Humanities desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 10 >

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.

October 9

Three Capitals

Can somebody help me find the Three World Capitals that the national government took territorial land from other states, territories, and province in order to make these three world capitals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.121.5 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a homework question, in which case your teacher is likely looking for examples from the assigned reading. In any case, just about any of the entries in Category:Capital districts and territories would fit the definition, so its especially important you look at your individual textbook for the examples your teacher's looking for. --Ybbor ^Talk 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a homework question nor does it have to do with reading. It's an extra credit assignment and all I need is the three capitals that were made only because the national government took land from other territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.121.5 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, 75.46, then the three examples that immediately occur to me are Washington, in the District of Columbia; Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory, and Brasilia in the Brazilian Federal District. You will find some more in Capital districts and territories Clio the Muse 02:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh-hem: extra credit assignment = homework. ;-) —Nricardo 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Mexico City and the Distrito Federal, and Islamabad and the Islamabad Capital Territory? Corvus cornix 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely some apparent candidates are excluded because the capital territory was organized at the same time as the other territories. —Tamfang 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the role of DTI in the economic situation of the philippines

how does department of trade and industry help the economic situation of the philippines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vague silhouette (talk • contribs) 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which DTI? Does the Philipines have a DTI - if so I presume you refer to that one. The UK DTI helps the economics situation of the UK by providing information on international trade to national organisations and to (usually larger) companies. Are you after something a bit more specific? -- SGBailey 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

socio-cultural demographics

what is socio-cultural demographics? squisle Squisle 05:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See demographics. Social demographics is about the place of people in society (age, gender, socio-economic and marital status, etc.), while cultural demographics is about the cultural variations between them, things like lifestyles and attitudes. Socio-cultural demographics is about both kinds together and how they are related to each other. Xn4 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fascism in britain

why did fascism fail in britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.3.222 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple doctoral dissertations could be written on the subject, but a few relatively obvious factors were that electoral politics had deeper historical/societal roots in Britain than in most continental European countries, and fascism came to be seen as a rather "foreign" ideology (somewhat alien to British traditions, and aligned with countries which were hostile to Britain, or likely to become so in the future). I think I remember reading somewhere that Hitler himself thought that the British Union of Fascists should have called themselves "Ironsides", which had native English Cromwellian associations, rather than "blackshirts" (which effectively aped Mussolini, and seemed rather foreign). AnonMoos 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gathering stormclouds of World War Two had a fair part to play in bringing down the Blackshirts. --Dweller 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AnonMoos. Also, please read the short article Oswald Mosley, about the leader of the British Union of Fascists, who was a remarkable character, cracked in ways that successful dictators rarely are. Although he had all the credentials and brilliance to become the leader of a major political force, his political judgement was poor. If you can get it, read Rules of the Game: Beyond the Pale, a biography of Mosley by his son Nicholas Mosley. I can't say it will help you much, but don't miss P. G. Wodehouse's priceless send up of Mosley and the BUF in the shape of Roderick Spode and the 'Black Shorts'. Xn4 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have been Unity Mitford to whom Hitler made his remark about the 'Ironsides', a remark which illustrates just how little he understood about England and the English. Just think: if only those boot-boys had been called Ironsides instead of Blackshirts how different it may all have been! Now, if they had called themselves Cavaliers...

So, why no Fascism in England? In addition to the reasons already given I think it important to consider that Britain had few, if any, of the deep-rooted structural problems that gave rise to Fascism on the Continent. It possessed an organic political culture with readily identifable symbols and institutions, which served to unite the whole commununity behind a single defining idea. Even the deepest economic and social grievances were not enough to 'disengage' most people from the national community, particularly those on the political right, who may otherwise have been attracted by Mosleyism. The country had not been defeated in war, like Germany; it did not feel aggrieved by the outcome of war, like Italy. There was simply nothing upon which Fascism could get a purchase. Even anti-Semitism was a non-starter, and Mosley's growing obsession with the 'Jewish question' was about as far away from traditional English 'golf club' snobbery as it was possible to get. Most people would have surely have been happy to accept Stanley Baldwin's assessment of Mosley that he was "a cad and a wrong 'un." Finally, any nation that could laugh at the absurdities of Roderick Spode and the Black Shorts was never, ever going to be seduced by the real thing. Heil Spode! Clio the Muse 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a woman hits a man, can he press charges like how a woman can press charges when a man hits a woman?

If a woman hits a man, can he press charges like how a woman can press charges when a man hits a woman? This is in the USA and purely hypothetical. William Ortiz 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it goes both ways, crimes against "persons" not gender specific, see Battery and yes I have arrested females for battery, and domestic violence before. Dureo 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wanting info into specifically domestic violence type crimes with the men being victims see here, Violence against men Dureo 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just much less common, because what man would dare ever face his friends again after having sued a woman for hitting him? The macho thing to do is to either hit back or, better 'take it like a man'. And laugh and pretend he didn't even feel it. For this reason, statistics on violence of women against men is pretty much non-existent. Worse still, clever women will know this and may take full advantage of it. DirkvdM 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notable example of this is Tawny Kitaen. Adam Bishop 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A baseball player - I thought it was Troy Percival but I can't substantiate that via Google - brought a domestic violence suit against his wife a few years ago (prompting much amusement among fans, for the reasons Dirk listed). -Elmer Clark 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Finley, who was assaulted by Tawny Kitaen. Matt Deres 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Minnelli and David Gest had a similar case, IIRC. A ecis^Brievenbus 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An American study this year interviewed over 14,000 people, and found that women are actually more likely to be violent to their partner than men. They found that just under a quarter of heterosexual relationships studied had some form of violence. In about half of those, the violence was reciprocal, and it was the men who were slightly more likely to be injured (25% against 20%). In the other half, where the violence was one way only, the woman was the aggressor 70% of the time. Whether this only applies in America, or whether it's a recent phenomenon, I don't know, but quite a surprise. --Nicknack009 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hegel and History

Hegel believed that the ultimate purpose of history was in the universal sovereignty of reason. In what forms was this idealism expressed and how did it manage to influence figures as diverse as Marx and Fukuyama? I hope my question is not too ambitious. Many thanks. E. G. A.. Husserl 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer the second part of your question, if you can please elucidate on the first part of it.

Hegel's intellectual heirs can be divided in two groups: the so-called Left or Young Hegelians who interpreted Hegel's work in a radical sense advocating atheism and liberal democracy and the Old or Right Hegelians, who interpreted Hegel's work in a conservative way, advocating orthodox Protestantism and loyalty to the Prussian monarchy. This legacy has given him influence in both conservative and progressive circles.

Marx studied law and philosophy at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin between 1836-1841. Hegel, who had died only 5 years before, had been chair of Philosophy there. When Marx studied there the legacy of Hegel was being debate between the Young and Old Hegelians. Between (roughly!) 1836 and 1844 Marx associated with the Young Hegelians, entering in debates with Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach and Max Stirner. Until 1844 Marx was a liberal and not a socialist, a position which didn't really exist yet. In his later life he developed his own philosophy, scientific socialism, which has many Hegelian influences, most prominently, in his dialectic materialism

Francis Fukuyama's inspiration from Hegel and Marx, is based on the work of Alexandre Kojève, who saw a synthesis of Hegel's liberalism and Marx' socialism as the end of history. Fukuyama was pointed in Kojève's direction by the prominent Allan Bloom, who taught Fukuyama at Cornell University. Allan Bloom had been sent to Kojève by his mentor Leo Strauss, who kept a life long correspondence with Kojève. Bloom, Fukuyama and Strauss are considerably more conservative than Kojève, who took an ambiguous position on the left/right spectrum and when Bloom interpreted and translated the works of Kojève some of his more ironic, nuanced and ambiguous statements were lost in translation. In Germany, where Kojève was educated Hegel was still an important philosopher.

I hope this clarifies some things about Hegel's legacy. C mon 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the legacy; now for the Idea!

I will try to make this as simple as I can without, I hope, losing sight the intellectual dynamics involved, not easy, I assure you! Hegel preceives history as a quest for self-realisation, a move from the less complete to the more complete forms of an existence; of an unfolding of freedom. The evolution of the Idea in history was akin to the voyage of Odysseus, an analogy that he uses himself. His dialectic is one where the human spirit first become alienated from itself, and then through a growing awareness of the forms of alienation becomes capable freeing its potential and achieving liberation through self-awareness. Paradise Lost is Paradise Regained. History, in other words, was a tragedy with a happy ending.

In practical terms this means that the individual life, the individual destiny, if you like, is meaningful only insofar as it gives shape and purpose to the Spirit moving through history. Napoleon made use of the moment to create his own fate but history made use of him by the 'cunning of reason' to shape events to its own purpose and ends. His actions brough freedom to Prussia and Germany from the old forms of historical identity, and even his downfall did not bring the downfall of freedom. Napoleon lived; the Spirit moved; the world has been permanently changed.

As the Spirit continually moves forward to higher forms of expression, it breaks free from all encumbering institutions. As Hegel expresses it, this is the 'nregation of all that is.' In Hegel's system of things the relation between Spirit and matter is likened to the relationship between slave and master. It is the process of emancipation, in other words, that gives shape to the history of the world. In the Philiosophy of History he expresses it thus, "The History of the World is none other than the progress of the consciousnes of freedom...the Eastern nations know only that one is free; the Greek and Roman world only that some are free, while we know that all men absolutely (man to man) are free."

So, each new revalation destroyed the world to which it came. The Spirit, at war with itself, as truth gave way to truth; at war with matter and the institutions in which truth had been enslaved. The Spirit in seeking objective realisation of itself is always moving beyond. For a Roman to hold on to Paganism and resist the advance of Christianity was effectively to embrace the dead, a shell without habitation. For Hegel history "aims at the conviction that what was intended by eternal wisdom was actually accomplished." There is no failure in history, for "God governs the world: the actual working of his government-the carrying out of his plan is the history of the world." All has its purpose and there is nothing to regret-even injustice has its place. Conflict was resolved by transition to a higher phase of being, no matter how many victims are left along the way. For, after all, "the particular is for the most part, of too trifling value compared with the general for which individuals are sacrificed and abandoned."

There you have it, and I am sure you can detect the elements that would lead to Marxism and other historical absolutes-to teleologies of all kinds, of the left or of the right. It's seductive, it's persusive, it's comprehensive and its monstrous. Clio the Muse 00:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks and admiration for C mon and Clio for answers that cover both dimensions of my question with such wit and aplomb, answers that can only enhance the reputation of the reference desk. With all good wishes E. G. A.. Husserl 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. L. Hunley

In the opening of the article, it is stated that 32 lives were lost on the Hunley. In the body of the article, it is noted that 5 crew members died in the first sinking, the entire crew of 8 in the second and third sinkings. That totals 21. Where are the other 11? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.115 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the citation that NlynchN added when he added that number (32), Robert F. Burgess (1975). Ships Beneath the Sea: A History of Subs and Submersibles. United States of America: McGraw Hill, 238, I do not have access to that book so I cannot look it up, but I agree the article isn't very clear. Dureo 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female murderers in victorian britain

what was the attitude towards women who killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.249.118 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like who? --Dweller 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decidedly negative, usually followed by hanging. See Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Xn4 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Like Ada Williams, Margaret Waters and Mary Pearcey, presumably. Nothing much in those articles on popular opinion, however. Algebraist 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be a distinctly different attitude towards female murderers than male? What's prompted this question? --Dweller 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is often a distinctly different attitude towards female murderers than male, usually because it is a defiance of gender roles/expectations and secondarily because people cringe more readily at the thought of executing a woman. --24.147.86.187 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Victorians weren't exactly averse to the idea of execution. I read somewhere that theft of a loaf of bread was punishable by death... though I'd be interested in seeing a RS. --Dweller 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing bread from a store was punishable by death (interfering with trade) but stealing the same loaf from a person wasn't. (At least acording to the criminology text I remember reading.) Rmhermen 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was the immediate pre-Victorian age which had the death penalty for the widest range of crimes (though these theoretical super-harsh laws were rather inconsistently applied in practice). Relatively early in Victoria's reign, legal reforms cut down on the number of crimes which incurred the death penalty. AnonMoos 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are modern Texans, but even then consider executing a woman to be something notable, in comparison to a man (they still do it, of course, but they talk about it a lot more). --24.147.86.187 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the rate of executions of Victorian Britain waaaaaaaay exceeds even bloodthirsty ole Texas. --Dweller 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely when they execute a woman we are just seeing a variation on a theme? Actually that wasn't a great example, it's somewhere between MWWS and deviancy amplification spiral. Perhaps we should coin a phrase for the media attention to a deviation from 'the norm'? Lanfear's Bane 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cancel indent)Dweller:According to Capital punishment in the United Kingdom, England and Wales in the 60 years immediately before the Victorian period executed about 7000 people. Texas has executed 404 since 1982. That's an execution rate about 7 times higher. We don't seem to have information on the Victorian period itself, which was probably somewhat less bloodthirsty. Algebraist 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And England and Wales then was about half as populous as modern Texas. Algebraist 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't account for the difference: England was twice as populous but had seven times the execution rate? Wrad 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More capital crimes, fewer avenues of appeal. And shorter wait times. - Eron ^Talk 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with,I think it might help if I clarified one or two points here before attempting to answer the question. First of all, there was quite detailed debate of the efficacy of capital punishment at the beginning of the nineteenth century, as more and more people started to question the savage nature of the old Hanoverian penal system, the so-called Bloody Code Even when people were on trial for capital crimes, crimes in themselves which may have been of a trivial nature, like stealing bread, juries were often reluctant to convict, no matter how compelling the evidence. When conviction was secured, moreover, sentence was more often than not commuted to one of transporatation. When Robert Peel was Home Secretary during the ministry of the Duke of Wellington in the late 1820s the death penalty was abolished for almost all of the minor offences. By the 1860s only murder and certain types of treason remained as capital offenses.

Now, for the figures. In the hundred year period from 1800 to 1899 death sentences were passed on 3,365 men and 172 women in England and Wales. I cannot break this down by decade, though I think it safe to assume that the majority were probably skewed towards the earlier part of the period. The records, moreover, do not always make it clear if sentence was carried out or not.

On your specific question, 86.141, and so far as I understand it, I can indeed tell you that female murderers generally excited extra interest among the nineteenth centuty public, especially as one goes deeper into the reign of Queen Victoria, which introduced all sorts of new notions about the ideal women, her outlook, her attitudes and her place in society. As today the popular press took a prurient interest in these matters, tending to 'demonise' the perpetrators of murder, because only monsters could act in a way that was 'contrary to nature'. Readers were able to lap up in detail the story of Constance Kent, who is alleged to have slit her stepbrother's throat before disposing of his body in an outhouse; or Madeleine Smith, a Glasgow socialite who is alleged to have poisioned her French lover.

There was a definite set of double-standards in operation that made cases like this all the more sensational; for while deviant behaviour in men was deplorable, deviant behaviour by women was unacceptable, especially when it was directed against men, when it tended to be viewed as a hideous perversion. In a sense these women, mediated through the popular press, ceased to have all the qualities that made them women, or human at all. They were most often depicted as 'ugly', 'masculine', 'sub-human' with almost no attempts made to uncover motives. In many ways the press reports seem to hark back to an earlier age, with a murderess presented as a witch-like figure, who had outraged the orthodoxy of Victorian family values. After all, gentle, submissive, passive, self-sacrificing creatures do not strangle babies, no matter how desperate they are, nor do they poison friends and husbands to obtain a little extra income. Clio the Muse 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desperation may have been a mitigating factor when it came to infanticide, and juries seemed reluctant to hand out a conviction which carried a sentence of death. Prior to 1803 under the law unmarried women had to prove with a witness that a dead baby had in fact been born dead. Juries had already begun to ignore this provision, and a barrister would testify before the 1866 Royal Commission on Capital Punishment that: "Practically the law of infanticide hardly prevails. Almost always now juries find concealment of birth; and ... I also find that there is a great reluctance to hang women." Clive Emsley in Crime and Society in England, 1750-1900, states that most of the women brought to trial for infanticide in the nineteenth century were young, servants, and desperate to maintain their position and suggests that juries were sympathetic to their plight.—eric 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaiming the past

I was watching Michael Palin's BBC documentary from eastern Europe. While in Hungary he mentioned that Imre Nagy, the Prime Minister who headed the anti-Soviet uprising in 1956, for which he was afterwards executed, has been reburied in Victor's Square in Budapest. This made me wonder in what other ways has the new Hungary attempted to reclaim its past? Victor Day 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The process of historical re-evaluation in Hungary, Victor, was actually begun by Imre Pozsgay, who as Minister of State in the former Communist government gave a radio broadcast in early 1989 in which he described the events of 1956 as a 'people's uprising'. Previously it had only ever been referred to as a 'counter-revolution'. It was a hint that the citadel was falling; that history was open for reinterpretation; that Hungary was beginning to move down a different road. Within weeks of this broadcast a popular movement had grown up to replace April 4 and November 7 as national holidays with March 15 and October 23. The first date was that which offically marked the Soviet liberation in 1945 and the second is the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The latter dates are both significant in the national calendar of Hungary: March 15 was the date in 1848 when Sandor Petofi, Hungary's greatest poet, and others proclaimed the programme that sparked off the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, and October 23 was the first day of the 1956 Rising.

As the whole movement gathered momentum the government began to give way, marked, above all, by the re-intermnet of Imre Nagy in Heroes' Square in June of that same year, an event attended by some 200,000 people. In October the Law on the Memory of the Revolution was passed, declaring that the events of 1956 had been a 'national uprising' and a 'struggle for freedom'. Hungary was, as you have put it, beginning to reclaim the past. Clio the Muse 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vintage belly machine for losing weight

Can someone tell me what the machine is called that is hooked up to the persons stomach and it vibrates? Its suposed to loose inches in your stomach. Im not sure what year it was but there was a triva about this and cant find anything on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegameblackie (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrating belt machine, perhaps? --LarryMac | Talk 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (editing my own entry to mention that Vibrating belt machine is in our list of requested articles)[reply]

Welsh coat of arms

Hi! Does anyone knows what coat of arms were using the kings of Powys and Deheubarth, Gruffudd ap Cynan, Owain Gwynedd, Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Dafydd ap Llywelyn, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and his descendants to Owain Lawgoch? And most of all, in which primary sources can I find these informations? Thank you!

PS: sorry for my English, I'm French...

See The Development of Welsh Heraldry by M.P. Siddons (Aberystwyth, four volumes: vol. 1 1991, vols. 2 & 3 1993, vol. 4 2006). Bear in mind that heraldry as we understand it really didn't begin until the 12th century, which is later than some of the men you mention. Before that, knights (including kings) had emblems painted on their shields, but they were rarely hereditary. The best primary sources for English and Welsh coats of arms are in the records and collections kept by the College of Arms. Xn4 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The John/Jane Doe Memorial "insert disease or affliction" Research Foundation

What exactly do all the so called "Memorial insert disease or affliction Research Foundation"s do? All you need to do is search for "memorial cancer foundation" on Google to find a bunch of these foundations related to cancer. So what do they all do? Do they just collect money and send it on to a larger research organization? I can't see how all of them could have their own dedicated research labs. Dismas|^(talk) 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one form of cancer so some of these may specialise.hotclaws 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]