Humanities desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 19

George Steer and Guernica

Does anyone know any more about the journalist George Steer and the first reports on the bombing of Guernica? Captainhardy 05:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site has a little more info than our George Steer article, including his first dispatch about the bombing.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Online also has this, which appears to be more complete.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Guernica article, which appeared in The Times and The New York Times on 28 April 1937, you might care to look for Steer's book The Tree of Gernika: A Field Study in Modern War, originally published in early 1938. Soon after it was published Martha Gellhorn wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt, saying; You must read a book by a man named Steer; it is called the Tree of Gernika. It is about the fight of the Basques-he's a London Times man-and no better book has come out of the war and he says well all the things I tried to say to you the times I sae you, after Spain. It is beautifully written and true, and few books are like that, and fewer still that deal with war. Please get it.

There are few journalists that have had managed to impact on modern consciousness, especially on the consciousness of war, in the manner that George Sreer managed to do. Guernica was not the first attack on an undefended town by aerial bombardment; it was not even the first such town in the Spanish Civil War to be so treated, for that dubious honour belongs to Durango, which was destroyed in March, 1937. But Steer's eye-witness report on Guernica did much to alert the world that it stood on the verge of a new type of warfare, a warfare in which civilians were not incidental but deliberate targets; In the form of its execution and the scale of the destruction it wrought, no less than in the selection of its objective, the raid on Guernica is unparalleled in military history. Guernica was not a military objective. A factory producing war material lay outside the town and was untouched. So were the two barracks some distance from the town. The town lay far behind the lines. The object of the bombardment was seemingly the demorilisation of the civil population and the destruction of the cradle of the Basque race.

As a result of Steer's report the attack was condemned across the world. On 29 April it was reproduced in L'Humanité, the daily paper of the French Communist Party, where it was read by Pablo Picasso. He was in France working on a commission for the government of the Spanish Republic for the Paris Exhibition, scheduled to take place that summer. He at once abandoned his work in progress, and started on Guernica, now among one of the most famous depictions of suffering in war ever painted.

Interestingly, Steer's description of the attack also had an impact in the Fascist camp. Realising that a propaganda coup had been handed to the enemy, denials were immediately issued that the attack had ever happened, even though General Emilio Mola had issued warnings of wholesale destruction at the beginning of the Basque campaign, if surrender was not immediate. Luis Bolín, head of the Francoist foreign press bureau, spread stories that Guernica had been dynamited by the Basques themselves. In Germany, Steer's newspaper came under attack from Nazi propagandists, who announced that 'Times' spelt backwards was 'Semit', proof that it was part of a Jewish-Marxist conspiracy. Steer himself was later placed on a Gestapo Special Wanted List of 2,820 people to be detained in the event of a successful German invasion of England in 1940.

Steer's politics, though, were not Marxist; rather he was attracted by the struggle of small nations fighting against huge odds. Later, during the Second World War, his reports from Finland on the course of the Winter War drew parallels between Russian actions and what the Condor Legion had done in Euskadi. For his work in Spain he had been given a gold watch by José Antonio de Aguirre, the Basque President, inscribed 'To Steer from the Basque Republic.' It was found beside him the day he died. Clio the Muse 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin and the rothschilds

Did stalin work for the rothschilds? 84.201.163.98 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, according to Simon Sebag Montefiore's book Young Stalin (just out), he did have a stint working for an oil company of the Rothschilds. I haven't read the book yet, but presumably this was at the Batumi site of the Caspian Sea Society. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Batumi, and you will find a full account of the whole episode in Chapter 10 of Young Stalin. He also had dealings with the Rothschilds later in Baku, where the company contributed to his funds, paying him off to stop a strike. I always knew that Stalin was a remarkable man, but the insights provided by this book show just how truly remarkable he was. He operated at so many different levels: intellectual, gangster, organiser, bank-robber, seducer, enforcer, hit-man and many other things besides; and he was utterly ruthless in his single-minded determination. I would even say that to understand his later ascent in Party and State after the Revolution it is essential to have a good grasp of his early career. He managed to combine political skills with organisational ability which made him a far better operator, in every conceivable sense, than Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev or any of his other chief rivals. Incidentally, on the Rothschild episode, there is an interesting diary note by Montefiore in the current issue of The Spectator (London, 19 May), where the author reveals having sent a postcard of young Stalin to Jacob Rothschild, writing 'Your Employee of the Month 1902!' Clio the Muse 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking herb

Where in the world can Rasta go to smoke ganja without persecution?

Theoretically, the bluer the political entity on this map, the greater the chances of not being persecuted for smoking ganja. See also Legal issues of cannabis ---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's section on Switzerland was just greatly improved thanks to Sandstein. Careful with this article and map, by no means does this replace legal advice! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the map itself most likely would not withstand close scrutiny. Don't plan your next summer holiday based on it, in any case. dr.ef.tymac 03:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite pressure from the US, which in the 1970's made foreign aid dependent on the passage of draconian drug laws, Nepal is a pretty cool place for the consumption of hashish. Two of the many Hindi festivals, Holi and Shivaratri, include the consumption of hashish and bhang lassi (a yogurt/marijuana drink) as a part of the celebration, although not by all people. 'Back in the day' hashish shops on Freak Street sold the product openly and today in the tourist area of Thamel street touts offer marijuana and hashish (along with tiger balm and trekking guide service), for reasonable prices. Good quality hashish can be purchased for less than a dollar a gram, although poor product, cut with anything from shoe polish to cow dung, is common. Ask for 'pollen hash' or 'temple hash' rather than black hash to avoid the worst of the ripoffs, although as a newcomer you will be fair game until you meet the right person. A decent seller will respond to an invitation to drink tea and talk with a better deal. During an extended trip through Far Western Nepal two years ago my girlfriend and I took several pictures of an old woman with a large bundle of animal fodder. After offering her 50 rupees (about 75c US) as a courtesy for the photographs, the old woman reached into her bundle and pulled out a large bud of marijuana and gave it to us! In 5 years of living in and extensive travel in Nepal I have never heard of any person, Western or Nepalese, being arrested for personal use or small sale of marijuana, which grows wild throughout the country, however any attempt at smuggling could result in a lengthy stay in a very unpleasant prison. I have met a very few young Nepalese people who smoke, but culturally its use is primarily by senior citizens and holy men.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis Simpson

I would be pleased to have some views on why Wallis Simpson was so hated by British society. Janesimon 12:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VIII abdication crisis lists some views and their reasons. (A far more detailed response will follow soon, no doubt, but meanwhile that's what I found on Wikipedia.) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am always pleased to note your confidence that a 'far more detailed response' will follow, Sluzzelin, though I think you have done well enough! I have serious doubts, though, about some of the contentions in the Abdication Crisis article. Amongst other things, it is alleged that Edward became 'extremly unpopular' with the public in Scotland because he declined to open an Aberdeen hospital! Indeed, the whole tone of the piece seems to suggest that the King's affair with Wallis Simpson was universally unpopular, uniting the political establishment, the aristocracy and the people in a single view, when, in fact, all of the contemporary evidence suggests the contrary. Edward was popular with ordinary people, and he received a great many letters of support, including one from Sunderland, in which he is told of Wallis "She is worth fighting for. I am only one of millions of working trod downed clas who wish you every happiness with this Lady." Another from South Wales said "It is character that Counts here, and in the Great Beyond, not a Tytle." In December 1936, with the Abdication Crisis well underway, an edition of the Daily Mail appeared with the headline The People Want their King. There was even speculation that Winston Churchill was going to form a 'King's Party' to bring down the government of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin.

Why was Wallis hated by British society? Setting all of the ridiculous stories to the side-including the contention that she had an affair with Joachim von Ribbentrop, and that she was a 'Nazi agent'-it reduces to one thing: simple snobbery. For many, including Lady Diana Cooper, Wallis was cast in the role of Becky Sharp, the cunning social-climbing heroine in William Thackery's novel Vanity Fair. Low-class, a divorcee, an American-she had nothing to recommend her, nothing that would make her acceptable to society. She had one advantage, though: Edward loved her, and that made her 'crime' even greater. In the end, the establishment view prevailed, to the extent that stories that Wallis was a Nazi agent still manage to surface from time to time, along with the even more ridiculous conjecture that she ensnared Edward using sexual tricks she had learned while in Shanghai. Never, ever, fall in love with a royal! Clio the Muse 01:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that those who edit Wikipedia's articles have it all wrong. Perhaps the article should be edited, with sources of course. Are indeed any sources in existence to back up all of the above conjecture? Lewis 04:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the last piece of advice, here are some sources. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sluz! I was just a bit more curious as to the rest of it. Where can I find any evidence that Edward VIII was so extremely popular? And if he indeed was, why did Baldwin de facto force him to abdicate? Would it not be political suicide to force such an extremely popular King to abdicate? Lewis 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been quite a while and no answer. I suppose this is due to the fact that the above editor has repeatedly and openly vowed to never engage any of my challenges to her assertions. I've often been accused by the above editor as being "intellectually impoverished". Is it at all possible that the above editor refuses to engage my challenges for precisely the opposite reason, because I'm one of the few able to prove her wrong?

Being wrong is not such a terrible thing, it's only human! We all make mistakes! For example, in a recent discussion regarding the Mapp v. Ohio case, Nunh-huh caught an error in my post. With all due haste I admitted to the error, and rather than resent Nunh-huh, I'm thankful to him/her for pointing it out. Otherwise, the reader would have been misled. And there's nothing I'd consider worse than misleading a reader about the law just for the sake of preserving my "status" as a legal expert. Even experts make mistakes! And that's OK!

I'm often accused of continuing some sort of feud. I have no interest in feuds. I would like nothing more than to end the feud and engage in robust intellectual debate. Wouldn't this be a nice place to end it? My question was certainly a legitimate one by any possible account. Whatever happened to WP:AGF?

The whole purpose of the RefDesk is to educate and be educated. Above all else it's a place to learn.

Think about it. Is the above editor indeed infallible? Is any human infallible? Is it at all possible, even in the slightest, that the above editor is capable of error?

Come to think of it, that's a good question to leave you all with:

Is Clio capable of error? Lewis 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis, I agree completely with Rockpocket's message on your talk page about the above post. Maybe it's best if you simply removed it. -- JackofOz 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Murdoch

Not sure if this is the right desk, but I'd venture to say that I'll get a good answer here. I'm looking to confirm Rupert Murdoch's religious beliefs. A Google search has turned up mostly religious blogs, but I'm looking for a more substantial source -- maybe from one of his subsidiaries? Anyway, any help would be appreciated. It seems he may be a Born-Again? --Cody.Pope 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 2005 article from The New Yorker, Rick Warren is Rupert Murdoch's pastor. ("And I said, 'That's interesting. I'm Rupert's pastor! Rupert published my book!'" Then he tilted back his head and gave one of those big Rick Warren laughs.") According to [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55616 this article] by WorldNetDaily, ""Rupert Murdoch is a born-again Christian and Rick Warren claims to be his pastor," says Chris Rosebrough, head of the Christian Accountability Network". I'll stay out of the substantiality of either claim. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be sure to check out the New Yorker source article. --Cody.Pope 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA - individualism

Compared to other countries, the US is highly individualistic. Would I be correct to guess that this is due to the frontier history of the US where pioneer colonists landed in the New World almost alone in a giant uninhabited (as far as they were concerned) land and had to learn to fend for themselves? Or is there some other reason? Thanks --Duomillia 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the primary reason for our emphasis on the individual is depends on who you ask - but most commentators would pull an answer from some of the following reasongs:

Early American culture was strongly shaped by the Enlightenment, in a way that only France can come close to paralleling, and one of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment was its emphasis on the individual - esp. the individual's power to better the world through the use of reason.
It took a certain sort of individual to immigrate to first the colonies and then the United States. The slow journey across the ocean and the ability to cut all ties with family and homeland lent it self to a certain sort of individualism (or, one could say, attracked loners and people with nothing left to hold on to).
The strain of Protestantism that was imported to the Americas with the first colonists placed a heavy emphasis on the individual. Unlike the more traditional Protestant traditions, many that came across the ocean belonged to religious traditions (especially the Anabaptist and certain Reformed traditions) that focused on the importance of the relationship between the individual and God (rather than the more communal focus of the more traditional Protestant and Roman Catholic theologies).
In a young country with a small population (such as the early United States), it is easy for one individual to make an impression and gain influence and power. Such a strong impact could only be made much more difficultly by an individual in a more established or more populated country.

I think that one is more likely to find that these factors brought about the "frontier spirit", which served to further strengthen an already present emphasis on individualism. Pastordavid 18:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay flag day.

The Main Page listed it as 14 May, but Flag Day has it as 14 August. Can anyone find a reliable source for the correct date? -- Jeandré, 2007-05-19t18:30z

May 14 is the Paraguayan Independence Day (from Spain). I don't think Flag Day and Independence Day are the same (though it's possible). It may be August 14, as well, but it seems that the consensus on flag sites on the internet (when I did a google search including the term "-wiki" to remove our influence) is actually November 27. [1][2] [3] A couple semi-official websites (Paraguay.com, Senatur.gov.py say that a special Congress adopted the flag on November 25 1842, which maybe means two days later became Flag Day? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several Paraguayan sites list the Día de la Bandera as 14 de agosto: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Adding "14 de mayo" or "27 de noviembre" to the search terms did not produce evidence for these days. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-21t21:00z

habeas corpus petition

What is it?

See Habeas corpus. It is usually called a "writ of habeas corpus". I don't know of it as a "petition". Bielle 20:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's discussed in the article. dr.ef.tymac 03:49, 20 May 2007

And that's what comes of relying on memory. Thank you, dr.ef.tymac! Bielle 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Perceptions of the Devil

Early Christian depictions of the devil are quite mild. When and why did he turn into a monster? Secret seven 20:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christians have always depicted the Devil as "monsterous"; but some of the most grapic depicts of the devil arose from Dante's Inferno and medieval artist's depictions of satan. The articles Devil and Devil in Christianity have some good starting places for information. Pastordavid 20:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Pastordavid, that is not the case: the Devil, like everything else, has a history. If you ever visit the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, you will see him depicted in a sixth century mosaic, sitting to the left of Christ, helping to separate the sheep from the goats. To the right of Christ sits an angel; but the only difference between him and the Devil is that the latter is depicted in blue and the former in red; both have halos and wings, and both have similar expressions on their faces. Now, travel one hundred kilometers to the east, and seven hundred years into the future, you will find him again, this time in the Florence Baptistery, as depicted by Fra Angelico. From angel in blue he has become the beast, devouring sinners by the handful. The question then arises, what happened in the intervening period, why has he moved from the periphery to the centre, and why has he become so loathsome? Is this the kind of figure that God would have admitted to his council, as he does in the Book of Job? The answer, of course, is to be found in the changing nature of western Christianity, and the kind of preoccupations that had emerged over the course of time, preoccupations that imbued Satan with a new malignacy and purpose.

In his modern guise the Devil only really begins to emerge around the time of the First Crusade. This was a time when the Christian west began to focus on new enemies, both from within and from without. Those who were different were isolated, persecuted and occasionally murdered, whether they be Jews, lepers or heretics. And, bit by bit, yet another malignant enemy was added to the old-those who were perceived to be practitioners of witchcraft. Of minor concern to the early church, witchcraft became steadily more important, and was most often associated with sexual excess. Behind all this one begins to detect the new shape of Satan. He is the consort of depraved women-and it was mostly women who were accused of witchcraft-and along with his erotic attributes he acquires a tail and cloven hooves, a confirmation of his bestial lasciviousness, and an echo of Pan and the Greek satyrs. By the fifteenth century he finally makes his appearance as a goat, horns and all, worshipped by heretics and witches. He is to be found depicted thus in stained glass, stone and paintings, from Fra Angelicio to Albrecht Dürer, as well as in literature. He was a monster born of the monstrous, very much a reflection of the historical mood which gave him shape. Clio the Muse 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in reading The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels (ISBN 0-679-73118-0). --Lambiam ^Talk 12:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had once read that the Satan with the hooves, horns and tail was based on Pan - one of the Pagan gods. What is very very interesting is that the Pagan symbol is the pentagon - and as you may know the Satanic symbol is an upside down pentagram. So the implication is that back in the day, your christians were your city folk and the pagans were your mountain-dwelling heathens who tended not to conform to the "mainstream" christianity. And what happens when one religion attacks another? They take their god and turn them into an anti-god, and take their religious symbol and turn it upside down.

Rather unfortunately my answer is not well-founded on hard facts, as is my limited knowledge of the subject, but I believe it would be interesting to take this idea into consideration. Rfwoolf 13:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the pentagram rather than pentagon – even though the latter may also be viewed by some as a symbol of the Great Satan. Also, as far as I am aware, using the pentagram (upside down or not) as a symbol for paganism or satanism is a modern thing. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about nowadays? How do they depict the devil? Does anyone even depict the devil, besides Hollywood movies? In my opinion, people don't see the devil as a beast anymore. A.Z. 00:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these days (viz. The Exorcist and The Omen), Satan is portrayed moderately heretically as being in several places at once, filled with knowledge of the future, etc. As a fallen angel, Satan can only be in one place at a time (and therefore if he is tempting you, he cannot be tempting me at the same time, except through emissaries), cannot have omniscience or divine intelligence, and can have power only over the earth. What is interesting is that "depictions" are subject to marketplace forces, and that means that artists try to avoid giving offense. What's important with that is that depicting God means offending people, and therefore we have ended up with a quite one-sided and Northern version of things, where we have the devil depicted in all sorts of graphic ways and angels rarely presented and Christ or God depicted almost never at all. This has invisibly slanted our narratives from "God vs. Satan through us" (even the most military hagiographies from the medieval period (e.g. Guthlac) had the saints as powerful only by being true to the genuine power) to "Satan vs. humans." Hence our weird popular culture theology. Utgard Loki 14:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastordavid is perfectly correct in that the earliest references to the Devil in Christianity have been decidedly hostile. The New Testament books universally portray him as the enemy of souls, likening him to an evil dragon, or a "roaring lion." Now, it is also true, as Clio the Muse states out, that the Devil has a history in religious art and literature, which is mitigated by the perceptions of individual artists, and quite to the point regarding the visual and literary portrayal; but if the question is about the perception of the Devil in doctrine and teachings, that really has not changed overmuch in the past 2000 years. More interesting is the pre-Christian Jewish view of him that (at least in the traditional writings) show a somewhat ambivalent relationship with God as demonstrated, for example, in the Book of Job. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]