Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< February 22 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 24 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents


[edit] February 23

[edit] OLD AIRCRAFT CARRIER #8

67.184.105.210 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)ON FEB 20TH WHILE IN PASCAGOULA MISSISSIPPI BY THE NORTHRUP GRUMMAN NAVAL SHIP YARDS, I SAW A OLD AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH THE NUMBER 8 ON THE SUPER STRUCTURE. NOW I KNOW THAT THE USS HORNET HAD NUMBER 8 AND WAS SUNK. WHAT WAS I LOOKING AT? 67.184.105.210 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably USS Makin Island, LHD-8.—eric 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baptist church

I know that the Baptist Church started after the Anabaptist Church. But why a separate movement called Baptist? Both groups believe in voluntary adult baptism.

What is the greatest difference between Anabaptism and Baptism?--71.107.215.71 (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Anabaptists were so named because they were the Rebaptisers: holding that infant baptism was invalid, they rebaptised those who had been baptised as children. On the other hand, as far as I know, Baptist churches don't follow this practice; I was baptised by sprinkling as an infant, but if I joined the local Baptist church now, I don't think that anyone would propose immersing me as an adult. Finally, these two families of Christianity are called this because their primary distinctive (at least at the time when they became separate families) from other Protestants was their focus on baptism as a distinctive principle. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin in Libya?

Reading the book Khrushchev's Cold War, published a few months ago, I read the following text on page 58:

"...with the exception of Stalin's brief play for a colony in Libya after World War II..."

I'm a history student, primarily European and especially Russian, and I've never heard of this. I can't find anything on our articles about the history of Libya. Can someone explain somewhat about this? Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Vyacheslav Molotov[1], Stalin was negotiating for such a deal after WWII.

Egypt was and remain today strongly under the influence of Western countries. The Suez Canal was under the control of NATO countries. Today, Egypt hosts prison for the US. So Stalin wanted to have control over the country next to Egypt to counter-balance NATO expansionism with Warsaw Pact expansionism.--71.107.215.71 (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nytend, Molotov first raised the possibility of a Soviet trusteeship over Libya when he attended the Council of Foreign Ministers in London in September 1945, joking that the Soviet Union had a talent for colonial administration. This was on Stalin's initiative, though Molotov, far more of a diplomatic realist, understood that the western Allies would never agree to such a proposal. He continued to push for it at several meetings thereafter, though, as expected, it came to nothing in the face of ever hardening western opposition. I can give you a reference for this if you wish
71.107, please forgive me for saying so, but the information you have given here is ever so slightly misleading. For a long time Egypt enjoyed good relations with the Soviet Union, particularly during the presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Stalin did not want control over Libya to 'counter-balance NATO expansionism', whatever that is supposed to mean, for the simple reason that NATO was not formed until several years after the Libya proposal. You might also care to note that the Warsaw Pact was not formed until 1955, two years after Stalin's death. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Women's fashion history?

Where can I learn more about what kind of clothing arist or free-thinking women in Zurich wore in 1916 to 1920? Ideally with pictures.--206.248.172.247 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1910s_in_fashion -- Churchh (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If by "free-thinking" you mean socially progressive, then see New Woman and also Victorian dress reform. I know these are a little before 1916 but they may provide further leads. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1952 abolition of identity cards in the United Kingdom

1952 - The British government, under Winston Churchill, abolishes identity cards in the UK to "set the people free".

I've found that in the article February 21, unfortunately no links to articles are given for further reference and the reason given "to set the people free" is not sufficient to quench my curiosity. May somebody provide me with a little more information about this? --Taraborn (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this refers to the National Registration Act 1939 c. 91, which was repealed in 1952. It covered registration of the population and the issue of wartime ID cards. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is misleading anyway because it's misses a lot of the context and political activity around the removal of the national ID card - this article should give you some names and terms to google http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3129302.stm --Fredrick day (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Taraborn. As Finlay has said, identity cards were introduced in the United Kingdom in September 1939. This was the second such scheme in British history, following a largely unsuccessful experiment during the First World War. Given the long British attachment to civil liberties the scheme was highly unpopular, though accepted in the light of the prevailing national emergency. It's possible to take a small measure of how the national identity scheme was received from remarks by the historian A J P Taylor in his English History, 1914-1945, where he describes the whole thing as an 'indignity' and talks of the Home Guard 'harassing' people for their cards (pp.563, 599).

After the war the government of Clement Atlee decided to continue the scheme in the face of the Cold War and the perceived Soviet threat, though it grew ever less popular. In the mind of the public it was more and more associated with bureaucratic interference and regulation, reflected, most particularly, in the 1949 Passport to Pimlico, one of the comedy movies made by the Ealing Studios in London. Identity Cards also became the subject of a celebrated civil liberties case in 1950, when Clarence Henry Willcock, a member of the Liberal Party, refused to produce his after being stopped by the police. During his subsequent trail he argued that identity cards had no place in peace time, a defence rejected by the magistrate’s court. In his subsequent appeal, Willcock vs. Muckle, the judgment of the lower court was upheld, though in summing up Lord Goddard more or less accepted his defence;

This Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it is now sought to be used. To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them.

Protest reached Parliament, where the Conservative and Liberal peers voiced their anger over what they saw as 'Socialist card-indexing'. After the defeat of the Labour Government in the General Election of October 1951 the incoming Conservative administration of Winston Churchill was pledged to get rid of the scheme, 'to set the people free', in the words of one minister. This was a popular move, adopted against the wishes of the police and the security services, though the decision to repeal the 1939 legislation was, in significant part, driven by the need for economies. By 1952 national Registration was costing £500,000 per annum, a huge sum for the day, and required 1500 civil servants to administer it.

I just hope somebody from our wonderful present government is reading this, a futile dream, I know! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They might now. I've used your text to expand British national identity card#ID cards during the World Wars. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio, if you are in favour of civil liberties i presume you agree the Conservative Party should favour repealing all laws prohibiting drug use, prostitution and gambling? Willy turner (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Drug use? Perhaps, though I refuse to be drawn on this! Prostitution? I think there should be an end to the victimisation of women. Gambling? Is it possible to have any more of this than we already have?! I believe in freedom, Willy, but nothing in life is absolute! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As i suspected you are definatley not a social libertarian. Why not be drawn on drug use? What do you mean by the 'victimisation' of women? The way our laws force women to stand outside in the cold and in danger rather than wotk indoors? And yes it is obviously possible to have more gambling than we currently have, as at the moment the government have absolute control over how and where people gamble. Dont take it personaly but i noticed a discepency in your previous posts, You are NOT a libertarian. P.S if i havent offended you too much, why is there the discrepancy between the economically liberal but socialy conservative policies of the US Republicans and the UK Conservatives. In fact i will make my last question a seperate post below Willy turner (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am what I am. You have no need to worry, Willy: it would take an awful lot more than this to offend me, with or without caps! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not so unlikely that somebody from your government is reading this page, Clio. This is possibly where they get many of their best ideas. On this note, a while back I was greatly humoured by the suggestion that the Queen edits Wikipedia in her spare time, and I still laugh whenever I think of it. But despite its apparent absurdity, it's entirely possible, you just never know. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
One has been outed! We feel, in the circumstances, that a knighthood may be warranted. Arise, Sir Jack...sorry; it's really only me! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps while eating crisps from a tupperware box... A pleasing image. Oh and Willy, being in favour of civil liberties does not necessarily mean being in favour of all things being allowed. Skittle (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The consequences of the Queen editing Wikipedia (and becoming addicted, as we all do) are quite intriguing to consider. Alan Bennett's novella The Common Reader has the Queen becoming so addicted to books she neglects her duties to the extent that a constititional crisis looms. Perhaps this is just an allegory for a (much more likely) Wikipedia addiction??! -Gwinva (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Being a continental myself I'm quite used of having a identidy card (so probably I'm partial in this matter). But I'm completly unable to understand the reasons why many of the British ppl are against them. AFAIK Britain is the country with the highest CTV camera per person rate. On the other day I saw on TV that a central british DNA information bank is being created and (and here is the kicker) its information is going to be shared with the goverment of the USA. The USgov which is so widely known for its highest respect of human, civil, and legal rights. Both goverments are truly known for protecting the privacy of such information always (especialy in recent times). I might be exagerating, but being soo overly proud of not carrying an identidy card while at the same time you are being watched by CTV cameras and information of your DNA is being catalogued and shared with a foreign goverment is not very logical or warranted at all. Flamarande (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not that much of a contradiction. The fact that a "central british DNA information bank is being created" is one of the main reasons why people object to ID cards. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a huge contradiction. The DNA information bank contains much more sensitive information. You didn't comment upon the fact that the information is going to shared with the USgov or that Britian has the 'highest CTV per person ratio'. Flamarande (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I, and many others in Britain, find all of the things you mention abhorrent. Why do you presume we all support such totalitarian measures? Malcolm Starkey (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that you support such measures. I honestly think that you oppose Identidy cards far too much, but DNA information banks and CTV cameras far too less. I will even speculate and say that the UK goverment takes advantage of the whole situation and deploys more and more cameras and creates a DNA information bank while at the same the average UK subject is claiming that thank God he so free because he hasn't a stupid card. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jul/16/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy Flamarande (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Good for you. Don't forget that the reference desk is not a soapbox. And nor are you supposed to post diatribes. Thanks. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Incredibly detailed response, Clio, as usual. --Taraborn (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Always gald (glad), Taraborn. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, Clio, I am sorry to hear you are "gald". Been working your fingers to the bone? To those who are unfamiliar with this arcahaic word, I should explain it is a variant of "gall": Wikiionary senses 8 & 9 - Gwinva (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops! I type too fast; I think too fast! Arcahaic, Gwinva? What is that archaic for?! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hoist by my own petard! What a laugh. Unless I can convince you that an "arcahaic word" is what one shouts while dancing a part circle and exclaiming in triumph? -Gwinva (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hoo shed arcahaic ?(hic!) Retarius | Talk 04:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish anti-semitism

An odd question, I know, but has there ever been such a thing as Jewish anti-semitism? I know that some orthodox Jews are opposed to Zionism but that is not what I mean. 86.147.185.228 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't exactly what you're looking for, but we do have an article about the self-hating Jew.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that “Orthodox Jews are opposed to Zionism.” What they are opposed to is SECULAR Zionism, namely the running of the State of Israel not in accordance with the Torah. In fact, it was Orthodox Jews who established the “ultra-Orthodox” Mea Shearim district of Jerusalem, 20 YEARS BEFORE Theodor Herzl started his Secular Zionist movement. Throughout the two thousand years of the Jewish dispersion, the return to Eretz Israel was (and is) mentioned in an Orthodox Jew’s daily prayers – “and gather us from the four corners of the earth to our Land [Eretz Israel].” It was the Reform Jews who deleted references to Zion from their prayers. Today the number of Orthodox Jews living in Israel – and, unnecessary to add, living in accordance with the Torah – is rapidly increasing, and it is they who are the true Zionists. Simonschaim (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The reputable heritage of "religious Zionism" need not be bolstered by a dismissal of "secular Zionism" as User Simonschaim (above) present the latter. The Zionist movement founded by Theodor Herzl calls for a homeland for the Jewish people, of whom a subset are Orthodox adherents of Judaism (following the rabbinic tradition of Halacha based on the Torah). A great many non-Orthodox Jews have been and are loyal citizens or otherwise support the State of Israel and have contributed to its growth and wellbeing, among them Reform Jews—whose movement (since the 1970s, to my knowledge) has identified with Zionism along with other modern-day expressions of Jewish identity. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Only a relatively small fringe (such as Neturei Qarta) are actively opposed in a broadly public way... AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The questioner has stated that Zionism is not what is being referring to. Maybe, 86.147, it would help if you were to clarify your meaning of "Jewish antisemitism". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me see now. I suppose I should refer you, in the first instance, 86.147, to On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx, ripe in ostensible anti-Semitic sentiments along the lines of the following

What is secular cult of the Jew? Haggling. What is his secular god? Money. Well then, emancipation from haggling and money, from practical, real Judaism would be self-emancipation of our age.

The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails.

He was later to refer to Ferdinand Lassalle, a fellow socialist, though not one to Marx's taste, as a 'Nigger Jew'. Distasteful, I know.

There is also the tragic figure of Otto Weininger, an Austrian philosopher, who committed suicide at the age of twenty-three. His magnum opus, Geschlect und Charakter (Sex and Character), is chiefly a rather repellant essay in misogyny, though he also contrasts the perceived deficiencies of his fellow Jews with the 'manliness' of the Aryans. Anyway, you might get a flavour of the book from this;

Greatness is absent from the nature of the woman and the Jew, the greatness of morality, or the greatness of evil. In the Aryan man, the good and bad principles of Kant’s religious philosophy are ever present, ever in strife. In the Jew and the woman, good and evil are not distinct from one another ... It would not be difficult to make a case for the view that the Jew is more saturated with femininity than the Aryan, to such an extent that the most manly Jew is more feminine than the least manly Aryan.

To be fair, I should add that that his work was admired by such figures as Ludwig Wittgenstein, though this did nothing to stop the Nazis using it selectively in their own propaganda.

There were others not beyond expressing some anti-Jewish sentiment to ingratiate themselves with the host community, and here I am thinking specifically of Walter Rathenau, industrialist and politician, who in a publication of 1897 described his fellow Jews as an 'oriental horde' camping on German soil. He was casting himself here as an educationalist, urging his co-religionists to discipline themselves, adjusting to 'German values', so they would no longer be the subject of derision. In later publications he corrected himself, coming to believe that his strictures had been too harsh, though he continued to draw contrasts between Germans and Jews in his later writing, generally disadvantageous to the latter. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For a contemporary example: if you look through the article history and talk page of musician Gilad Atzmon, you will find discussions and edit-wars over whether he is anti-Zionist, antisemitic, judeophobic, etc. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Bobby Fischer's mother was a Jew but, ironically, he was an antisemite (though, in his own words, he didn't have anything against all the "Semites", a group that includes the Arabs). --Taraborn (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of neo-Nazi's who can be considered Jewish by some definitions, including some in Israel. [2] This attracted attention recently when one such group was broken up. [3] At least one of those neo-Nazi's also apparently acknowledge he was partly Jewish and never wanted to have children for that reason.[4] Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Dan Burros was a Jewish KKK activist. His story inspired the movie The Believer. --Sean 15:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What percentage of the world population owns a car, phone, and a house?

What percentage of the world population owns a car, phone, and a house?

````BWA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.111.212 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

World statistics are not exactly complete, as many nations do not contribute to the UN's statistical collections and even when they do the statistics they provide may not always be the same (even when two countries provide statistics on the same topic, they may not always be working on the same definition or timeframe, so you should always look at that in publications). However, for your last question, you could always look at this site, in particular the 1995 publication Table 8 (homeless population). Have fun adding it up, though. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Educational Statistics and Demographics

What percentage of the world population has received a high school education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.111.212 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 77.122. The answers to both of these questions would seem to be close to meaningless. If you compare
  • Princeton, NJ to
  • Waziristan in Afganistan to
  • an Aboriginal settlement in Northern Australia
you will find that the terms "education" and "wealth" have no fixed meaning which allows a comparison.
Maybe the article on ethnocentricity is of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly "sitting in school until you're about 16 to 18 years of age and getting a piece of paper saying you've finished" is an objective measure not based on ethnicity. —Nricardo (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think the original question is perfectly formulated (unfortunately, I can't answer it). --Taraborn (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mauritius

Who is the first president of Mauritius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.27.79.29 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The constitutional changes approved by the legislature on 10 December, 1991 stipulated that Sir Veerasamy Ringadoo, then Governor-General would hold the office for an interim period which began 12 March, 1992. Cassam Uteem was appointed to the office of President by the legislature 30 June, 1992.—eric 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorbachev

The problem with Gorbachev was the he was a communist who did not realise that communism was an illusion and a nationalist who did not realise that the Soviet Union was an illusion. How true is this ststement? Hairy Face (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, make your own homework by yourself. Flamarande (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally Untrue. Gorbachev wave way to the party's resignation through his administration and Perestroika works. They had to admit that human relations had not changed by marxist ideology; marginization, poverty, abuse, strong-over-the-weak, corruption, privileges, class differences persisted. Indra Antaki (In Mexican News Program, channel 2) said: the party succumbs before the same it pretended to change. That was painful, even to a rightist like me, it meant hopelessness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearomero (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been here before, and retracing my footsteps, this is what I said:
I think 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 restructuring of the economy. To be more precise, 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 limitations 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 increased hostility towards him within the Communist Party, just as his wider social and political initiatives often had risible 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 Democracies 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 initiatives 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 too long to create a market economy.
How hindsight makes us all wise. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remembering a painting/artist

I cannot for the life of me remember the name of a particular artist. He worked in the USA in the 1950s, I believe, and had a number of relatively well-known paintings depicting a sort of soul-less ennui of modern American life. One painting featured a ton of people in a red/pink sets of cubicles; another featured one person whispering to another (I seem to recall it being called "The Voice" but Google is not helping me out there); another was something like "The Government Office" or something along those lines and featured lots of twisty corridors, people who weren't acknowledging one another, suspicious eyes behind windows, etc. In general his figures had very round faces and very large eyes. Anybody know who I'm talking about or the names of one of the paintings? Google Images, ARTstor, etc., are failing me. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I finally figured it out: George Tooker. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rescueing narrative from directed interviews

According to James P. Gee in Discourse Analysis, Conversation is atemporal and impersonal in Discourse. Can narrative be discovered or rescued in interviews or conversation transcripts?

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. User:Krator (t c) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The answer is "Yes, it can." Edison (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan and the Cold War

Just how fundamental really was Ronald Reagan's role in the end of the Cold War historically? Many Americans seem to worship to him as a hero, and I have just seen a speech of his put in the ranks of MLK's "I have a dream" and Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" - is he really that great a figure? Thanks, --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say he was a great figure-head. -- Slacker (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a large and complicated historical question, and part of it—often unasked—hinges around what means by "role in the end of the Cold War." Do we mean, "would it have ended without Reagan?" or do we mean "was Reagan more significant than, say, Gorbachev?" or do we mean "Did his actions lead directly to the end of the Cold War in a way that would not have occurred otherwise or if contrary actions were taken?" Each of these have different answers; obviously some of these questions are unfair or foolish (you can't begin to discuss the end of the Cold War without talking about Gorbachev to some degree, as he obviously had a major role in the end of the Cold War whatever you think about Reagan). Anyway, more later, maybe after the Muse, even though I suspect we'll disagree on this to some degree in the end! Personally I give Reagan a relatively low role in the end of the Cold War historically; I think many of the policies that really ended up causing real change in the Soviet Union began before Reagan was in office and at times even in spite of Reagan, and we remember of course that the USSR was still together for some time after Reagan left office. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there still moves to have him placed here? In answer to the question I think he was in the right place at just the right time in history, with the right will, the right sense of purpose and the determination to carry things through. A good friend to my country and our then Prime Minister, he had the courage to stand up to the Evil Empire! I certainly agree with 98.217 that the Cold War would have come to an end, with or without President Reagan, and on this I would refer you, Alex, to the answer I gave above to the Gorbachev question. Where I disagree with 98 (can I call you 98?) is on the relative importance of Ronald Reagan in hurrying the Soviet Union into the grave. In attempting to keep up with American defence spending, the Soviets effectively sucked the life out of their domestic economy, which made reform all the more urgent...and disastrous. As far as I am concerned Ronald Reagan is, indeed, one of the great leaders of the twentieth century. Peace be upon him! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there hard evidence, though that 1. the strategy of technology was being purposefully undertaken, and 2. that it actually worked in that way? Soviet defense spending was already taking a heavy toll long before Reagan took office—one could more appropriately credit the decline of the petrodollar as the reason why they decided to realign their defense priorities, institute arms-control negotiations, and the like—and I'm not at all convinced that a desire for parity in American defense spending (by Reagan or anyone else) was really an immediate cause for the decline. I could be wrong, of course, I'm no expert on the subject. But my understanding is that the economic stagnation of the USSR had begun far earlier, in the 1970s, and that it was less a case of economic collapse under Gorbachev as it was a willingness by Gorbachev to allow certain types of political freedoms (strikes, protests, etc.) that got things going down the path to collapse. I've never seen a lot of good evidence that Reagan's defense spending was a primary cause of much other than the willingness of Gorbachev to propose previously unheard of arms control possibilities (like the renunciation of all nuclear weapons, which Reagan declined). Had another Soviet leader been in power, one with no interest in reform, I see no reason that the USSR couldn't have clunked along as a regime of stagnation and horror for another fifty years (which is why I give Gorbachev position of place here, with a strong mention to Yeltsin as well—it is not at all inconceivable to me that harsher rulers could have repelled demands for reform in the way they did in the 1960s). I see the "Reagan outspent them" as a primarily political myth, one with little historical bearing and little attention to how change actually comes about, but if you have reasons for me to think otherwise... --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
All I can really do is emphasise, once again, the essential point I made in the above: Ronald Reagan was the right man in the right place at the right time in history. His actions are best read retrospectively, rather than as part of a premeditated plan. You might also care to read what I wrote here in conjunction with what I said about Gorbachev. I suppose one might say that the Soviets had achieved a 'balanced stagnation' by the 1970s. Their intervention in Afghanistan exposed just how weak the whole political and economic apparatus was, leading Andropov to be the first to recognise the need for reform. But the new arms race with the United States threw the system into terminal decline, which Gorbachev only served to accelerate
Or maybe I am completely wrong; maybe Ronald Reagan had no influence at all on this process; maybe he drifted in senility through eight-year presidency, only to be wakened from his torpor for the occasional Hollywood-style sound bite. Ha! Ha! Ha!
Finally, I was under the impression that Alex's question was about the end of the Cold War, not how President Reagan single-handedly brought the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, as others here seem to have assumed. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There are enough Reagan fans in positions of power in the US that if there were any actual plan to spend the USSR into its grave, we would certainly have seen documentary evidence of it by now (meeting notes, executive orders, etc.). --Sean 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I once told a couple of friends of mine, Czechs who had taken part in the anti-Communist movement in the late 80s, that American conservatives credit Ronald Reagan with ending Communism. They laughed. As far as they are concerned, they are the ones who brought down Communism -- the ones who were marching in the streets, getting attacked with fire hoses.

But perhaps they're biased. Could Reagan really have played a fundamental role in bringing down Communism? Well, he certainly didn't do so by saying "Tear down this wall." As noted in this article, few people paid significant attention to the speech at the time; it was just a typical Cold War speech that seems prescient in retrospect.

A better argument is that Reagan's military buildup in the early 80s helped push the Soviet economy over the brink. As we know, Gorbachev launched economic reform in the mid-80s in response to economic stagnation, and he launched political reforms to make the forthcoming economic dislocation easier to handle. Had the Soviets been able to spend less on their military, they might have been able to get by without perestroika.

The question is whether Reagan knew this would happen or whether he just got lucky. If you go back to the 1980 election and the early years of his presidency, you can find a couple of statements he made along the lines of a prediction that the Soviets wouldn't be able to keep up with a U.S. military buildup. But those statements were few and far between. Reagan pushed for more defense spending because he thought America needed more tanks and jets, not because he thought it would bring down the Soviets. The sudden fall of the Soviet empire caught the Reagan administration and its allies by surprise, just as it did everyone else. As late as 1984, Reaganite Newt Gingrich said, "There will be Soviet labor camps and Soviet torture chambers well into our great-grandchildren's lives."

The Soviet empire fell because it was, in essence, a house of cards. As made evident by the events of 1956 and 1968, only compulsion kept the USSR's World War II conquests in the fold. When Gorbachev instituted the Sinatra Doctrine, it was only a matter of time before Hungary and Poland left the Communist sphere. The other Eastern European countries were just dominoes after that, followed by the non-Russian republics of the USSR. By instituting democratic reform in the republics before the Soviet federal government, Gorbachev accidentally ensured not only the ascendancy of anti-Russian governments in the outer republics but also a competing figure for legitimacy in Russia itself in Boris Yeltsin. By the time the forces of reaction tried to step in and halt the slide, Yeltsin had already consolidated an alternate power base he could call on to prevent a return to Communist power. The failure of the half-baked coup established Yeltsin and his fellow republic-level leaders as the true power-holders in the soon-to-be-killed-off USSR.

Should Reagan get credit for all of this? He certainly should receive some. But so should all of the presidents before him, going back to Truman, each of whom played a role in restraining and ultimately defeating Communism. The biggest credit, of course, should go to the people who, enticed by the West and its freedom, rock music and ample supply of quality toilet paper and sanitary products, risked their careers to march in the tens of thousands against the system that had been imposed on them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reagan seemed to live in an alternate reality, with his memories of World War 2 events often coming from movies. Whenever anything significant happened, they refrained from waking him up. As a seasoned actor, he was good at standing up and delivering a few pithy lines. The demise of Soviet communism and the transformation of its European empire was the work of people in those countries. There were no leagues of Reaganites in Czechoslovakia hanging banners praising Reagan, as there were brownshirts in Sudetanland in 1938 hanging banners praising Hitler. Edison (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of the Cold
I am really quite surprised by some of the comments, some of the misjudgments of Reagan and of the Reagan presidency, that I am going to hazard one final statement. My remarks are addressed to no-one in particular, and I am only setting them down here, and with this indentation, for ease of reading.
My initial points, placing most importance on American defence spending in weakening Soviet power, was only part of the story. I felt there would be enough Americans here to give a more comprehensive overview of the importance of the Reagan presidency for the task to have to fall on an outsider. But, alas, this has not happened. I'm not really sure why this should be so. Perhaps people with Republican views simply don't come to the Humanities Desk? Perhaps the Bush presidency has blinded people to the real merits of Ronald Reagan, to the merits of any past Republican presidency? I simply do not know. Whatever the reason it leaves me-an Englishwoman-in a position where I have to take up the challenge. My reasons for doing so are simple: I would like people who may be interested in this question to have sufficient information to form a more complete judgment, to understand just exactly why Ronald Reagan was such a key figure in bringing the Cold War to an end.
Consider, to begin with, the situation at the end of the 1970s. In the early part of the decade Richard Nixon had achieved some stunning diplomatic successes, the centerpiece of which was the Moscow summit of May 1972, the high water of detente. But it failed as the administration failed, leaving the Cold War colder than ever. Through the presidency of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter the situation got steadily worse, with America's position in the world becoming ever weaker. Indo-China fell to the Communists, as the Soviets sought fresh opportunities for expansion in Africa, following the collapse of the old Portuguese Empire. The US position in the Middle East was weakened by the Iranian Revolution, just as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. By the Presidential election of 1980 the international position was almost as critical as it had been at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, what did Ronald Reagan achieve? There are five areas which I have identified, and which I rather assumed most Americans would have identified.
  • He had the kind of forward vision, the sense of purpose that had escaped Jimmy Carter, his predecessor. He was prepared to talk tough with the Soviets, to introduce a new defence programme which, among other things, brought cruise missiles to Europe. But despite the rhetoric, the condemnation of the 'Evil Empire', he was a realist, not an ideologue. He was prepared to do business, but not from a position of weakness. He was, for all the rhetoric, prepared to talk seriously to the Communist leaders in order to reduce tension, to free the world from the threat of nuclear war.
  • Contrast Reagan's diplomacy with that of Nixon and Kissinger. They favoured forms of diplomacy that depended on secrecy and backstairs maneuvering; diplomacy that effectively pushed the State Department and the whole apparatus of American government to one side. In 1972 William P. Rogers, the then Secretary of State, was effectively ignored by a policy based on secrecy; a maverick policy. There was really no need to pull détente up by the roots: it had no roots. But when Reagan and Gorbachev met at Geneva in 1985 the State Department and George Schultz were right at the centre, integral to the success of the summit. Schultz, a hard working and dedicated politician, was in a position to give practical form to the President's vision; to ensure, in other words, that the diplomacy was well-rooted in the State Department and the whole apparatus of American government.
  • Reagan and Schultz also assured that they had consensus for the new rapprochement with the Soviets by taking pains with Congress, in the way that Nixon never had. The Geneva summit had a lasting impact in a way that the Moscow summit did not, failing as the presidency failed. Reagan's initiatives could not, in other words, be so easily undermined.
  • Reagan was able to work with Gorbachev, with greater trust, and in greater friendship than any previous President had with a Soviet leader. He was to say himself "There was a chemistry between Gorbachev and me that produced something very close to friendship." As I have said, Ronald Reagan was a pragmatist; and only a pragmatist could have worked seriously towards ending the Cold War, over generations of ideological rift.
  • Geneva was not nearly as dramatic at Moscow in its outcomes, but in a sense it was much more significant, not for short term successes, but in establishing a basis upon which more could be built. It was slow; it was painstaking; it was effective.
By the end of the Presidency the old certainties in the east were coming to an end and the Cold War all but over. Ronald Reagan was a practical man; not intellectually brilliant, in the way that Jack Kennedy had been brilliant; not devious and Machiavellian, in the way that Richard Nixon had been devious and Machiavellian. But he was sincere, open and determined. He deserves his place in American and world history. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. He deserves his place, and he has an important one. I personally think it's silly to assign all blame/credit for any historical event to any one person. I also think it's silly to totally deny someone as important as Reagan any credit. The answer is somewhere in-between. Somewhere around where Clio says it is. Wrad (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think many would deny there were positive aspects to Reagan's foreign policy, at least once he saw The Day After. The issue is that many conservatives consider Reagan, as The Economist eulogized him, "The man who beat communism." Communism didn't fall because of American support for the Contras in Nicaragua or because of START or SDI or Pershing missiles. It fell because a bunch of post-Stalinists died, leaving in charge a guy who wasn't too keen on this whole idea of empire-by-ruthless-dictatorship. And when he started pulling on sticks to rescue the rusted behemoth, the whole Jenga tower fell down. If there's one man who deserves credit for the fall of Communism, its a guy who didn't mean it to happen: Gorbachev. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No. I could echo the same thing "Liberals tend to think of Gorbachev as "The man who ended the Cold War." There isn't "one man who deserves credit for the fall of Communism." That man (or woman) doesn't exist. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Note the word if in my previous comment. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See "While Reagan Slept" by Art Buchwald, which says that ghostwriters did his diaries and his autobiograpahy- while he slept. Like WW2 reporters refrained from mentioning that Roosevelt was paralyzed, Reagan era reporters refrained from mentioning [5] [6] [7] [8] he seemed senile, a vacant old man who slept through cabinet meetings. Margaret Thatcher's evaluation of Reagan? ""Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." Edison (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flash in the pan?

Why did opponents of the British Union of Fascists start calling the movement a 'flash in the pan' from 1936? I dont understand. ZZT9 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You may first be interested in the wiktionary entry for wiktionary:flash in the pan which explains what this idiom means. Nanonic (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, it is not a reference to the popular idiom, or rather it is, but in a less direct way than you may imagine. In April 1936 the British Union of Fascists changed its name to the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists. In the process the fasces symbol-most associated with Mussolini's National Fascist Party-was dropped in favour a flash of lightning, a little like the SS symbol, enclosed within a circle. It was this that the movements opponents started to call the 'flash in the pan'. Here it is above. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done girl! Can you recommend any good books on the British Fascists, Clio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZT9 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There is quite a lot of good stuff on the subject. In particular I would recommend Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism by Stephen Dorril; Hurrah for the Blackshirts: Fascists and Fascism in Britain Between the Wars by Martin Pugh; and British Fascism, 1918-1939: Parties, Ideology and Culture by Thomas Linehan. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
See also The Code of the Woosters, closely observing Roderick Spode. Xn4 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorky and Lenin

When, and under what circumstances, did Maxim Gorky meet Lenin for the first time? Mad Barking (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Lenin and Gorky, on 10 December 1905 at Gorky's house in Petrograd, at a meeting of the central committee of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There would seem to be some confusion here. I have sources suggesting they first met as early as 1902 and as late as 1907, at the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP in London. I will have to look into this further! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)