From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< October 21	<< Sep | October | Nov >>	October 23 >

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 22 1.1 Religion and Excuses 1.2 Virginia elections. 1.3 Meaning of saying 1.4 Gustav Mahler. . . Violin Concert? 1.5 What day is it? 1.6 Male-female sex ratio using Social Networking Sites 1.7 Giulio Genoino 1.8 Winter War 1.9 Spanish Armada 1.10 Attitudes to slavery 1.11 Hearing my native language spoken abroad 1.12 Trouble with US colonies

[edit] October 22

[edit] Religion and Excuses

I once heard that if a person were to skip school/work and they said it was "for religious reasons", then the teacher/boss has to accept that and ask no questions (this is in the United States). Is there any truth to this? Could one (hypothetically) abuse this system and get of the hook for skipping 3 weeks of work for staying home and praying to His Great Holiness if they claimed it was a religious sacrament? 67.165.190.246 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't have to accept it and ask no questions. And no, doing it for your own silly reasons is not going to get any sympathy from anyone. Basically if you felt you were being legitimately discriminated against you'd have to take up with an administrator or an agency of the government or with a judge in court. And none of those are going to take more than 5 minutes to evaluate an obviously B.S. claim. Anyway, the most relevant law is Religious Freedom Restoration Act, from what I can tell. That article has links to a number of related articles. There are certain things an employer is not allowed to ask about (e.g. about your sexuality), but as far as I know none of the restrictions have anything to do with you claiming time off for any purpose. --24.147.86.187 01:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

US employers don't have to do any such thing. I've seen many people unable to keep their beliefs because of their jobs. I think what you're referring to is the fact that you can't be fired or hired for your religious beliefs alone. Wrad 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as long as the questions are couched in a religion-neutral way, it is perfectly legal to use criteria that would disqualify employees with certain beliefs or practices. For example, "Do you have a problem working Saturdays?" is fine. Now, I do believe you could win a suit if you could show that the Saturday-availability criterion intended religious discrimination rather than having a justifiable reason. Wareh 02:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some workplaces would allow you to exchange the traditional (i.e. Christian) holidays for those of your religion, but there is no obligation to do so, and taking time off for your religious holidays would be taken out of your recreation leave. Doing so for a ficticious religion or even a legitimate but uncommon religion is likely to cause suspicion. If you're caught abusing the regulations in this way (i.e. taking a holiday for to worship your non-existant cat because you have a hangover) leaves you open to disciplinary action (loss of pay, suspension, being fired).130.56.65.24 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"A fictitious religion". As opposed to all the provably true ones? --Psud 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is no longer good law. The Supreme Court invalidated it in City of Boerne v. Flores (Government may deny, so long as it has a rational basis in doing so, a permit to expand a church where local zoning ordinance restricted such expansion.) The RFRA tried to overrule Employment Division v. Smith (Government may restrict, so long as it has a rational basis for doing so, the use of peyote, even when consumed for religion-related purposes). Smith is still controlling law today. It overruled Sherbert v. Verner (Government can't deny, without a compelling reason, unemployment compensation to a woman who was fired because she refused to work on the Sabbath). Jordan 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)

[edit] Virginia elections.

How is it possible to you to say that a specific person is running against and incumbent US Congressman from the 6th congressional district of Virginia in the 08 Congressional Election? You state that a specific democrat is running against a Republican. You cannot make that statement at this time. Candidates to run int this Election can NOT file until January of 08. Someone may have announced that they are running but they cannot assume that they will be on the ballot. They must either circulate petitions and turn them in to SBE after the start of the 08 year. Also political parties may decide how they intend to nominate persons to represent their party in this race. I believe your information is flawed by assuming that this person will by a candidate. Other people could come forward to challenge someone who has announced his candidacy and their could be independents who file by the appropriate deadline by circulating petitions. A more accurate statement would be that someone (a democrat) has announced that he intends to run. Please check the Va. Election code which is 24.2 or the Virginia Constitution which clarifies the procedures for becoming a candidate and the deadlines that are in this portion of the Code of Virginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.80.193 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected Virginia's 6th congressional district to state that Sam Rasoul "is seeking the democratic nomination to challenge Goodlatte." I see that the page Sam Rasoul was deleted as a vanity article, so there could be some undue promotion going on here. If the primary election is contested, please do add the names of other candidates. (Anyone can edit Wikipedia by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of each article.) Wareh 02:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of saying

what is the meaning and origin of "you shoot the queen's arrows, you wear the queen's scarlet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susyq123 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the source, but I'd guess that the person saying this is implying that the arrows that they are using and the (scarlet) clothing they are wearing are supplied by the Queen. This means that there is also an obligation of loyalty to the Queen because of the Queen supplying the goods that they're using. What's the context of the saying? Is it from a book? 130.56.65.24 02:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"We wear the Queen's scarlet" is attributed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, when a contingent of U.S. Cavalry escorted a band of disaffected Cree who had fled to U.S. territory back to the border in 1885— and were astonished to find just four Mounties waiting to escort the Cree back to their reservation lands in Canada: "Where's your regiment?" the American officer asked. "We're all here," a young officer responded. "You see, we wear the Queen's scarlet." The anecdote is quoted in Daniel Francis, The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture 1992, p. 72. --Wetman 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "queen's arrows" are - which queen? when? arrows? - but the "queen's scarlet" is presumably an allusion to the red coat of the British Army and Queen Victoria (also works for Queen Elizabeth II, of course) - and not the Redcoats at Butlins, say! -- !! ?? 11:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Queen? Isn't the answer to that question obvious? The saying is in English, therefore the queen is obviously the British queen. - Fipher

[edit] Gustav Mahler. . . Violin Concert?

Is there actually now a Mahler Violin Concerto (!), or is this a joke of some sort? --S.dedalus 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'd never heard of any Mahler concerto. This website seems kosher, although I must say for an "editor-in-chief" to make so many bad spelling mistakes does not bode well for his credibility. (Deryck Cook > Cooke, Wilhelm Mengelberg > Willem, virtuostic > virtuosic, piannisimo > pianissimo, attaca > attacca, preemting > pre-empting). Deryck Cooke has been dead since 1976, so I'm very surprised this realisation of his hasn't come to light till now, or even been mentioned anywhere afaik. They say the score was kept in top secret, but surely some other Mahler researchers would have been aware of any attempt he may have made to write a violin concerto. If it is a hoax, it's quite an elaborate one. A photo of the CD cover is provided, for example, and it's in the usual DG style. If it's legit, I am much intrigued, and can't wait to hear this. Thanks for drawing it to our attention, S.dedalus.

Oh, I must make this disclaimer: "Right now I half-expect Jack's beanstalk to pop up in my garden" does not mean it had anything to do with me! -- JackofOz 04:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "scanned original score" is riddled with spelling mistakes as well. The title Konzert für Violin und grosser Orchester (Solist-Partitur) should be Konzert für Violine und großes Orchester (Solopartitur) or (Solistenpartitur). Violin fora see it as a hoax as well. See violinist.com, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the more I look at this the more things look funny; sounds like it’s a hoax unfortunately. I just noticed that the piece is supposedly in F sharp minor, the hardest possible minor key on the violin. (No open strings correspond to tonic or dominant, and since the lowest sting is G scales go very high on the instrument.) The copyright also says “Derek Lim, completely responsible person” :-) Still, a very good photo job on that Deutsche Grammophon picture! --S.dedalus 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I was really hoping for some new Mahler! I guess if it really was true, it would have made headlines in the Mahler world 18 months ago. I liked the quip: "I especially enjoy his somewhat exhausting sonata number three in E-flat minor, subtitiled, "Bombastic Reflections on the Death of Children," especially when played in a hushed and sinister manner suggesting bathos, pathos and sort of transcendent nobility." I wonder what long-forgotten masterpiece will be "unearthed" next - Brahms' opera? Schubert's clarinet concerto? Puccini's harpsichord sonata? Chopin's symphony? I can't wait. -- JackofOz 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to dispel any remaining doubts, scroll right to the bottom and check the date that the article was written. If even that isn't enough, check the Internet Archive version of the page from 1999. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was also hoping for a new violin concerto in the repertoire. I guess us violinist have enough concertos as it is though. :-) By the way, there doesn’t seem to be a List of compositions by Gustav Mahler article yet as there is with most other major composers. Anybody want to collaborate on it? --S.dedalus 04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What day is it?

Have there ever been any significant breaks in the cycle of the days of the week? Cases where two large groups of people following the Jewish seven-day calendar met and couldn't agree on what day of the week it was? --67.185.172.158 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From Claus Tøndering 's Calendar FAQ: "There is no record of the 7-day week cycle ever having been broken. Calendar changes and reform have never interrupted the 7-day cycles. It is very likely that the week cycles have run uninterrupted at least since the days of Moses (c. 1400 BC), possibly even longer. Some sources claim that the ancient Jews used a calendar in which an extra Sabbath was occasionally introduced. But this is probably not true." - Nunh-huh 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Jewish, but some local jurisdictions have dropped days from the calendar in order to correct errors. From International Date Line:

• The Philippines was on the east side of the date line until 1844, though decidedly on the west side of the line today. As a Spanish colony, its most important communication was originally with Acapulco in Mexico. At 00:00 in London, Great Britain, 17:20 in Acapulco was about 08:04 in Manila. A 9 hour, 16 minute difference, Manila ran nearly a half-day behind Acapulco. During the 1840s, trade interests turned to China, the Dutch East Indies and adjacent areas, and the Philippines was changed to the west side of the date line. Monday, 30 December 1844 (ending up as a 365-day year) was followed by Wednesday, 1 January 1845. -- JackofOz 05:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Other places that have skipped or repeated a day of the week in order to change to the other side of the Date Line include Alaska, parts of Kiribati, and Kwajalein. There are not examples of "correcting an error", though. --Anon, 23:45 UTC, Tuesday, October 23, 2007.

I celebrate the subtle way you corrected "my" error, Anon. Thanks. -- JackofOz 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been documented occasions, notably in World War Two, where groups of fleeing Jews came close to, or crossed the International Date Line, with drastic implications for their religious practice. To confuse matters further, there is no universal agreement among halachists on the location of the dateline and strong arguments exist for dissenting from the use of the IDL. I know that this was on occasion "resolved" by the doubters needing to keep 2 days Sabbath... and fasting 48 hours (+1=49) for Yom Kippur. Rather them than me. --Dweller 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Male-female sex ratio using Social Networking Sites

I would like to know the male-female sex ratio of users on social networking websites..like facebook,orkut,myspace,etc Any sources/resources/stubs that will help me to find it ? Thanks Ritesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.248.121 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy with self-declared gender (and I doubt you'll get anything better), then you can get this within Facebook, at least on for individual networks. If there are stats for the whole thing, I haven't found them yet. Algebraist 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giulio Genoino

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Giulio Genoino Please consider contributing

what part he play in neapolitan rising in 1647? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.78.9 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Giulio Genoino, the 'mind of Masaniello', was a key figure in the 7 July, 1647 popular insurrection against spanish authority in Naples. A priest, lawyer, and academic, Genoino had for three decades attempted to influence constitutional change to involve the Third Estate in the government of the city. Despite being a representative of Spain to Naples, he was accused of spreading sedition and instigating riots during unrest in 1585 and 1620. After periods of imprisonment and exile, and then in his 80's, he returned to Naples and began advising the fisherman and smuggler Tommaso Aniello—later know as Masaniello—a popular figure among the city's populace. Genoino was the real power behind the popular movement, and supplied the directionless and illiterate Masaniello with advice and a coherent policy. Following the uprising of 7 July, and the assassination of Masaniello on 16 July, the Viceroy attempted to restore order by handing governance of the city to Genoino. He was unable to resist the extremest demands of the populace, and following a second revolution in August Genoino was exiled and the Neapolitan Republic proclaimed.

References

• (July 1997) "July 7th, 1647: Masaniello's Naples Revolt against Spain." History Today. '47
• Calabria, Antonio (1990) Good Government in Spanish Naples. p. 254. OCLC 19815217
• Kamen, Henry (1971) The Iron Century: Social Change in Europe, 1550-1660. p. 362-3. OCLC 278868

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EricR (talk • contribs)

Bravo, Eric. Since that included the references upon which it was based, I just turned it into the article Giulio Genoino. Wareh 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winter War

What did the Brits do to help Finland in the war against Russia and should they have done more? Irishbard 12:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Winter War#foreign support. No. Algebraist 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just imaigine what would have happened if the British and French had managed to send an expeditionary force to Finland, having first obtained permission from Norway and Sweden for the transit of troops and supplies. For a start they would have ended up at war with both Hitler and Stalin at the same time, which could only have strengthened the Nazi-Soviet Pact still further. Western Europe would have been even more exposed than it already was, and Hitler would would have a perfectly valid excuse for attacking the Scandinavian countries, almost certainly cutting lengthy lines of communication, catching the Allies in the rear as they faced the Soviets in the front. The best assessment of the 'Artic gamble' is that of A G Mazour, who in Finland Between East and West emphasises the importance of the Finnish decision in March 1940 to make peace with Stalin, rather than request help from the West:

On March 1, 1940, Finland, stood before a great decision: to ally herself with the West or to succumb to the East. As the small nation analysed all the possible hardships each choce entailed, it decided to take the humble road to Moscow instead of the westward road. By taking it Finland at least spared her neighbour Sweden from being drawn into the conflict. And who can tell? Perhaps by the same token Finland averted a Soviet-German military alliance, surely a contribution for which the Western Allies could be grateful.

Absolutely! But in the long run Finnish tenacity did have important consequences for the whole course of the Second World War. The poor performance of the Red Army caused Hitler to make some serious miscalculations, one of the most significant factors in the planning of Operation Barbarossa Clio the Muse 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Finnish decision meant that after Germany attacked the USSR, that country as a result became one of the allies and consequently Finland unintentionally became one of the axis power (an 'ally' of Germany). If the British had attacked the USSR before that, that would have made it weirder still - they would have been fighting an ally and consequently become one of the axis powers too, despite being attacked by Germany. I wonder what historians would have made of that. Would they have branded GB an extraneous power or something? DirkvdM 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I can untangle some of that, for the benefit of the viewers, you understand. First of all, although the Finns accepted some military assistance from the Germans, they always maintained that in the Continuation War they were fighting their own limited parallel conflict, refusing to join in wider operations, like the offensive against Leningrad. They did not join the Tripartite Pact and were not therefore part of the Axis. The British never had any intention of 'attacking' the USSR: the aim was to assist the Finns in their own defence. There is no evidence that the British or the French ever planned to declare war. It would have been quite possible to engage in major military operations without such a declaration, just as the Soviets and the Japanese had shown on the borders of Manchuria. In any case, the Allies would have been caught between a Russian hammer and a German anvil, which would have driven them out of Scandinavia, in much the same fashion as they were by the Germans alone in the Norwegian Campaign of 1940. 'Being at war with Russia', I stress again, would not automatically make a country an Axis power. There are no conceivable circumstances in which Britain would have taken the positive step of making peace with Germany-the main enemy-to join the Tripartite Pact. The suggestion is quite ludicrous. What is likely to have happened is that, assuming a state of semi-belligerency, Britain and Russia would have set aside mutual grievances to fight against a common enemy. Clio the Muse 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, having a common enemy doesn't necessarily make allies. But it would have created an awkward situation. Note that there is a section Axis powers#Finland, although it starts by saying Finland wasn't an axis power. But then goes on to say in what ways Finland and Germany cooperated. Also note that the map at the top of that article first shows Finland as neutral, then as an axis power and then, towards the end of the war, as one of the Allies. I suppose an important factor here is that, afaik, Finland has long gone its own way and stayed neutral since WWII. So it's likely they wouldn't have taken sides in WWII either, had they not been forced to. They were fighting their own war, just cooperating with whoever happened to be their enemy's enemy. DirkvdM 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Armada

How important was the English victory as an event in European history? 86.151.241.81 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Protestantism would have been curtailed in England, I don't know how it would have applied to the continent. Corvus cornix 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Spanish_Armada#Consequences? Exxolon 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It showed that Spain was not invincible, encouraging the Protestant factions in the Netherlands and France to continue with their struggle. If the Spanish had won it is difficult to see, with Philip II in control of England, the North Sea and the Channel, how the Dutch coould have maintained their independence, or how Henry IV could have emerged as king of France. Henry brought the Wars of Religion to an end, which had kept France weak in the face of Habsburg power in Spain and the Empire. France was now set to emerge as a serious rival to Spain, which was to do much to contribute to that country's ensuing political and military decline. The Armada crisis also ended the alienation between England and Scotland, occasioned by the execution in 1587 of Mary Queen of Scots. James VI, wary of the greater danger, assured Elizabeth of his support in the dangerous summer of 1588, thus moving the countries further forward on the path of eventual dynastic union. As far as James was concerned the victory of his cousin was a victory for "the Ile of Britain." Perhaps, in the deepest sense, the defeat of the Armada gave shape to a new and lasting identity, at once Protestant and British. For the subsequent course of European history that is perhaps the greatest consequence of all. Clio the Muse 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It also cost Spain. There were costs in terms of ships, men, arms and bullion. Also, as Charles V found out to his cost, it cost in terms of attention-span. The Spanish empire was so vast and administrative processes were so cumbersome, it was difficult for the King to multitask appropriately. Paying attention to a crisis that ends in failure was therefore all the more galling and costly. Finally, it reduced the impact of the threat Elizabeth felt from excommunication, as the most likely executor of the penalties of that punishment had been stymied. --Dweller 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the effect it would have had on the Netherlands. The fact that the English won in one fell swoop meant they could build up strength against the new major opponent, the Netherlands - see Anglo-Dutch Wars. If the Spanish would have won the sea battle, the two would probably have had to fight a land war after that, which would have weakened them both. In the meantime, the Netherlands would, at least at first, not have been affected and been able to build up strength. Then again, if Spain would have won eventually, then it would have been a bigger single force, so the Dutch would have needed that strength. But more importantly, Philip II was a religious fanatic, who may have been much more eager to attack the Netherlands. It's risky to speculate about such details because it's all much too intricate, but I suppose the biggest effect was that an old power had not only lost a major battle, but also face, which gave others more courage and gave room for new powers to arise. I wonder now, was this the decisive factor in the decline of Spain, or was it a symptom of something that was already happening for some time? DirkvdM 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attitudes to slavery

This year marks the two hundredth anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British empire. In the eighteenth century slavery had been such an essential part of the economy. I was wondering when and under what circumstances opinion turned against the trade. Brodieset 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed in 1787, but the Quakers had been campaigning against the slave trade since at least the early 1700s if not earlier. There was little moral argument for slavery - it was just more profitable than alternative investments: ship owners could make handsome profits from the three legs of the triangular trade, and so were rather keen to keep the trade running; not to mention the operators of collateral businesses, such as the manufacturers of tools and equipment for use by the slaves on the plantations.

Perhaps we can stir in the pot factors including the court cases, like the Somersett's Case and the Zong; the loss of the American colonies (and the encouragement of the Black Loyalists to fight for the British); and the active campaigning of the Committee, and people like William Wilberforce, Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson; slave narratives and other books, like those of Ukawsaw Gronniosaw and Olaudah Equiano; the Haitian Revolution; and images like the Wedgwood image of the slave saying "I not a Man and a Brother?", and the cross-sections of slave ships.

But I'm not sure that slavery was "essential" - the economy carried on after abolition of the trade much as it did before. Of course, the Slave Trade Act 1807 only abolished the trade - the slaves had to wait another 26 years for the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, and until 1838 for full abolition.

See this lecture earlier this year. -- !! ?? 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is another dimension here to do with the actual location of slavery and the slave trade, activities both remote from British shores and thus removed from popular consciousness. This changed after the conclusion in 1763 of the Seven Years' War, when ever increasing numbers of enslaved men and women began to appear in London, brought there by their owners. The immediacy was shocking enough, but it also raised questions about the validity of the institution in a country where there was no slave law. It lead directly to Somersett v Steuart in 1772, when Granville Sharp argued before Lord Mansfield at the Court of King's Bench that slaveholding in England was a violation of the Common Law. To ship slave law into the country would, as Sharp put it, make England "as base, wicked, and tyrannical as our colonies." Mansfield, in finding for the plaintiff, effectively curtailed the liberties of the slave owners. Though evading the more general question about the legality of slavery as such, he had, in effect, encouraged the view that the practice was "repugnant to English laws", as one slaveholder expressed it.

There was an acute irony at work here; for the Mansfield decision defined Britain as a 'land of liberty', not long before the slave-owning American colonies began to object to being subordinated to the 'tyranny' of Parliament. "Why", Samuel Johnson asked, "do we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" In the ideological debates between the two sides, slavery became a political issue in a way that it had never been in the past, with the Americans insisting that if there were slaves in the colonies it was because British traders had put them there. Pratically speaking, of course, it was all posturing, and neither side took any meaningful steps to address the issues raised; but it still drew attention to slavery as a moral problem; that slavery was a vice and that opposition to slavery was a virtue.

Before the American Revolution, the British Empire was little more than a commercial opportunity; afterwards it started the process of rebirth as a kind of moral mission, where rule should be exercised, as Edmund Burke put it, "for the benefit of the governed as well as the governors." Evangelicals within the Church of England pressed for the proper pastoral care of slaves within the Empire, just as officers returning from the war urged the government to give support and assistance to the escaped American slaves who had fought with the British Army. It was now that the Quakers, who had always disliked slavery, but had not challenged the existence of the institution, began to press for abolition. Boyed up by the conviction that the British people now considered slavery as a national embarrasement, the movement moved forward, gathering support and momentum along the way. By the early 1790s the consumption of West Indian Sugar, the chief product of slavery, was plummeting, showing that abolition had indeed become the cause of the nation. Clio the Muse 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Church of England owned slaves, of course.

The website of the recent exhibition at Westminster Hall includes a cartoon by Gillray from 1792, satirising the "Anti-Saccharrites". Sales of sugar fell by a third, but the trade remained profitable until the end. -- 10:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered how important slavery was to the economy. The countries that abolished it flourished afterwards, didn't they? So maybe there was some realisation that it was not as profitable as it seems. Slaves are not free, but have to be kept healthy and strong so they can work hard. By contrast, a worker in a capitalist society (as appeared in the 19th century, after the abolishing of slavery) may be free in name, but can be exploited to a much higher degree. Of course, this contradicts what I just said about keeping workers healthy and strong. Am I missing something here? DirkvdM 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dirk; but-hey-what's new!? Sorry, I could not resist that. So, now free labour is subject to a higher degree of exploitation than that of the slaves! Well, you are consistent, I suppose. I was rather under the impression that slavery was nothing but exploitation; that it is defined, it might be said, as exploitation in its purest form. Have you by chance been reading Uncle Robin in His Cabin in Virginia, and Tom without One in Boston, one of the many southern literary responses to Harriet Beecher Stowe? No? Well, it contrasts the condition of the happy black living under the security of slavery with that of his poor cousin living with the insecurity of free market capitalism. It's truly enlightening. Were the slaves healthy? Well, putting to one side the pneumonia, the typhus, the cholera, the lock-jaw, the tuberculosis, the intestinal worms, the rotting teeth, the malaria, and the many other trivial ailments that were endemic in slave cabins, yes, I suppose the slaves were healthy. I suppose also that the four out of a hundred who made it to the age of sixty must have been extraordinarily healthy. I remember some quotations from Ken Burns' superlative TV documentary, The Civil War, which I thought summed up the position of black people under ante-bellum slavery rather well; one from a white Mississippian, who said "I'd rather be dead than be a nigger on one of those big plantations"; one from a free black, who wrote "No day ever dawns for the slave, nor is it looked for. For the slave it is all night; all night forever." They obviously failed to recognise how healthy it all was! Clio the Muse 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read those books, but I do read Wikipedia. :) From the slavery article: "In times of dire need such as famine, people have offered themselves into slavery not for a purchase price, but merely so that their new master would feed and take care of them." According to the economics section (an interesting read), a slave in 1850 cost about 38,000 US$ in today's currency equivalent, so it was a huge investment. (Of course, as the slave became older, he also became less valuable, I suppose.) It also says the slave/paid worker choice has in part to do with the price of land versus labour. And in America, land was more plentiful than in England, so that may have been a factor in the abolition movement in England. DirkvdM 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

George Fitzhugh was the most thorough and systematic and quasi-"scientific" advocate of the position that many southern slaves were better off than many northern workers. AnonMoos 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which, if true, still says nothing until you know the condition of the northern workers. DirkvdM 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hearing my native language spoken abroad

I have experienced this countless times. Every time I'm abroad, I have no problems hearing my native language (Finnish) spoken by coincidence when I'm at my destination. In faraway places (outside Sweden and Estonia, where every Finn goes at least once per year), it's actually refreshing. But when I'm coming back home, hearing Finnish spoken annoys and irritates me. I take great relief whenever I hear a fellow passenger speaking a foreign language. When I'm back in Finland, it's business as usual, and Finnish doesn't annoy me any more. Can anyone explain why this is so? JIP | Talk 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really a psychological question. My native language is American English, which has a rather different relationship to the world than Finnish, of course. Still, I experience something like what you are describing. After I've spent some time in a place where I don't hear many Americans, I have an unpleasant feeling suddenly being surrounded by Americans in the departure lounge or on the flight home. The unpleasant feeling goes away more or less after I get off the plane. Personally, I enjoy being a foreigner (for a few weeks or months, anyway) and being exposed to different ways of being and talking, and there is something deeply disappointing about being part of the herd again. Marco polo 01:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the irritation could arise from the knowledge that your trip is now truly over and you are headed back to real life. I have had similar feelings on my return journey, but not when the trip was one for business. Bielle 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Australians are often informed by Americans that we sound like cockneys. We of course don't believe this, because as far as we're concerned cockney-speak is significantly different from Oz-speak. Yet, many Australians have remarked that on returning home after a few months or more overseas where they haven't been mingling with other Australians, their first impression on hearing Australians speak is that it's a lot more cockney-like than they had previously been prepared to accept. But they soon get over it and get on with their richly rewarding lives. -- JackofOz 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a place where most people are native English speakers is not a good place to ask this, because they hear all sorts of variations of their language when traveling, so the experience will be quite different for them. Having said that, I'm Dutch and I have traveled a lot, but alas I can't relate to what you say. Maybe it's because I generally travel for about half a year. When I get home it's more like an odd culture shock. But I don't find it annoying. Actually, once when I had been away for a whole year and returned because I started to become homesick, I sat in the metro station and wasn't aware that I was smiling, but also staring at a couple, happy to see some Dutch people again, upon which the guy gave me a look of 'what are you looking at?". I was instantly cured. DirkvdM 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Finnish is just an irritating language? :) kiddingggggg DirkvdM 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, JIP. I've experienced the same thing, but I never realized it till now. I'd always thought that it was just that Americans in general are ignorant assholes and their talk was harsh and pointless. Now I think it's that when I was abroad I could tune out the foreign talk, especially if it was in a language I don't know at all, and let the alien intonations register more as music than speech. --Milkbreath 00:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble with US colonies

Which of America's new colonies gave the U.S. the greatest amount of trouble to control, and how did this struggle affect the political debate about whether a republic like the U.S. should have them
THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnl1101 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we don't really offer homework answers here, and the likelihood is that your teacher probably has specific (assigned) readings in mind when they gave you the question. So why don't you look over your assigned reading that might pertain to this topic, and then come back if you have more specific questions about it. --24.147.86.187 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Philippine-American War and take it from there. Clio the Muse 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy , War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Iraq War. Edison 02:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Colonies? Oh dear! Clio the Muse 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have every been a colony of the United States of America, and currently the U.S. government has not publicly expressed any desire for colonization, and so neither of these cases should have anything to do with this question. -Fipher