Humanities desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

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.

March 25

slavery

It is well written that slaves came to America by ships from Africa. My question, were they sold by their Cheifs to be resold or were they taken by force?

They were taken by force, whatever way you look at the issue. The page on the Atlantic slave trade covers the topic at some length; but the short answer is that Europeans provided an additional stimulus to the ancient practice of enslaving people taken in war. But they also, it might be said, created a new layer of African middle-men, who made a living out of capturing fellow Africans specifically to meet the demand of the Atlantic slave trade. You might also care to have a look at The Slave Trade: History of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870 by Hugh Thomas, a fairly comprehensive treatment of the whole subject. Clio the Muse 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans in trading stations established along the coasts and lower reaches of rivers created a ready market, successfully competing with the slave purchasers to the north, who had traditionally provided the slave-taking impetus. --Wetman 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some fiction books referred to "Arab slavers." Were the Arab states important in capturing Africans and selling them into slavery? Does it then make sense for angry African Americans to reject their "slave names" and assume Arabic sounding names? Edison 04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of "Arab slavers" in Tarzan books by Burroughs. This website says Burroughs used Stanley's writings as background for his fiction, and quotes Stanley about slave capture in Africa.[1]Edison 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was, indeed, a vigorous Arab slave trade, but it was mostly confined to East Africa, and would not therefore link to the Atlantic trade to any significant degree. Also, there was no 'colour discrimination' in Arab slaving. Although they increasingly resorted to Africa, as late as the nineteenth century Arab pirates took captives from European coastal areas to be sold into slavery. I have really no response to make to your final question, Edison, other than to say I think these names may be Muslim, rather than specifically Arab. Clio the Muse 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to any significant degree until the 19th century, when there was a great increase of the slave trade from the east coast across the Atlantic, mostly to Brazil. Many were from Zanzibar then under control of the Sultan of Oman. I found one (not very reliable) source stating that by 1820 the slave trade from the east coast across the Atlantic equaled that from the west coast.—eric 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Eric. You may not be aware of this (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are not British?), but this year marks the two-hundredth anniversary of the English Parliament's abolition of the Atlantic slave trade in 1807, a measure forever associated with the great William Wilberforce, whose life and achievment is celebrated in the movie Amazing Grace, which went on general release here in England on Friday. Anyway, as a consequence of this abolition the Royal Navy was given the task of intercepting slavers, which presumably included those coming from Zanzibar. I find it difficult to believe that trade from the east could have come anywhere near the levels of the west prior to abolition; and although it probably continued afterwards, it must have been subject to considerable restrictions. I would be pleased, though, if you could supply any further information on the subject. Clio the Muse 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I've now had a chance to look into this issue a little more deeply, digging out the relevant information from my copy of Thomas' book on the slave trade, and the information given in your source would seem to be correct. Although England, followed soon after by the United States, abolished the Atlantic trade, the slack was taken up by Brazilian, Portuguese and Spanish slavers. The Royal Navy's interceptions would appear not to have been that effective, and Thomas goes so far as to say that the number of African slaves in the Americas in 1822 was probably twice what it had been in the 1780s (1997 p. 564). The main market for this new wave was Brazil, the import of slaves forming the most important part of Rio de Janeiro's international trade. In 1817, H. M. Brackenridge, a British traveller, reported that the natural increase in Brazil's black population was discouraged "from the calculation that it was cheaper to import full-grown slaves than to bring up young ones." It should also be noted that African leaders were perplexed by the Anglo-Saxon abolition of the trade. In 1820 the King of Ashanti asked a British official why the Christians did not want to buy slaves any more: 'Was their God not the same as that of the Muslims, who continue to buy, kidnap and sell slaves just as they had always done?'. More than that, some Muslims seemingly concluded that the abolition of the trade was an attack on Islam itself, as slavery was accepted in the Koran. Anyway, thank you for stimulating this investigation. Clio the Muse 15:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's question, and your response, have led me down a number of interesting paths of inquiry: the role of the slave trade in the growth of Islam in the western Sudan, the Moresby Treaty (see:Fairfax Moresby) and the difficulties faced by the Royal Navy squadrons in the Indian Ocean as opposed to the Atlantic. Unfortunately none have been very fruitful, some of my sources are from the the 60's and contain conflicting information, efforts to magnify or downplay the Arab vs. Americas trade.

Could you clarify some the statement from Thomas—in the comparison of 1870's and 1822 by 'African slaves' does he mean 'of African decent' or 'arrived from/born in Africa'? Either way it's surprising, my impression was that though the east had an increasingly large proportion of of the trade in the 19th century, as you said not "near the levels of the west prior to abolition".—eric 21:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i should point out that though this was the slave trade through port on the east coast, i'm unsure as to what degree you could characterize it as 'Arab' (the Arab states involved) or 'Muslim' (Arab or non-Arab Muslim traders involved).—eric 21:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inference is that the number of additional slaves can not be accounted for by natural increase alone, and could only have been made up by fairly substantial trans-Atlantic imports, a contention supported by Brackenridge's observations. But you really must get a hold of Thomas' book: it's packed with information and detailed sources on all aspects of the trade, including Arab involvement. There was always a strong 'free enterprise' element to Arab or Muslim slaving, but there was also some state involvement, as your point about the Sultan of Oman would confirm, on the assumption that he was not in total ignorance. Anyway, read The Slave Trade: it's an excellent piece of work. Clio the Muse 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: The question can be read to imply that "all" slaves came to the early "United States" from Africa. As pointed out in the answers, slavery was worldwide. Slaves from Africa were shipped to South, Central and North America. Also, not all slaves where from Africa. This is a hot topic where I live right now because the directors of our slave museum want to have a small room (about the size of a closet) mentioning the Chinese slaves that worked the rice plantations. However, the blacks are dead-set against any mention of non-black slaves. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seaon Four of The Wire

Question moved to the Entertainment Desk.

Catholics -Not Really Christians?

I have heard that some people claim that Catholics are not really Christians. I have five questions about that claim:

1. Is that true?

2. Why do some people claim so? What are their arguments for that claim?

3. Have Catholics and the Catholic Church reacted and responded to that claim?

4. If so, then how?

5. If you are a Catholic, then what do you think about that claim?

The Anonymous One 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes it is true. Some ppl (who say they are Christians themselves) claim that other ppl (who also say they are Christians) aren't "true Christians" at all. That begs the (rhetorical) question: What defines being a Christian, and who are the truest christians of all? Those who can answer that get a free passage to heaven. Flamarande 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would define being a Christian as believing in the teachings of Jesus. I will leave it to others to determine if Catholics follow the teachings of Jesus or not. StuRat 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Their arguments are mostly: "They can't be Christians because they don't follow the same rules like we do. Only those that follow our rules are true Christians." They like to point out some ancient passage of the Bible, offer their own interpretation for it, and tell you that the others don't follow the passage in question. The not-followers of the passage worship the devil and will burn in hell. Ptui! Flamarande 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would define a Christian as someone who follows the teachings of Jesus (a subset of all the teachings in the Bible), as opposed to all of the teachings of the Bible. The Old Testament is frequently at odds with the teachings of Jesus, for example. StuRat 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) The Catholic church and Catholics in general consider themselves to be the truest christians of all. The others Christians have been somewhat misled, but can still be saved. They have only to repent and join the Holy Apostoloc Catholic Church, the truest church of all - ST Peter said so! Flamarande 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they have reacted and responded. While their initial reaction to Martin Luther and others was violent, they did eventually reform and stop the most abusive practices, such as the sale of indulgences. They recently retracted their condemnation of Galileo for saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as well: [2]. So progress is being made, even if at a snail's pace. StuRat 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) In former times special Catholic investigators and judges, called Inquisitors, have dealt with such cases. In case of being found guilty of heresy these persons could be burned. This was mostly done in the middle ages (more ore less 500 years ago) but anti-catholics like to throw it, again and again, into face of catholics today. Nothing is forgotten. nothing is forgiven. Flamarande 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition! Edison 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a (shallow) discussion of this in our article Criticism of the Catholic Church, in the subsection Catholics considered as not being Christian. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up Protestant in Northern Ireland, and the notion that Catholics aren't Christians is quite common there. The argument is fairly simple - "we are the only ones who do Christianity right, therefore anyone who does it differently is doing it all wrong." --Nicknack009 12:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the East-West Schism is a good article to point out for this question. Even Catholics can claim other Catholics are not true Christians and excommunicate them. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see only 4 questions there. --24.147.86.187 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #2. --TotoBaggins 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No true scotsman Diletante 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects, a person may believe themselves to be Christian, while they aren't. One odious example might be Adolf Hitler. I would reject the assertion that no Catholic is Christian, but I would point out the decision is moot. Undeniably, a person is Christian if God believes they are. DDB 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ineffability, once accepted as a general principle, cannot be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. If the distinction is God's to make, then it is impossible for a human to know the Christian credentials of anyone, and that includes Hitler. To lay claim to that knowledge would, if it were ineffable, be the same as claiming full knowledge of God, not that nobody's tried that. In any case, if Hitler can be deemed a non-Christian, if his status in God's eye can be known to us in any way, however obliquely, then the criteria of Christianness must by definition be humanly comprehensible. And unless I'm mistaken, that is how most Christians view it today — comprehensible in theory, even if no one feels the need to subject it to comprehension. Ineffability is a wonderful smoke bomb to throw at the feet of us doubters, but let's be honest, it gets in the way of fun stuff like passing judgment and forecasting people's afterlives and so forth. Hence, it tends to be downplayed in modern Christianity. Incidentally, I think Hitler was a fucker and he wouldn't get into heaven if I ran the place. Just using a powerful example to illustrate an often-overlooked point. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be almost impossible to concieve of the possibility that Hitler truly repented for his atrocities before he died. Theoretically, he might have. My understanding of Christianity is that anyone - even Hitler - can get to heaven because, while God hates sins, he loves sinners, unconditionally. Hitler might have to cool his heels in purgatory for 20 zillion years, though. This is not to condone anything he did.

On the general question, I think that all people who profess to be Christians sometimes act in un-Christian ways. Some more so than others. ("The just man sins seven times a day" - Proverbs 24:16). Same for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc. Anatole France said: “It is human nature to think wisely and act in an absurd fashion”. So it’s possible to be simultaneously a Christian by profession but a non-Christian by action. JackofOz 00:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I will always deplore posthumous reassignments of peoples' religious affiliations. Because it's so unnecessary. It's so vain, on the part of Christians, to insist that Hitler be reassigned to some other religion. This is a privilege atheists never enjoy, because they have no positive requirements to "fall short" of. It's always struck me as undemocratic that one man's religion can be cleansed of Hitler, while I'm stuck with Mao. So that's my interest in this debate. Where is it written that a man can't be simultaneously a Christian and evil? As you say, "the just man..." Being a Christian isn't synonymous with being a good person, even from a Christian perspective. If I were a Christian, I imagine I would feel the same way, simply for the sake of integrity and humility. And surely it can be agreed that someone who uses the example of Hitler as an argument against Christianity can be refuted on other grounds. Bhumiya (said/done) 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, Bhumiya. When we say "Mr X was a Christian - Calathumpian - whatever", are we implying that he practised all the tenets of his faith perfectly at all times? Hardly. We're saying he professed to be of that particular faith, but, as we know, actions speak louder than words. I think most people would draw that distinction, in most cases. But the Hitlers of the world are in a special category. I see nothing wrong in saying that Hitler professed to be a Christian, if in fact he did so profess. If we simply said he was a Christian, that might upset more than a few people, understandably. JackofOz 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Adolf Hitler ever professed to be, or practiced as, a Christian; at least not since his early childhood. There is plenty of evidence,though, on the anti-Christian character of the Third Reich. Clio the Muse 05:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. JackofOz 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinated Monarchs

Hi.I was wondering if there were any monarches, barons or royalty etc.(A husband and wife) that lived in europe in the late 1800's early 1900's that were assasinated? If you could find out that would be fantastic! Thank you!Caity-Faye 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious, and most spectacular assassination, was that of Tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881, followed by the Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, the Duchess Sophie, in 1914, a killing that sparked the Great War, which concluded with the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family. There is also the Empress Elizabeth, the wife of Franz-Joseph of Austria, who was murdered in 1898. In addition, you can have King Aleksandar Obrenović of Serbia and Queen Draga, killed together in 1903. Further west, Carlos I of Portugal and Luis Filipe, Duke of Braganza, his eldest son, met a similar fate in 1908. These are the main examples drawn from the top of my head. I dare say there are some others. Clio the Muse 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting King Alexander I of Yugoslavia who was assassinated in Marseilles in 1934. -- Arwel (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider Alexander, Arwel, but thought he was too far from the 'early 1900s' to warrant inclusion. There is, however, one notable example I did forget, that of Umberto I of Italy, shot by an anarchist in 1900. Clio the Muse 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassinated people is a handy resource for this type of query. JackofOz 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights position title

What is the title of someone who speaks to others about copyrights and trademarks, responds to requests for use of copyrighted material, and speaks to people about infringment of copyrights before a formal legal contact is made Karen Weber 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two roles are involved: patent attorney, corporate lawyer. --Wetman 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literary agent? --ColinFine 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with either of those answers. A patent attorney isn't necessarily going to be involved with copyrights and trademarks; patent law is so specialized that most good patent attorneys aren't going to spend their time on anything else (including other areas of intellectual property like copyrights and trademarks). A literary agent is someone who negotiates and advocates on behalf of a writer; I don't think that's what the questioner was asking about.

The part of a corporation that "responds to requests for use of copyrighted material" is often called the "permissions department". In general, those who work in the permissions department would not be the ones who "speak to people about infringement of copyrights before a formal legal contact is made"; that function would normally be performed by someone in the legal department. --Mathew5000 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation keeps an Intellectual property (IP) attorney on staff; see Robin Gross for more. More generally, however, I'd suggest that there may not be a specialized title for the attorney who serves such a purpose in major firms. The usual Google search calls up numerous reference to Copyright lawyers and also locates sites that reference both intellectual property and copyright as different areas of specialization -- those would probably be the adjectives used for titles if there were any, but most lawyers at such sites do not seem to have a specialized title. Jfarber 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having disturbing thoughts lately... Help!!!

This question was originally posted at Talk:Milk#Okay, I really need some advice here..., only for me to be pointed here. The reason that I posted it at the talk page for milk first was, aside from the fact that I didn't know about the reference desk, that the question has a lot to do with milk. With that said, I'll proceed to the question. (Yes, it's been copy-pasted from when I first posted it.)

(sigh) This is rather personal, so I'm uncomfortable posting it, but I think I could use some advice here. Okay, for a long time, I've loved milk. I drink it all the time, so my family goes through cartons pretty darn fast. Lately, though, I've become a teenager, and now I have this fascination with mammary glands. I think this has some connection to my love for milk, but I'm not sure. What I do know is that I'm constantly having sexual thoughts, and I'm scared, because I really don't want to fall into the deadly sin of lust! Could somebody here give me some advice, please?

First things first: we do not provide medical advice. If you're really bothered, seek professional help. That being said, I'd be more worried if you were a teenager and not fascinated by mammary glands. It's pretty normal. I'm not a teenager nor do I like milk; however, I too like the "Twin Peaks" (woo hoo). As for having lustful thoughts, that's not a sin. It's only trouble if you act on them in a negative way (negative being determined by your beliefs and the law). Clarityfiend 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´m a teenage boy not fascinated by mammary glands :| Should I ask for help on the Reference Desk? A.Z. 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that all religions agree that lustful thoughts are not sins, but I personally find it unreasonable to expect a person to avoid certain thoughts, while not unreasonable to expect them to avoid certain actions. There are two schools of thought, one saying that thinking about a thing causes you to do it and the other saying that such thoughts eliminate the need to actually perform the action. I would think the truth is somewhere in between. Certainly most people who think about murder (say while watching one in a movie or on TV) don't actually kill anyone. There may be a slight correlation of viewing violence with committing violence, however. StuRat 20:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the OP was Roman Catholic from the link to Seven deadly sins, and after checking the OP's user page, my guess was correct. Clarityfiend 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sure was. ^_^ Userboxes sure come in handy, don't they? :p --Luigifan 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think there are a lot of teenagers not fascinated by mammary glands. Approximately 50%, I bet. Anchoress 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I suppose there's truth to that. Humans are genetically predisposed to find certain things attractive in other humans, and mammary glands are one of them. Different species are attracted by different things. For example, female chimps are attracted to male chimps rotating their pectorals. Of course, from the viewpoints of other species, including humans, such behavior is [to put it lightly,] rather bizarre. But, anyway, your comments have helped me to feel a bit better... Thanks! --Luigifan 20:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what Anchoress is getting at, but I'd bet the numbers are still closer to 100% than 50%...IF we take into account adolescents who are fascinated by mammary glands for any reason, from sexual interest to general fascination with the way boys and girls, and individuals and other individuals, are just plain different, and why. Dislaimer: I am neither a doctor nor a specialist in human development, but I was a boarding school house parent for seven years, and I think the 300+ adolescents of both sexes I lived with during that time comprises a pretty decent sample for statistical estimation. Jfarber 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was a teenage girl once, and of my circle of friends, only one of us was 'fascinated by mammary glands'. Anchoress 20:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the "biobabble" bit, (e. g. the mention of chimpanzees,) different species are attracted to different things when selecting a mate. What I forgot to mention is that different genders are also attracted to different traits, even within the same species. For example, male chimpanzees don't exactly go nuts over female chimps rotating their breasts. On the other hand, a human male might be effectively mesmerized by a human female rotating her breasts, because boys tend to like boobies. (Yes, that was a hypothetical statement, because humans don't have as much control over their pectoral muscles as chimps do.) Of course, there are also differences amongst species in the courtship ritual and the faithfulness of a mating pair. But, I'm getting ahead of myself; the point I'm trying to make is that it would actually be a little unusual for a girl to be fascinated with mammary glands. (The only reason I can think of, besides homosexuality, is some sort of deepseated discomfort with the notion of breastfeeding.) Boys, on the other hand, would be more likely to end up glancing at the chest area, because of the inbred drive to further the species. Of course, that assumes that the boys are heterosexual, so... um... okay, I'll stop now before this becomes too confusing and/or controversial.

My advice is that you stop believing that liking breasts and having sex is a sin. A.Z. 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that liking breasts or having sex were sinful. I said that being obsessed with breasts, or having exo-marital sex (or sex without mutual consent) was sinful. --Luigifan 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel like you want to rape a woman? That's what I understand by sex without mutual consent. I didn't get it from your original post. What I thought was that you were having trouble because you thought sex and thinking about sex were sinful things. I think other editors didn´t understand what you meant as well and now they'll be able to give you better answers. A.Z. 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe that enjoying sexual gratification without the informed consent and full participation of the other party (pornography, voyeurism, sexual fantasy) is lacking full consensuality and/or is sinful. Anchoress 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn´t know that! Thank you, Anchoress. It makes sense. According to this belief, masturbation would be sinful because in order to masturbate you need to imagine another person having sex with you, without the knowledge of the person. Unless of course you agree with that person before you masturbate that it is OK for you to masturbate thinking about him or her. Another sinful thing would be hugging someone and hugging them for a few seconds more than normal because this contact with the body of the other person feels good (sexually) to you. A.Z. 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. ;-)) As to the masturbation thing, the prevailing opinion is that masturbation is forbidden in the Old Testament, but your example is also valid. I'm not sure about the hugging thing, but I am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter confessing on television to "being unfaithful to my wife in my mind." (I'm paraphrasing... I think he said committing adultery in his mind). Anchoress 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if you masturbate thinking about someone else besides your partner, your partner should know that, unless you and your partner agree that it's OK to do that without telling each other. Well, at least to me doing it like Jimmy Carter did looks really bad for a relationship. Now, why would that guy tell everyone that he cheated on his wife? Poor woman that one. A.Z. 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a tough situation. IIRC, he was asked if he had ever committed adultery. He's a scrupulously honest man, and I guess to him a sexual fantasy about a woman not his wife qualified. That's not my belief, I think the contents of a person's mind are their exclusive private property and not under the auspices of any contract or personal dictate, but really it was an intrusive question that took advantage of President Carter's unwillingness/inability to prevaricate. Anchoress 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a poor woman, then, but a lucky woman since she married such a nice guy. I think loving someone implies having a contract by which all your thoughts belong to your loved one. A.Z. 23:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to be thinking of anyone else at all when you masturbate. You can just enjoy it for its own sake. JackofOz 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear: I didn't mean you couldn't masturbate thinking of anyone else when you love someone. I only meant that even those thoughts about other people are subject to the will of your partner, i.e., he or she decides whether you can or cannot have them and about whom you can think et cetera. A.Z. 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might sound fine in theory, but it never works that way in practice. The natural biological and mental functions don't get turned off the moment you enter a committed relationship. If you're walking down the street and you notice someone with a pleasing body or face, you might wonder for a moment of two, or longer, what it might be like to be having sex with them. That doesn't mean you've suddenly been unfaithful to your partner, or that you have to confess those thoughts to your partner - because they are probably doing exactly the same thing in relation to someone else. Nobody but you has any control over your thoughts; they are not subject to the will of your partner or anyone else. People are responsible for their actions; but their thoughts are whatever they want them to be. JackofOz 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t think the fact that your partner may be thinking about having sex with other people means that you don´t have to confess (or admit) those thoughts to him or her. Your partner must do the same thing if he or she loves you (and can you write gender neutral stuff in English without sounding weird?). A.Z. 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must?? Says who? I'm very uncomfortable with people on a reference desk telling others what they must do, particularly about their private sexual thoughts. If you want to acknowledge such thoughts to your partner, that is your prerogative. "Confess" and "admit" are words associated with wrongdoing. There's nothing wrong with having random sexual thoughts about people other than your partner. How did they get to become your partner in the first place - because you noticed someone who was not your partner and something chemical happened between you. Chemical reactions (which is all that sexual feelings are) are automatic bodily functions that continue regardless of socially imposed structures such as partnership. It may not be appropriate to act on such feelings in many cases, but merely having the feelings is perfectly natural, normal, and essential to the continuation of the human race. JackofOz 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that, according to my philosophy, my beliefs and my own way of seeing things so far, people are better off doing that. I wasn't trying to tell you what to do and I'm sorry if it looked like that! I know there's nothing wrong with having random sexual thoughts about people other than my partner. The thing that is wrong (to me) is hiding anything from your partner. So, according to me, if you don't tell him or her directly that you do have thoughts about other people, the only reason for doing that is that this fact is already implied or you really think it is not important to him or her. What I mean is that your partner has the right to know everthing that's in your head. The first time I said that I was responding to Anchoress who gave her personal opinion about this. Her opinion is the one that your thoughts belong only to you and not to your partner. A.Z. 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, A.Z. (and I agree with Anchoress on this). As for your partner having the right to know everything that's in your head, that's not my idea of what a relationship is about. Where's the trust? But even if I agreed with you, how could you possibly tell your partner the literally millions of thoughts you have every day? What you choose to tell them comes down to your personal set of priorities. Having a three-second glance at a passing stranger (and that's all it would take to have a fleeting sexual thought about them) might count for nothing against whatever else you did or happened to you that day. JackofOz 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you assume that only because your partner is given a right to know evertything that's in your head, then he or she will use that right to look into your head and see what you've been doing because he or she doesn't trust you, then you seem to be the one who is not trusting him or her. If you trust your partner, let him or her do whatever he or she wants to do with your thoughts. I'm not saying you should try to make a bulletin of your thoughts at the end of the day and deliver it to your partner. I'm only saying in theory he or she should have complete access to all of your thoughts or be informed of the fact that you are in purpose hiding some thoughts from her or him. Of course, there should be a reason for that, like thoughts of a traumatic event that you would even like to hide from yourself. A.Z. 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such assumption. Nobody can "look into" another person's head, regardless of any rights they might have, or think they have. Basically, what I'm saying is that random sexually-based thoughts about non-partners are so common that they would generally have next to no importance in the overall scheme of people's busy and complex lives. Any so-called "right" of a partner to know all such thoughts means there is a corresponding duty on the other person's part to report all such thoughts. There is no such right and there is no such duty. Thoughts with a sexual content have no greater importance than other thoughts. A relationship is not just about sex. Anyone who bases their relationship on a right/duty to report everything, no matter how minor, is headed for disaster, imo. Adults accept that their partners do things and think things they never get to hear about. They don't have to know everything, because they trust that nothing inappropriate is going on. If they don't have that trust, the relationship is on rocky ground already. That's what I mean when I talk about trust. JackofOz 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no one can actually look into another person's head. The amount of importance given to random sexually-based thoughts of your partner varies greatly from person to person. The right that I talk about does not imply the duty of reporting the thoughts, JackofOz, it is only a consequence of not hiding anything from the person you love! I am only saying that I believe the person I love has every right to request information about any thoughts I may have read, should he think it is of any good use to him. And I have the right to know everything inside his head as well, not because I want to check if he is not cheating on me and I distrust him, but because I may for some reason find this information useful and there is no reason why he wouldn't grant me access to it, since he loves me and he trusts me. I do accept that a partner of mine does things which I don't know about, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to get inside his head and find out everything I possibly can about the man that I love. A.Z. 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think we've both made our points now. Let's leave it at that, knowing that we view relationships differently, and that's OK. JackofOz 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm often criticized for having views that are too far-right. dr.ef.tymac 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I should be on record as the furthest-right of all. Loomis 01:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I wasn't actually following the thread at all, just the indents! Loomis 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the honeysuckle and the bindweed, some veer to the left and some veer to the right. (Please don't construe this as an indication of my political orientation). :) JackofOz 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we don't fall off the side of the page! [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we keep on pushing the envelope, we'll discover what Columbus discovered. JackofOz 04:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up, Chris, China's just over the horizon. JackofOz 04:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thanks for the advice, this makes me feel a lot better. Pushing the envelope, XD... --Luigifan 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from being satisfied with the fact that we see relationships differently and that's it, end of story, period... We barely started a proper discussion: maybe if we did we'd eventually find out that we think exactly the same way and we were only expressing it using different words. I would really like to talk more about this with you, JackofOz. Not that I am trying to tell you what to do or anything! I'm only saying I'd like to. I did not understand how you view relationships and I also don't think you understood my point of view. I myself was only discovering some implications of the way I think as I was writing the posts. Anyway, I'd like very much to continue this discussion, that's all I'm saying. Here on the Reference Desk there's not a lot of room for discussion and that's why I think a Wikiforum would be so great! A.Z. 04:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to engage in discussion with you, A.Z. I suggested drawing it to close here because it was getting way wide of the question originally asked and it looked like becoming a very long thread involving only us two. Please feel free to come to my user talk page and go hell-for-leather. Cheers JackofOz 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Puberty and Adolescent_sexuality may be informative to you. In my opinion it is not likely that your love of milk is responsible for your thoughts rather it is due to normal changes in your body. If you are worried or have other questions talk to a trusted adult such as a your parents, a physician, counselor, or clergyman. -- Diletante 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Your parents are probably a little biased for that.~~ I regretted this comment. A.Z. 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the parents; it's not for us to make such offhand and totally unfounded assumptions about the querent's parents. I can think of plenty of ways in which some clergyPERSONS might be even more biased. Jfarber 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not totally unfounded. The parents are probably catholic and this fear of falling into a deadly sin is probably due to the parents teaching. Add to that the fact that instead of going directly to his parents to talk about sex, he came to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. If you mix these data with a little of common sense, you get that, yes, the parents are probably a little too biased and not the right people to help with this sort of thing. I admit though this is just speculation and the querent could even be an orphan or be the son of hippies and things like that... Anyway, the querent is only seeking advice and I'm only giving my most honest and sincere advice. The rest is up to him: he can refuse it if he wants, or even accept it only partially if that's what he wants to do. He can also ask himself for clarification as to my reasons for giving such advice :) These were not carefully thought comments. They were just a ridiculous attempt at a clever response to Jfarber based on personal feelings that have nothing to do with the querent and his question. A.Z. 04:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "probably", boyo? The only info we're given about his family is that they drink a lot of milk. We have no way of knowing where this idea about the "deadly sin" of lust comes from -- could just as easily be school, or clergy. I do not believe that "your parents may not be the best choice to have frank conversation" is appropriate advice; we have no right to make suggestions to teenagers that they should avoid bringing certain topics to their parents.

I wouldn't say anything here if I didn't think AZ's words could be damaging to the querent; if this was just distracting or discursal, I'd be on AZ's talk page right now. But I know these sort of words CAN be damaging, and as such, I think it needs to be said, ONCE, out here in public for all to see - even those who don't visit the talk page -, that this is bad advice, and as such shows exactly why it can be dangerous for us to let ourselves devolve into opinion-giving here on the refdesks. As a teacher of Adolescents myself, I know that such "offhand" comments can have a detrimental effect on parent/teen relations, especially when spoken by someone who is presented as an Authority figure. Yes, you, an authority figure -- why else do you think people come here to ask questions? With great power comes great responsibility; please, folks, use the responsibility of the reference desk wisely. Jfarber 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to explain that what I was talking about was speculation and would not necessarily help and should not be thought of as being true without previous evaluation, but, in fact, I don't think I gave the querent and you a good explanation at all. I could've tried a lot harder to help the querent, but instead I chose to give a simple answer that doesn't really solve anything and can even be harmful and confusing to him. When someone does that on the Reference Desk, another editor can come and just say it out loud, like you did. And when someone comes and says it out loud, the previous editor can apologize, like I hereby do.

The Reference Desk and Wikipedia itself can be harmful sometimes, like they have just been, but they do seem to have ways of correcting themselves, like they just did. I hope all of this really does not make you, Jfarber, refuse the idea of giving opinions here just on the basis that it could be harmful. Not that the harm opinion-giving can have is not great, but we should at least look a little into the benefits we have been getting from opinion-giving during the last months on the Reference Desks (the time I have knowledge of). There must be ways of improving the opinion-giving process to prevent or at least diminish the harm that can happen, and just abandoning the idea because someone could get hurted from time to time would be... I don't know the word I want here, I really don't, but it would be sad.

To the querent: please don't take my advice as the one of some wise guy who just knows that what he is saying is right even if he can't explain it to you. That's because I am not such a guy. And my personal opinion (and that's only it, my personal opinion) is that there are no such guys. If that's your opinion as well, the logical conclusion seems (to me) to be that you need to ask for further clarification on all advices you receive until you understand them completely and feel able to judge their value by yourself. You will then find out that the value of my previous comments as they were is close to zero or even negative.

I never thought of myself as being any kind of an authority. I always thought everything I wrote here should be judged by each person reading it on its own merit, and not on the basis of this alleged authority that Jfarber talks about. I am sorry for not making this crystal clear for a teenager seeking advice on such a delicate matter and for dispensing advice to him without giving it a lot of thought before. A.Z. 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't feel bad, it's all good... *pats A. Z. on the head* --Luigifan 11:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! : ) A.Z. 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant statues in the modern world

So the Statue of Liberty and Christ the Redeemer are pretty big statues of humans. What other massive statues are there of the human form that are still around (i.e., not including the Colossus of Rhodes, and personally I would exclude the Great Sphinx of Giza as not really being of a human)? I don't have any great reason in asking, but I am just curious. --24.147.86.187 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Mount Rushmore. It was originally intended to be half body statues and not only the heads. And of course the Buddhas of Bamyan were recently exploded by the Taliban. The article Kōtoku-in has a photograph of a large Buddha statue. I guess there are a lot of big Buddhas out there. Don´t know if they´re "massive", though.A.Z. 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are reclining Buddhas at Wat Pho (46 m) and Bago, Myanmar (54 m). Clarityfiend 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Angel of the North, 20 metres high with 54 metre wingspan. -- Arwel (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of statues, Category:Monuments and memorials, Category:Outdoor sculptures, and Category:Mountain monuments and memorials which may be of some help.—eric 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may find that the statue of Mother Russia, standing guard over Volgograd, the former city of Stalingrad, at 85 meters from feet to sword point dwarfs most of the others mentioned so far. It was erected as a commemoration of the Battle of Stalingrad. The Bamiyan Buddha Statues in Afghanistan would also have been worth a mention, but sadly they were destroyed by the wretched Taliban. There is the Leshan Buddha in China, but I believe the Ushiku Amida Buddha in Japan is still the tallest statue in the world. Incidentally, the Colossus of Rhodes has not been around for quite some time. Clio the Muse 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google job finds this page that compares the sizes of some statues. (I was suprised at how small Christ the Redeemer is). - Akamad 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is Abu Simbel in Egypt, and until recently, there were the Buddhas of Bamyan in Afghanistan. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]