Humanities desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

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.

December 19

Ancient Greek architecture

01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)64.119.14.185 (talk)What are the names of those statues of ladies holding up a temple in ancient Greece? G.H. Smith

Caryatids ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did it come from?

D: so many ppl edtited this idk the truth D: i hate wikipedia now.

Bible

Hi there, I am a Muslim and I want to read the Bible but the problem is: every time I read a Christian article, they referred it to the Bible, like Matthew 15:20 and Matthew 19:20. Would you explain me this? Is this some kind of book with chapters like book of Matthew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.101 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. The Bible is divided into books, the Book of Matthew is also called The Gospel of Matthew. The numbers refer to the chapter and the verse within the chapter, so "Matthew 15:20" means Verse 20 in Chapter 15 of the Book of Matthew, and "Matthew 19:20" means Verse 20 in Chapter 19 of the Book of Matthew. Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Bible citation and Chapters and verses of the Bible may also be helpful to you. DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly (well, almost exactly) the same idea as suwar in the Qur'an. We refer to "Sura 6:73", meaning the 6th Sura (which can also be referred to by name, Al-An'am), ayah 73. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But unlike the Qur'an, which is a single book, the Bible is a collection of books and other scriptures (like letters) written or compiled at very different times and in several languages. --Lambiam 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a story once, which may be anecdotal, that the divisions between verses in the Bible was done by a Medieval Italian Monk. However, he did not really use a very standardized set of rules as to when to insert a break to divide verses up. He was doing this as he transcribed the Bible - in other words, he was copying the text, and when he decided to insert a break he did so. Often the breaks were inserted because he would go eat lunch or pray in the chapel or visit the loo. So there's no real logic behind why the verses in the Bible are divided up the way they are. THe chapter, however, do have more logic to why they're divided up, but even then sometimes it is hard to see why a particular chapter in the Bible ends and the next one begins - other than to imagine the Medieval Monk suddenly having to go pray for Vespers. Again, this all may be an urban legend... -- Saukkomies 11:00, 19 December, 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Langton created the chapter divisions, and the verses are based on the Hebrew verse divisions. The Italian you are thinking of is Santi Pagnini (a Renaissance Dominican scholar), but in English the verses are based on the divisions in the Geneva Bible. In the Middle Ages the Bible, which was often memorized in full like the Qur'an, was quoted by giving a bit of text, ("as Isaiah says, blah blah blah") and assuming your reader knew exactly what part of what book you meant (and it is fun to see how the quotes differ from the standardized Vulgate of the 16th century, which I imagine Muslims would not think is so fun to do with the Qur'an). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is a collection of books by different authors, written at different times in history, with different purposes. Some of the books are good stories, some are good poetry, some are good spiritual wisdom, and some are breathtakingly boring. You don't have to read them in order, and it's okay to skip the boring ones unless you really want to be a Bible scholar. If you're interested in insight into Christianity, it might be useful to start with one of the gospels- Luke and John are both very readable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American colonial contact and discovery films

I'm interested in finding a list of colonial period films (in English), whether about Columbus, the Spaniards, Portuguese, French and British...

I know of...

1492: The Conquest of Paradise (Depardieu)
The Mission (De Niro)
Apocalypto (Gibson)
The New World (Farrell)
Pocahontas (cartoon)
Shakespeare in Love (Fiennes)
The Last of the Mohicans (Day-Lewis)
The Patriot (Gibson)
The Scarlet Letter (Alley)
Blackbeard (classic)
Pirates of the Caribbean (Rush)
Robinson Crusoe (Brosnan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a film about Benedict Arnold and John Andre, the loyalist spies--but I forgot that name too.

After asking this question, I'm quite sure there are numerous British colonial period films about other parts of the empire, like Gandhi, the Jungle Book, Tarzan and Quigley Down Under...but please restrict trivia answers to the American colonial experience. No, please don't list the horrendous Viking film "Pathfinder". Thanx! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a second Columbus movie in 1992: Christopher Columbus: The Discovery starring Georges Corraface, with Tom Selleck as Ferdinand. It's supposed to be pretty bad. --Anon, 07:33 UTC, December 19, 2007.

Here is imdb's keyword="colonial-america" list sorted by rating. (I'm disappointed that Knickerbocker Holiday didn't make it). I also thought of Black Robe and Aguirre, the Wrath of God, though the last one isn't in English. You can play with and combine keywords at imdb too. For example "native american" & "south america" or "1600s" & "caribbean". ---Sluzzelin talk 07:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on Columbus springs unfortunately to mind. 11:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)

If you are including cartoons/animations, there is The Road to El Dorado. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some contributions to your list
- Drums Along the Mohawk
- The Crucible
- Captain Kidd (1945 film)
- Treasure Island (1990 film)
- The Headless Horseman - supposed to be one of the worst movies ever made
- Sleepy Hollow (film)
- Johnny Tremain (film)
- Janice Meredith (film)
- The Lady and the Highwayman
- The Scarecrow
- Captain Clegg
-- Saukkomies 11:27, 19 December, 2007 (UTC)

Black Robe (film) was apparently well received. SaundersW (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note: it has been noted previously on Ref Desk that films such as "The Patriot" may be sadly lacking in historical accuracy. Edison (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the rare exception when Hollywood comes out with any historical film that has any resemblance to actual events. "The Patriot" is just another example of Hollywood' (and other film centers') complete lack of having historical accuracy be a big priority to them. Script writers and directors insist that their right to have the freedom of "artistic license" to alter historical events to make a sexier plotline is what is to blame for this. Another of Mel Gibson's historical movies that was a complete and total joke from the historical accuracy department was "Braveheart". Oy, don't get me started!!! -- Saukkomies 16:41, 20 December, 2007 (UTC)

What always puzzles me is that the stories are quite dramatic enough. There is simply no need for the silly embellishments. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably a few Daniel Boone flicks. Are there any other popular ones, or pirate ones? I'm really looking for Spanish, Portuguese and French colonial flicks. There's a French Canada one with Gerard Depardieu. Are there any with the Haitian, Mexican or Brazilian empires?

Quatre Cent Vingt-et-un

This is either a card or a dice game which Graham Greene mentions in The Quiet American and A Burnt-Out Case. I've not been able to find it on wikipedia or elsewhere on the net. Does anyone know more about this? Donald Hosek (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pontoon is a card game in which the aim is to make a hand of 21 points, and the name derives from "vingt-et-un", French for 21. The four hundred in front is a bit confusing, though. SaundersW (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an online version of the dice game here, inviting you to win and claim up to six euros towards your post and packing on an online purchase. You have three dice and you are allowed to throw each one separately. The idea of the game is to get a four, a two, and a one within a maximum of five throws. Quatre-cent-vingt-et-un means four hundred and twenty-one in French. William Avery (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald, have a look again at chapter one, page one of The Quiet American, detailing a meeting between Fowler and Vigot at Le Club on Rue Charner in Saigon. After ordering a drink for Fowler Vigot asks him "Play for it." Fowler agrees "...and I took out my dice for the ritual game of Quatre Cent Vingt-et-un. How these figures and the sight of the dice bring back to my mind the war years in Indo-China. Anywhere in the world where I see two men dicing I am back in the streets of Hanoi or Saigon or among the blasted buildings of Phat Diem..." Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "card or" largely because I didn't care to look it up, but I had a vague notion that it was a dice game. Most of the time Greene just mentions the name, and in In Search of a Character he consistently writes "421" as the name and notes that he learned the game in Viet Nam (and introduced it to the priests in the Congo). It seems worthy of an entry in wikipedia, if only because of its being referenced in two of Greene's novels (maybe more... I don't think that it's mentioned in The Comedians, but it might be in Travels with My Aunt). Knowing the rules is a bit helpful in getting the game. It strikes me as being an interesting probability problem for advanced beginners... if I ever teach probability again, I may use this as an example or problem. Is the game played head-to-head or is it each player dicing individually betting on their making 421? Donald Hosek (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say for certain; but my reading is that it is played head-to-head on a system of scoring, with 4 2 1 being the optimum. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia has the article, by the way: 421 (jeu). This game isn't limited to Greene, but found its way into high literature as well: In Asterix and Cleopatra, Asterix can't belive Getafix (Panoramix)'s luck at throwing IV·II·I again! Blunder in the 2004 English Revised Edition; the translators had changed the text in the speech bubble to: "VI·VI·VI Again, it's like magic!", but the illustrated dice don't correspond with the text. See Mistakes: Asterix and Cleopatra for more details. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I'll have to look at the French article. Doing some google books searches, it's rarely mentioned in English. Most of the citations of the phrase are in discussions of Greene's work, Greene's work itself, and one short story from the early 60s in Best American Short Stories. Donald Hosek (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's downfall

What was the single most crucial factor in the downfall of Napoleon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.144 (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of half a million soldiers in Russia. --Taraborn (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to do his own homework? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the most important factor in the downfall of Napoleon? Why, an impossible obsession. After the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, realising that he would never be able to defeat England by a war at sea, he decided that he would have to resort to a new kind of war on land; an economic war. By the Continental System he hoped to destroy British trade and manufacturing. But the Continental System was hopelessly ambitious. It required control, and absolute control, of the whole of Europe, from Lisbon to Moscow. It required all powers, all territories, all dependencies, all allies, no matter how reluctant, to fall in behind what was effectively a French economic dictatorship. Bit by bit the whole impossible project came apart. Portugal was the first to break rank, beginning the French tyrant's ruinous involvement in the Peninsula. Next to go was Russia, the ally of occasion. To bring Tsar Alexander I back into line Napoleon broke the first rule of warfare-never march on Moscow. Russia's success in defeating French aggression also freed Austria and Prussia from the grip of the Continental System, enabling them all to join together in the War of the Sixth Coalition. Abandoned on almost all sides, Napoleon was overwhelmed at the Battle of the Nations.

How did his economic blockade affect the British? Hardly at all; for new markets were found in the Americas. Besides, smuggling into Europe was highly effective. More than that, Napoleon was forced to grant exceptions to his Berlin and Milan decrees, for the simple reason that he depended on British manufacturers for the supply of his army's boots! Contrary to Napoleon's intentions, moreover, such economic hardship as there was came in his own country, with food shortages, loss of business and high prices adding to his growing unpopularity. And that is how the mighty are fallen! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, I've edited the link to the War of 1812 in your reply since that's the article about the American War of 1812. --Taraborn (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks, Taraborn. Perhaps that should be the second rule of warfare-never march on Washington! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Clio and others are correct in addressing the OP's question from one angle, but there is another way to look at the question, too, which is from a psychological point of view. Perhaps one could say that the single most crucial factor in the downfall of Napoleon was his own inner drive to want to become another Alexander the Great, or something like that. This may have come from his early life experiences and family background on the Island of Corsica. In his own words he wrote about some of the violent experiences he witnessed growing up: "I was born when my country was dying. Thirty thousand Frenchmen disgorged upon our shores, drowning the throne of liberty in a sea of blood; such was the hateful spectacle that offended my infant eyes." Perhaps his relentless drive to become the Emperor of France and all the rest of the planet was born out of this environment. And it was really that internal drive that led him to do the things he did, including overstretching himself by invading Russia, etc. But like I said, perhaps this question could have more than one possible answer... -- Saukkomies 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism / Hatred

What in deep layers and fundamentals of Nazism is wrong and cause the hatred? tell the things that you got yourself ,each in one line. Flakture (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aim to exterminate a group of people logically causes tension among the Nazis and the target group. --Taraborn (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user may be asking something along the lines of, "Do the tenets of Naziism naturally lead to the kind of race-hatred that happened in Nazi Germany? Could a Nazi party exist without the hate, or is the hate fundamental to its doctrine?" At least, I believe that is what she's asking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not, a person that not yet lose the human values and nature, so meeting anti-values excite his disgust and rise a determination to repulsion, that's the question. Flakture (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism is a particular strain of Fascism, one that contains within it extremely strong components about biology and race. I don't think you can divorce Nazism from its racism — you end up with just a dialect of Fascism.

The general critique about Fascism is that it is undemocratic. The Fascists, of course, don't see that as a "wrong" thing—they characterize Democracy as "mob rule" and see it as a "wrong" thing. Philosophically Fascism is a form of collectivism mixed with nationalism—a belief that the fundamental political unit is the state (not the individual, not the people, not the class, not the Volk, not the race—note that this last point is where Fascism and Nazism diverge a bit), and that all individuals, as members of the state, owe their allegiance and support to the state. The state itself is stewarded by people well versed in how to steward a state, by their definition. I know it can be a rather distasteful thing to say but it has more in common with something like Marxist-Leninism (except there the fundamental political unit is supposed to be the class, though in practice I think it ends up just being the state as well) than it does with any sort of free-enterprise society. Anyway, there is some food for thought to chew on. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flakture, your request, as I understand it, touches on the impossible. But if you really want a one-liner about the Nazi mind-set then here you are: "I hate, therefore I am." Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the question ,if you really "got a thing yourself" there's no need to demonstrate and prove to yourself, also details will be faded. the request is not telling the nazi mind-set. Flakture (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Flakture. Look, please forgive me, but what you have written does not make an awful lot of sense. It would seem clear that English is not your first language, and I suspect you are attempting to make a direct translation from your native idiom? Unfortunately it's coming across in a quite ungrammatical fashion. I hope I haven't wounded you by my frankness; I simply want to be as helpful as I can. Might I suggest that if you are still looking for information that you reduce your question down to a hard and simple core. Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lerner: "When evil acts in the world, it always manages to find instruments who believe that what they do is not evil but honorable." Xn4 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, here's my try at this: Politicians that play on peoples' fears get support, and to justify those fears there must always be a scapegoat. -- Saukkomies 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask the OP to "suitly emphazi" his question. (Sorry, I know we agreed to NEVER AGAIN utter these words here, even in jest, but it is the silly season.) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that, he might loose his patients! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valeri - Curious about Latin Translation

I met a woman named "Valeri" the other day. While I had never seen that particular spelling of "Valerie," it is not unheard of (see Valerie). What was unusual to me was that at first glance I thought it was not a name but a Latin phrase of some sort.

My question is this: Is "valeri" a valid Latin word? The Valerie article indicates it descends from "brave or courageous," so I'm guessing there's a Latin root out there somewhere.

Thanks,

--KNHaw ^(talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Valerii (or Valeri) is the vocative (or plural nominative) for Valerius, a ~~cognomen~~ nomen. Pallida Mors 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's vocative, and an alternate form of the genitive of that name. It would also be the passive infinitive of the verb "valere" (to be well, to prevail), but I don't think that can be made passive. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a surname, eg. Carl Valeri. (I only know this because I used to work with Carl's mother.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and strangely evocative of the song Volare! ( /silliness ) -- Saukkomies 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... the words to which were not written by Paul Valéry. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Latin 'Valeri' is English 'The Winners'? -66.55.10.178 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, that's TWICE today I've somehow found myself logged out -SandyJax (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mad all his life

The english writer samuel johnson described himself as being mad all his life. Do we know what he suffered from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitt the Youngest (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Ed., Vol. XV. (see [1] ) "He had inherited from his ancestors a scrofulous taint" "Before the young man left the university, his hereditary malady had broken forth in a singularly cruel form. He had become an incurable hypochondriac." In fact the whole essay seems to be a catalogue of ill health! SaundersW (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many possible explanations for Samuel Johnson's afflictions, some more convincing, others less convincing; Tourette's syndrom being the least convincing of all, at least in my estimation. Some medical experts have conjectured that his tics and spasms could have been caused by St. Vitus' Dance, or some related condition, just as others have suggested that the scrofula he contracted in his infancy could conceivably have had an effect on his later mental health. The truth is we do not know, and we will never know. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation continues - "mad all his life, at least not sober". As Clio says, we don't know. I have an idea that Dr Johnson was rather pleased with the idea of being thought mad. He would have known King George II's famous quip about James Wolfe - "Mad, is he? Then I hope he will bite some other of my generals", but not, of course, J. I. M. Stewart's much later line "The mad often notice significant things which the sane ignore". The second, I think, he would have taken as a compliment after his own heart. However, Johnson (according to Boswell) suffered, like his father, from what he called "a vile melancholy", so his line about madness can also be taken as referring to depression. Xn4 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find this entry, Xn4, in Johnson's diary for Easter Day, 1777: "When I survey my past life, I discover nothing but a barren waste of time with some disorders of body and disturbances of the mind, very near to madness." Clio the Muse (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent further quotation, Clio, which helps us to answer this question. The one the OP quotes, "mad all his life", is from the introduction to Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson LLD. He says: "Mr Michael Johnson was a man of a large and robust body, and of a strong and active mind; yet, as in the most solid rocks veins of unsound substance are often discovered, there was in him a mixture of that disease, the nature of which eludes the most minute enquiry, though the effects are well known to be a weariness of life, an unconcern about those things which agitate the greater part of mankind, and a general sensation of gloomy wretchedness. From him then his son inherited, with some other qualities, ‘a vile melancholy,’ which in his too strong expression of any disturbance of the mind, ‘made him mad all his life, at least not sober.’" Xn4 09:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he didn't mean he was mad as in crazy, but mad as in angry. Here's one of his quotes: "I am willing to love all mankind, except an American." Since he lived during the American Revolution, this would perhaps explain his anger towards Americans, and maybe this is what he was mad about. [/humor mode]. -- Saukkomies 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Diffusion

I'm trying to find good examples of groups that have successfully resisted cultural diffusion of popular customs. Immediately, the Amish came to mind, and I wrote about them. I still need another though. I sifted through some wiki articles on cultural diffusion, and mainly found cultures that had either been taken over or that had gladly accepted a new culture. No help!! So, in conclusion, I'm looking for an article about a group of people that have successfully preserved their culture from diffusion of popular customs. Thank ya very much in advance.

SubtlyChaotic (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)SubtlyChaotic[reply]

The Andaman Islanders (I hope that comes up blue) may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it does, and the specific group you should look at are the Sentinelese. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontacted peoples is a decent list, although they haven't necessarily resisted cultural diffusion, having experienced considerably less of it. For a group that is currently undergoing quite late cultural diffusion, see Wanniyala-Aetto, aboutthe Veddahs from Sri Lanka. Steewi (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are groups that have done this with different levels of success. There are very few groups in the world that have been able to completely resist cultural diffusion of popular customs - even the Amish (and there are different groups of Amish that have different accepted practices) use some modern things such as gasoline powered weed trimmers, electric powered milk coolers, kerosene powered refrigerators, and even some who have telephones in their homes! I would say that a couple of other groups that have done a fairly decent job of resisting cultural diffusion would be the Hopi Indians of Arizona, the Laestadian Lutherans, the Mennonites, The Farm hippie commune in Tennessee, the Old Believers - sort of Russian Orthodoxy's version of the Amish, as well as various Monastic Orders, including Christian, Buddhist and Hindu (and many others as well). -- Saukkomies 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UC)

Expanding on the comments of the previous poster, Saukkomies: It may be argued that it is the prime essence of all major religions to resist this diffusion of their historic cultures and values (and power).

Latin, until quite recently, was the liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church and Old Hebrew is used in Judaism for the same purpose; both, of course, are extinct languages. In God´s own country there seems to be a significant proportion of people - including potential presidents - who unequivocally support creationism. There are also some processes in the Islamic world which may be interpreted as a withdrawal of some Muslim groups, eschewing "Westernisation", to the roots of their own traditions.

As a working assumption: Many "modern" folks are but physically living in the third millennium but their thinking is largely determined by almost medieval concepts. What if Cultural Diffusion / refusal to accept "modern" values were to be measured by some questionnaire:

Do you understand the laws of Isaac Newton ?

What about Darwinian evolution ?

How does Special Relativity affect humankind ?

Can you talk 5 minutes on genetics ?

and so on...

I tend to think that the inertia of the human brain is vastly underestimated. The OP and Saukkomies himself talk of "popular customs", referring, I guess, to the "visible" culture of tangible hardware. For what it is worth, I think that all of us - some more and some less, some visibly and some mentally - are great refusniks when it comes to cultural diffusion in the active sense of positive acceptance.

People and their life may look quite differently when you observe a rural community in Dutch Pennsylvania, a bunch of rappers in the Bronx and a gathering of cosmologists in Princeton. They may be less different than they seem to be. Maybe the cultural software in their minds is virtually identical.

There is a lengthy discussion above on the "superiority" of cultures which may give the OP some - rather oblique - ideas concerning competition / survival / drop outs or those who seek alternative options.

And now, having progressed from the SubtlyChaotic to the SublimeChaos, I will stop waffling nonsense. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for study or news item about zoning in Los Angeles that is hurting food consumers

I don't remember it real well, which is part of the problem. I read something about a year ago that said some weird zoning laws in LA that were meant to help build communities were actually hurting poor consumers. The law was either relating to restaurants, meaning that the only restaurants in poorer areas of LA were fast food joints, or about grocery stores, meaning that poor people had to travel long distances to buy groceries. Any healp would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.108.184 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles that appear to address a zoning proposal raised by Jan Perry of the Los Angeles City Council in September this year: [2] [3][4] [5] Also, a 2005 academic review The use of zoming to restrict fast food outlets: a potential strategy to combat obesity, and the Urban & Environmental Policy Institute's report, The persistence of L.A.'s grocery gap on the subject. Rockpocket 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rockpocket. The first ones are the opposite of what I'm looking for, but the last one was pretty close, and it helped me narrow my own search to find other useful links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.108.184 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]