Humanities desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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.

June 16[edit]

Zhou dynasty[edit]

What does the spaces in this map mean? Were there autonomous non-Sinitic tribes/people who lived within the borders of the Zhou dynasty? Why is the northern exclave, the area where the feudal state of Yan, separated from the larger southern body. --2602:30A:C0A8:AC10:A8DE:3CF:2618:B94 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second map of Western Zhou, which appears in the Chinese Wikipedia article and which I inserted below yours, shows an even more fragmented area of control. Written evidence from this period (1000 BCE) is very patchy, and historians differ on how to interpret it. The Chinese map reflects an interpretation that the emperor's writ was confined to a core area centered on the Huang He and Wei River and a number of scattered strongholds farther away. The map you've linked reflects an interpretation that control was more widespread, albeit with a gap in what is now southern Hebei. The truth is that we do not have a sure understanding of the geography of power in this period. Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One pattern you sometimes see in war zones is that the dominant power has control in the major cities, but outside those it's hard to say. When the dominant power moves through with their army, they are in control. As soon as the army leaves, they lose control. The story of Robin Hood somewhat describes that situation in medieval England, where the dominant power consistently controlled Nottingham, but the woods around it were another story. (I'm not saying that the story is true, only that people could relate to it, having been familiar with that pattern in real life.) We see similar situations even today in guerrilla wars. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand and Native Americans[edit]

In Ayn Rand's writings or speeches, did she ever have Native American characters, or discuss them? thanks,Rich (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly unlikely, given the specificity and odd juxtaposition of topics in your question, that you are not already quite aware of the answer. But, for the record, Rand was terribly ignorant of native cultures, did not realize the extent of cities, agriculture, and so forth in the Americas, and made the following cringeworthy statement:

[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.

during the Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974.

Unfortunately none of her lackeys had the knowledge or guts to challenge her on the point. But of course this amounts to an odd footnote, since she was not speaking as a trained anthropologist, but off the cuff on what was at the time a highly politicized topic (Wounded Knee incident).

Simply googling this would find you plenty of answers, including Objectivist chatrooms where she is taken to task. You might also want to ask what her opinion of romantic affairs and wheelchairs is if you really want a whopper.

μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work on this, but I find your answer a bit odd and rude. As a matter of fact, I didn't know whether or not Rand had said anything on that subject, but I thought the subject of Native Americans might mess up her theories with an uncomfortable tragedy. It would be bit more unlikely that I did know, wouldn't it, since otherwise why would I have asked? In fact, after just reading a satirical article called "10 things I learned from Ayn Rands books", or some such, which told me about Rand's opinion of greed as good, and suggestion that natural resources are inexhaustible, that pollution of this formerly much more beautiful country is harmless, the question became almost automatic for me, since like many patriotic Americans, I constantly think about and have feelings of guilt concerning Native Americans. I resent having to state all this personal information in order to defend myself from your accusation, but since I used my real name, if I didn't defend myself, someone might think you were correct about me asking a question I already knew. So anyway, now that I've finished defending myself, I'll read the rest of your answer.Rich (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally Rich, it's just Medeis and his weird way of answering questions around here. Most of us aren't like him (and are glad of it). --Viennese Waltz 08:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- (inserted) Ok, thanks. And to be fair, except for her saying i already knew the answer, her answer was good, and above the average on the reference desk.Rich (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And most of us aren't like you, and are very glad of it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I believe that Medeis takes the feminine gender. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that, but I choose not to go along with that particular fiction. --Viennese Waltz 19:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about Medeis that we don't? And how do you know it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with discussing Ayn Rand is that so many people have realized that she was two faced. Rhetorically convincing - she might have been- but she did not live her life that way. So anything Ayn Rand pontificated upon is now not now worth considering. She simply wrote for her audience that would believe her every utterances and she capitalized on this. A true philosopher searches for truth.--Aspro (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, you're basically not going to get a fair portrayal of Rand unless you read Rand. (Thanks for your comments above.) She never said anything like greed is good. Greed is simply an emotion, and it implies wanting more than you deserve. What she did say was that productiveness is a virtue, that your own rational self interest is the basis for your morality (and that means everyone's rational self interest is their own moral principle for them) that men should neither sacrifice others to themselves nor themselves to others, but live on the basis of (civil) tolerance and trade without violence. This applies to everyone, everyone is entitled to act in their rational self interest and to achieve their own happiness through their own effort so long as they don't initiate violence or violate the rights of others (fraud, theft, bodily harm, wars of conquest).

There's a lot to unpack. When Rand calls selfishness a virtue, she doesn't mean thieves are virtuous, since they are parasites who depend on others to provide for them. She doesn't use every word in the same sense as her opponents, but she does make her definitions clear. If you want an introduction to her ethics and politics read The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal in that order. These books have two drawbacks. They are fully authorized by her but they are collections of essays, not coherent treatises, and Rand had the very unfortunate habit of quoting her own novels to make a point (on her assumption that you had only been exposed to her through her novels in the first place.) If you are really interested, you can read her novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, first.

You say you did read a satirical website before posting here, and that is why it was obvious to me from your question that there was some familiarity with the topic. No one asks out of the blue whether a Russian-Jewish novelist who wrote a book about the life of an architect in NYC in the 30's and about the railroad industry in the 50's would include Native American characters. Rand did opine on many subjects about which she was ignorant, or knew little. She said homosexuality was a disease caused by bad ingrained "premises" from childhood. She said smoking was virtuous as it focused the mind and was not proven dangerous (she died of complications of lung cancer). She knew nothing of evolutionary biology, and she projected her own bad relationship with her mother onto the idea of motherhood. Her view of Indians was basically derived from their negative portrayal in Westerns. But if you ignore her personal historical ignorance, and apply her stated philosophical views, she would have said that natives who farmed had the right to the land they settled and farmed, and that the conquest and plunder of the Aztecs and Incans to take their gold and force them to convert to Christianity was evil. She would have viewed President Jackson as a war criminal, and our abrogation of treaties with various tribes as abominable acts.

Unfortunately there's not one small neutral book that I can recommend that portrays her philosophy systematically. Her acolyte Leonard Peikoff wrote an Introduction to Objectivism. It's okay, but rather dull, and basically only of value as an outline for those already somewhat familiar with her thought. Just about anything on her biographically is either hostile, sensationalist, or sycophantic. One last thing I would mention is that anyone who says Alan Greenspan since he became chair of the Fed (an institution she viewed as illegitimate and actively evil) represents her philosophy is most likely ignorant or possibly dishonest. They were associates and she approved of Greenspan as an economic advisor to Ford. She died in 1982.

Finally, our article Ayn Rand is actually quite good and neutral, although it's only the briefest of outlines.

μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk, where you can learn about fringe linguistic hypotheses, and what Ayn Rand and Jehovah's Witnesses think about everything, if you really wanna. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being what exactly? That we only answer questions from a snarky leftist British perspective here? I suppose I should at least be impressed you are keeping score. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you're basically not going to get a fair portrayal of X unless you read X . Interesting substitutes for X are Karl Marx, Marcus Aurelius, Winston Churchill, Julius Caesar, George Lincoln Rockwell, Mao Zedong. I'd say that the chances of a relative layman to get a good understanding of a subject are much higher with modern secondary sources that provide context into both the whole body of work and the circumstances they were written in. Primary sources are useful, of course, but they are inherently biased, and can be highly misleading if the reader lacks the necessary background. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources I am referring to in this case are Rand's own philosophical and political essays, or ones written with her express approval. There's no chance that they will somehow misrepresent her own published opinions. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the article (not website)I read and called satirical was "10(insane) things I learned about the world reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged" by Adam Lee, on Salon. Satirical isn't exactly the right description, since Lee extrapolated reasonably from what he said Rand's hero characters said and did. Medeis seems to thinks that Rand was fundamentally decent and that Rand's views would have been pretty ok,(maybe even leftist?) if she only had had(much)more correct information to apply her basically ok philosophy to. My take is that if Rand had been fundamentally decent, which is possible,(based on Lee, she sounds sycophantic to rich jerks, which is a character flaw)then, she would have completely changed or dropped her crazy philosophy if she had had that increased information. I don't have time to give every author a fair shake, so I won't read Rand(I did though read a couple chapters of The Fountainhead at age 13, it was hard going.). On the other hand,you can give Adam Lee a fair shake by reading what he said, it won't take much time and it isnt hard going.Rich (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My specific opinions of Rand's philosophical views are neither here nor there. What I have tried to make clear is that she is highly polarizing, and that critical accounts are usually ad hominem or attack straw men and minutiae, while sympathetic accounts are often either superficial or, worse, even sycophantic amd revisionist. One essential fact to understand is that after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Rand became the center of a movement that was pretty idea-based if you studied her at a distance (attending, say, a recorded lecture series in Los Angeles), but which had a cancerous cult-of-personality in her inner circle in New York City. She was married, yet conducted an affair with an admirer and future director of an institute that published her works who was 25 years her junior. He acted as her Grand Vizier and people were expelled from her inner circle for open disagreement on even minor topics, and made persona non grata to the point that family members would not speak to each other. During this time she had the interest of several noted academics, but she alienated them one-by-one.

Eventually the affair ended very badly, as one might expect, and after this point in 1968 people were purged from her classes and mailing lists and people attending her private lectures were required to sign agreements not to have contact with people who had in effect been excommunicated from the cult. There's a phenomenon I heard named once where people who agree 80% can get along, but people who only agree 99% become sworn enemies--this is how it went with her in later life. I happen to think this was largely a personality defect. Rand would probably be diagnosed nowadays as narcissistic and as having Asperger's Syndrome in my opinion. She seems to have been entirely incapable of distinguishing between her personal tastes and Truth As Such in all too many instances, and since her peers were all her juniors, often dependent on their position within the movement for their income, she received almost no honest and critical feedback.

All of this is very ugly and makes Rand easy to dismiss, but the core of her philosophy is rather coherent and at times quite innovative. It's where you get into things like Rand's dislike of beards, or Beethoven (he was "malevolent") and so forth that the entire thing goes off the rails. Barbara Branden's biography The Passion of Ayn Rand is the best account of her adult life available. (It was her husband with whom Rand had the affair.) That book is sympathetic, yet brutally honest. Otherwise, you are pretty much either going to get hostility or sycophancy (from the remainder of her inner circle) that clouds any objective judgment of the topic. That's why I say reading the primary sources is absolutely essential to understanding her philosophy as she conceived it.

I'll happily admit The Fountainhead drags until you get about 100 pages in, much of the beginning was cut at the publisher's insistence because of paper shortages during WWII. I'll take a quick look at Lee if you provide a direct link. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it highly unlikely".. "that you are not already quite aware" how to find it fast by googling.Rich (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lack of ability, but motivation and the question of reciprocity. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<a href=" http://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/10_insane_things_i_learned_about_the_world_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/ "></a>Rich (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and Macedonia in UK visas[edit]

Does anyone know why residents of Turkey and Macedonia have different UK visa fees from residents of other countries?[1] I'm trying to figure out what would distinguish these two particular countries. Lesgles (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related to the EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT (ECAA) WITH TURKEY? Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article European Union Association Agreement, and apparently Macedonia concluded a similar deal in 2004. Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems likely! Lesgles (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]