Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 27 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 29 >
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.


Contents


[edit] November 28

[edit] Film classification, specifically in reference to "The Black Cauldron"

I happened to catch a bit of Disney's biggest flop, The Black Cauldron on tv earlier and couldn't help but wonder why on earth the BBFC (I'm in England) rated it a U. It contains the reanimation of skeletons into an evil undead army, something that I found very creepy and probably would have given me nightmares as a child. I am now wondering whether there are different rating guidelines for animated films than for live action. I am most curious about UK guidelines but would also be interested in other countries' rules. I have read Wikipedia's articles on film censorship and haven't found any answers, especially in the confusing area of US film rating.

In case my user name doesn't show up: Hawkisgirl 00:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bit of information is available from CARA, the classification and rating administration. They explain the specific rating of "The Black Cauldron" as caused by "Rated PG for some scary images." dpotter 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Or even better the http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/SearchClassifiedWorks/?SearchView&Query=(%20[Title]%20contains%20%22BLACK%20CAULDRON%22)%20and%20((%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Film)%20OR%20(%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Video))&SearchMax=50 BBFC site (you will have to copy and paste the link wiki doesn't like it) and here is a guide to what U means. I expect the fact that it is animation influenced the rating. Perhaps they think five-year-olds are better able to separate fact and fiction then you :-> meltBanana 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The television rating system in the US (as an example) is explicitly more lenient toward "fantasy violence".--Pharos 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential term limits

If a U.S. president is reelected to a second term but, for whatever reason, does not take office, would he be able to stand for reelection in a future election? In other words, does the Constitution prevent someone from being reelected more than twice or does it prevent someone from serving more than two terms? Bhumiya (said/done) 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution... AnonMoos 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So he could not be elected a third time. This does not explicitly say he could not run for Vice President at a later time and succeed to the Presidency if the elected President died or resigned, or that he could not run for the U.S. House of Representatives as did ex-President[[John Quincy Adams], be selected Speaker of the House, and then succeed to the presidency, or become President from one of the other offices in the line of succession, such as President Pro Tem of the Senate or the Cabinet. There might be objections that such a move would violate the spirit of the law and the legislative intent, so action of Congress or the Supreme Court might impeded the taking of office. Edison 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. In the admittedly unlikely event a president-elect were to, say, fall violently ill and later recover, it seems like he would be justified in running again, particularly if he hadn't been sworn in. But the 22nd Amendment seems pretty cut and dry about it. Bhumiya (said/done) 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No. "Any person constitutionally ineligable for the office of president will also be ineligable for the office of vice-Pres." But a former Pres can still go to sit in Congress. The only way to flout the 2 term limit is to be appointed vice pres (after an incumbent resigns) and then succeed the resigning president who appointed you (as Ford did on Nixon, hold office for two years). Then you can win 2 more terms. Total ten yrs. martianlostinspace 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which Indian leader has been called 'The Twentieth Century Fox' by no less a person than Winston Churchill

a question in a trivia quiz section.. need the answer soon

Jawaharlal Nehru? -THB 04:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mahatma Gandhi? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a trick question. Recury 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This really is a tricky question. I thought I knew all of the main quotations in the Churchill canon, but this is completely unfamiliar. I would say, though, of the two figures identified so far it is more likley to be Nehru than Gandhi. Churchill had no high opinion of Gandhi, unlike Nehru, a fellow old Harrovian, to whom he once apologized for opposing Indian independence. There is a third possibility, though a bit of an outsider, I admit. This is Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, infinitely more fox-like than either Gandhi or Nehru, although if he would be considered 'Indian' in the context of your question must be subject to some doubt. On balance I would say Nehru; but I have to stress this is no more than an educated guess. Clio the Muse 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the responses.. the answer is C Rajagopalachari - the first (and only) Indian Governor General. Thanks

Wow, even with the answer, I still do not see it anywhere. There is no reference that I can find to this. I did find what I thought was the answer (Yes, I know it is wrong, but still) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._L._Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax was the Viceroy of India, and was dubbed the "Holy Fox" by Churchill.

Warning: Any search for FOX, Churchill, and Indian now gives you Professor Ward Churchill and his conflict with Fox News and O'Reilly. Make sure to include Winston in your search. :) CodeCarpenter 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the main food distribution company in Germany?

What is the german equivalent to the Sysco Corporation? I am researching how to open a restaurant in Berlin. So I need to know where to order my food supplies from. Can anyone help me?

Thanks!

Check Intergast or Servicebund. -THB 05:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science Fiction Story

I am looking for the title and author of a science fiction story that I cannot relocate. For the longest time, I was convinced that the story was by Philip K. Dick, but I have been unable to locate it among his works.

The story begins with an assassin fleeing the estate of his target, an extremely powerful and influential politician/officeholder who has been made unaging or nearly so by medical treatment. He is nearly captured many times during his flight, but robots and computers seem to be helping him. Specific scenes include a drink machine that dispenses items to trip a police officer, a police ID scanner that returns false information, and a firefighting robot that kidnaps the protagonist.

Does anyone know which story this might be?

Gnfnrf 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it myself, but we have numerous articles on about half of Philip K. Dick's stories (scroll down to the bottom and look at the template). You might try checking each story's individual article. Battle Ape 05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but perhaps I was unclear in my initial statement. I no longer believe that the story is by PKD, because my previous research has included checking most of his work. I mentioned him on the off chance that I missed the piece, and to establish the era and vague tone of the work I'm looking for. Even so, I did check all of the Wikipedia articles on PKD stories to no avail (though a few contained no plot details, so I can't rule them out.)Gnfnrf 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Could be a story by Larry Niven. He had a number of stories with autodocs/long life.

[edit] Copied DVDs for educational purposes

I recently read that a country had officially made copying DVDs etc legal IF the pirated copies were for educational purposes (I think it was perhaps the USA or the UK but I am unsure). My questions are:
1) Does anyone know which country (-ies) it was that has recently legalized pirated copies for purely educational purposes?,
2) If I were to copy a DVD (within this educational context, eg: copying my official DVD of the BBC 1995 Pride and Prejudice and sending it to a school or student studying this work on their curriculum) from another country outside of this legalization, is my activity then still illegal, or would I have to copy & dispatch within the country where it was legal?
Many thanks in advance for any information, Alex

It was the US. Ars Technica has a little more detail, though they focus more on some of the other exemptions. And there's always the root .gov site (note that these are just recommendations, they have no legal status yet - poke around on the site for the current ones). Regarding question 2, I haven't read the rules in too much detail myself, but I think they generally refer to intra-institutional use. VirogIt's notmy fault! 14:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That link doesn't really say that you can copy DVDs in any educational context; it has a very specific educational context in mind. Other copying would have to qualify under the fair use provision, I'd imagine, which is more lenient for educational purposes than for commercial or private ones, but still frowns upon copying the entire movie. --140.247.243.186 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is there a relationship with madness and the historical views of normality

I am doing a course on Abnormal Psychology, and have started to do this particular assignment, and I need a clue as to what it is asking for, as Im not sure if I understand the question, and dont want to write the assignment to find its not what they wanted at all - can anyone give me a clue?? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargus (talk • contribs) [posted 14:59, 28 November 2006]

Um, should that read 'Is there a relationship between madness and historical views of normality'? If so, I imagine that what's wanted is an investigation of the nature of madness: is it (e.g.) a form of illness, requiring treatment, or a form of tyrannical social control of the unusual or awkward, requiring resistance? See our article on Michel Foucault (especially the sections on Madness and Civilisation and The Birth of the Clinic). Roy Porter's A Social History of Madness might also be useful here. Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Dissidents in the Soviet Union were often confined in mental hospitals for holding views which would be considered perfectly normal in most other countries. Edison 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia, and drapetomania linked to that article is a rather unusual mental illness. meltBanana 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sam Clark's right. The question is definitely pointing towards the relationship between madness and historical views of it in history. Read Michel Foucault's work that Sam mentioned. Also, for a more radical continuation of Foucault's treatment of the subject, read Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's Anti-Œdipus and A Thousand Plateaus. By the way, I admire your course on Abnormal Psychology for its honesty. I wonder if they'll admit that their label "abnormality" is a tool of social control, capitalist social control? And that schizophrenics are the people who are most free? I wonder. Moonwalkerwiz 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, if you don't want to read three works of very difficult philosophy of madness to write the answer to one assignment, the answer is something like "in order to define someone as 'crazy', you have to have a definition of 'sane' (normal). definitions of what being 'sane' means have changed radically over the years, and so have definitions of 'crazy'." Taking that as your starting point, you should be able to hash out a good assignment assuming they've given you something to work with (a text, a textbook, lectures, etc.). Which is all they probably want of you anyway. --24.147.86.187 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Or, you can take your assignment and your studies seriously, research on these works, read secondary materials to understand them better, and really learn rather than going for unsubstantiated rhetoric. Moonwalkerwiz 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not bite those asking questions here. Edison 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not biting those asking questions, I'm usually biting those providing answers. Moonwalkerwiz 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rahab still alive, according to bible?

I was looking at the book of Joshua today, and I came across this line:

Joshua 6: 24-25
24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the LORD's house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho — and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

Do people who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible believe that Rahab is still alive?

Thanks! --George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.120.121 (talk • contribs)

I doubt it, since they do not believe that the book of Joshua was written today. Edison 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, a name in the Hebrew Bible is often used to designate a clan considered that person's descendants, so I would take the reference here to the survival of a clan of Rahab. Wareh 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite so. Rahab and Joshua were the beginning of a line of priests and prophets. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the sentence "and she lives among the Israelites to this day." a bit too literally. The term to this day only refers to the time the book of Joshua was written by the author. It does not mean "to this day the 28th November 2006". 202.168.50.40 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the questioner is aware that it may not be meant to be taken literally, but they are asking if people who claim that every word of the Bible must be true in a completely literal sense would interpret this bit literally. 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institutional Investors & Patents

Say I have a good idea, and I have patented it. How do I get in touch with Institutional Investors so they will provide with start up capital for my company? --Records 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a sure-fire way to do it. There are companies which will take your money and say that they will promote your invention (google "inventor agent" for a bunch of them), but personally I'd be suspicious of them (many of those sorts of companies—like self-publishing houses—feed on the vanity of their clients). If you google "venture capital" you'll get lots of resources which give suggestions or companies for finding funding; again I'd be wary. --24.147.86.187 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Start with a business plan and make sure you have a good lawyer as ideas are quite often stolen. -THB 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 24.147.86.187 & THB. --Records 05:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] death

what does the term mortal put on immortality means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.169.11 (talk • contribs)

Hi there. I'm sorry, but I can't really make sense of your question. Perhaps you might like to rephrase it? I assume you are not simply asking what the difference is between the two terms? Clio the Muse 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to the First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians: "Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?", in which the idea is that human being will have everlasting life after they are resurrected. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
And in slightly more modern language: "then (when the dead rise again) this mortal body must be turned into an immortal body".  --LambiamTalk 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Paul is speaking of the Resurrection of the dead. His point seems to be that we will change from being physical and mortal beings to having a spiritual and deathless existence. (So it's a bit surprising, from the customary point of view, that he speaks of this figuratively as putting on a new garment, rather than as stripping away the transient to leave behind the truly permanent.) The passage has been the subject of considerable exegesis by the Church Fathers. Wareh 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Nationality Laws

Hey I have a question regarding the Citzenship of those In the Dutch Antilles, Are the Citizens of St. Maarten, Aruba, Curacao, and Bonaire considered Dutch Citizens? Do they pay taxes to the cental govenment of the Netherlands, or rather just to the Antillian (?) Government? And would they travel on Dutch Passports? Tahnk you! --P

Check out Kingdom of the Netherlands. It should answer most of your questions. Natgoo 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] complaint

hi. im jesse king. i have one hell of a complaint about this website. somebody, believe me, put that jimi hendrix article the way it was like a month ago. not me. then it changes a couple days ago and when i change it back the way it was, i get blamed for it. thats one thing. u may boot me whatever but im warning you wikipedia. if u block me for something i didnt do, im going to erase every article, siging on as different users. making them up. just raise hell!!! but if you do not block me, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk31213 (talk • contribs)

Hi Jesse. You are in completely the wrong place to make your complaint - this is the humanities reference desk. But I'll make an attempt to explain what's going on. You haven't been blocked, and nobody has threatened to block you, so far as I can see. This diff shows, however, that you did mess up the Jimi Hendrix article pretty badly - whether or not you meant to do this, after your edit, it was just a couple of sections (about supporting the Monkeys and adapting a Howlin' Wolf track) repeated over and over. User:HK51 quite rightly reverted your changes, and left a quite polite note about it on your talk page. Finally: threatening to spit out your dummy and mess everything up if you don't get your way is not going to endear you to anyone. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition, a great deal of the additions to the Hendrix article seem to be plagiarized word-for-word from elsewhere online. --205.211.141.19 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Won't endear him to anyone? Hell, I admire his fighting spirit! 64.59.144.21 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not fighting; that's just random lashing out in puerile anger. Threatening violence towards an entire community of people for the perceived sins of one person is not the way to go. Jimi Hendrix would never have approved of such behaviour. JackofOz 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's threatening to lash out if his concerns are not dealt with in a satisfactory manner.
Of course I shouldn't expect anyone on Wikipedia, a haven for cowards and effete intellectuals, to understand this sort of thing. 64.59.144.21 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We understand it alright, we just think it's unacceptable behaviour. Wikipedia works by consensus and discussion and debate and compromise, not by one person inflicting carnage if their personal ego-based desires are not accommodated. If Jesse has concerns about this or any other article, he is always welcome to discuss them and seek a solution through reasonable means that don't involve force. (If you have such a low opinion of Wikipedians, you're free to disassociate yourself from this forum at any time.) Cheers JackofOz 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hip-hop dancing

Does anybody know why crotch-grabbing is an integral move in hip-hop dancing? Not only do I find it offensive, but I just can't fathom what kind of message it is supposed to send. Since this type of dancing is permeating our mainstream culture these days, I'd like to have some understanding of it even though I don't like it. Thanks for your help -- Jazzkitty--Jazzkitty 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this crotch grabbing is specific to hip-hop dancing, I reckon it was Michael Jackson that popularised it. Maybe dancing has some clues? As far as I understand it, dancing has a long tradition of representing freedom, human nature, sensuality, provocation, rebellion and many other metaphysical concepts. Capoeira and Foot Loose may begin to give some insight into what I mean. Crotch grabbing would just be another manifestation of raw emotion or interpretation, not necessarily meant or interpreted the same by different people. Vespine 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I still prefer crotch grabbing than the Macarena. Moonwalkerwiz 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so here I am dancing all free and sensual and everything -- and I'm so excited I have to grab my crotch?? Or is it -- now that I don't wear underwear any more all my stuff is flying around? Or, all this activity makes me have to go to the men's room? Or my personal favorite, I am such a gifted athlete that I don't have to have any class, grace, taste, or manners? If there are any break dancersout there, would you please enlighten me?? Thanks --Jazzkitty 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a break dancer, but I've done the crotch grabbing dance step quite a few times in my life. I think the problem here is your interpretation of the dance. Certainly, I do not doubt that there is a historical background for the dance, and it carries with it symbols of power relations between categories of people (class, gender, etc.) However, it still boils down to your interpretation in the end. What may seem offensive to you, could be a symbol of grace or style to another person. What you consider scandalously cheap maybe even considered by some dancers as a form of delicate artistic self expression. I think that ballet can be more erotic and sensual than crotch grabbing, for example, even though ballerinas don't have their stuff "flying around," as you say. There is one thing that I am sure of, though, crotch grabbing itself cannot bring down an entire category of people. Even if all males learn and do crotch grabbing, women will not get lower salaries, they will not lose their right to vote, rich people will not lose their power, no one will be deprived of their human rights. Yeah, and Michael Jackson will not have his career back. Moonwalkerwiz 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and the explanation. I guess I just like my sensuality to be a little more subtle, as in your example of ballet. In matters of style our society is getting crasser every day, e.g. baggy jeans with holes in them, 20 o'clock shadow beards, matted hairstyles, etc. What's next, nosepicking in public? True, all these things won't bring down civilization as we know it, but I definitely think they degrade the quality of our lives. But my original reason for asking about crotch-grabbing was really to find out what it's supposed to represent -- I just don't get what the message is. Oh, I just thought of another possibility -- mine is bigger than yours? Thanks!Jazzkitty 16:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the first ref I can remember to it, is when performed by the character Leroy Johnson first appeared in either Fame the movie, or the TV series. I think that predates Michael Jackson, but could be wrong. and if ever there was a redlink waiting to be written, Leroy is it! --Dweller 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, honestly, I agree with you that society is "getting crasser every day." Democracy is good, in the sense that in it, all people have the right to access education, a better quality of life, etc. But this is also at the same time Democracy's weakness. When all aspects of life are made accessible to all, everyone acquires the right to put their stamp on everything, especially culture. Whereas culture before (or at least the view of it) is restricted to high culture, aristocratic culture, today, culture is defined as "a way of life," meaning, as long as it is a mode of living, it can be defined as culture. And what result do you get? Well, the most powerful institutions in society dominate over the rest and start to put their mark on culture. In this globalized, cyber age, media rules the world. And whoever gets hold of the power of media gets to propagate himself. And from this, you can probably predict the rest of the process. MTV takes hold of people's minds, minds produce material for MTV, and the vicious cyle continues. More "subtle," trained, mastered forms of artistic expression are pushed into the background, as overly stimulating (one can even say "nervous") acts become the people's way of life. Finally, every girl becomes Britney Spears, every man a Tom Cruise, and everyone dances crotch grabbing. It is our way of life. Moonwalkerwiz 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that about sums it up. Thanks for the great insights, Moonwalkerwiz. Jazzkitty Jazzkitty 05:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online tools for currency conversion in different times of history

Are there online tools for currency conversion in different times of history? For example: if I wanted to know how much $12,000 CAD from 1970 are worth in 2006. I would prefer an online calculator, but other tools like charts would be also welcome, of course. Thank you. --Liberlogos 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Try Measuring Worth ($) or (£). You'll have to convert your CAD to $ or £ first, at a 1970 exchange rate. 12,000 USD would be between 60,000 and 143,000 USD in 2005. - Nunh-huh 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You can do direct conversions on this site, although it doesn't go as far back as 1970. --Richardrj talk email 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Americans treated differant people before 1850

Hello. i am debating my point on as if I were in 1850 right now. I am defending that America should free all slaves making the US abolish slavery completely. my question is how did Americans treat people such as spaniards, indians, and Chinese prior to 1850. The ymay have had complications but where they considered humans by the American definition. African American were not so I am trying to see if they treated others the same way. Where only "whites" superior and powerful? Did the other races not count as peopleto them at the time?

thank you so much for just taking the time to read this

This is a tough question. I scoured google with a bunch of different terms and didn't come up with anything definitive. But finally, I found a site that might be of use to you (you might want to contact them via email): The History Cooperative. Good luck! Maybe someone else will do better with searches. Anchoress 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The general answer is not good, either before or after 1850. The main pages you need to look at are Racism in the United States, and Native Americans in the United States. You might also glance over the Anti-Coolie Act of 1862 and, though much later, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. There are other useful links on these pages. Clio the Muse 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the general answer is that any place that whites were involved with non-whites they generally treated them as at least second-class citizens, if not slaves or savages. IMO you would do best to argue that American democracy is predicated (in theory) on the idea of individual liberty for all people, and that there was no reason to consider Africans to not be people. Of course in 1850 someone would say, "but science says they aren't the same species as us," which some scientists would agree to and some wouldn't (a nice little "global warming"-like debate of the late 19th century). But I doubt anyone in your class will know that. --24.147.86.187 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Because the question brings up slavery and apparently assumes slave=black, I feel it is important to note that there were many slaves who were not from Africa. Where I live (South Carolina coast), rice plantations were popular. Chinese slaves were used in the fields to plant and sow the rice. Blacks were used to process it and maintain the household. Endentured servants (commonly Irish) were reserved for personal servants and, all in all, were basically slaves, trading a trip to America for a lifetime of service. --Kainaw (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heck, the Irish and all Catholics were hated, feared and mistrusted, it wasn't just people of different skin hue. Read Know-Nothing. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

_____the thing i really want to see is if they were considered people or not. if i can get the opposing team to admit they are people then i have many arguments. I have no evidence that i have found as to whether they were "people" to the American whites. The opposing team says that people and in general humans are "white". They have no evidence to say that this is how people felt in 1850. They said anyone not white is inferior and were not people to them. It this what was really thought back then? is there proof?

Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates - specifically Lincoln's statements about blacks in the first one: "A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals." and later in the same speech "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." Lincoln is often regarded as "the man who freed the slaves" (which is not very accurate). So, if he made those statements, you can imagine what the average person thought. --Kainaw (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course the groups mentioned were considered to be "people," but as in any case of xenophobia, they were - in many quarters - considered to be inferior and thus not to be accorded full rights. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants considered all other groups, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, Eastern and Southern Europeans, Catholics, Jews, Native Americans, inferior, and were liable to discriminate against them.
The original questioner might do well to read the writings of William Lloyd Garrison for help in formulating debating points. B00P 19:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am equally interested in this topic. Before the whites subjected the world to slavery and now the whites want freedom to rule. They impose freedom in Iraq. What exactly do the whites want? 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)~~

  • ha. Thats a good question. i think the whites (although this generization includes me) just didnt realize that what they were doing was wrong. They might just have thought that their reasons for doing what they did COULD be justified ..not that they were morally correct but possibly justifiable with their logic. i'm sorry if this offends but i think now with Iraq we want to be the superhero. We want to be able to tell someone else what to do now that all people in the united states are free and equal. oh by the way....i am the original questioner... and thank you all so much. you were so much help. i ended up winning that debate with your help.
Whites subjected the world to slavery? I guess we need to complete rewrite slavery, especially sentences like "Slavery predates writing and evidence for it can be found in almost all cultures and continents." --Kainaw (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

I am doing a research project on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. In order to do this correctly, I have been asked to state the aftermath of the fire, meaning the laws that were changed because of it. After searching New York Times files, Wikipedia, and various internet souces, I have been unable to come up with any of this information (besides that there were, in fact, laws changed)This is actually very frustrating! If anyone has any information on the laws changed or places to find out what laws were changed, I would REALLY appreciate if you could tell me!

Thank you! 23:28, 28 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.244.24 (talk • contribs)

I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic, but have you tried going to the bricks-and-mortar library anddft g reading some books on the fire? I'm sure they will go into more detail than what you can find on the Internet. -- Mwalcoff 23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
See Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire which includes links to online cites with more info. Your local library might have or be able to obtain through interlibrary loan the books listed at the end of the article. The article mentions that there were revisions to safety laws. Edison 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The New York Times, if you can access it online, will provide on the one hand a view of the lack of laws around the time of the fire, as in "FACTORY FIRETRAPS FOUND BY HUNDREDS; Chief Kenlon Has a List of "Several Hundred" Where Thousands of Lives Are in Peril."New York Times New York, N.Y.: Oct 14, 1911. pg. 22, where the chief said he had fire safety violations dating back 7 years but no way to force building owners to fix them. Starting from the present and going back, I expect you can find retrospective articles stating what improvements were made.Edison 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" AS A GUARD AGAINST FIRES.; Full Power Given to the Commissioner by Passing of Hoey Bill." New York Times New York, N.Y.: May 31, 1911. pg. 8. Says that the bill gave the fire commissioner enforcement powers: he could order a building vacated and condemned if fire safety violations were not corrected. Note; the building was then referred to seomtimes as the "Triangle Waist Company." Edison 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are coming at the problem from the wrong direction. That is, you are expecting articles on the fire to lead you to specific changes in the fire code. Instead, I would look at changes to the fire code which happened in the years following the fire. Don't expect any change to say "this change was made as a result of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire", as that would require an admission that old laws caused all those deaths; an admission no politicians would be willing to make. Also note that it won't be obvious as to which changes took place as a result of the fire. It's not really a clear-cut case, either. Some people who voted for a change likely would have done so in any event, while others required a sufficiently high death toll to get them to act (tombstone mentality). Unless each voter left comments as to the motivation for their vote, we will never know if each law would have passed without the fire. However, you can say "X changes to the fire code took place in the decade before the fire, and Y changes took place in the following decade", and thus allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. StuRat 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article I cited from the NY Times and others said the laws were specifically a reaction to the Traingle Waist Company fire. Other article said that the political powers such as Tammany Hall had favored the business and real estate interests before the fire, but changeed the laws and provided enforcement after the fire, because the immigrant workers were so outraged at the fire and the suspicious acquittal of the building owners in the manslaughter trial that they feared losing political power to reformers. Labor laws were changed to favor unions for the same reason. There is no need to make inferences based merely on the time course of changes if the contemporary news articles and speeches by politicians attribute causality to the Triangle fire. Edison 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)