Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 23 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 25 >
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 24

[edit] Coat of arms infos

I have a (monochromatic) coat of arms I'm trying to find out some information on, but don't know if there are any sites that are good for this or what (I'm a flag person). It's NOT a country, so the massive numbers of pages on them here won't help me any. I would describe it as 5 ermines on a chevron, on a crosshatched field, with two 6-pointed mullets above the chevron, one below. (Sorry for the bad blazonry). Any help? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The cross-hatching may be a conventional symbol for black, in which case the blazon is Sable, a chevron ermine between three mullets/stars argent; in French, De sable au chevron d'hermine accompagné de trois étoiles d'argent. (Note that in early armory a mullet could be displayed indifferently with five or six points. In France and Scotland a mullet is pierced and the unpierced figure is a star; in England a pierced mullet is a spur-rowel.) Both chevrons and stars (of all subspecies) are more likely to be found in French and British armory than elsewhere. You might get lucky in Papworth's Ordinary, a reverse index of Burke's General Armory and other sources. There is a similar index for Rietstap (a bigger continental armory) but I forget its name; there's also http://www.blazonsearch.com/search.php but I don't know if it works. —Tamfang (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poem interpretation

How can this Emily Dickinson poem (871) be interpreted?


The Sun and Moon must make their haste —
The Stars express around
For in the Zones of Paradise
The Lord alone is burned —

His Eye, it is the East and West —
The North and South when He
Do concentrate His Countenance
Like Glow Worms, flee away —

Oh Poor and Far —
Oh Hindred Eye
That hunted for the Day —
The Lord a Candle entertains
Entirely for Thee — (from Wikisource)


Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The raw symbolism seems to be the heavenly bodies as lesser lights, their light being no more than a superficial expression of the Lord's true light. The Lord is burned, just as we are, to make light, but we burn like a candle here on Earth, soon to run out. The poor, far, hindred [hindered?] eye is the person the poem is written to, and the candle "entirely for thee" is Dickenson, who will be a light in the darkness for her correspondent, and for us. True light is hope, knowledge, salvation. The sun, moon, and stars are the irreligious ideas of men shedding only false light on an ignorant earth, leaving us to "hunt for the day", the day being knowledge of God.
That's all just a guess, mind you, but nobody was answering. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That helps explain a lot. How about the “Do concentrate His Countenance/Like Glow Worms, flee away —” line? That one has me especially confused. Is “He” god and are we like glow worms? And why the sudden change of tone? --S.dedalus (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So now I'm an authority on Dickenson? I'm a Shelley man, myself. The sun, moon, and stars are the glow worms that flee the Lord's countenance when he do [does] concentrate his countenance. That accounts for their apparent movement across the sky—a homely nonce cosmology of the poet's to sustain the allegory—and emphasizes the subordination of man's ideas to God's knowledge. The tone changes almost by accident in keeping with the deepening of the allegory. I'm guessing my ass off here. If the poet can't be mystifying in an understandable manner, he or she is screwing up. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. The poem makes a lot more sense now. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Education

How did the Nazis use primary and secondary education to bolster their view of the world? Bel Carres (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • As far as Jewish people were concerned they used to bring Jewish students to the front of the class to serve as "life objects" and the teacher would comment on their appearance, so as to distinguish Jew from gentile, and also as an act of humbling the Jews. Nazi education for really small people about Germany's racial policies is most heavily hinted at in Julius Streicher's novel Der Giftpilz (The poison mushroom). The novel compared good people, the Germans, as all the fresh mushrooms that grew in the forest, and noted that Jews were the "poisonous" mushrooms. A transcrip of the novel and its short stories can be found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The ethos, Bel, was laid down by Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior, who said in December 1934 that "the political task of the school is the education of youth in the service of the nation and state in the National Socialist spirit". This was supplemented by Bernhard Rust, Minister of Education, who said that the purpose of school textbooks was to achieve "the ideological education of young German people, so as to develop them into fit members of the national community." The techniques used became less and less subtle with the passage of time, and it is difficult often to distinguish educational material from pure propaganda. Primers often contained stories and poems about Hitler, along the lines of "Herr Hitler is a good man/He lives in Berlin./If it was not quite so far/I'd go and visit him." The German Reader for Elementary Schools, published in 1936, tells the story of a distressed family, rescued from unemployment and want by the Nazis. Another, Happy Beginnings, deals with the Eintopf, the one-pot Sunday meal that German families were encouraged to eat once a month, in order to save money to be devoted to the state.

The idealisation of motherhood is also a regular theme, as are aspects of the bucolic life. Blood and ancestory are important issues, as can be expected, making repeated appearances. In You and Your Ancestors pupils are asked "Do you know what kind of blood runs through your veins?" This is all presented in a colourful and accesible fashion, with poems and stories about hereditary and kinship. Inclusion was important; but not nearly as important as exclusion. The Poisonous Mushroom of 1938 was by far the most invidious example of this particular genre. Indoctrination is even to be found in supposedly neutral subjects, like arithmetic. In one pupils are given the following information;

Every day, the state spends 6 Marks on one cripple; 4 1/4 Marks on one mentally-ill person; 5 1/2 Marks on one deaf and dumb person; 5 3/5 Marks on one feeble-minded person; 3 1/2 Marks on one alcoholic; 4 4/5 Marks on one pupil in care; 2 1/20 Marks on one pupil at a special school, and 9/20 of a Mark on one pupil at a normal school.

Pupils are then asked questions on the basis of this, along the lines of "What total cost do one cripple and one feeble-minded person create if it takes a lifespan of forty-five years for each?", all intended at one obvious conclusion. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race v Ethnicity

I'm having trouble separating the two in my head. Can anybody tell me an easy way to distinguish between race and ethnicity? Also, could being Hispanic, Middle Eastern, etc be considered a race?

  • From our article, race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. Ethnicity, on the other hand is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. See our articles on race and ethnicity for further information --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Though if it makes you feel better, both are nebulous and fuzzy terms. Race is a bit fuzzier, being older, and can mean easily a dozen different things, but ethnicity doesn't easily add up anyway. Middle Eastern and Hispanic are not considered racial designations, no—one only denotes a region (in which many different "races" live) and is like saying "North American", the other indicates a shared culture and/or language but with some biological ties, which is not really the same thing as race though there are some tie-ins. The US census currently considers them different but potentially overlapping categories; historically "ethnicity" and "ethnic groups" have been used as euphemisms/replacements for "race" (see Ethnicity#Ethnicity_and_race). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As commonly understood and inferred from the U.S. census, a "race" is a collection of ethnicities. For example, the Irish, Basque, French, Italian and Finnish ethnicities are all part of the white "race." The Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Laotian ethnicities, among others, are part of what they used to call the "Mongoloid race." Just how many "races" there are is disputable, in part because of the fuzziness of the whole concept of race. Many people would refer to groups of "whites, blacks and Hispanics." But the U.S. Census Bureau does not consider Hispanics to be a race. In the U.S. census, Hispanics have to choose between the wite, black, Asian, American Indian or "other" races. Many choose "other." Race is basically a cultural construct and not a scientific term. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor Charles V

What were the qualities that made Charles V of the HRE an effective commander? Should Pavia be considered his greatest victory?217.42.104.162 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He was the kind of commander always beloved by soldiers: one who aimed at victory at the minimum cost in blood. He was always present in the field, moreover, even when troubled by gout, and aimed at defeating his enemies without humiliating them. His particular skill was in the arts of siege warfare, the preferred mode of combat of the day. But he also showed his talents in full-scale battles, though these were few and far between. Pavia was certainly important, 217.42, but his greatest victory must surely be the Battle of Mühlberg. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military in Myanmar

Why have the military in Myanmar/Burma been in control for so long? K Limura (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding flippant, probably because they have all the guns. And, at the risk of sounding serious, probably because around a third of the population is enrolled in the military, and so everyone (aside from those from persecuted minorities) has a close relative in the army - so it really is an institution that is greatly integrated into the society. Ninebucks (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer, K. Limura, is part historical, part strategic and part political. To begin with the army played a crucial part in Burma's struggle for independence, far more military-based than in most other parts of the British Empire. Even today the leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, derives much of her authority from the fact that she is the daughter of General Aung San, the Burmese national hero. So, you have a paradox: that the legacy, and example, of the same man sustains both government and opposition. The military found itself at the front of the independence movement because of the weaknesses in Burmese civil society. During colonial days the British replaced much of the traditional civil administration with their own people, either directly from England or English-educated Indians. Although a Burmese middle-class did start to develop it was almost completely destroyed in the Depression of the 1930s. Moreover, because Burma was conquered in stages, with the Burmese-speaking areas being the last to fall, recruits to the army and police force were drawn from the national minorities. The point is that the shape of present day Burma owes much to the conquests of the old monarchy between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries, with up to two-thirds of the national territory occupied by non-Burmese speaking minorities. When an essentially Burmese National Army took shape in the Second World War, first as an ally then as an enemy of the Japanese, it had to define and defend the very concept of the historic Burmese nation. The army thus became the guardian not only of independence but of the integrity of the whole state. From the outset it was faced with rebellion, some of which continues to the present day. Hence, military dictatorship, transient elsewhere, has become a steady feature of Burmese politics. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cluilian Trenches - Rome

When was the Cluilian trenches made and for how long did they last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.102.226 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Albans first invaded the Roman territories with a large army. They pitched their camp not more than five miles from the city, and surrounded it with a trench, which, for several ages, was called the Cluilian trench, from the name of the general, till, by lapse of time, the name, as well as the event itself, was forgotten. In that camp Cluilius, the Alban king, died: the Albans created Mettius Fufetius dictator. Livy's Roman History [1]
This appears to have happened in the time of Tullus : Romulus reigned thirty-seven years, Numa forty-three: the state was both strong and attempered by the arts both of war and peace. Upon the death of Numa, the administration returned again to an interregnum. After that the people appointed as King Tullus Hostilius, the grandson of that Hostilius who had made the noble stand against the Sabines at the foot of the citadel: the fathers confirmed the choice.SaundersW (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dante's popes

In the Divine Comedy Dante places several popes in the Inferno, or predicts that is where they are bound. Are there any in Purgatory or Paradise, apart, that is, from the leaders of the early Christian church? 81.129.83.162 (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dante places seven Popes in Hell. From my notes there are only three other Popes in The Divine Comedy: Pope Celestine V is encountered just outside the gates of Hell (although it is argued that it is actually Pontius Pilate). Pope Adrian IV is described as being in the fifth circle of Purgatory, while Pope Martin IV is met in the sixth circle. As I say these are my own notes, there may be more... Lord Foppington (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Lord Foppington, are you sure it is Adrian IV? I was under the impression that it was Adrian V, along with Martin. 81. 129 you will find John XXI-Peter the Spaniard- in Paradise (Paradiso XII, 134), the only Pope to be so elevated by Dante apart from the early martyrs. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Clio the Muse, I thank you, I stand corrected: it is Adrian IV (Purgatorio XIX, 97) - perhaps I was being biased towards the English? The reference for Martin IV is Purgatorio XXIV, 21. Dante helpfully never explictly names either. Adrian's sin was worldly ambition while Martin's was gluttony (especially eels) Lord Foppington (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Battle of Flanders

In a German narrative on the First World War I found a reference to the second battle of Flanders without further explanation. What might this be? Qurious Cat (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Second Battle of Ypres, perhaps? (First Battle of Ypres = Battle of Flanders) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's the Battle of Passchendaele, or the Third Battle of Ypres. It is referred to as the Second Battle of Flanders in Ernst Jünger's In Stahlgewittern. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that usage might have changed since Junger's day and now be in line with British naming, if (and it is an if) we can believe the editors of the German Wikipedia. de:Dritte Flandernschlacht begins "Die Dritte Flandernschlacht...begann am 31. Juli 1917...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Quick footnote - British naming is more complex than our article reflects. The Third Battle of Ypres was 31st July to 10th November, and included a number of seperately named battles - Polygon Wood from 26/9 to 3/10, for example. Official nomenclature (I'm going off the honours list here) notes the Battle of Paaschendaele as being in two parts; first on 12/10 and secondly from 26/10 to 10/11. Because the second one was so famous, it tends to get used to refer to the whole of Third Ypres, but strictly speaking this doesn't seem to be the case. Shimgray | talk | 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literature: Stone Angel

What are the themes in "Stone Angel"? This is a homework question and I have read it but, I want to know what is the theme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.122 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Feminity, death (especially the fear of death) and the treatment of the elderly - all are general themes that can act as a starting point for further analysis. Don't be tricked into thinking there is one "definitive" theme! Lord Foppington (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secession

Is there any clause in the U.S. Constitution that would allow secession?--24.58.159.152 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Tenth Amendment and arguably the Ninth. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The case law is against you there, I fear. Algebraist 01:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Lincoln openly violated the Constitution to save his tax base the sacred Union, the events of his reign are irrelevant to the question as asked, which is about the Constitution. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In the ratification of the Constitution, when the independent states joined the union, it was not at all clear that they thereby abandoned their ability to ever leave that union. The idea that you join voluntarily, but are subject to armed violence if you ever try to leave, sounds more like a street gang than a rational political process. Arguments to this effect can be found among politicians of various parts of the country before the American Civil War. "Erring Sisters, Depart in Peace" was a viewpoint expressed in the north in 1860. The attack on Fort Sumter and other federal properties was the casus belli for Lincoln to attack the South. Edison (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL You think the Morrill Tariff was the cause of the Civil War. lots of issues | leave me a message 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)
It's important to distinguish between the South's motives for seceding, on one hand, and the Union's motives for fighting the secession. Are you saying neither side was concerned with the federal budget? —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
From my understanding, the 10th Amendment is talking about the delegation of powers between the federal and state governments, not about the states' 'right' to withdraw from the Union. But I am not very knowledgeable on Constitutional Law, which is why I am asking Wikipedia ;) --24.58.159.152 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The first phrase of the Tenth ("Those powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution") is obviously about distribution of powers between the two loci; there's a reasonable argument that the second phrase ("nor prohibited by it to the States") is also about distribution, but it's not quite so clear, is it? Besides, at the time of its adoption I don't think the Constitution was understood to be the last word on everything; Publius goes on at some length about how its purposes are limited. —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The answer is in Texas v. White; that is, "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One would rarely expect judges employed by an entity that has just won a war to rule that the war was illegitimate. — I wonder whether anything short of winning an actual war – e.g. an uncontested declaration of independence – would constitute a legally valid "revolution" as contemplated in the sentence quoted above. — According to the article: "The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual." But compare Article VII of the Constitution of 1787, which allows it to come into force when only nine States have ratified (and in fact it began to function with eleven), with Article XIII of the Confederation, which requires that any changes be unanimous. Is it proper to repudiate one clause of an agreement and then rely on another? I think not. —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gastronomy Wars: Italy vs France!

It seems to be an article of faith among Italians that France stole its culinary glory from Italy, when Marie de Medicis wed the King of France and "kidnapped" the finest cream of Italian cooks and brought them north of the Alps.

As a Frenchman, I instinctively cry calumny...but can a more objective gastronome among Wikipedia's wise multitude comment on this surprising version of la haute cuisine in history? Rhinoracer (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing in history of pizza supports this theory. Xn4 21:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The culinary traditions of both France and Italy have evolved considerably since the time of Marie de Medicis/Maria de'Medici. Both have no doubt borrowed heavily from each other over the centuries. However, both have produced independent innovations as well. It would be ridiculous to say that French cuisine is merely derivative of Italian cuisine but equally unreasonable to doubt that Marie had some influence on the haute cuisine of her day. Marco polo (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
So much has happened since c. 1550 to break any genuine continuities, very roughly in chronological order: the introduction of the tomato into Spanish realms of Italy, polenta made with corn meal, potatoes, the invention of modern vegetables by the Dutch, the universal rise of cheap sugar, the French Revolution of Carême, the invention of the haute cuisine restaurant in post-Napoleonic France, chocolate as something to eat not drink, and the revolutionising technologies that began with refrigeration. Comparisons with Catherine de' Medici's day are distracting. --Wetman (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God is man's greatest creation

Who first said "God is man's greatest creation"? I am looking for an author, a book title, or both. Thanks.

~seuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seuss2 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is widely quoted as saying "God is man's greatest invention". But see also Plato: "He was a wise man who invented God." Xn4 21:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit

What is the evidence that Henry Chettle (and not Greene himself) wrote any or all of Robert Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit? AndyJones (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He certainly prepared it for publication; I wasn't aware that it was also being suggested that he wrote it. You may find more. Andy, in Harold Jenkins' The Life and Work of Henry Chettle. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume it's a new theory. Our article on Greene says (unsourced - sigh) that there's some question on the subject. I was prompted to ask because I was reading an essay by Diana E. Henderson, published this year, which says Shakespeare "was perceived as an "upstart"; in lines attributed by Henry Chettle to Robert Greene..." which seems to suggest Henderson has accepted the theory without needing to qualify it. AndyJones (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My worry, Andy, is that all too often a definition of a 'reliable source' seems to be no more than the speculations of a published writer, not reducible to original documentation. By this means a theory is translated, via Wikipedia, into a 'fact', a point I tried to make in the discussion page for the article on James I-rather a waste of time, I'm sorry to report. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)