Humanities desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

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 28

UNAM student population

I was curious about the student population of UNAM and had a couple of questions that I was hoping you guys could help me figure out.

How many campuses are there and how closely are they affiliated?
What is the geographic area that these campuses cover.
According to the article there are 286,484 students. Do they generally identify with each other as UNAM students or are they more tied to their individual campus?

What I'm trying to figure out is if it's more like some large university systems like The University of California system where there's not a lot of interaction between students at the different universities and in fact there's a little bit of rivalry, or if it's more like a single entity where students belong to various colleges within the University (e.g. engineering, humanities, biological sciences, etc) but they still identify with each other as UNAM alumni.

Thanks

71.5.1.203 (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics, etc

I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some thinkers who are working with idea that music (and art, generally) which stays close to "the primitive" or basic or natural rhythms reflects "humanness" and is pleasing or comforting? Sorry for the vague terms; it's an idea I've been kicking around and I'm curious as to whether or not other people already have. A related idea would be Jung and Campbell's idea that "primitive" or "tribal" (what is an accurate term here, by the way?) lifestyles generally produce more psychologically healthy people--and, is that still a valid idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwolter (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to pull the citations when I get off work, but I do remember one study of prisoners that found that the prisoners who had cells with windows to the outside went to the infirmary less often than prisoners who did not have cells with windows to the outside. This was a brief side-note in my evolutionary psychology course so I didn't track down the exact study to make sure they randomized it properly, but I would hope that the authors of the textbook did. But I will try to find the exact citation when I get home (~9 hours from now). I have also just started a book titled Evolutionary aesthetics edited by Eckart Voland and Karl Grammer, which seems to be something that you would be interested in.

I imagine that the idea that a certain set of sounds would be pleasing because they are primitive or basic would easily be tested. Get a wide range of sounds that are supposedly pleasing because of their primitiveness and find out whether people from a diverse cross section of human societies find the sounds to be pleasing (and it would be best if you would include a hunter-gather society in the mix for an accurate sampling). When I was studying world music there was talk about how many of the soundscapes we covered either explicitly or implicitly mimicked sounds from nature. But do realize that it is easy to make such a claim without any rigorous study of the musics of many cultures. My personal theory is that these mimicked natural sounds only make sense to a person who is already familiar with the musical style, just like onomatopoeia representations of sounds are different in different languages but to each language user the sounds seem perfectly suited.--droptone (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that "Primitive" is not a word that is used very much any more, any more than "Oriental" is...You might check out Sally Price's book, "Primitive Art in Civilized Places" or Marianna Torgovnick's book, "Gone Primitive: Savage Intellects, Modern Lives" to see why this is so. For the most part "Primitivism" is a Western construct hinting at a theory of cultural evolution. Campbell was a populizer of certain structuralist approaches to anthropology and mythology and even Freud and Jung were structuralists to some extent. But for this reason, while we still hold certain ideas of these thinkers in esteem, we have come to see that certain of their views were clouded by the cultural prejudices of their day. For this reason you would have a hard time being taken seriously with a theory such as the one you are describing. Not to be unkind. Saudade7 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for that study I mentioned is: Moore, E.O. (1981-1982). A prison environment's effect on health care service demands. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 17-34.--droptone (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==

Governing Structure - officers - ranks of British Raj, East India Company

Hello All: I would like a concise, list or break down if you will of the Officers' titles and positions in the British East India Company and British Raj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geigenbauer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

watercolour artist possibly spanish

Dear Sirs, I am searching for info on the artist of 4 paintings I have. They were all painted within a week of each other, in April 1898,by a watercolour artist whose name appears to be , by the signature, Louis Fagnise/Fagaise, although the last 4 letters are indistinct. I have tried to contact Spanish art galleries, to no avail. These are beautiful paintings, with "Granada" written by the signatures. I would appreciate any info you may find, or e amil addresses of specialists who may point me in the right direction. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.161.205 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a French name to me Rhinoracer (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yup, the Spanish spelling of his first name would be "Luis". I checked some relevant pages, and did some googling, but found no obvious candidates. Maybe if you could upload a picture, or give some more information about how/where your acquired the paintings, someone might come along and be able to narrow it down a bit, and point you in the right direction. --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charisma in U.S. Presidental elections

Is there any historical precedent of an American president making a strong showing in the primaries/elections or even making it into the White House largely due to his charisma or personal appeal?

202.156.14.10 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy was seen as more charismatic than Richard Nixon in the 1960 campaign, and won despite Nixon's greater experience and paper qualifications. Kennedy's charisma [1] served him well in televised debates [2]. His personal appeal was an important factor in his election. Edison (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's the first person that came to mind and is an excellent example, but my question probably didn't properly qualify that I'm looking for someone that was an unmitigated disaster elsewhere, being an actual president would also help immensely. Sort of like Huckabee if he made it into the Oval Office, if such an example's necessary. 202.156.14.10 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Harding is mentioned by Malcolm Gladwell in the book Blink - the power of thinking without thinking, as an example of a charismatic individual who was actually not very good, but did well because of his charisma. I forget the details as i've passed the book to a friend, but I recall him being mentioned as a mediocre president. ny156uk (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can be phrased a different way: Has there been any U.S. President who was elected without having charisma or personal appeal? Nixon, Lincoln, and Jackson are the only ones that come to mind. As for "disaster" - that is an opinionated statement in politics. What you call "disaster", another person calls "experience". -- kainaw ™ 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That there isn't a objective standard is true, but there is still a broad consensus that can be reached. Thank you, Warren Harding fit the bill perfectly. I'm trying to illustrate how past all the feel-good rhetoric Obama is espousing and the sentiment that endgenders, there really isn't anything that points towards aptitude, but I don't think he has precedent in someone trying to heal divisions, so I'll have to settle for old Harding. 202.156.14.10 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in political talk about healing divisions, see the Lincoln-Douglas debates (which should be called the Douglas-Lincoln debates in my opinion since Douglas won). Lincoln was trying very hard to straddle the fence and make everyone happy while Douglas was constantly bringing up inconsistencies and lack of aptitude in Lincoln's past. It is my opinion that the reason we don't include these debates when we teach youngsters about Lincoln is because they make him look like a politician who is just trying to make people like him so he can get elected. Of course, we don't want to get derailed into a debate over the content of the Lincoln-Douglas debates here. I just feel it is a good precedent for a politician trying to be the big "healer" and not a "divider". Many politicians have claimed to be healers since then, but haven't done much in speeches or actions to follow up on the claim. -- kainaw ™ 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Douglas won the debate", Kainaw? I'm interested in this because we have the modern-day equivalents, and everybody talks about who "won" or "lost" the debate, but nobody ever, ever, defines - either before, during or after the debate - what these terms mean or how a win/loss is determined. And they become even more apparently meaningless when the "loser" of the debate goes on to win the election, as Lincoln did. So, what does it actually mean? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Douglas's faction won the election; see Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it, especially the sentence "The legislature then re-elected Douglas." Is that some sort of political code that means Douglas was not elected and Lincoln was? I'm interested in knowing what Jack says it means. -- kainaw ™ 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter comes to mind as well. Reagan was a lot more charismatic. Wrad (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Martin Van Buren could ever have been considered charismatic, but in those pre-mass media days, it really didn't matter so much. Corvus cornix_talk 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, George W. Bush was seen as more charismatic than Al Gore. Whether Bush has been a disaster, I leave you to decide. Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, whether Bush has been a disaster doesn't answer the question of what people should have though of Bush when voting. For that these links may be helpful [3] http://www.ishipress. com/bushgore.htm (blacklisted site) [4] [5] (okay yes that one was only revealed fairly late but it's the kind of thing that surely should have been tested before you voted for the guy). BTW, for American's this link on a potential future president that I came across may be of interest [6] Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardier Q Series

Hello. Is the Bombardier Q Series indirectly named after the Quiet Revolution? Thanks in advance. Have a happy new year! --Mayfare (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean because of the "Q", which stands for "quiet" (= "not noisy")? I think not. We have a different meaning of the word "Quiet" in "Quiet Revolution"; there it means "peaceable", "not violent". --Lambiam 00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gianavel

Does anybody have any information about Joshua Gianavel, other than what's written about him in Foxe's Book of Martyrs? Corvus cornix_talk 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Try this [7] --n1yaN t 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some things about the novel Rora, I'm just wondering how accurate it is. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see: Mitchell, A. W., & Muston, A. (1853). The Waldenses sketches of the evangelical Christians of the valleys of Piedmont, comp. for the Board of publication chiefly from "The Israel of the Alps.". Making of America. Philadelphia: Presbyterian board of publication and Sabbath school-work. [8]. The Amazon preview quotes "... Captain Joshua Gianavel, who alone had foreseen the contemplated treachery, kept the hostile army in check, and by degrees drove it from the ..." on page 195, but i can't yet find that passage in the University of Michigan online edition. Is this the same Captain Gianavel you're interested in?—eric 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Amazon indicates page 195, I find this passage in both sources on the page with printed page number 199. --Lambiam 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same Gianavel. Thanks, Eric. I'll look into that. Corvus cornix_talk 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also spelled Josue/Giosuè Janavel, see: Audisio, Gabriel. (1999) The Waldensian Dissent.[9] pp. 205-7.—eric 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the Waldensians article links to an online biography (in French, i am reduced to looking at the pictures.)—eric 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I wish I read French. :) Thanks for that. Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napolean and the 1812 invasion of Russia

The most pressing question here, is why did Napolean invade Russia? I understand the basic concept, that Russia pulled out of the economic warfare against Great Britain, but what could Napolean have gained from an effort? Of course he could not have known a bitter defeat was eminent on the march back from Moscow, but what motivation does he have militarily and economically to attack? His People's Army, or Grand Army was stretched to limits as is, and raising another 300,000 seems folly. 200,000 were already involved with the Spanish during this time. Why go after a separate enemy while still fighting a battle on many different fronts? The basic concept eludes me, and I can't understand the reasoning behind the invasion that eventually led to his first exile and true defeat. Anyone have any suggestions/ideas? Bugsym5 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]