From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< October 17	<< Sep | October | Nov >>	October 19 >

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 1 October 18 1.1 Norwegian Dialects 1.2 British military commissions and regiments 1.3 101 1.4 The original Jews in Palestine and the proclamation of Israel 1.5 Communist slowdown 1.6 Crimes against the Germans 1.7 Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1.8 White House coup 1.9 White people 1.10 Punctuation with numbers 1.11 First European Union 1.12 private music theory website 1.13 What currency 1.14 Fitzhugh Brundage: American Historian 1.15 reasons why america entererd wars

[edit] October 18

[edit] Norwegian Dialects

<removed> Please do not post the same question to multiple reference desks. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British military commissions and regiments

I'm working on an article on Lt.-Col. Thomas Mullins, the goat of the Battle of New Orleans. At the beginning of the American campaign, Mullins, a captain in the 7th Regiment of Foot and veteran of the Peninsular Wars, was breveted lieutenant-colonel and given command of the 44th Regiment of Foot after that regiment's lieutenant-colonel was called upon to command a brigade. After a good showing in the Chesapeake campaign, Mullins royally screwed up on the eve of New Orleans when he failed to have his regiment collect fascines and scaling ladders for the assault on the American positions. A last-minute dash to get them undid the regiment's formations and disordered the British positions on the field, and Mullins wound up shouldering much of the blame for the bloody failure of the attack. When the 44th returned to Dublin, he was court-martialed and found guilty of disobeying orders. However, there are some loose threads I can't quite pin down. Although Mullins commanded the 44th during the battle, the report of wounded in the London Gazette refers to him as "7th Foot — Captain T.T.A. Mullins, slightly". The report appears over the name of Frederick Stovin, deputy adjutant general, who subsequently prosecuted Mullins at his court-martial. Furthermore, though secondary sources seem generally to agree that Mullins was cashiered after his court-martial, he appears again in the Gazette in 1817, exchanging his captaincy for half-pay. What mystery of the British regimental system allowed Mullins to command the 44th while remaining nominally in the 7th, and however did he keep his captaincy after doing what he did? Choess 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything i find refers to Mullins as "Captain of the 44th Regiment of Foot" including Historical Record of the Forty-Fourth: Or the East Essex Regiment[1]. Mullins was found guilty on two counts: "For...having shamefully neglected and disobeyed the Orders he had received..." and "For scandalous and infamous misbehavior before the enemy..." but acquitted "For scandalous Conduct in having said... 'It is a forlorn hope, and the Regiment must be sacrificed.'" I can find nothing on the exact sentence of the court martial, but if you can get ahold of a copy, try: Louisiana Historical Quarterly, volume IX, January 1926 OCLC 1782268.—eric 07:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, "royally screwed up" is much too slangy. Clarityfiend 07:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another side note, goat? I know some British Regiments have goats as mascots, but giving one command of the regiment seems to be taking things a little far! DuncanHill 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, no, that's not the prose I plan to use. I should be able to get hold of Louisiana Historical Quarterly in a few days. Choess 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Donkey (rather than goat) would be consistent with the good old "lions led by donkeys"! Xn4 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 101

The 101 (number) article says that entry-level courses are often designated with this number in some countries (heard it a lot in Buffy). What does that stand for? One would expect 102 or 201 to be the next level up, but the articles don't say anything about that. DirkvdM 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it stands for anything. I think it was just what the entry level rooms were numbered as. First floor, first room. I think that is how it started but don't quote me SGGH ^speak! 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was from "Year 1, Course 1"; the second first year course would be 102, and the first second year course would be 201. Laïka 09:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My alma mater operates this way. Of course, at some point, the whole sequence thing breaks down (there's not, frequently, a 105 that falls in a sequence with 101-104), but patterns of this sort persist on the small scale. For instance, I had a course sequence that ran 210-211-310 (at which point I stopped, though a 311 existed). By my third and fourth years, though, available options meant that anything beyond the first digit (designating the expected year of the class) was fairly meaningless -- my later semesters would have schedules akin to "382, 420, 474, 497". Finally, graduation requirements included a minimum number of upper-level courses (those of 300- and 400-level). We engineers laughed at those students whose majors were of such little rigor as to make this requirement a real concern. — Lomn 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mine had 001-099 classes for first-year students, and then if you were in a four-year program, second year started at 200, third at 300, and fourth at 400; if you were in a three year program, the next two years of classes were labelled 100-199. The numbers assigned were completely random, as far as I know - first-year classes were usually 002 or 020 (001 and 010 were, I think, fast-track courses to replace an unfinished high school class). I had a 234, a 248, a 324, a 491, and even a 148, among others. Adam Bishop 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it. 491 means fourth year, 91st course? And that's for a certain subject. So psych 101 means the first psychology course in the first year, and psych 491 would mean the 91st (!) psychology course in the fourth year?? Or does the 91 stand for the whole study and is the '4' just added on to show in which year it is given? DirkvdM 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any standards body decreeing exactly how courses are numbered. The last two digits are more than likely arbitrary. Perhaps at some schools, the second digit is a subject indicator - say "Math 301" is a third year geometry course, and "Math 321" is a third year probability course. And to be even more confusing, in many instances, you can take a 300-level course in your second or fourth year, as long as you've met the prerequisites. --LarryMac | Talk 19:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• At my school, the first of the three digits indicated the course level, so 0 was remedial (in other words, you really shouldn't be taking it unless you went to a bad high school), 1 was intro, and then it went up from there, with 5-8 generally denoting post-bachelor classes and 9 being a usually for PhD research. If you were good at sweet-talking the dean, though, you could take any level you wanted at any time, in any other.

The other two digits had no intrinsic meaning, except that "00" and "01" were usually the broad courses that covered the whole field, while "02" through "99" were sub-fields (for instance, Advanced Econ might be 301, while International Macroeconomics might be 329.) --M@rēino 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

At my university when I was a student, the last two digits were mostly arbitrary but related courses were often given related numbers. Within one year the same course might be offered at different difficulty levels, if enough students were expected to fill several classes. Thus if you wanted first-year algebra and you weren't a math student, you could take Math Elective 109; math students in the General Program took the slightly harder Math 119; math students in the Honours Program took the still harder Math 129; and if the university decided to offer an even harder "enriched" version for the serious math geeks, it might be Math 139 (see note). Second-year algebra included Math 219 for General students and 229 for Honours, and I think there was a third-year Pure Math 329 that was abstract algebra or something. On the other hand, first-year computer science was Math 132, and there was no implication that it was harder than the lower-numbered Math 129; that part of the numbering was just arbitrary.

(Note: I did this example because it was one where I could actually remember the course numbers after 35 years. Math 139 is fictional: the university did offer enriched versions of some courses, but not all departments assigned them separate course numbers, and in math they were just designated as "special sections" of the same-numbered Honours courses.)

--Anonymous serious geek, 00:21 UTC, October 19, 2007.

[edit] The original Jews in Palestine and the proclamation of Israel

How did the original Jews in Palestine react to the proclamation of the state of Israel? Did they cheer on the influx of their brethren or did they go "Those bloody foreigners are going to cause all hell to break loose"? A combination of the two I suppose. And how many of them were there anyway? And did they have any say in the whole thing? DirkvdM 08:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the original Jews in Palestine"? There was a continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land from the Babylonian exile to today, but prior to the the First Aliya, the numbers were very small. Of those that moved during the First and subsequent Aliya waves, by definition most were Zionists, so by the time the clock rolled round to 1948 and the proclamation of the State the proportion of "original Jews" would have been miniscule... and some of them may have been Zionists too. --Dweller 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he means the Sephardic Jews and Kabbalists who were the main Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine/Israel region in the 19th-century before about 1880, and who were culturally rather different from the modern-minded Eastern European Jews who made up the majority of early Zionist immigrants. I don't really know about early attitudes of the old-timers to the newcomers, but I think that most of the old-timer groups ended up getting assimilated to the later arrivals through intermarriage... AnonMoos 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, hardly any non-Muslims ever had any meaningful "say" in any political matters in the non-European parts of the Ottoman empire. AnonMoos 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant having a say in the notion of starting a jewish state. Were they asked what they thought about it? DirkvdM 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean anything as specific as that. I just know that there were Jews in Palestine in 1945. I just don't know how many and what they thought of the whole thing. Before then, there was a mere trickle, not the millions that came later. But now I realise I really meant those that lived there in 1945 but were not descended from the post-1880 immigrants. So, I suppose, the non-westernised Jews. Was this such a small group that they had already become a minority within the Jewish community by 1945? And I suppose my question regarding their reaction should also extend to the earlier immigrants, although I meant the later, much larger influx when they started taking over the country by sheer numbers alone. Before that, the zionism of the newcomers might have been ignored as an excusable bit of idealism, but of course WWII changed that. DirkvdM 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, understood. The numbers were tiny, as I described above. However, Zionism as a political movement is relatively new, but longing for the restoration of a Jewish state is as old as the Babylonian exile, it fills Jewish prayers, rituals and customs. The euphoria among the Jewish world in 1948 when the State of Israel was declared would have pervaded the long-standing inhabitants of the land. --Dweller 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See Aliyah with its various subarticles for some more information about historical demographics (also British Mandate of Palestine#Immigration). Wareh 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The various waves of migration to Palestine/Israel from the First World War onwards took the Jewish population to over 550,000 by 1945. The vast majority of these people, I think it safe to assume, were either Zionists, or were sympathetic to the general aims of Zionism. They were not likely, therefore, to think of those who came after as 'bloody foreigners', especially those who had survived the Holocaust in Europe. Besides, those who had settled in Palestine before the war were very well aware of the dangers of all hell, and would presumably have been anxious to increse their strength against a future recurrence. As far as the general Jewish celebration of Israel is concerned I do believe, though I confess that I am not an expert in this area, and I would appreciate some clarification, that there are orthodox Jews who do not identify with the secular state, believing that it is only with the advent of the Messiah that they will attain the Promised Land. Next year in Jerusalem Clio the Muse 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Neturei Karta and their ilk remain a vociferous and media-friendly fringe (for that matter, they're friendly with many odd bedfollows. They are extreme both in their views and in the extent to which they are marginal. --Dweller 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know about them, but I was not thinking so much about opposition to the state of Israel, more forms of religious belief which take issue with, or reject the claims of, secular Zionism. Clio the Muse 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is the Jews of Hebron, whose community dated at least to the Middle Ages, were long opposed to Zionism. That didn't stop them from being massacred in the 1929 Arab riots. -- Mwalcoff 02:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another overview of the numbers (in an obvious place - silly me) is in the first table here: Palestine#Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods. About the 'cheering or fearing' (to give it a short name), the fact that the original inhabitants and the newcomers were closely related doesn't necessarily say much if they have been separated for a long time. Liberia and Sierra Leone are indications of that (although those are different in several respects, but I mention them because the origins of the states are very similar). Also, the Palestinians are Arabs, yet received little support from their brethren in neighbouring countries. Part of the answer would lie in if the original Jews foresaw what was going to happen (as I indicated in my original question). The second table in above link shows there weren't that many Jews in Hebron. The majority was in Safad, so it would be interesting to know what they thought of zionism. Of course there may also have been disputes about how to make the zionist ideals become reality. DirkvdM 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very complicated issue. In addition to religious objections to Zionism, many secular Jews in Europe opposed Zionism before the war as well. Specifically the Bundists, named after the General Jewish Labor Union, were internationalist socialists who opposed nationalism and saw Zionism as seeking to run away from rather than fight against anti-semitism and for socialism in Europe. Needless to say, this position became rather untenable after the Holocaust and Bundists in Israel joined with Labor Zionists. This early secular opposition to Zionism was very much out of favor with Israeli intelligentsia, especially I think due to the below-the-surface feeling that European Jewish society perhaps bore some responsibility for the Holocaust due to their complacency in the light of warning signs. I have heard anecdotally from one Israeli Holocaust scholar that she only heard about Marek Edelman, the Bundist deputy-commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising from colleagues overseas, he had been ignored by Yad Vashem in Israel until the museum's recent renovation - a sign of a maturing intellectual culture, she believed.

More relevant to the original question is the religious objection to Zionism. This was painful even for Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews after the Holocaust. In the classic novel The Chosen, one Brooklyn Hasidic Rabbi orders his son to cut off all contact with his best friend, because the friend's father, who the Rabbi otherwise held in the highest regard, spoke publicly in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. One interpretation of Jewish law does preclude the founding of a Jewish state in the holy land before the Messiah, but a major theme in the history of modern Judaism has been the impossibility of obeying every tenet of a 5,000 year old tradition in the modern world. Just about everyone has to pick and choose what commands they are going to follow and what rules are made to be broken, and the Holocaust was such a cataclysmic event that only some of the ultra-Orthodox could not justify acquiescing to the creation of a Jewish state in light of it. As for the Jews of Safed, I don't know, but they were Sephardic rather than Ashkenazi in origin, and closely tied to Jewish mysticism. Even today the Sephardic ultra-Orthodox are ambivalent about Israel. I imagine that the Jews of Safed in 1947 would have been strongly opposed. The secular, socialist ideology of most Zionists would have been very foreign to them, as would certain elements of their Ashkenazi tradition. And, its possible that they may have detected an undercurrent of exasperation directed towards them by the Zionists, many of whom had come to Palestine to build a new civilization away from religious traditionalists. This is my gut feeling, but it may be incorrect or an oversimplification, I really don't know. This is a difficult issue in many ways, and I was probably not wise in tackling it at this hour. You might be interested in an article in last weeks NYTimes Magazine about the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, whose situation may parallel those of the Safed community in some ways. GabrielF 09:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful information, Gabriel. Clio the Muse 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communist slowdown

Why the communist world suffered an economic stagnation during the 80s? Was it just because of Soviet internal problems or "long-term economic inviability" of communism? --Taraborn 11:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the Soviet case it is pretty clearly a result of decades of poor management and corruption under Leonid Brezhnev combined with the oil dollar dropping out in the 1980s. Things were extremely poorly managed in the 1970s and began to stagnate sharply (see Brezhnev stagnation) but because of the oil profits they were able to get by without major difficulties or without total collapse; once the market shifted and the petrodollars became worth less, the tether that was holding up a disfunctional economy pretty much snapped. Whether Communism could be managed better in the long term is a question I think is quite hard to answer, but Brezhnev didn't even try. --24.147.86.187 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The cost of the arms race was another factor in Soviet economic troubles. As it was the most important export market for eastern Europe, the Soviet Union's economic decline also affected eastern European countries. The eastern European countries, deprived for years of capital for reinvestment and cut off from the latest technologies made low-quality products inefficiently and therefore had difficulty selling their exports to the West. A lack of capital and technological improvement led to stagnation and economic decline throughout the Soviet bloc. Marco polo 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Taraborn, I've pasted below my response to a question I answered in August on Gorbachev and his attempted reforms which touches on you are looking for here. I hope it is of some use. Regards Clio the Muse 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think, Bill, that it is Gorbachev's tragedy that he truly believed that he could indeed reform the unreformable, to give fresh life to what was, in practice, a political and economic corpse. If you look closely at the history of the period you will see that he was acting on conclusions already reached by Yuri Andropov, his predecessor, who died before he could implement any policy changes. Alterations to the moribund system had to come, in one form or another. So, what went wrong? Well, let's have a look.

The first thing is that he was too ambitious: he opened so many doors that could not be closed again; to rooms within rooms, ever beyond. He began by looking for both political and economic change, whereas the wise thing would have been to renew the economy, the immediate area of concern, and leave political superstructures to a later date. He might, in other words, have adopted the kind of model being pursued with considerable success by the present Chinese administration. Attempting political and economic change at the same time was bad; it was far worse when one ran far ahead of the other. In Gorbachev's case political reform proceeded well out of pace with the rescructuring of the economy. To be more precise, the the whole Soviet economy went into a state of freefall, while a growing sense of political freedom opened the whole apparatus of Communist rule to acute forms of criticism that Gorbachev could simply not control. It was a self-reinforcing process; the more living standards declined the more critical people became. For some the pace of change was too fast; for others it was not fast enough. There was no strategy; there was no road map; there was no coherence.

Gorbachev was also faced with the inertia and lmitations of the whole system; an entrenched and sclerotic bureaucracy, and a population that over time had learned apathy as a mode of defence. The Secretary's attempt to appeal to 'the people' beyond the apparatus only incresed hostility towards him within the Communist Party, just as his wider social and political initiatives often had risable consequences. I am thinking here of the anti-vodka campaign, intended to reduce absenteeism and increase productivity. All this did was to give an added spur to the black economy, and draped poor Gorby with the unfortunate appellation of 'Lemonade Joe.' Unpopular within the system, and unpopular without, he went on to attempt to ride all of the horses of the Soviet republics and the People's Democracoes at the same time. Practically speaking, the whole thing was quite impossible.

Internal matters were made worse for Gorbachev by the falling world price of oil and gas, which reduced his room for maneuver still further. In international terms his inititives looked increasingly desperate, particularly his moves towards disarmament, which further weakened the Soviet military-industrial complex, and only confirmed to western leaders that the U.S.S.R was in serious economic difficulties. The cuts in defence spending also failed to have the intended effect, with little in the way of realignment towards the consumer economy. Shortages remained a feature of the whole system, made worse when reduced subsidies led to a sharp rise in the rate of inflation. Many ordinary Russian people, particularly those on fixed incomes, were effectively priced out of the market altogether. And here I think what I wrote in response to the question about the Roman historian Tacitus has some relevance: when it comes to a choice between freedom and security, between hunger and bread, there are few people who are satisfied to chew on abstractions.

Gorbachev certainly saw Communism as an ideal which could be renewed, in the same fashion that Christians throughout history have sought renewal in a return to the primitive faith. But Communism was-and is-The God that Failed. I think I should let the man himself have the final word;

When I became General Secretary, I admit that I was not free from the illusions of any predecessors. I thought we could unite freedom and democracy, and give socialism a second wind. But the totalitarian model had relied on dictatorship and violence, and I can see that this was not acceptable to the people...I wanted to change the Soviet Union, not destroy it. I started too late to reform the party, and waited to long to create a market economy.

How hindsight makes us all wise. Clio the Muse 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed this one... Thank you very much Clio, excellent response as always. --Taraborn 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Clio the Muse 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes against the Germans

In his secret diary Albert Speer write "Of course all of these trials are judgements by the victors on the defeated. In various ways I keep hearing that German prisoners of war, contrary to law, are also being put to forced labour in armaments and supply bases. Who here is the judge?" My question what happened to these prisoners of war, and was what happened a crime against humanity? Alte Fritz 11:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See Prisoner of war#World War II for some of what he was talking about. Algebraist 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a tragic story, Fritz, one that deserves to be better known; and, yes, it was a crime against humanity, which involved, sad to say, the western powers as well as the Soviets. Anyway, you will find all of the details in Giles MacDonogh's After the Reich: from the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift (London, 2007), specifically in Chapter 15, headed Where are our Men? Briefly, of the eleven million soldiers taken prisoner on or before May 1945 a million and a half never returned; most from captivity in the east, but also well over 100,000 in the west. When Germany surrendered the Allies decided that the state had ceased to exist, so newly captured soldiers were defined as 'Surrendered Enemy Persons' or 'Disarmed Enemy Persons', which meant in practice that they had no protection as POWs under the Geneva and the Hague Conventions. Therefore almost half the soldiers taken by the British and Americans, both of whom had signed the Geneva Convention (the Russians had not), had no right to the same levels of subsistence and shelter. They were used, quite freely, as slave labour; and many died as such, while the likes of Fritz Sauckel and Albert Speer stood indicted at Nuremberg for this very crime. While the Americans were seeking to prosecute the perpetrators of the Malmedy massacre, where some hundreds of POWs had been killed by advancing SS units, anything up to 40,000, yes, 40,000, Germans were allowed to die of starvation, exposure and neglect in muddy, open-air camps scattered along the banks of the Rhine. A tragic story indeed. Clio the Muse 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A recent article in the New York Review of Books, titled "Cruel Allied Occupiers", explores this topic. The book being reviewed is called "After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation", by Giles MacDonogh, as Clio mentioned. I learned a great deal reading the review. I had known that there was a massive westward migration of Germans from the east after the war, but that is only the tip of the icerberg, it turns out. I'm not sure I'll want to read the book though -- sounds thoroughly depressing, even if much needed. There appears to be an online copy of the article review at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=20693 Pfly 07:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that these things are so little known a case of 'history is written by the victors'? DirkvdM 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In part, I think. But also that the victors were better able to hide and then cover up their atrocities, while the defeated could not. Pfly 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Germany, the defeated also chose not to emphasize their suffering for a long time. When Günter Grass wrote Im Krebsgang in 2002, both its topic and its success were noteworthy to the media. This article from 2002 (unfortunately in German) comments on the changes of self-perception in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Their own experiences were still very present in the minds of most Germans during the 1950s, but not part of the public or medial discourse. The 1960s saw the rise of a generation who hadn't experienced the war as adults, it was the decade of social and cultural changes, often subsumed under the term "68-er Bewegung", including a new self-identification. Public opinion leaders saw their past selves as perpetrators bearing a collective sense of guilt. If addressed at all, German suffering (whether through expulsion, human rights abuse or bombing of civilians) was pictured as just punishment. The left vehemently criticized Western powers, especially the United States, but never in the context of World War II. As for the right, well there was a Cold War going on, and when the Springer tabloids and opponents of the 68-er did report about atrocities, these were always only committed by the Soviet victors. To mention suffering by German people was seen as counting up against the German nation's own collective guilt. Belonging to an organization of displaced Germans was equaled to being a revanchist cold warrior.

Times have changed again, and the article quotes the reaction to Grass's new book by one of the most influential editors of the Bundesrepublik , Rudolf Augstein: "It is appropriate again to commemorate the dead who perished among the 12,5 million displaced people during their flight to the West." ---Sluzzelin talk 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article providing some context here is Vergangenheitsbewältigung. When he published Crabwalk, hardly anyone knew Grass had a far more relaxed attitude toward his own Vergangenheitsbewältigung than he had always demanded from his country and its politicians. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That is really interesting, Sluzzelin, and I personally welcome the rise of a new critical consciousness amongst the Germans, evidenced in the work of Jörg Friedrich and others, a willingness to cast off absurd notions of 'collective guilt' (and they are absurd), to view the past in more fully rounded terms. After all, it can only deepen our understanding of the crimes, all of the crimes, that arise from war. MacDonogh's book also provides a sobering assessment of the savage ill-treatment of German civilians, guilty and innocent alike, by the Czechs and the Poles. These things can no longer be passed over in dishonest silence. Clio the Muse 23:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The new consciousness has been characterized as "the new normalcy" (or ingenuity, or even shamelessness). Some elements came a bit earlier, some later: Historification of the Nazi past, pluralism of historical images (which was still very controversial in the late 80s), appreciation of empirical studies instead of moral judgment, elevation of self-identity to an equal level with partner nations, a farewell to pacifism, and acceptance of positive patriotism. Now Germans have also entered the international culture of victimhood.

From a scientific and historical point of view, I don't see how I could possibly disagree with you, Clio. At the same time, I can think of very few nations who conducted a discourse so brutally open toward their recent past the way the old Bundesrepublik did. Maybe it is time for a change of tune, but I always found Germany's relentless exposing of its history very remarkable. In comparison, some of the nations I grew up in, do indeed carry baggage "passed over in dishonest silence"! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

At least in the Netherlands, German soldiers were used to clear minefields. A clear violation of human rights, one would say. But the only means to do this (quickly enough) was by people, who of course ran severe risks, and leaving the mines in place was no option. So why not let this be done by people who were part of the organisation that put them there in the first place? This makes perfect sense to me. Using them for other forced labour could be excused by 'they did that too', but of course doing onto others what they did onto you is no valid excuse. And letting them starve is of course totally inexcusable. An important issue considering what is a fair punishment is how guilty the German soldiers were, considering they had no choice. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to shoot someone else, then how guilty are you of murder if you choose to save your own skin? Let's assume they are innocent. Then who are guilty? The higher ranks, those who gave orders. I don't know if one could unintentionally get into such a position, so for safety I'll say those who made an effort to climb in the hierarchy took an active part in the slaughter and were in my eyes guilty. Guilty of something so horrific (I mean war in general, even without the concentration camps and such) that they should get life sentences (real life sentences, so no pardons). And letting them work for their keep and for reparation also makes perfect sense. Not the death penalty, though, in case at some point you go "Oops, administrative slip, we got the wrong guy". DirkvdM 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardwicke's Marriage Act

Hello, can you help me please. I need to know why the Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 was considered necessary and what the long term implications were. Thanks all. Isobel A —Preceding comment was added at 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't appear to have an article on the Act, but we do have one on Hardwicke, at Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke. Unfortunately that doesn't help much. The Act curbed the practice of clandestine marriages, expecially those in the Fleet Prison, and so it protected landed estates. The Act provided that the only valid marriages in England were conducted in the Church of England by banns or by marriage licence, in front of witnesses, and that those under 21 had to have parental consent. Before this, the simple exchange of vows was all that was needed, the attraction of clandestine or Fleet Marriages was that they offered some security, allowed people to marry without attracting the attention of parents, masters, poor law officials or other authorities. They were also cheaper than church marriages. So, essentially, the Act reinforced social control, by making it harder for the poor, servants, and those who had quarrelled with their families, from marrying who they wished. DuncanHill 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I now find we do have an article on the act, at Marriage Act 1753. DuncanHill 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Created redirect. Lanfear's Bane 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Act certainly derived from clear moral concern but it also appealed to aristocrats who were determined to defend their legacies from gold-diggers. It brought about a secularized status of marriage, as the law made clear that the church had failed in its regulation of marriages. Clergymen who disobeyed the Act were liable to up to 14 years transportation! For more information see: Harth, Erica, 'The Virtue of Love: Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act',Cultural Critique (Spring 1988), 123-54 LordFoppington

The long-term implications? Let me see, now. Oh, yes, it led to a boom in the Scottish marriage industry! Clio the Muse 02:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, inspiration for a lot of literature in the Eighteenth Century! Garrick's The Clandestine Marriage springs to mind! Lord Foppington 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White House coup

Where can I find more information about the 1933/4 White House coup against Roosevelt? Keria 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you found our article White House Coup? DuncanHill 14:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Now how come that didn't show up when I searched for it? Thank you very much Duncanhill. Keria 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, I'd not heard of it before, and it's fascinating stuff. DuncanHill 15:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a good short article on it at The Straight Dope. Donald Hosek 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed fascinating. It instantly reminded me of Seven Days in May (one of my favourite movies of all time, although I've never read the book), and when I looked there, I found that the book was actually inspired by the Business Plot. The things you read here! -- JackofOz 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White people

How many white people are there in the world? A single figure will do. I'm not talking about semites, latinos or asians, only white people. These include: bleak russians, red brits, europeans, european americans, europeans elsewhere, and all who are white. — Adriaan (T★C) 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The British census and normal British ethnic monitoring forms include "semites" (i.e. Jewish and Arabic people) as white, and I strongly suspect "latino" people would generally be classified likewise. DuncanHill 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See also White people. There is no obvious objective way to say who is or isn't "white". It depends who you ask. Friday (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, how many white people are there (a) in total, (b) excluding semites and arabs, (c) excluding latinos, and (d) excluding semites, arabs and latinos? — Adriaan (T★C) 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article explains, there is no single worldwide definition for who is "white". A person who is called "white" in one place may be considered not white in another place. Friday (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What are bleak russians, what are red brits ?87.102.3.9 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy but time consuming to multiply the population of white countries by their white ethnic percentage, and then sum the populations - at a guess 500 to 1000 million.87.102.3.9 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When Adriaan says bleak russians, he may mean White Russians! But I don't think the red brits are Redcoats. Xn4 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Adriaan is playing with stereotypes of British & Russian people, Russians may be perceived as "bleak" both because of the Russian climate and the gloomy nature of their national literature. British people are often stereotyped as red in colour, especially in hot sunny places such as South Africa (where I seem to recall Adriaan comes from). DuncanHill 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that modern genetic science teaches us that race is not an objective, biological fact, but rather a social relation that we impose collectively. As such, the criteria for inclusion or exclusion varies. Joseph R. Roach, a theatre / performativity historian, has done some interesting research that reveals how someone would change races while taking a hypothetical train journey through the American southern states a few decades ago; they'd be white in one state and non-white in another, depending on the legal definition. DionysosProteus 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol yes I wasonly playing around, I am just referring to white people in general. This is really a difficult question now. All I was basically wondering, is how many people are of ethnic European descent. Aren't there any statistics that give a thorough overview of differing statistics, taking in mind that "white" has different meanings in different places? — Adriaan (T★C) 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I thinking about how to answer your question. Are you now looking for people of European descent, or are you looking for "white" people excluding "Semites" and "Latinos"? If you are looking for people of European descent, it might be possible to come up with a rough estimate, but this number would include European Jews (who are after all of European descent and whose ancient background is only partly Southwest Asian) and Latinos (many of whom are mainly of European descent). Understanding this, do you want a number for "people of European descent"?

Or did you want a number for "white" people excluding Semites and Latinos (who are mainly white). If so, how do you define white people? Which peoples of the Caucasus count as white? What about Turks (who aren't Semites)? What about Kurds and Iranians (ditto)? What about Spaniards (who may be genetically indistinguishable from many "Latinos")? What about South Asians? (Some people consider them "white".) How about the Berbers of North Africa (not Semites)? What about the various minority peoples of Russia? Central Asians? Where do you want to draw the line? Wherever you draw it will be arbitrary. Marco polo 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for a statistic that covers all definitions. I.e. exclusively European, European + Semites, European + Semites + Latino, Only European + Latino, All Caucasion, and so forth... — Adriaan (T★C) 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that difficult - about 75% white in the USA of 300million = 225million, probably about 85% in canada pop~30million, 80% in russia of 140million, then add the european countries, plus whatever in southafrica 10% white of ~50million, all that's left is south and central america - I'll leave it to you to decide how white they are, and find out the amount of native/european settler mixing... Add another couple of million for diaspora - did I miss any?87.102.3.9 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did, apart from little matters like the fact that we actually have some non-white people in Europe, plus all those problems listed by Marco Polo above. And do you count cablinasians? Algebraist 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Plus what about central asia - are kazahks white - it's a matter of doing the research - in which I can recomend looking at the demographics section for each continent/country and doing the sums - I only meant to give an estimate, and maybe you can find the percentage of whites in europe - (do I have to do it all? - getting tetchy now). Clearly if I'm counting 'whites' I'm not including people who claim to be "african/asian/european" ..87.102.3.9 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus on the subject of Mr. Woods - whites generally aren't buddissts - for all the details check the interested parties - perhaps stormfront would have the data - this is getting silly.87.102.3.9 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The definitions of "white" (a cultural/racial group), of "Latinos" (a grouping which contains many cultures and many races), and even of "Semites" (a linguistic group tied into some racial groups) are not clear cut at all. And you are not going to find consistent statistics on these categories as they vary from country to country for political and local reasons. In the end I can't really see what your "statistic" is going to do—it is going to have a margin of error of hundreds of millions of people depending how you define a super huge category like "Latino" and whether you are using, say, categories based on self-reported data or not. --24.147.86.187 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Had about fifteen those white folk on my porch the last night, jeez those honkeys sure know how to read and write - talkin' about how many whiteys there were and all that, saying they wanted a number and niggas shed might catch light if they didn't find out. Looks like the black man has to do all the numbers work this time.

87.102.3.9 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There actually are genetic definitions of race which do make sense from a genetic perspective, but they don't match up with the cultural sense of race (so, e.g., Indians and Persians are part of the same "race" as Europeans, while Africans are divided into two separate races). Before the Dawn [2] is an interesting look at genetic anthropology which can be an enlightening look at these matters. Donald Hosek 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on This article, there are roughly 300,000 white people. -Arch dude 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are not white people, they are pale pink people. Rockpocket 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleak Russians and Red Britons! I see we are entering into a twilight zone of silliness! I'm sure you must known, Xn4, that there is White Russia and there is, well, White Russia. Speaking of the latter, do you think, does anyone think, that when Russia was Red they were still white; or were the whites red and the reds white? Now, as far as those lovely old-fashioned Red Brits are concerned, should I count those under the bed? The trouble is the poor dears are so hard to find, I think they must all be there (not mine!), having been chased into hiding by Cat Woman and The Joker. Alas, I certainly know lots of Blue Brits, even one or two Yellow ones, but not too many Reds. OK, OK, I'm overdoing it, I know; but this is just too, too funny! Lothrop Stoddard, anyone? Clio the Muse 22:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In Adriaan's defense, he appears to be South African and that country was unusual in that it had strict legal definitions on what constituted a "White", "Black", "Asian" and "Coloured" person. While the rest of the world would often hesitate to define an individual by a colour classification alone, one would find that South Africans (of all races) were much more comfortable using such classifications. It was also easier for them to do so in a meaningful manner, as the political situation served to restrict inter-racial mixing. I recall confusion among European and North American friends while discussing the difference between a "black" and "coloured" person in Apartheid South Africa. They were utterly perplexed by it, but it seemed logical enough to someone who had little experience outside that regime. This is changing, of course, but you can't just change a country overnight - it takes generations. So, from that perspective, I actually kind of understand what Adriaan means when he asks for this data. However, since the rest of the world doesn't really have a recent history of such racial segregationism, its very difficult to get global statistics in the manner one would for the South African population (at least until fairly recently). Rockpocket 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I admit the term 'red brit' does ring a bell (apparently we have red flushed faces) - probably from too much port.. As for 'bleak russians' - is this a common turn of phrase?87.102.3.9 23:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And I used to think 'white' was simple to define. - I'd guess the only people who have real (qualms) about saying who is and isn't white - are whites themselves - am I right??87.102.3.9 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was Black Russians? Now those I've heard of. And sure enough, we have one, two, and even three articles on Black Russia[n]s. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For all the technical definitions, rather like a judge said in a pornography trial, "I know it when I see it". And I am sure most people know what Adriaan wants for all our 'only race is the human race' posturing. He clearly defines what he wants (not Semites (Arabs and Jews), not Latinos (Latin Americans with mixed native ancestry) etc). So I am sure it's possible to give an approximate answer. Europe's population is about 730 million, America's 350 million. Another 30m for Canada, 20m for Australia. Ignoring a few white countries, but also ignoring the non-white population in Europe and America, around 1.1 billion seems a reasonable estimate. Cyta 07:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably a bit over (white ~75% in USA..) let's say 1billion (exactly!)87.102.7.57 12:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else probably pointed this out already, but just to make sure: Southern Europe (ie Latinos) is part of Europe, so you contradict yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkvdM (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Or not. Latino helps here. Spanish/Italians speak latin languages - they're not usually consider 'latinos' since they don't have south american indian ancestors..87.102.7.57 12:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1 Billion was more or less what I suspected. Sorry if my question was a bit vague, but as that other guy pointed out, to us South Africans, we are really outspoken about racial issues, and everybody knows what race they are: you are either black, coloured, white, asian or indian in South Africa. There aren't any one drop rules or stuff like that. I think that many people with visible black ancestry will define themselves as coloured. I have witnessed before on internet forums how people get mad at us South Africans for making a line between black and coloured people, but if you are here, you will understand. Blacks don't want to be called coloured, and coloureds don't want to be called black. But that's about it. And when we have polls, people don't "want" to be any other race that what they are, so, even though they might look white to an objective person, they know they are coloured and will also note so. Hmm. So I think that if all people were South African, we could have a fairly accurate statistic of how many whites/blacks/coloureds/etc there are. But thanks all for your help. — Adriaan (T★C) 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Puh-leeze. Accurate? Objective? You've just basically said that in your country, certain racial lines have become extremely firm, no doubt in part because your country instituted forcible social segregation and oppression by one of the races up until 1990! Wake up! Your country's "racial views" are not possibly "objective", the entire point with "race" is that there a multitude of different categorization schemes based on biological characteristics, social class, and political/legal questions. Do not mistake the view of the world from your country as being the way the world should be viewed. "Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature". --24.147.86.187 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the guidlines for this desk - something about diatribes.87.102.7.57 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...Ctya, fearing my attempts at sardonic wit are in danger of being lost, I think I should make my observations a little clearer. I confess the wording of the question made me laugh, particularly the part about red Brits. However, I personally do not hold, have never held, to the contention that the 'only race is the human race.' I am white (well, rosey pink, actually-definitely not red!); most of my friends are white, and that includes a number of Jewish/Semite and Latino people too! The real point-the point I think others have made-is that the question is unanswerable; and Brits are only red in the hothouse! Clio the Muse 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to all the posters not you, Clio. I too am white, apart from a week of holiday each year where I tend to be bright pink (and drunk, I am a sterotype!). It just annoys me that people asking questions on race, controversial though they may be, tend to get shouted down without any attempt to answer the question. Anyway we seem to have decided above on a nice round billion! Cyta 10:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation with numbers

Simple question, what is the general for where to place a comma when discussing an amount of money within a sentence. Where do you place a comma for the amount of $1000.00? Here $1,000.00 or is no comma needed?

Lori Kleppin 209.174.185.98 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Lori Kleppin

I would write $1,000.00 as you did, but I have also seen $1000.00 The comma makes it easier to read. DuncanHill 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Or you can add a half-space instead of the comma, although I don't know how to do that in wiki-markup. This has the advantage of making the number easier to read without risking looking like a . or confusing people from countries that use , and . the other way round in numbers! Skittle 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Those other countries follow the SI rules, I believe. DirkvdM 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And the disadvantage the the space looks like a space between words and therefore makes the number harder to read. --Anon, 00:31 UTC, October 19.

Well no, because it's a half-space so doesn't create as much space between the digits as would be between words. Skittle 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For how we do it on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Large numbers. Algebraist 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The different conventions are discussed at Decimal separator (which also deals with the thousands separator). But this question may be better asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics! -- !! ?? 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more a language question than a Mathematics one. -- JackofOz 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's economics, and that's a science (so they tell me), so maybe it should go there. But doesn't all this uncertainty about this mean it should go to the miscellaneous desk? DirkvdM 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's about the placement of commas and/or spaces, which in my mind is a punctuation issue, ergo language. It overlaps with mathematics, but I really can't see how it's an economics question in the slightest degree. -- JackofOz 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For another thing, why place the unit before the value - all other units are placed after it. That's also the order in which it is read out (you don't say 'dollar one thousand'). No need to specify decimal numbers either if they're all zero. So 1000 $ makes more sense to me. Or 1,000 $. Or 1.000 $ if you follow the SI guidelines. DirkvdM 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to take that argument a little further and see where we get. Do we look at "1000" and say "one zero zero zero"? No; we read to the end, realise that it's a 4-digit symbol for a particular number - this all happens in a micro-second, of course - and say the name of the number, "one thousand". -- JackofOz 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I don't entirely get what you mean, but I regard 1000 as one entity, just like 'word' is one word, not w-o-r-d. $ is the next entity. So 1000 $ becomes 'one thousand dollar'. And $ 1000 would then be 'dollar one thousand'. Btw, also note that I use singular, because it's not about 1000 dollar bills, but about a single unit. But that's something that varies a lot between languages and even within one language (such as Dutch). I believe that English is consistent in this, just consistently wrong - not sure if that is better or worse. :) DirkvdM 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First European Union

Thinking of the present meeting of the heads of government of the European Union in Lisbon, and the moves towards ever greater forms of political integration, I was wondering if we have not already been down this raoad? Was the Holy Roman Empire not the first attempt at a 'universal state'? If so what went wrong? 217.43.14.168 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances of the Holy Roman Empire and its predecessor, the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne were very different from those of the present European Union. Before the founding of those medieval empires, there were no nation-states as we now know them, whereas the European Union is a kind of confederation of nation-states. The Frankish Empire, which gave rise to the Holy Roman Empire, was united by the force of arms under a single autocratic, but feudal ruler, Charlemagne. I don't think that it was a self-conscious attempt at a 'universal state' or that Charlemagne was concerned with reconciling different national interests (which didn't exist at that time). Rather, it was formed in a simple quest to maximize the territory under the control of Charlemagne and his heirs. Charlemagne's empire was the precursor to the Holy Roman Empire that reunited pieces of Charlemagne's legacy under Otto I. Again, there was no notion of competing national interests (though there were competing dynastic and local interests). It was a matter of autocratic and feudal rule over a diverse collection of territories. The Holy Roman Empire broke down largely because, unlike the European states that survived beyond the early modern period, the empire never broke free of the feudalism that was the basis for its structure. Because the empire was a feudal entity, the emperor had little power beyond the power he held as a full sovereign over part of the empire (such as the Kingdom of Bohemia or the Duchy of Austria). Even in the lands where they were sovereign, these rulers may have been limited to the income that they could draw from their own personal lands to fund their military activities. Beyond this small power base, the emperor had to rely on the loyalty of his vassals. However, many vassals of the emperor were outright rebellious. During the early modern period, the constituent states of the empire began to modernize and to replace a feudal structure with forms of absolutism, albeit mainly on a small scale. Especially after the Thirty Years War, these absolutist states were effectively independent, and the Holy Roman Emperor was little more than a figurehead. It is from the absolutist states of the late Holy Roman Empire that the modern nation-states of Germany, Italy, and Austria are ultimately derived. However, it can't be said that the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire was due to separate national interests. Rather, it was due to divergent dynastic interests. Dynastic politics no longer play a role in Europe, so I'm not sure that useful analogies can be drawn to the European Union. Marco polo 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the coup de grace that brought a formal end to the Holy Roman Empire was Napoleon's demand that its last emperor dissolve it in 1806. By that time, the empire had ceased to be much more than an occasional talking shop for member states, but it stood in the way of Napoleon's quest for dominance over Europe. In a sense, a relic of Charlemagne's medieval dynastic imperialism was forced to give way to Napoleon's modernized dynastic imperialism. Marco polo 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A great answer, Marco. Clio the Muse 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What went wrong? A universal ideal fell to earthly realities; to factions and fragmentation; to Guelphs and to Ghibellines. What did Gibbon say? Ah, yes, It is the duty of the patriot to prefer and promote the exclusive interest and glory of his native country; but a philiosopher may be permitted to enlarge his views and to consider Europe as one great Republic. Onward the Guelphs! Clio the Muse 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." --Voltaire put it bedt. Rhinoracer 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of us don't agree that the dissolution of an empire (or a phony empire) is, in itself, an occasion to ask what went wrong. —Tamfang 03:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] private music theory website

I'm looking for a private website about music theory which is published by a male American (I guess, he's a composer). The home page states "contradicting music theory for over 20 years". The content is solely about critizism and rather large in quantity. What's the URL or the author? I have retrieved that site about two years ago. --Scriberius 20:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"contradicting music theory" does not appear on any page indexed by Google - if the site does indeed say this, it must be quite obscure. -Elmer Clark 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

well, something like that. Yes, a lot of theories are presented. 10:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriberius (talk • contribs)

[edit] What currency

What was the name of the currency used in Spain around the 15th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.56.226 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the peso, short for peso de ocho or piece of eight [3] , or maybe the real? SaundersW 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it's not necessarily clear from the article, the Spanish real was in existence at the time, although there was a smaller-valued coin called the maravedí which was also a contemporaneous currency. The 8-real coin, aka pieces of eight, was introduced in the late 15th century. The term "Peso" however, came about later. Donald Hosek 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Peso is Spanish for "weight", it doesn't come from "pieces of eight". See Spanish dollar and Peso. Corvus cornix 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fitzhugh Brundage: American Historian

I'm writing a news article involving Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian who specializes on Lynching in the American South. I can't find much information about him on here, does anybody know about him? A list or link to a list of his published works would be especially appreciated. Thanks in adnvance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a short bio of Professor Brundage here, with a picture. His personal web site is here. I'm not sure he would be too thrilled by the idea that he specializes in lynching, but it clearly is one of his interests! Xn4 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Clio the Muse 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reasons why america entererd wars

was America justified in entering the Spanish-American War and World War I? 141.151.175.75 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to judge for yourself by pondering on the Spanish-American War and the section on World War One in the History of the United States (1865-1918). The first was an act of imperialist ambition, the second an act of self-defence in response to one German provocation after another. Clio the Muse 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The excuse/justification for intervening in Cuba was the sinking of the Maine (you remember the Maine, right?). But to this day the cause of the sinking is unknown. Some people, like Sarah Vowell in Assassination Vacation have drawn parallels between the Maine's sinking justifying the US invasion of Cuba and, on the other hand, the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq justifying the US invasion. Pfly 07:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish-American war is just about the only imperialist aggression I can see some merit to -- the Spanish empire of 1898 was pretty decayed and rotten, and seriously overdue for being tossed onto the trash heap. On the other hand, the fairly predictable consequences of the Spanish-American war were the sordid episodes of the Platt Amendment and the Philippine-American War... AnonMoos 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany not only attacked the US, but also declared war on them, after the Japanese had done it. Pretty much the same way the USSR was drawn into the war (the two biggest mistakes of the Nazis, apart from starting the war in the first place). Before that, the US helped the allies with supplies and loans, but didn't participate because of the Monroe doctrine (the US will not interfere in Europe if Europe doesn't interfere in America (the continent, I mean)). But when both Japan and Germany declared war and attacked, it's safe to say there was sufficient justification. Concerning the sinking of the Maine, some say the US did that themselves to blame that on others and thus create an excuse for war. To follow up on Pfly's Iraq analogy, there are indications that the CIA deliberately let '911' happen (and even partook a little) to create an excuse for war. DirkvdM 08:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... Dirk, Japan was one of the Allies in the First World War. DuncanHill 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, wrong war. How big a difference one letter can make. And I suppose Clio's one but last link also put me on the wrong track because I didn't know there were already serious enough submarines in WWI. Maybe Verne's fantastic portrayal of them in the late 19th century also has something to do with that. Shame on me for not knowing this. DirkvdM 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)