Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< August 20 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 22 >
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] August 21

[edit] Rhapsody in blue clarinet solo

Does anyone know who the clarinet soloist in this video is? Also, why does the video say Derek Bailey at the beginning? According to the article he played guitar- was he playing something in this recording? 68.231.151.161 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, never mind on the second question, I can see that režie is Czech for the director of the movie. 68.231.151.161 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Stanley Drucker is the clarinetist. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Empire question

From all the colonies of the British Empire, did the British Raj/British Indian empire have a special position as causing particular pride or wealth in comparison to the others or not? Thanks. --AlexSuricata 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was referred to as the 'jewel in the crown' of the British Empire, probably due to both its size and its wealth, largely from things like spices. Cyta 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
India accounted for a majority of the population of the empire, and it was also the possession over which the British monarch styled herself 'Empress' or himself 'Emperor'. Marco polo 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

India was indeed The Jewel in the Crown, the very heart of the second British Empire. A lot of additional territory, including Egypt and Aden, was acquired specifically to secure the passage to India. Under the Royal Titles Act Queen Victoria became Empress of India in 1877. When India and Pakistan became independent in 1947 the Empire lost some 80% of its population. What remained might be said to have been merely a husk. Clio the Muse 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A tiny correction, Clio - it was the Royal Titles Act 1876, the inspiration of Benjamin Disraeli. This reminds me of his famous (and true) statement Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent! Xn4 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Xn4, the Act does indeed date to 1876, though the title, so far as I am aware, was not adopted until 1877. My apologies for any ambiguity. Clio the Muse 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The question of particular wealth in comparison to the others is fraught with controversy, as it impinges on the theory of 'colonial drain' which has been attacked by defenders of the Empire since Dadabhai Naoroji raised it in the Commons in the late nineteenth century. Modern estimates of the drain of resources from India to the United Kingdom tend to get bogged down in statistical nit-picking; Holden Furber calculations were that in the ten years following 1783 alone, when British rule had not yet reached all of India, 1.8 million pounds were transferred from India to England, without compensatory capital investment. (1.8 million in 1780 is 180 million today.) After 1857, the transfer was formalised as "Home charges", or India's contribution to the British exchequer, and were just under fifty million pounds a year on average according to recent calculations; at least twenty million pounds according to contemporary calculations. (Fifty million pounds in 1880 is three and a half billion pounds today. Twenty is 1.4 billion pounds today.) That's not a small amount.
An under-accounted contribution was that of the Indian Army, which was paid for by India but used by Whitehall as a free source of infantry in Africa and the Middle East, greatly reducing the cost of imperial adventures.
Basically, the British Empire without India wouldn't (and didn't) pay. Hornplease 01:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dock leaves

Why are dock leaves always found where nettles are growing? - Kittybrewster (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Out nettle, In dock: Dock shall ha' A new smock; Nettle shan't Ha' narrun.

See Teleology, though you might want to ask on the science desk and see what they have to say.—eric 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thats a good question. I can find no literature that explains why. Though both are found widely in the northern hemisphere and can survive in many type of soil. It may simply be that plenty of different plants are found in close proximity, but because we closely associate dock with nettles, that we notice their proximity and comment on it. Rockpocket 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Presumably they are both plants of similar temperament and will therefore be found in similar climatic zones. Plasticup T/C 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magna Carta

How has this been interpreted since 1215 and why has it become such a cornerstone in notions of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon world?80.177.38.137 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From memory, MC has more clauses that deal with Jews than clauses that deal with anyone's freedom, liberties etc. It was ignored straight after it was issued. And it did not even aspire to do anything for the rights of anyone other than Barons. But it was a useful perennial club to hit the monarch with. --Dweller 06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Summer School question moved to seperate section

I think you should consult our article on Magna Carta. It is important not because of its impact immediately but because it is one of the first steps on a long road to freedom. In it John recognised the power of the law over the King, some rights for Barons (rights that would be gradually extended down the social heirarchy over time) and important judicial rights such as habeas corpus made their first written appearance here. The 1215 Magna Carta was reissued in many forms, it was simply the first one. There were, Dweller, only two clauses dealing with Jews/money lenders, out of 60 something, which didn't reappear in later editions. There's an interesting argument on the talk page, with one contributor wanting to basically rewrite the article to say Magna Carta caused Nazism (I exagerate perhaps slightly I didn't read it all in detail). However it is quite right that this important step on the gradual march towards common law and even democracy is recognised for what it lead to, as much as what it was at the time. Cyta 08:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's strip away the verbiage and get to the heart of Magna Carta, the one core principle that might be said to have survived all others, not for a particular few but for everyone. It is this;

No free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed or outlawed or exiled or in any other way ruined, not will we go or send against him except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

This is now at the centre of our common law; but it is more than that. It sets limits to royal power, and is thus the first clear challenge to absolutism, a challenge renewed time and again. Yes, the Charter was overturned almost immediately, but as a set of ideas it did not go away, and was reissued in 1217 and again in a more definitive form by Henry III in 1225. Even the Battle of Evesham, and the defeat of the baronial rebellion, did not shift Magna Carta from its central position in the political life of England. During the reign of Edward I it was used to focus opposition to the king's financial exactions. Edward was thus obliged to acknowledge that he was bound by its provisions. When Parliament began to take shape as a permanent part of the English political landscape it took it upon itself the task of seeking reconfirmation and clarification of the document. Often sessions would begin with a public reading and a reaffirmation of the Charter.

So, how did this work in practice? It meant that all statues conflicting with this political keystone were declared invalid. In 1369, during the reign of Edward III it was declared that "If any Statute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for none." The provisions of the Charter were also extended during this reign in the so-called 'Six Statutes', which served to define law as 'due process.' The third of these extended the protection offered by Magna Carta by changing the wording 'no free man' to 'no man'.

Although it slipped into the background to some degree during the period of Tudor absolutism, it became a central platform in the seventeenth century opposition to the rule of the Stuarts. And here we enter the realm of the 'ancient constitution', as defined by Sir Edward Coke, amongst others, later to find its fullest expression in the Declaration of Rights after the Glorious Revolution. It makes no matter here that we are dealing with what was effectively evolving political mythology, a useful adjutant to the Whig interpretation of history, King John's Charter had ramifications well beyond its limited feudal origins. In one of history's many ironies it was the Tories in the eighteenth century who rallied behind Magna Carta in their defiance of the Whig oligarchy, forcing Sir Robert Walpole to stress the superiority of the post-1688 constitution.

But for many, in both England and the American colonies, Magna Carta was reinterpreted as a challenge to narrow parliamentary absolutism. One radical, Arthur Beardmore, arrested for seditious libel in 1762, arranged to be apprehended while teaching Magna Carta to his young son, becoming a hero in the process, the subject of a popular print. John Wilkes, likewise imprisoned for seditious libel, also invoked Magna Carta, "that glorious inheritance, that distinguishing characteristic of the Englishman."

While it is true that the Charter, and the mythology of the 'ancient constitution', became less and less relevant during the great age of Victorian reform, it acquired a fresh significance across the Atlantic. The 1225 version of the Charter was published in Philidelphia in 1687, part of a tract written by William Penn. After the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, lawyers turned to Magna Carta to justify Colonial defiance of George III, the new King John. The First Continental Congress declared that the colonists were doing "as Englishmen their anscestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties." In 1775 Massachusetts adopted as its state seal an image of a patriot holding a sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the other; and the Founding Fathers went on to place the document above statute law in the Constitution. Due process was also to be incorporated in the Bill of Rights of 1791.

So, you see, Magna Carta has a historical relevance well beyond defining the selfish rights of thirteenth century barons.

Magna Carta and Anti-Semitism

I hope nobody minds, and I realise that it is slightly off topic, but I simply have to address this matter, flagged up by both Dweller and Cyta. I have now read the 'debate' you refer to Cyta, and I can confirm that it is both hysterical and ludicrous. What is even worse, for the image of Wikipedia itself, is that the Magna Carta page has been added to Category:Antisemitism. Yes, it has, and for what? Why, for this:

If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

Substitute the word 'bankers' then you more or less have the same reading. If Magna Carta is to be seen as 'Anti-Semitic' then one might as well add the whole of Medieval and early modern literature, theology and philosophy to the same category; anything from Chaucer to Shakespeare. I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but to interpret Magna Carta in this light is grossly inappropriate. More seriously, it gives a spurious legitimacy to some very unpleasant and entirely modern thinking. If you really want a proper illustration of anti-Semitism what about this;

What is the worldly cult of the Jew? 'Huckstering'. What is his worldly God? 'Money'

Who is the author? Why, the same man who described Ferdinand Lasalle as a 'Nigger Jew', and said that the Jews of Poland 'breed like lice.' He is Karl Marx. You will find the above quote and others in the same vein in On the Jewish Question Now, would anyone care to add his name to the Catagory:Antisemitism? OK, OK; I'm being disingenuous and polemical, though I feel sure some of you will understand my point. Clio the Muse 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Incidentally, that cat was added recenttly. You've inspired me to start a fight that I will almost certainly lose: [1]. Hornplease 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I admire your courage, Hornplease. Unfortunately there are too many POV warriors around here, corrupting and distorting Wikipedia pages. The very best of luck. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Clio the Muse 02:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes good luck, I hadn't realised that category was there, the debate I saw I remembered from a while back and it seemed to have been resolved reasonably in the article. After all Magna Carta is hardly in the same league as On the Jews and their Lies which also came up recently on the reference desk. It is simply in my eyes a law on money lending, naming the only people allowed to work as money lenders. I am surprised by Marx's comments, he was after all Jewish. Must be one of those Self-hating Jews. After all, we all know the link between Communism and Judaism, see Mein Kampf. Now that's what I call anti-semitism. Cyta 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's daft to put it in the anti-semitic cat and I'm daft too, to have been wrong about the number of clauses. Perhaps I'm thinking of the Ordinances. --Dweller 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summer School

Just out of curiousity, do they have Summer school in England? 38.112.225.84 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, thought the Open University has Sumer Schools for its undergraduates. DuncanHill 11:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well we do have summer schools, but they are not the same thing as the (US biased) Wikipedia article. They are sponsored by youth groups, churches, etc rather than the education authorities, and provide training in a specific topic of interest, e.g. music or religion.--Shantavira|feed me 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
They may also be run by schools themselves and by certain youth/eduction organisations (NAGTY springs to mind). Martinp23 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no equivalent remedial "summer school" though? As in for kids who failed to pass or meet requirements during the regular term, as is the case in the U.S.? 38.112.225.84 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not as far as I know - and in Britain one doesn't Pass or Fail a year. DuncanHill 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate a little? Here in the states you don't receive a grade per se for the year either, but certainly there must be some criteria by which students are deemed to have successfully completed a grade level and are therefore eligible to move on to the next one, or not, as the case may be. Unless you simply mean you call it something different, so in Britain you wotwottallyho or googlygob a year, or whatever. 24.22.163.169 14:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
One simply moves up into the next year, we dont have the system of grades that you do in the USA. Education in the United Kingdom (I'm hoping that will come up blue!) may explain more. DuncanHill 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
To make it totally clear, even if you are inattentive, not very bright and a serial truant who fails all and every test/exam that may be set, it's extremely unusual in the UK for you to drop out of your age cohort into the one below. --Dweller 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on Grades in the United Kingdom, but it only covers exam scores. In the U.S., you have to pass a certain number of classes in certain subject areas to graduate from high school. Passing means having an average score of at least 60 out of 100 on a mix of final exams, mid term quizzes, homework assignments, participation, etc. No one wants to fall too far behind and not be able to graduate at 18. So if you fail, say, English class in 10th grade, you may want to take English at summer school so you can get the course credit before entering 11th grade. Now what happens in Britain if a student completely bombs a year -- doesn't do his assignments, gets low scores on tests, etc.? -- Mwalcoff 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He'll still move up to the next year - but will probably be placed in lower sets. DuncanHill 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but what if he's already in the lowest set? I mean, what do they do with someone who just completely makes no effort to succeed in school? -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also mention that in Britain one does not graduate from school - only from University. Secondary education in the United Kingdom should explain more (I'm hoping that will be blue!) DuncanHill 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Whilst a student teacher at a college in Dundee (Scotland), a girl in my 1st year (the fair Amanda, whose hair was sooo blonde, like the sun, shinning like....enough) decided to change courses (to english/philosopy) and attend another Uni in Dundee, she was accepted but she had to attend a summer school, run by her new Uni, which enabled her to join her new course at the begining of the second year - have never heard of this happening to anyone else so i am assuming that it is quite rare, but there were quite a few people at the summer school (for 'quite a few people' read 'i don't know how many') Perry-mankster 09:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If someone makes no effort to succeed, or indeed is just not capable of attaining high levels in the usual subjects, they will usually end up in the bottom sets for subjects that are set. The teachers may come up with alternative plans for them, they might end up being excluded from school some days, they might spend some time in isolation, their parents may be prosecuted if they continually truant, the teachers might try to find a way for them to learn something or at least have the best chance (possibly helping find an apprenticeship, taking some more vocational subjects, etc). But ultimately, retaking a year during compulsory education (before you turn 16) is very rare. Skittle 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novel name

I'm trying to think of the name of this novel I read a few years back in college. It was set mainly in Hawaii, the class I read it in was all ethnic or mixed race authors, I think the main characters were a young boy and his older sister, possibly of Japanese descent. There was something about cats taking away people's pain also, but it wasn't a huge part of the story/plot. Having no luck finding it, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 38.112.225.84 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found it in Literature in Hawaii. Gotta love Wikipedia. Blu's Hanging by Lois-Ann Yamanaka.

[edit] A book named "THE GENIE"

I read a horror novel titled "The Genie" some years ago. It is the story of some sexual relationship between a genie and a human female. Can somebody say who the author is? I have forgotten the author's name. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.20.40 (talk)

Do you remember any more details? A character name, a location, any proper noun? Plasticup T/C 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is the financial regulatory agency? waht is also their function?

what is the financial regulatory agency in Nigeria? what is also their function? what are the possible recommendation for their shortcomings? Akinmusi 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Akinmusi

[edit] Administrative divisions of Bangladesh

I am confused about Bangladesh's number of sub-district: one article "Districts of Bangladesh" says that it has 493 sub-districts(upazila) and another article "Table of administrative country subdivisions by country" says it has 474. Which one is correct about the number of sub-districts of Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.202 (talk)

It seems that upazilas are periodically divided or merged in administrative reorganizations, so that the total number changes. According to this Bangladesh government document, there were 481 upazilas as of 31 December 2006. Marco polo 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm looking for a discussion of the torturer as victim.

I read an essay (I believe it was a blog post) (possibly by Arthur Silber, though I've been unable to locate it on either of his sites (powerofnarrative or thesacredmoment)) which detailed the psychological process by which torturers or murderers who did terrible things in the service of a totalitarian regime transfer the idea of victimhood from their victims onto themselves--that because they had to endure the pain of doing these things, they were really the victims. I'm trying to tie this into a discussion of Ender's Game, but I can't for the life of me find the essay. Does this ring a bell with anyone? grendel|khan 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it pretty unlikely that anyone would argue that the torturers were "really" the victims (that is, removing the victim status from those tortured), but I have heard arguments that they are often also victims in their own way. There is some discussion of this in Grossman's, On Killing, I believe. --24.147.86.187 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, no, the bit I was looking for was on how the torturers tell themselves a story about how they're the real victims in order to deal with the guilt of what they've done. grendel|khan 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have what you're looking for, but you might be interested in John Conroy's book Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, which tells a different story. The torturers he examines are not particularly bothered by what they're doing, since they've fit it into a larger framework of a greater good. --Sean 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've certainly heard and read about this kind of rationalization before. I don't think I found your essay, but maybe this is of interest or can help you locate it:
A couple of months ago, the Washington Post ran an article by Laura Blumenfeld titled The Tortured Lives of Interrogators. It's up to the readers to characterize the regime employing the interrogator.
In her paper The Psychology of Torture South African psychologist Shirley Spitz mentioned that "the torturer probably still experiences some mental stress through tormenting victims and through the subtle realisation that he too is being exploited by the system" and refers to Bendfeldt-Zachrisson, F., "State (Political) Torture: Some General, Psychological, and Particular Aspects", International Journal of Health Services, Vol.15(2), pp.339-349. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have what you were looking for either, but a related character in fiction is the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, who feels he is sacrificing his own happiness, even his soul, for the benefit of the great masses by keeping them ignorant and thus happy.--Rallette 07:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
...unless what you were looking for was this, from Slavoj Zizek:
The problem for those in power is how to get people do the dirty work without turning them into monsters. This was Heinrich Himmler's dilemma. When confronted with the task of killing the Jews of Europe, the SS chief adopted the attitude of "somebody has to do the dirty job". In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the philosopher describes how Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed. Most were well aware that they were doing things that brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. The way out of this predicament was that, instead of saying "What horrible things I did to people!" they would say "What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!" In this way, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: the temptation to be resisted was pity and sympathy in the presence of human suffering, the temptation not to murder, torture and humiliate.
Which Silber quotes here.--Rallette 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you was the traditional cry of those who would beat small children. DuncanHill 09:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! grendel|khan 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prague c. 1911

What kinds of events were happening in and around Prague in the decade before the Great War? Was there any internal feuding, battles with neighbors, invading interests? Anything I can find kind of tapers off towards the end of the 19th century and doesn't pick back up until the assassination of Franz Ferdinanad.

Thanks in advance

Beekone 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can't provide specific events, I can provide a general context. Prague was the centre of Czech nationalism within the Czech-speaking lands of the empire. For several decades there had been a shift in power in Prague from the minority German-speaking bourgeoisie to a bourgeoisie that spoke Czech like the majority of Bohemians. During the empire's last decade, this shift in relative power was largely complete. Meanwhile, a diversity of parties had emerged among the Czech population, including class-based parties such as the Social Democratic Party. Bohemia was one of the most economically advanced parts of the empire, Prague was relatively prosperous, and buildings from this period include several fine examples of the art nouveau style. Marco polo 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very useful. Any idea as to the degree of struggle between Bohemia and Germany? I can't imagine they just handed Prague over without some fighting?

You realise that has nothing to do with Germany? Bohemia was part of the Austrian part of Austro-Hungary.--Tresckow 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that. Is there helpful info to follow or just the zinger? Beekone 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When the Austro-Hungarian Empire was broken up after World War I (as a result of the Treaty of Saint-Germain concluded at the Paris Peace Conference), Czechoslovakia (which incorporated Bohemia and regions to the east), gained independence—with Prague as its capital—in part due to the efforts of Tomáš Masaryk, whose biography offers insights into this time and place. During World War I, Bohemia did not openly rebel, but nationalists such as Masaryk faced a choice between exile and possible imprisonment. Also, many Czechs resisted fighting in the imperial army against their Slavic brethren, the Russians and Serbs. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not let go of Bohemia without fighting. It was forced to let go after it lost the war. Marco polo 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the foot work, Marco. Beekone 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are still pursuing this, I would point out that many Czechs ultimately did take up arms against Austria-Hungary in the Czechoslovak Legions. Marco polo 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks again. This is all still slightly after the time line I'm after. Maybe no significant raids or battles or fighting of any kind transpired. I was hoping with all of that tension there would be a night of bomb blasts and gunfire somewhere in the annals. Beekone 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Beekone. Like Marco I cannot provide any specific information on the decade you have identified, though in general terms I believe it to have been reasonably peaceful. There were certainly none of the kinds of acute tension that you are looking for. In general the Czechs were well treated in the old Empire, represented in both the Reichsrat in Vienna and their own Bohemian Diet, established in 1861. After the creation of the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1867 the Czechs pressed for a tripartite partnership, though with no success. One small point of clarification: the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart in 1918, and the Czechs simply established an independent state without a fight; so they did in fact rebel. The Treaty of Saint-Germain merely provided recognition of the established political facts. The Ruthenian tail was later added to the territory of the new republic by the Treaty of Trianon. Clio the Muse 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beekone. If you go a little earlier in 1848 you would find serious uproar in Austria (not yet austro-hungary). See for example: Lajos Kossuth However it were the hungarians that wanted a piece of the cake.--Tresckow 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't know, you may find it interesting that despite being part of Austria-Hungary, Bohemia was apparently autonomous enough that it had its own national team in the 1900, 1908 and 1912 Olympic Games. Austria and Hungary also had their separate Olympic teams. — Kpalion(talk) 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for all of the input, guys. I'm a little disappointed by the findings, but it's also good to have a firmer grasp on the societal climate of Prague c. 1911. I've discovered in additional readings that Einstein accepted a position at the University of Prague in 1911 where he associated with writer Franz Kafka. It looks like the Czechs preferred their peace. They're truly a good people, as are all of you. Beekone 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commodities Market for Flash Chips

This is actually several related questions. First, are there futures and other derivatives based on the prices of basic computer components like NAND flash chips or LCDs? Second, are there any commodity markets where these types of products are listed? If not, how could futures work? (Everyone needs to have a single agreed upon price for a quantity of a product for futures to work, right?)

I guess these questions aren't strictly limited to computing goods (especially the one about if futures can work without a centralized exchange to track commodity prices), but it came up in the context of how tech companies protect themselves against fluctuations in the market for such goods. 12.118.102.38 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 No. - From commodity "In the original and simplified sense, commodities were things of value, of uniform quality, that were produced in large quantities by many different producers; the items from each different producer are considered equivalent" - the problem with flash chips, lcds is that the quality (or capacity) is constantly improving. Bulk Copper for instance is much the same in 1970 as it is today, the same can not be said for chips etc.
Therefor question 2 - No.
Last question - I imagine such a market would work when there are no further improvements in the technology, in which everyone produces the same chips to the exact same specifications etc No.87.102.42.81 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Also I imagine (am fairly certain to be correct) that chips are produced to a specific order - unlike bulk goods like copper/palm oil which are produced because there is a general market for them.87.102.42.81 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your best hope is for something like ultrapure silicon boules - however even these are produced to a certain width - and a given size will no be suitable for another application.87.102.42.81 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
See Commodity - and wait for market stability87.102.42.81 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia in 1812

I've just finished reading War and Peace. It details how some of the Russian people reacted to Napoleon's invasion, but I would like to place these events in a wider political context, so would be interested to know what the general reaction was. Thanks for your trouble. P. Bezukhov 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia (1812) would be a good place, and it does state that War and Peace does give good information on the reaction. 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow, Adam Zamoyski, HarperCollins, 644 Pages. ISBN 0-00-712375-2 may be a good start also, as might Alexander I of Russia SGGH speak! 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can offer you some interesting tidbits of information, P. Bezhukov, to flesh out that given in War and Peace. There was a strong Polish contingent in Napoleon's army, who looked to him to restore the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, though he gave them little direct encouragement. When Mogilev was occupied some of the local Polish-speaking nobility formed a confederation, promising support to Napoleon Most, however, remained aloof, fearing that the French would liberate their serfs. Likewise, in Vilna the Lithuanian nobility were more lavish in their praise of Tsar Alexander than Napoleon, to the disgust of those Poles who came from the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

The one group the Russian government was most concerned about was the Jewish population of Belorussia, who only became part of the population after the Partitions of Poland. Napoleon was known to have pursued a liberal policy towards the Jews, setting up a Grand Sanhedrin in 1807, so it was feared that he would be seen as a liberator on his entry into western Russia. But, contrary to expectations, the Jews remained loyaly to the Tsar. In August, while the Grand Army was in the district of Smolensk, Marshall Davout told Napoleon that his troops were being deliberately misled by the Jews, causing a number of his uhlans to be ambushed by Cossack patrols. Boris Uxhill, an Estonian in the Russian army, was to write "The Jews regard us everywhere as liberators. They detest the French and help us where they can."

Alexander's greatest fear was that Napoleon would appeal to Russia's serfs, by far the largest part of the Russian population. Troops were therefore stationed in each province in anticipation of a serf uprising, along the lines of the Pugachev rebellion. But it did not happen, or at least not to any significant degree. A proclamation was issued by the French, promising liberation and calling on Russian soldiers to support them. Beyond that Napoleon took no practical action, a matter he was later to express some regret over while in St Helena. At the time, though, he had good reasons for not doing so. The aim of the war was not to overthrow Alexander, but to force him to make peace. A widespread serf rebellion would have made this an impossible prospect. The potential that such a rising may have had is shown by the actions of some of the serf population in areas occupied by the French, and in neighbouring provinces. Commenting on the situation later in the century one Russian observer noted that the peasants of the Smolensk region had behaved 'like brigands.' However, one should not discount the actions of the French army in alienating the peasantry, by pillaging and acts of casual brutality, in much the same fashion as the Peninsular War. Many serfs fought with the partisans, inflicting serious damage on the invaders.

Some of the Russian clergy were later accused of collaboration, most noteably Archbishop Varlaam in Mogilev, who was later tried by the Holy Synod, stripped of his rank and confined to a monastery. His defence was that he only co-operated through fear, though others suggested that he had been tempted by Napoleon's offer of a cardinal's hat if he converted to Catholicism. Most of the clergy, though, were deeply hostile, telling the peasants that Napoleon was the 'Anti-Christ', a view that found particular support among the Old Believers. Uniting serfs, nobles, the Jews and the Orthodox against the invader, the campaign of 1812 is justly remembered in Russia as the Patriotic War Clio the Muse 03:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm always impressed by your answers, Clio, but I'd like to make you aware of one minor but common mistake which I saw in some of your posts. The puppet state created by Napoleon on Polish territory was called Duchy of Warsaw, not Grand Duchy of Warsaw. — Kpalion(talk) 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that correction, Kpalion; I shall make sure that I use the proper title in any future references. I absorbed this error from a reading of Norman Davies's book Europe. I've checked other sources and see that use of this title is fairly common. What, I would be interested to know, is the origin of the 'inflation'? Clio the Muse 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Could it (perhaps) be connected with the existence of the Grand Duchy of Posen and the Grand Duchy of Krakow? Easy to have it at the back of the mind that Warsaw should have at least the same status. Xn4 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the answer, but my guess would be the same as Xn4's. Probably some English-speaking author confused the Duchy of Warsaw with the Grand Duchy of Posen or some other of history's many grand duchies and later this mistake was reproduced elsewhere. I have a Polish translation of Davies's Europe at home and this error is corrected here. — Kpalion(talk) 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are haitians of both North and Western african descent?

The first slaves of haiti came from spain that had been obtained from the north african slave trade and later they got the slaves from senegal, tuaregs, slave coast and the bantu's from angola and congo

read the passage "spanish period"

source: http://www.discoverhaiti.com/history_summary.htm --arab 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs)

URL fixed.  --Lambiam 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the web page is blank. The Spaniards may have brought a small number of North Africans to Hispaniola, but Haiti was very thinly populated at the time the French established their colony of Saint-Domingue. That colony was populated mainly by hundreds of thousands of slaves taken from West Africa, who are the descendants ancestors of most Haitians today. Marco polo 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ancestors :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, GeeJo! Marco polo 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)