Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 4	<< Aug \| Sep \| Oct >>	September 6 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

1 September 5

[edit] September 5

[edit] brazil battles of ww2

Where a can find (or tell me) the list of all battles that brazil fought on ww2??

Try this. Russian F 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Brazilian Expeditionary Force page has some more information, though not a list of battles as such. --- Sluzzelin 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From the Expeditioanry Force talk page: Main BEF victories are: Massarosa, Camaiore, Monte Prano, Monte Acuto, San Quirico, Gallicano, Barga, Monte Castelo, La Serra, Castelnuovo, Soprassasso, Montese, Paravento, Zocca, Marano Su Panaro, Colechio and Fornovo. Reference: http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ArmyOrg/BrazileOrg.htm Lisiate 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissapearing cultures

The world is rapidly shrinking. In the past century, more progress has been made in the transportation industry than ever before. So now that (nearly) anyone can go (nearly) anywhere on earth, won't individual cultures start to dissapear as the world all combines into one culture? Russian F 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Chinatowns exist outside of China which proves that culture does not disappear outside of the home country. Cultures only disappear when they're overpowered by another i.e. the european settlers versus the first nations. --The Dark Side 02:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people in the world still don't have the option to travel, and will live and die within a few miles of where they were born. However, for that portion of the world that is mobile, I believe you are right, we are headed for one world culture. There are forces which oppose this, but I believe they will eventually lose the battle. In the last 100 years, many languages and cultures have disappeared, and the cultures of Europe and America, and even Japan, have merged to quite an extent. Expect more in the future. StuRat 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My take on it is that cultures are clearly not static and set in stone so it's relatively meaningless to say individual cultures will disappear, rather individual cultures will just become more similar (though probably never becoming identical because of heritage if nothing else). It's certainly true that certain elements of culture will disappear, but this is natural and even without globalisation this would still occur, all globalisation has done is speeded up the process and emphasised it. What seems likely are that as individual cultures become more homogenous more sub-cultures will splinter off with their own elements. It certainly seems that as the internet has grown and become one of the most powerful tools of globalisation many more sub-cultures have grown out of it. --Kiltman67 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultures diappear and appear all the time. It's much like what evolution does with species. But there is indeed a movement towards a worldwide monoculture. This is, however, probably not so much because of the ability to travel but more because of the Internet, English as a wordlwide lingua franca and transportation of goods, making local products disappear. Ideally, the last bit should happen because the new products are better, but in reality it has more to do with marketing, so the cultures that control the information exchange (the media) will determine which products are being used. A first note is that this monoculture will eventually disappear too, and new cultures will then emerge. A historical example of this is the Roman Empire. But another thing is the nature of Internet. it allows individual people to start new things that can conquer the world. Wikipedia is a good example of this. And the Open Source movement in general. Culture has a lot to do with information, 'spreading the word'. And if individual interactions become more important than dictates from the top, then there will be more variation. Also, within the confines of a monoculture, subcultures will emerge. Some people will always strive to distinguish themselves from the masses. If a certain distinction catches on it will itself become a mass (?) and other people will then move away from that. So yes, cultures disappear, but that's nothing new and new ones will emerge to take their place. Whether the total cultural diversity (compare with biodiversity) will change, I don't know. Easier access to information will reduce it but also increase it. But it will certainly become less bound to physical location. DirkvdM 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you measure cultural diversity (of a region or of a planet) by counting the number of languages spoken there, there does seem to be a quantifiable decline. I don't think we will be seeing the same diversity between cultures and their development again, neither on a large scale of say Chinese vs European culture nor between various tribes on a smaller scale. This doesn't necessarily call for pessimism, of course. The only way I can imagine a cultural re-diversification is through almost complete isolation of various human groups over long periods. ---Sluzzelin 09:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is one benefit of a single world culture, by eliminating cultural clashes, perhaps many wars can be avoided in the future. Religion seems to be the last sticking point, as much of the world remains stuck in the mindset that they should kill anyone who has different religious beliefs than themselves. Religion is also more resistant to change, as any change is perceived as causing everyone affected to burn in hell forever, which is not generally true for other aspects of culture, like language, dress, art, food, etc. StuRat 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got my doubt as to whether religion is such an important cause for clashes. I think it is more often an excuse or a way to identify the enemy (as in Ireland) or a way to get people to rise up. There will have to be a malcontent in the first place. If you manage to make people beleive the problem or the solution is connected to religion it will be easier to mobilise them. And in such an atmosphere some religious fanatics might even give up their lives for the 'good cause'. Nationalism is another such force, which can be equally potent ("for England" and "God save the queen" or the constitution or democracy or the 'free world' (whatever that is) or whatever similar shite). Money is the third one, although that works more individually too. I do agree with you that worldwide standardisations will help peace and that religion is one of the most persistent culturalisms. DirkvdM 08:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I always thought "God save the king/queen" had an odd double meaning to it if you take "save" to mean "save their immortal soul": "Why does God need to save the queen, is she a terrible sinner ?" :-) StuRat 02:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic diversity of Generation Y

What percentage of Generation Y in the United States is Hispanic? What percentage is Asian? Wiwaxia 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Using [1] for the 2000 figures and assuming Generation Y's definition of Generation Y, we get around 17% Hispanics and only around 1% Asians/Pacific Islanders. ColourBurst 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 1%? But Generation Y is the most ethnically diverse generation in history. How can it be less Asian than the nation as a whole? Wiwaxia 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I made a mistake in my calculations (I forgot to put in the sum symbol in the excel table), it's actually around 4.5%, 5% or so if you include PIs. ColourBurst 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How to you define "most ethnically diverse"? Is there some ethnic group in Generation Y that didn't exist in Generation X? Even before Generation X, the U.S. was very ethnically diverse, having some representatives from every country in the world. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the OP refers to the increased growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations in the U.S., but that doesn't necessarily involve an increase in Gen Y proportions (because of immigration patterns), nor is it necessarily "more diverse" (depending on the definition of diverse. Just because there's a token amount of people from every country does not necessarily make a country more "diverse" if everybody's supposed to act like the majority but doesn't get treated so). ColourBurst 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, "ethnically diverse" only means that many ethnicities are present, that term says nothing about the treatment of the various ethnicities. Also note, that at this point, there is no majority in the US. If only Caucasian, non-Hispanic, English-speaking, Christian males are considered, those comprise far less than 50% of the people in the US. StuRat 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While you're probably technically true regarding the "majority", there are several factors, one of the major ones being that debates regarding policy are never framed in gender and racial terms at the same time (never mind gender, racial and religious terms), which make that assertion less useful than you think. ColourBurst 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, as the term minority means all of those things. The term WASP also refers to race, ethnic origin, and religion simultaneously (although not gender). StuRat 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tailoring sites

Can anyone suggest any good sites about tailoring mens suits, I can not seem to find any. Other than the wiki article web links. Any other good sites would be nice.--206.251.1.200 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of these might be worthwhile: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tailored+mens+suits&btnG=Google+Search. Sorry if you have already searched through these. --Proficient 04:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best place to live on earth

I would like to live somewhere where:

The cost of living is very cheap

Where the landscape and scenery are beautiful

The climate is nice

Where I am unlikely to get a disease (eg tropical diseases, malaria etc)

Where I feel safe - little or no violence

Where there is some health care should I need it

Where I am unlikely to lose title to my land or house

I know a similar question has been asked, and the answer was New Zealand (how can I best find and marry a New Zealand chick?) or Costa Rica, but my criteria are different. I don't care about wars in the past. I do care about the cost of living - there are many places much cheaper than New Zealand, but I don't know how much they fulfill the other criteria. Thanks.

Have you considered Austria or Switzerland? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland, at least, has a high cost of living. I was thinking of somewhere perhaps in the third world where my small western income would be enough to live in a mansion and employ a few servants ( - although that may not be a very PC attitude, on the other hand at least it gives them some jobs.)

it is a surprise-a place like this is stuttgart,germany.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.196.166.161 (talk) .

Define a "nice" climate. Everyone has a different idea of what they like. --Dweller 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere where it never snows, where you don't need central heating, but its neither unbearably or monotonously hot (it would be nice to feel cool sometimes). And I do not like much rain - max. of say 25 inches a year. I know the rain criteria would knock out a lot of places, so I could relax this crieria.

Perhaps Findyourspot.com is for you then. Dismas|^(talk) 12:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've tried Findyourspot. It suggested small cities in the US that are quite unknown to me, although I expect they're nice. I'm not sure how the US would score regarding fear of violence and abscence of equal healthcare for all.

Can't go wrong with God's Own Country... Or what about Scotland? -- the GREAT Gavini 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I can add further criteria, I'd like to be able to put my money in a bank and not worry about it disapearing, plus I'd don't want local officials to be corrupt.

I think in practice this question is: of those third world countries with a low cost of living, which are safe and disease free?

If being able to live cheaply is one of the main concerns, you might consider a stable Central American country, like Costa Rica or Belize. However, the threat of hurricanes makes it advisable to build on high ground, far from the beach. StuRat 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As the person who threw New Zealand into the ring for the last question, let me try my hand with a different recommendation.

Argentina has had a very low cost of living since the economic turmoil of 2002, but it is the economically most developed country in South America, measured in GDP and HDI. It's about halfway on the Corruption_Perceptions_Index. The climate varies hugely across the country, from the tropical north to the frozen south, but in the middle you get quite varied seasons, which I regard as a plus, but you might think the winters too cold and the summers too hot. I'd suggest a major city, such as Córdoba or Mendoza, but not Buenos Aires - too big. Mendoza has some lovely scenery around it. I haven't been to Cordoba. I'll let others comment on the state of health care and violence, but I believe that the health system is well developed.-gadfium 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Helth care is for free, violence and crime are low in smaller cities. I would suggest you some middle size city in Córdoba Province or Santa Fe Province. Nevertheless, Argentina is getting expensive again... Mariano(t/c) 08:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

About Argentina, if you start your argument with 'since 2002' then obviously it is not a very stable country.

New Zealand scores on all counts except 'cheap', although I suppose the South Island has some nice opportunities to live off the land if that's your thing. And if you spend all your time hiking (or 'tramping' as they cal it there) then housing will only cost about 50 euro per year (about the price of an annual hut pass). See http://www.backpack-newzealand.com/nz/article12.php. The only cost left then is food (and the bus rides to the next park).

About the rain, don't just look at the total figures. In Indonesia, for example, during the rainy season, apart from a possible drizzle early in the morning, it rains just once per day, when it poors. But that's always at the same time of the day, so you can plan when to be indoors. After that it's nice and cool, so the rainy season is actually one of the better times of year. In other tropical countries something similar might be the case. And if you like it cool, just go live somewhere higher up.

Also note that the cost of living is low in third world countries when it comes to the basic necessities. Any western goodies will cost as much as they do in the west or possibly even more (unless you make use of the corruption, but you didn't want any of that). DirkvdM 08:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Argentina had a major economic crisis around 1999-2002 which caused a succession of short-lived governments, some fairly limited riots, and a significant fall in the value of the Argentine peso relative to other currencies. Apart from that, it's been relatively politically stable since 1983. Compared to other countries in the region, I think that's pretty good. Uruguay might be worth considering too, although it doesn't have the spectacular scenery of Argentina.-gadfium 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that Uruguay's far more dangerous than Argentina.

According to Worldwide Cost of Living Survey 2006 of Mercer Human Resources (MHR), the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina is the 4th cheapest urban area in the world. [2] Another Latin American city, Asunción in Paraguay, remains the least expensive in the list, but its crime rate is higher than Argentina, the health care is worst, and financial stability is nearly inexistent. —Coat of Arms (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Argentina's the most economically developed country in Latin America, and in my opinion the most European one, with 85% of the population being white. Additionally, it has many cities founded by European immigrants, e.g. Villa General Belgrano, established by Germans, and Puerto Madryn, constructed by Welsh settlers. See Welsh settlement in Argentina and Irish settlement in Argentina for more information. --Nkcs 00:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that you seemed more concerned with cost of living and landscape, rather than urban amenities, Costa Rica sounds more likely than Argentina. - Jmabel | Talk 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recruits in Full Metal Jacket

How many is Parris Island recruits in Full Metal Jacket? --Vess 10:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Over 80 actors are credited as playing Parris Island recruits according to IMDb.---Sluzzelin 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dukes

To whom it may concern, please could you find out for me who was/is the Duke of Varr and if there is an Earl of Varr?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards Maria63.174.7.252 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Maria Benjamin

Maybe you're thinking of the title Earl De La Warr.---Sluzzelin 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] economy

guilt edged shares and their preference by investors.why?

Ha, ha - that's a telling typo if ever I saw one. See gilts. The reason they are preferred by some investors is that they are relatively risk-free, being issued by governments. However, with that lower risk comes a lower return on your investment. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what Freud would think of that slip oOoOOoOh--205.188.117.12 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose socially responsible investing could be called "guilt investing". :-) StuRat 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man

http://img178.imageshack.us/my.php?image=22bzl2.jpg

Can you please tell me who this man is who discovered a certain celestial body.

That would be Giuseppe Piazzi, discoverer of 1 Ceres. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jobs

why is it that left wing is always complaining that there aren't enough jobs? When in fact there are more jobs in america than in any other country in the world, and more jobs than at any point in american history? bill Clinton had less jobs in his economy, yet the media keeps saying there aren't any jobs? Aren't people more proprous than at any point in american hiostory? why does the media want us to go back to clintons run away taxing and fewer jobs? Why does the media always take the deomcrat party side?--Fruntwoken 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They're not; there aren't, so what; they don't; no; they don't; they don't. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, nice answer. Afraid I'm gonna be a little wordier; ever heard of Fox, who are so close to the white house that one of their anchormen seamlessly slipped into the role of White House Press secretary earlier this year? How about the collapse of US household income over the past seven years? Is there anybody left outside the RNC who thinks the current government expenditure levels are even remotely sustainable, particularly at the current tax levels? Are people who work at Target not happy to be there, because it means that unlike loads of other people they know, they at least have jobs? (Yeah, that last one's only anecdotal, but it was certainly the prevailing opinion at the one I worked at) --Mnem e son 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You can just use McJob. That's the generic "Republican-created jobs suck" word. No need for an anecdote. However, I notice something wierd where I work. Liberal/Democrats tend to watch Fox news and complain about how Conservative/Republican they are. Conservative/Republicans tend to watch CBS/NBC/ABC news and complain about how Liberal/Democratic they are. I wonder if the questioner purposely watches news that he doesn't like. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The people in the U.S. complain about jobs because it is a local thing, relative to the past, and not compared to other countries. Most U.S. Citizens have never been outside the U.S. or have any idea how people in other cultures live. In the U.S. there are less jobs than there were during the Clinton administration, Gas prices are much higher, the wage rate is depressed (most people in most industries have gotten no raise, or very small raises in the past 7 years). One of the big reasons for less jobs and lower wages is the movement of many jobs out of the U.S. As countries like Mexico and India have a growth in wages and jobs, and towards a more normalized global economy, the country with the best wages in the world is normalizing downward. At some point, someday a global economy with little wage differential between countries may exist. It is a long way from there (not in my lifetime) and when we get ther, the averager wage rate for most jobs in the U.S. will be substantially lower. (except for jobs like the salaries of elected officials).

Overall people in the U.S. are considerably less prosperous than any time in recent history. You have to account for the huge and ballooning deficit that has been created in the past 7 years, mostly by the war. As for taxes, many, if not most Americans are fed up with the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republic controlled government. Sure, no one wants high taxes, but increasing spending and cutting taxes for seven years has left us with poorer roads, poorer schools, less support for social services or health care. It's a mess, and many people are actually asking for fiscal responsibility in government, and an increase in taxes to pay for the things that we need. I'll let the coming elections speak for themselves, but it is a safe bet that there will be a net loss of republicans in office. Candidates that have a platform of fiscal responsibility, healthcare reform, responsibly ending the war Iraq, stopping the erosion of civil liberties, and elimination of U.S. human rights violations will have the best opportunities. Atom 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the richest portion of society is getting richer, while the rest of the US is getting poorer. This is because the richest benefit from tax cuts, (lack of) energy policy which favor oil company executives and shareholders, (lack of) global warming and pollution policy which favors industrial executives and shareholders, (lack of) health care cost controls which favor medical and pharmaceutical industry executives and shareholders, and trade policy which favors retail executives and shareholders by shipping manufacturing jobs offshore to low wage employees. StuRat 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't make it clear if this question is just about the US. So I'll give you a Dutch experience. I've been unemployed for 15 years now (apart from a two year 'break'). I try to find a fitting job, but can't. The present very right-wing government decided that unfitting jobs should also do. So they found me a job:

take an envelope, put a card in it, put it to the side

Then after stuffing about 100 envelops I got the great job-variation of putting a rubber band around every dozen and putting them in a box (the biggest challenge in this job is that one has to be able to count to 12). When the box was full, someone else would collect it. And when the raw material ran out someone else had to bring a new supply. We weren't even allowed that variation. After a few weeks I decided to walk out, "fuck the consequences" (which they told me could be the termination of my social security income). Luckily, the social security lady was very understanding and didn't cut my income. So far that is all they managed to find for me, so where is that abundance of jobs then? They've got all the administration of unemployed and their abilities and all the vacancies and their requirements. A bit of cross-referencing should solve the problem, right? DirkvdM 08:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From an American perspective, your behavior sounds reprehensible:

1) If the government has been good enough to not only keep you alive for 15 years "on the dole", but also gives you enough money to be able to have a computer with Internet access, then you should be eternally grateful to them and all the taxpayers who are supporting your lazy butt.

2) It's your responsibility to find a job, not the governments. If they do find you a job, be thankful, don't "look a gift horse in the mouth". There is no disgrace in doing a job that's "beneath you", the disgrace is in sponging off of others. Why exactly can't you find a job in 15 years, anyway ?

In the US, an able-bodied man who refuses to work would be out on the street. StuRat 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is as programme in which the government hires a company to find me a job. My point was that if even professsionals with all the info at their fingertips can't find me a job, then what chance do I have? And that is what the first question was about.

About my being lazy, I work here, don't I? It's not a paid job, so doesn't fit in the free market approach to employment, but that's not the only possible view to employment. You suggest that receiving money from the government for no work is immoral. But society is set up in such a way that there will always be some people out of a job. If you set society up like that, then you have a moral obligation to feed and house those people. The money I get is little more than that (well, it's about double that because my housing is dirt cheap - I live in a student house). In comparison, a computer with internet connection is peanuts.

Some people may be out of work for a few months while they get retrained and/or look for a new job, but 15 years ? It's quite obvious to me that you aren't even trying. And the government didn't "set it up that way", that's just naturally the way it is. How could anyone expect to get hired by a new company the same day they get laid off from the old one ? It's obviously going to take some time to get retrained, send out resumes, do interviews, etc. And think what else the government could do with that money if they didn't have to give it to you. They could improve education, build a new park, give it back to the taxpayers, etc. StuRat 02:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, putting an intelligent person in a stupid working environment is more disruptive than constructive, as studies have shown. And at the factory, they were glad to see me go, for that very reason - I didn't fit in and caused tension. By the way, if free market principles were apleid here, the whole factory would not exist, because the work would be too expensive - it's normally done by prisoners and handicapped people, who don't cost anything - none of the workers there (including me) received any pay. DirkvdM 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Having people work at below their skill level is not ideal, but better for society than having those people not working at all. Also, just what did you do in that factory that made everybody hate you ? StuRat 02:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not hate me. The work and colleagues I couldn't communicate with depressed me, so I was put at a separate table at the back so my mood wouldn't affect the others. So my working there certainly wasn't good for the company or (thus) for society as a whole. Most unemployed will want to get a job (if only for the money) and in the end find one. If you give them enough tme to find a suitable job, that will be more productive. Those few like me who don't find one and can easily live off social security are a relatively negligible burden for society. DirkvdM 07:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And you just get to be the lucky one who is entitled to be a burden on society while everyone else works to support your lazy ass ? Eventually, others will decide to be as lazy as you and the burden will be too much to bear. Then you will be forced to work or die. StuRat 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is work? I come here to relax and have fun and learn as much as I can, and (hopefully) contribute as much as I can after I get home from work. Loomis 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the biggest structured collection of information mankind has ever produced. If building something like that isn't work, I don't know what is. DirkvdM 09:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you basically telling me that I have two jobs? I never thought about it that way. But that's still not fair. Why do I have two jobs when you only have one? Loomis 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Hark

What actually is the tune called "Tom Hark"? I've heard it refered to, but I don't know if I know it. Is there anyone who knows it who could express it to me in A, B, C notation (ie C B A B C C C or whatever), since I assume getting an image of the score would be tricky and annoying. Thanks for any help. Skittle 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Originally, it seems to be a South African pennywhistle tune from the 1950s, recorded by Elias and His Zig Zag Flutes (later Black Mambazo). Apparently it was also used as a signature for the BBC program The Killing Stones. These days it's a popular ring tone as well. I hope this helps you find a sound sample somewhere online.---Sluzzelin 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have said I found that stuff, but nothing had a score or sound file except possibly the ringtone sites, and I don't want to visit those incase they try to invade this computer. Thanks anyway. Skittle 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a short sample for you. I know it as a song by the Piranhas, a UK band (we don't have an article on them, only a stub on a US band with the same name). The sample can be found here - click the 'Audio' link.--Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Fantastic! Thanks so much! (Exclamation marks!) Turns out I do know it, but never heard it given a name. Thanks again Richard. Skittle 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Piranhas' version has some great lyrics, which I assume they wrote themselves to go with the tune. The opening lines are the priceless couplet "Does anybody know how long to World War 3/I wanna know, I've gotta book me holidee." --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burckhardt and individualism

I read in an essay by Peter Burke, included with The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy, that Burckhardt actually renounced his thesis of individualism. He said "As far as individualism is concerned, I don't believe in it any more." Can anyone tell me more about this? It was his main theme in the Civilisation that individualism emerged in Renaissance Italy, so it sounds a bit strange. What were his reasons, and how far did he reject his idea? The Mad Echidna 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for Burckhardt as I haven't read his work but a long-standing depiction of the Renaissance—now slightly mouldy—is of a time when people became fully aware and human. It was felt that before that time there were hardly any interesting individuals with their own ideas, merely conduits of the medieval church. Also the art was regarded as flat and cartoonish not like the realistic people shown in the newer art. In a similar way Harold Bloom wrote Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human which sees William as the first writer of real characters of real people rather then caricatures. Searching about a bit it sounds like Burckhardt believed that people were once more loosing their individuality in his own time to adopt country or party loyalties, so perhaps it was this he rejected. That was an amazingly trite summary of the subject, sorry. MeltBanana 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] papal absolution for the battle of hastings

I saw on a doco (Battlefield Britain) that the Pope actually granted absolution to anyone fighting for the Norman side in the Battle of Hastings. This seemed a bit odd, because I didn't think papal authority had reached a stage where the popes could grant absolution for battles. I thought that was some time after, and began with the First Crusade. Or perhaps it was for wars against Spanish Muslims, and I'm getting confused, but at any rate, I was quite sure it had only ever been granted for wars by Christians on behalf of the Church. Can anyone fill me in? The Mad Echidna 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a short article on the subject. Key phrase "This would be the first time a pope had been asked to adjudicate a disputed royal succession, and would create a precedent of enormous importance to Hildebrand" (the future Pope Gregory VII and the right-hand man of the then present pope). MeltBanana 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boone & Crockett

Daniel Boone was born in 1734 and died in 1820. Davy Crockett was born in 1786 and died in 1836. Their lives overlapped 34 years. Did they ever meet and if so under what circumstances? 64.136.219.250 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't known but on reading the title expected a question on the Boone and Crockett Club. Rmhermen 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm lets see, Boone would have been 52 and living in Kentucky when Crockett was born in Tennesee. When Crockett was 13, Boone moved to Missouri while Crockett stayed in Tennesee. During the war of 1812 Boone was 78 (retired in Missouri) and Crockett was 26 (still in Tennesee.) Crockett joined just after or at the end of the war and served in the Creek War around the Ohio river.

Just a guess, but it doesn't look like there is any reason for them to have crossed paths. Crockett had probably heard of Boone but not vice versa as Crockett did not become famous until later. Nowimnthing 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good analysis. I've read several Boone biographies and there's no mention of any meeting, and I suspect you're right that Boone never heard of Crockett. The closest "should have happened" meeting with Boone is the Lewis and Clark Expedition, which passed near his home in Missouri. There's no record that Boone met the L&C Expedition, except in folk tales. • Kevin (complaints?) 04:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)