. the war only went the other way when the british took the women and children of the boer hostage and put them in camps. The boers wanted thier families back, and thus agreed to peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 12.191, but some of the points you have made here are a little misleading. First, while the British Army was still dressed in red during the First Boer War by the time of the Second Boer War just about every unit was dressed in some variation of khaki. Second, the losses on neither side of the conflict were 'countless' as you have expressed it. In all the war cost some 75,000 lives: 22,000 British soldiers, of whom just under 8,000 were battle casualties, the remainder dying of disease; between 6,000 and 7,000 Boer soldiers, and up to 28,000 civilians, mostly women and children; and some 20,000 black Africans, some on the battlefield, some in concentration camps. Third, the Boers gave up the struggle for a variety of reasons, not just because of the British policy of removing the civilian basis of support for their armed struggle. By 1900 the conventional war had been won by the British in a series of deep penetrations into enemy territory. For the remainder of the conflict the Boers resorted to guerilla tactics. Bit by bit the British adapted quite successfully to the new style of warfare. Besides incarcerating women and children, they built a series of fortified and connected block houses, reducing the territory in which the Boer guerillas were able to operate and manoeuvre effectively. By these tactics the veld was systematically parcelled up into smaller and smaller areas. A scorched earth policy also robbed the enemy of supplies, and they were continually harassed by British cavalry raids. It was a classic counter-insurgency operation; and it worked. Clio the Muse 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are Wikipedia articles which provide additional information relative to this question. See Internment#Concentration camp and Scorched earth#Boer War. Edison 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan specialization

I'm finding which goods Japanese has comparative advantage. Does it mean what Japanese exports? And What goods Japanese produed most?please explain.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunthea dd (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative advantage tends to refer to a product a country can produce more cheaply or efficiently. It tends to be a rather broad term, as a given means of production in a country depends on several factors - for example, Japan exceeded in the automotive industry despite having very little natural mineral reserves. So when you discuss "comparative advantage", you're usually discussing a favorite of economists - assumptions and general models. Applying this to specific goods in practice is tricky, but I would argue that at least during the late 70s and the 80s, Japan exceeded primarily in manufacturing, specifically automotive and electronic products. Certainly we see that today, but Japan has less of a general advantage than it did before thanks to the 90s economy bubble bursting, and China and Korea are also edging into some of both industries (China primarily just small parts assembled elsewhere, Korea with both parts and complete cars). "Why does Japan have a comparative advantage?" is more of a useful question though, and it has to do with their early investment into advanced manufacturing techniques, specifically automated production. This set a benchmark for efficiency for the rest of the world for the next twenty years. In your research you may consider why Japan has no comparative advantage in many other things - mostly due to inevitable island conditions like a lack of land, and the previously mentioned lack of mineral and oil reserves. One more thing: I would also be willing to wager that Japan has a comparative advantage in seafood exports. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Uxbridge's leg

A strange request. I hear there is an amusing or bizarre tale attached to the afterlife of Lord Uxbridge's right leg, lost at Waterloo. Anyone know anymore?81.152.105.31 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it was kept by the surgeon who removed it, and a shrine of sorts set up for it. The BBC did a programme a few years ago, which alas I missed, there are a few details here [1]. I would love to know more!DuncanHill 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A page here at napoleonic-literature.com has a picture of THE TOMB OF LORD UXBRIDGE'S LEG. It claims that "When Lord Uxbridge died in 1854, the "leg" was exhumed, taken back to England, and buried with Lord Uxbridge." Xn4 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein, I've always been amused by the monument to Benedict Arnold's leg. Corvus cornix 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be a wonderful opportunity to 'pull the leg'! Seriously now, here are the simple facts behind the morbid taste for bones, evidence, it might be thought, that the Medieval cult of relics had made its way into the modern age.

After receiving his wound, Lord Uxbridge was taken to his headquarters, a house owned by one Monsieur Hyacinthe Joseph-Marie Paris, who was still in residence. There what was left of his leg was removed by the surgeons, without antiseptic or anaesthetics. Uxbridge, true to his nature, remained stoical and composed, his only comment through the dreadful procedure being "The knives appear somewhat blunt." Paris asked if he might bury the leg in his garden, later turning the place into a kind of shrine come theme park. Visitors were first taken to see the bloody chair upon which Uxbridge sat during the amputation, before being escorted into the garden, where the leg had its very own 'tombstone', inscribed as follows:

Here lies the leg of the illustrious, brave and valliant Lord Uxbridge, Lieutenant General of His Britannic Majesty, Commander in Chief of the English, Belgian and Dutch Cavalry, wounded on the 18 June 1815 at the memorable battle of Waterloo, who, by his heroism, assisted in the triumph of the cause of mankind, gloriously decided by the resounding victory of that day.

Some were impressed; others less so. Thomas Gaspey, a poet of sorts, recorded his own impressions in verse;

Here rests, and let no saucy knave

Presume to sneer and laugh,

To learn that mouldering in the grave

Is laid a British calf.

For he who writes these lines is sure

That those who read the whole,

Will find such a laugh were premature

For here too lies a sole.

And so on and so forth!

The leg, and the sole, attracted an amazing range of tourists from the very top drawer; from the King of Prussia to the Prince of Orange, European society of the very best. It was nice earner for Monsieur Paris and his descendents, all the way down to 1878, when it was the occasion for a minor diplomatic incident. Uxbridge's son visited to find the bones, not buried, but on open display. On investigation by the Belgian Ambassador in London, it was discovered that they had been exposed in a storm which uprooted the willow tree beside which they were buried. The Ambassador demanded repatriation of the relics to England but the Paris family refused, instead offering to sell the bones to the Uxbridge family, who, not surprisingly, were enraged. At this point the Belgian Minister of Justice intervened, ordering the bones to be reburied.

But they were not reburied; they were kept hidden. In 1934, after the last Monsieur Paris died in Brussels, his widow found them in his study, along with documentation proving their provenance. Horrified by the thought of another scandal she dumped the lot in her central heating furnace!

I cannot comment on the claims made in the site linked by Xn4, but all of the above information can be found in the BBC History Magazine, vol. 3, no. 6, June 2002. Clio the Muse 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll believe the BBC, Clio. It sounds as if napoleonic-literature.com should get the order of the boot... or is it worth sending for Hercule Poirot? Xn4 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the little grey cells-and the old white bones! Clio the Muse 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Poirot should be able to crack it, especially as Hastings is also the Duke of Wellington. Xn4 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So he was! Perhaps he could get the lovely Major Sharp involved in the mission-I certainly hope so! Clio the Muse 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This material would over-balance Wikipedia's article, but couldn't it be moved, lock-stock-and-barrel, with the BBC reference, to Lord Uxbridge's leg? O Brilliant Clio! ("Much as ever, I'll do it myself!" said The Little Red Hen.)--Wetman 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well clucked, O Little Red Hen! Clio the Muse 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on working "poetaster" in there, too! FiggyBee 09:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 Colonies' Constitutions

How many times have the Constitutions for each of the 13 Colonies been ammended? I have searched and I have found amendments for six colonies, But I am Missing the Rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.44.41 (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the revolutionary war, not all the British colonies had constitutions as we would understand it -- there were royal charters, governors were appointed by the British government or by a "proprietor", etc. AnonMoos 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

loan default

what happens when someone defaults personal loan and the person has no money in the countries like 1)USA 2)China 3)Japan 4)Singapore

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.122.90 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No money is one thing; does the person have saleable assets or a job? An answer of "yes" to either will mean, possibly, a different process. Then there is the matter of intent at the time of borrowing. This may also be a fraudulent transaction. Bielle 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they really have nothing then generally, they will be declared bankrupt, however a lot of personal loans include "your home may be at risk if you do not keep up with repayments" or suchlike in the terms and conditions so loan providers will seek to minimise their losses and may send a bailiff round to sieze the person's property, either with the intent of selling it or just with the intention of causing maximum destruction in some cases - or repossess their home if they 'own' it. GaryReggae 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planned city in Venezuela

I heard a report on NPR this morning about a planned city being built in a South American country (possibly Venezuela) near an existing city (possibly Caracas). It was intended to house about 100000 people. Its name sounded like "Caribbean". What is the name of this planned city? DHN 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the NPR web site? Usually by the time that you posted, the run-down is available and then you can find the relevant story. Donald Hosek 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Anderson

How is Laurie Anderson regarded by the average American mainstream music listener? How about in Europe? --S.dedalus 23:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it turns out there's a Hell, I am so screwed. Whatever else they do to me there, they can be playing that in the background. Oh, American answer. --Milkbreath 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, “here come the planes.” Seriously though is this the mainstream viewpoint? --S.dedalus 00:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow "mainstream" and "Laurie Anderson" just don't seem to go together. Of the 33 Americans who have heard of her, six are male and are confusing her with Loni Anderson. Their enthusiasm will know no bounds. The remaining 27 are the world's only fans of Mr. Cage and thus their judgement cannot be trusted. Bielle 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well that pretty much explains the cultural feeling I guess. :) Laurie Anderson at least made #2 on the 1981 UK Singles Charts though. (That’s something Cage never did!) I would think this would make her slightly more popular, at least among nostalgic hippie types. --S.dedalus 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.dedalus, in 1981 Laurie Anderson was definitely post-hippie. In the 1980s, her music especially appealed to art students and young intellectuals of the nameless generation that came between the full-fledged Woodstock baby boom and the grunge-weaned Generation X. (Oddly, according to our article Generation X it was precisely this group that first bore the name Generation X, before the name was applied to the grunge generation.) Anyway, I agree with Bielle that the average American mainstream music listener has never heard of her. Marco polo 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Wow. He's got me pegged. Post-Woodstock? Yup. Pre-Grunge? Yup. Namelessly intellectual? Yup. Art student? Well, three out of four ain't bad. Laurie Anderson on the iPod? Yup, and I was wondering what to listen to next. Big Science it is. Thanks for the tip. :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Don't know about "mainstream listeners" but I own several of her albums-- all of which were purchased in the 1980's. And while I wasn't an art student, I was fond of reading books by folks like William S. Burroughs and imagining myself an intellectual. So of course I had to get a copy of Mister Heartbreak, after which I became a fan. Looks like Marco Polo there is right. Oh, and as to S.dedalus' remark below, I don't think it is correct to refer to her music as a "neo-hippie" thing either. Crypticfirefly 04:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, S.dedalus, I was being silly. I am not an American and have no idea about current popular music. I have only heard Ms Anderson's name mentioned on public radio in Canada on a new music show that I associate with the likes of Cage. For all I know, Anderson may be top of the charts. That Mr. Polo agrees with me is just luck for me. Apologies again. Bielle 02:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Bielle, I found your answer quite funny! To Marco polo, okay, I’m defiantly a bit too young to remember hippies, but Ms. Anderson seemed like the type to appeal to the neo-hippie stereotype. Anyhow, that answers my question. Thanks! --S.dedalus 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]