Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 24

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.

January 24

Santa Fe Trail

Loperman2510 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510 Loperman2510 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)I want to know more about the Santa Fe Trail can you please help?

Can I first refer you to the notice at the top of the page:"Search first" And, secondly, refer you to Santa Fe Trail. Gwinva (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I need some resourses can I get some help? Loperman2510 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperman2510 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You will find that Santa Fe Trail#External links provides links to a number of online resouces, if the main article provides insufficient information for you. Gwinva (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What were some of the dangers on the santa Fe Trail like besides hostile indians?Loperman2510 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510

Being murdered for asking too many questions hotclaws 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Loperman, spend more than 15 minutes looking around on your own, I think you'll come up with some good answers. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I cant find anything really.HELP!!!!

I NEED HELP!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperman2510 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That very question about dangers on the trail is answered in the Wikipedia article you've been linked to! How can people possibly help you if you don't use the resources we provide? -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I assume it was a mistake, but you deleted some comments from other posters (and an entire other question and its responses!), which is not considered good etiquette to say the least. I'm restoring them now just restored them. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LDS

Can you tell me a little about Mormons?Kop the man (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)kop the man

Check out The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism & Mormon (prophet). --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, we also ought to include sites that look at both sides of Mormonism. So in that spirit, here are two that are perhaps the best for doing that, the first is the official web page of the LDS Church, and the second is the web page of the Utah Lighthouse Ministries, which is regarded by many as the most academically sound and objective organization that opposes Mormonism. There are a couple of other sites that are middle of the road, neither all for or all against, Mormonism, here and here. There is a LOT of stuff out there on Mormonism, and part of the problem is sorting it all out. Good luck... -- Saukkomies 09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he is not trying to look —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperman2510 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Utah Lighthouse Ministries is either academically sound or objective. It was founded by former (excommunicated) members of the Church who have dedicated their lives to steering people away from it. Its stated purpose, according to the website, is "to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity." Quick views of the "New Order Mormon" and "Mormon Alliance" pages similarly yield perspectives that runs contrary to established church doctrine. There is a dearth of purely objective information about the LDS Church, and I absolutely agree that sorting it all out is a problem. FAIR is an independent site that attempts to answer questions and correct misinformation about the Church. Admittedly, it leans pro-LDS, but is arguably no more biased than the other sites listed above. Kingsfold (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

JC-1 H2 Literature texts

I just started taking JC-1 H2 Literature this year. I have to study five texts, two under "Reading Literature" (which H1 students also take) and three under "Literature and Identity".

One of my "Reading Literature" texts is Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Is it a difficult book to study? Do you have any advice?

In secondary school, I did "Macbeth". It was fun and easy. Now I have to study "Othello" for "Reading Literature" and "King Lear" for "Literature and Identity". How are the two texts similar and diferent to "Macbeth"? Are they more difficult? Any advice for someone who has already studied "Macbeth"?

How about "Ariel" by Sylvia Plath? I understand it is a book of poems. I am better with prose than poems but I know the literary devices for poems and scored A1 for Literature in secondary school. Same questions - is it difficult and do you have any advice?

My last "Literature and Identity" text is "Fistful of Colours". I will not ask for advice about that book because it is by a local author and Wikipedia has no article about the book.

By the way, thanks for helping me with my Economics. You guys rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.8 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have the slightest clue what JC-1 H2 means? Malcolm Starkey (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess: JC-1 = Junior college, Year 1; H2 = category Higher 2.  --Lambiam 08:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice is a fairly easy book to study and funny too. Study the two other plays the way you did the Macbeth.. I didn't find Ariel difficult,you have good skills it seems to tackle it. Enjoy,there's some great reads there. hotclaws 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone could consider Macbeth either 'fun' or 'easy', let alone both... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth is easy when compared to other Shakespeare plays. It's short, the plot is straightforward, the themes are clear, and there's very little comedy. Gdr 13:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought Macbeth was great fun when we did it at school - plenty of blood and guts and witches. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just hope the curse doesn't apply to Refdesk discussions... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just remembered a production I saw once that provoked some unintended audience laughter when some characters knelt down (probably showing allegiance to Malcolm) and the swords that were hanging from their belts touched the floor of the stage and visibly bent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

165.21, just as there is no Royal Road to Geometry, there is no Easy Route to Literature: it's a personal voyage of self-discovery. After all, it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single person in possession of intelligence, must be in want of a book! I could, of course, refer you to the Wikipedia pages on Pride and Prejudice, Othello and King Lear for some general guidance, but there is really no substitute for reading these works yourself and reaching your own conclusions. In a way I envy you, particularly in coming to Jane Austen for the first time. I read Pride and Prejudice when I was about ten years old and simply loved it; loved the characters and loved the way Austen created dramatic and romantic tension. You have a great discovery ahead!

As for the Shakespeare, you will find both Othello and King Lear more demanding than Macbeth, though all might be said to take their departure from aspects of the leading characters' personalities: if Macbeth is about ambition, Othello is about the interplay between jealousy and malice. In King Lear the tragedy emerges from the conceit, pride and misjudgment of the eponymous hero, a man who was 'old before he was wise.'

You will appreciate the poems in Aerial a little better if you discover something about the life of Sylvia Plath. In reading Lady Lazarus be mindful of the Bible story-I am Lazarus, come from the dead (to quote another poet altogether!) Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambiam is correct. JC-1 = Junior college year 1, H2 = category Higher 2. By the way, your junior college article is all rubbish. No offence.

AndrewWTaylor, Macbeth is very interesting. The story, characters and themes are easy to understand but still thought provoking. My other secondary school text, The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, was also thought provoking but much harder.

Thanks for all the advice, HotClaws and Clio the Muse. So Pride and Prejudice is easy, interesting and funny? Looks like I will enjoy my two years of studying JC H2 Literature nd (hopefully) get an A in the A Levels. From your advice, I understand that Othello and King Lear will be similar to Macbeth but more demanding. I heard that Macbeth, Othello and King Lear are all typical Shakespeare tragedies where a good man has a tragic flaw which causes his downfall, but the tragic flaw is different in each play. Is that accurate? Lastly, is the language in Othello and King Lear similar to that in Macbeth? It took me a few months to get used to the "anon"s, "withal"s, etc. when I studied Macbeth. Some of my classmates did not take Literature in secondary school, or studied texts that were not by Shakespeare. If the language is similar I will have a head start over them as they will have to spend a few months getting used to the language.

Gerard Winstanley

Did Gerard Winstanley, the English radical, have a unique vision of the order of human and divine affairs, or was his idealism simply part of the general millinerian expectations of Puritan contemporaries? Thank you. Kristine Spencer (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I hate to say it, but this sounds like a homework assignment. However, if on the chance it isn't, and if you are one of the incredibly rare individuals who actually is interested in Winstanley, then I'll take a chance and reply as if you're asking a legitimate (non-homework) question. Gerard Winstanley was, of course, very much a product of his times. So of course he was influenced by the general millinerian movement of his day. However, that does not really address the question as to whether he had a unique vision or not. He envisioned a Utopian Christian society based on the passages in the Book of Acts in the New Testament (Acts 2:44-45) where the Early Christian community was described as classless, and holding all property in common. He was instrumental in organizing the True Levellers, often refered to as the Diggers, who set up communities in England in 1649 (during the English Civil Wars) in which all property was held in common by the community. Winstanley published a number of tracts that were widely circulated throughout England and Europe, and which had a considerable influence on many people who later attempted to form religious Utopian socialist communities, most notably the Anabaptists and Mennonites. Winstanley has been heralded as the first socialist, the first Utopianist, etc. However, as your question seeks to uncover, was Winstanley's vision unique or not? Was he really the first to come up with the idea of a classless society in which all property was held in common, or not? Although some people would say he was, perhaps it would be a good idea to compare Winstanley's ideas with the much older tradition of Christian Monastacism, which also sought to create communities of believers who were supposedly all of one class, and who held all property in common. Of course communities of Christian Monks and Nuns were usually segregrated by gender, and were also celibate, which the Diggers were not. But the basic underlying structure of the community within a typical Christian monastery was very close to what Winstanley and the Diggers were attempting to create. The difference between the Monks and Winstanley was that he sought to create a system that would eventually spread to encompass all of English society - making the entire nation classless and socialist, whileas Christian monasteries sought just to serve the greater society they lived in, as ancillary institutions. So, I do hope that I have not just done your homework for you. -- Saukkomies 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending how serious you are, Kristine, you might care to glance at the work of John Edward Christopher Hill, particularly The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. It was Hill, more than anyone else, who brought Winstanley, a rather obscure figure, to the attention of the modern world. As for the man himself you could do no better than have a look at his pamphlets, particularly The True Leveller's Standard Advanced and The New Law of Righteousness.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that Winstanley was indeed a man of his time, one who gave shape to the radical hopes and expectations of the day, but there are also aspects to his work that go beyond the 'primitive communism' so beloved by Hill and others, ideas that could easily find a place in the modern green and environmental movement. His concept of God, for instance, comes close to pantheism, a belief that the divine was not remote and unknowable, but imminent and immediate, within nature itself:

The whole creation is the clothing of God. The Father is the universal power that hath spread himself in the whole globe; the Son is the same power drawn into and appearing in one single person, making that person subject to one spirit and to know him that dwells everywhere.

To know the secrets of nature was to know the works of God, who is also to be found in each and every individual. For Winstanley nature, the bounty of nature, was corrupted by greed and selfishness, by private property and covetousness, all of which entered the earth as a consequence of the Fall. Greed, as he saw it, had adversely affected the natural environment. The earth was being exploited not for a common good but for ruthless forms of private gain, which enriched the few only to enslave the many. The artificial divisions placed on the land, by expropriation and enclosure, had to be ended by everyone "coming to live in community with the globe and in the spirit of the globe." This was also a spiritual and mystical as well as a practical vision, for Christ himself was present in nature;

The body of Christ is where the Father is, in the earth, purifying the earth; and his spirit is entered into the whole creation, which is the heavenly glory where the Father dwells.

Winstanley shared the view of other Puritan thinkers that the second coming was immanent, but it was not of a figure emerging from the skies to sit in judgment, but the liberation of a force already latent within the hearts of people, a concept that anticipates later Quaker thought. The restoration of the earth as a bounty and treasury for all was, as he saw it, already in the process of coming true, as new forms of consciousness, new ideas of freedom, acted as a signal to the reappearance of Christ-"The Spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of universal community and freedom, is rising and rising."

Fully consistent with his belief in universal liberation, of people and the land on which they lived, Winstanley rejected many of the theological ideas so beloved by his fellow Puritans, particularly the excluding concepts of election and predestination, yet another sign of his originality. Salvation, like liberation, had to be universal, and all men and women would be gathered up in Christ. Just as the many were chosen, not the few, so there was no original sin and no Hell.

Yes, an original thinker, too radical for his own day or, for that matter, any day after. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great post, Clio! I love Hill's book. It amazes me whenever I meet anyone who knows absolutely anything about Winstanley, and you know a LOT! So I suppose I'm amazed at you. It seems like Winstanley was fairly influential around the time he was alive, but then fell into obscurity until, as you pointed out, he was popularized by Hill in the 20th Century. I believe Hill, an avowed British Marxist, wanted to find someone in Engllish history who he could point to as a predecessor of modern socialism, and that is why he made Winstanley the subject of his work. Since then there have been a number of people and groups around the world who have idolized Winstanley - including someone in the Haight Ashbury Hippie movement in the late 1960s who wrote articles that were published under the pseudonym of Gerard Winstanley, and who was a member of the Hippie group that called themselves the Diggers, after the communities that were created in England in 1649, whom Winstanley was involved. A folk song about the original Diggers called "The World Upside Down" was written by Leon Rosselson and popularized by the Scottish musician Dick Gaughan, appearing on his album "Handful of Earth" which was released in 1981. There's even an intentional community of squatters/utopian communists who are living on roughly the same land where the first Digger community existed on Saint George's Hill west of London. -- Saukkomies 11:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have time for academic treatments, you could do worse than to watch Winstanley, which I rather enjoyed a few years ago on a double bill with It Happened Here. I was quite impressed by the apparent realism of that film, in that it really tried to show the Diggers from their own point of view, without an obvious modern perspective. It felt more like a 17th century movie than a movie about the 17th century.--Pharos (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest city in Oklahoma

When I typed the above into Google search, the answer for Wikipedia was Fort Gibson est 1824, but the next menu item stated that the oldest was Vinita, est. 1871. Is there a reason why Vinita is not shown in Wikipedia as oldest?Visitamer (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)visitamer

Vinita, Oklahoma is the first permanently settled city, but the second actual city. -- kainaw™ 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mandate of Palestine

Did the creation of the Mandate of Palestine after the First World War create the parameters for the present day problems in the area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.39.57 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A good place to start on this issue is here (Israeli-Palestinian_conflict) ny156uk (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The brief answer is "yes". AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article linked by Ny156uk is reasonably comprehensive, 86.148, but the brief(ish) answer is that the Palestine Mandate was based on a quite unworkable premise: that it was possible to promote Jewish immigration, in terms of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, while ensuring that the rights of the indigenous population were not prejudiced. The British singularly failed to understand the extent to which Zionism would give rise to a reaction in new forms of Arab nationalism. Theseus does not rest beside the Minotaur. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in saying the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut is certainly NOT "the oldest constitution in the Western World"?

Unless ive been transported to a parallel universe where, for instance, Ancient Greece never existed, im pretty sure im right. And if i am can someone please remove the ludicrous statement from the 'On This Day' section of the Main Page, and from the offending article. Willy turner (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to an older written Constitution? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Athenian Constitution (the actual original constitution that Aristotle was referring to) , Solonian Constitution, any ancient Roman constitutions ? Youre not saying the original document still has to exist are you? And the onus is on someone to provide a reputable source that says the Fundamental Orders was the first Western written constitution, not me. There are no references backing up the statement in the article.Willy turner (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at constitution in particular the History and development section. It really depends on what you consider a constitution and how 'techincal' we want to get about this. In essence I find the general 'oldest' style questions on things like this are always of questionable validity. ny156uk (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already consulted constitution, which suggests there were several written constitutions prior to the Fundamental Orders. Regardless of how technical you want to be about defining a constitution. It would be an odd definition of constitution that exluded the examples ive given, wouldnt it? Are you saying the original Athenian constitution and the constitution of Solon werent constitutions? Or that they werent written down? And neither of you have directly answered the original question yet. Willy turner (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From my interpretation you are correct, there have existed many constitutions in the western world prior to the order of connecticut. The examples are for all to see in the history and development section of the constitution article. Try here (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/ThreePerspectivesontheConstitution/ConstitutionsAroundtheWorld.shtml) too. As i said it depends on how 'technical' people get - can it be across many documents, must it be in one place, must every part be written at the same time? Their claim will be based on technicalities that mean they are the 'oldest' of a very specific definition of 'constitution'

22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, im glad we agree. Yes, your examples of the complexities of the issue are interesting. Incidently, i suggested it might be wrong on the discussion for errors on the main page. They have now changed the main page so it says the oldest constitution in North America. However apperently its debatable if thats even true. im not that bothered though Willy turner (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, the sources given at Fundamental Orders of Connecticut seem to contradict one another. The claim "...is considered by some as the first written Constitution in the Western tradition" is footnoted to the source [1], which says, sure enough, "Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) — The first written constitution in the Western tradition." Yet numerous earlier examples are given on that very page. Looking at the link from there, [2], I get the sense that by "Western tradition" they mean "the New World", which is definitely not what is meant by the wikipedia page Western tradition (not to mention just plain wrong). Another source, [3] disputes the claim in no uncertain terms. The constitution page seems to have it right -- the first North American constitution (though I'd still add a "maybe" in there). Pfly (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

United Nations and genocide

Will the united nations ever develop an effective response to the problem of genocide. Hope this is the right place for my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super suds (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not really the best place for this question (wikipedia's ref desk isn't a place for 'discussions', though they occur often and to me do little harm). Anyway... perhaps in the future they may. The difficultly with the UN is that it is both strong and weak in equal measures. It can make requests of countries/governments and those requests carry a lot of 'weight', but they struggled to make 'demands' of countries/governments because often they lack the ability to provide anything to 'back up' that demand (without considerably international support). Genocide is difficult to stop because it tends to happen in regimes that take little notice of international diplomacy/international demands. Sanctions are difficult because if incorrectly thought-through they can make the situation worse for people without affecting the people they are trying to change (generally the government/ruling classes). ny156uk (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, have a look at the Genocide Convention and Universal jurisdiction. Perhaps the most effective tool the international community can use against genocide is the extreme unpalatability of the practice. No nation will openly endorse genocide today, and the fact that those who commit genocide will usually try to justify or excuse its actions by the terms of the international law as to genocide (e.g. by claiming that it was not genocide, or raising some kind of legal defence) demonstrates the effectiveness of this conceptual "incriminalisation" of genocide.

As to the effectiveness of the UN: remember that the UN is a collection of nations. It is nothing by itself without its members. The UN will only ever be as effective as the determination of its members to be so. One of the implications of this is that countries which refuse to act by international consensus weaken the UN and its credibility, making it even more difficult for the international community to enforce its consensus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately the only defense against genocide is to convince the people doing it to stop. Like PalaceGuard008 says, international pressure and the shame of association with genocide are perhaps the strongest weapons it has. If this has no effect on the regime implementing the genocide, sanctions can have some effect, but are very limited in practical effects. If a country decides to withdraw from the UN and become isolationist (for example North Korea), there is little that the international community can do about it other than make sternly worded declarations. A more extreme action is to occupy the country, like the USA's reaction to Iraq (at least on the surface). This tends to be an internationally controversial decision, and it is not one that the UN can make, but rather one that must be made by individual countries. The UN may approve such action, but it is unlikely that they would in most situations. The powers of UN troops on the ground are quite limited, as their need to remain neutral can make it very difficult to maintain any sort of order and remain effective as a troop force. Steewi (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Genocide: Can we learn from History? by Donald Bloxholm in the January edition of the BBC History Magazine (pps. 46-49), a quite useful summary of some of the main arguments and dilemmas. Politics, particularly international politics, sad to say, is a cynical game of self-interest and calculation. As a vehicle for peace and order the United Nations is arguably even less effective than the old League of Nations. The world stood aside in Rwanda; it is standing aside in Darfur. It is likely to stand aside in the face of future horror unless, of course, some material or strategic interest is threatened. A depressing thought, I know, but true notwithstanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish or British??

I know it's about using Wikipedia but I do not know where ask it.

Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder) (RMS Titanic's builder) was born in Northern Ireland and NOW, Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the UK. So, I want to put him into a category but I don't know if he was British or Irish. What was his nationality?

Thanks and forgive me if this question isn't about using Wikipedia... I don't ask many questions. Ahmed987147 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He would be British. The Irish category would deal with people born from Republic of Ireland, whilst Ulster is a British province. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ulster is a Province of Ireland. 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster form Northern Ireland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"The term is often used informally as a synonym for Northern Ireland." - Is what I meant :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, when the guy was born his birthplace was in the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time). So he can definately be called British. But there would be no harm putting him in both the Irish and British categories, if Category:Irish people can also include people born in Northern Ireland. Personaly I dont see any reason why the category couldnt include anyone born on the island of Ireland. Willy turner (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is one of those things where it depends on which side of the Atlantic you are for what you would answer. As an American, I would say that Thomas Andrews was an Irish citizen of Great Britain. However, it appears as if in the UK this would not necessarily be the case... This same rule would apply to someone from Wales or Scotland as well. I would be very reluctant to call someone from Aberdeen who is descended from Scottish blood a Brit. At least to their face I'd be reluctant to do that. And the same should apply to someone from Ulster as well. At least from my prejudiced American perspective. Perhaps there is NO "correct" answer to this question. -- Saukkomies 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You would be right to call him Scottish and British. MrsBucket (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed, I would confirm what Scarian and Willy have already written: in terms of nationality, and by strict legal definition, all people born in the six counties of Northern Ireland are British. However, I do have one small but important caveat: people in the Catholic or Nationalist community, the descendents of the original Gaelic inhabitants, will almost always describe themselves as Irish, while people with a Protestant and Unionist background, the descendents of the seventeenth century Planters, will hold fast to the British label. Indeed, I would go so far as to say, that if the United Kingdom ever fell into its constituent elements, then Britishness would survive in Ulster, if nowhere else. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely would have wagered good money that you would have responded in that way, Clio! Heh! But I simply must say that this is again something that is one of those differences between Yanks and Brits. It would be a very risky thing indeed for someone to try to argue the point you just made in certain pubs in the United States where there is a large population of very opinionated Irish Americans. This issue of someone from Ulster being called an Irish-Brit or just simply a Brit would be precisely one that would very easily end up in a bar brawl in such places. Because Americans are much more comforatable with people having double hyphenated ethnic labels (Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc), I think we're more inclined to include the fact that someone is Irish or Scottish or Welsh rather than just simply calling them a "Brit". If Thomas were alive today he could tell us what he would prefer to be called, but since he's no longer around to do us this favor, we should perhaps agree that there are different ways that are acceptable to call someone who worked in the Belfast shipping yards. -- Saukkomies 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a point of courtesy, Saukkomies, might I politely request that you refrain from using the term Brits? Some (I'm not saying all) people regard that word as inappropriate, if not a little patronising, rather akin to calling someone whose name is David Dave without his consent. It won't wear your keyboard out if you type British, and it would certainly help you in your aim to set yourself up as the arbiter of correct terminology. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it gets hazy when dealing with Northern Ireland, but Scots are entirely as British as Englishmen. Scotland is part of Great Britain for one, and it is an "equal partner," so to speak, in the United Kingdom. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends who you talk to; I've met plenty of Scots who bristle at being called "British". Hey, I've met some who bristle at being called "Scottish" too. :-) Gwinva (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have met non-Britons that call all Britons 'English'.217.168.4.225 (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So have I, and they get a quick comeuppance when they call a Welsh, Scottish or Irish person that. As they should, just as if they called a Texan a Californian. They're probably confused because a lot of people call Elizabeth II "the Queen of England", although there's no such crown. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting anomaly that, while Northern Ireland is not a part of Great Britain (the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), people born there have the right not only to British citizenship, but also Irish citizenship. However the gentleman in question was born before the independence of the Irish republic so tht point would be moot for him. SaundersW (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

British citizenship? I suppose you mean British subjection. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

British Citizenship. Skittle (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a philosophy that ....

Is there a philosophy that addresses the question as to whether man is to struggle eternally against the unknown and the unknowable, or is to surrender to a "god".LShecut2nd (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as I understand the terms of your question, LShecut2nd, I would say that much of the western intellectual tradition is concerned with the dilemma you have identified here: the tension between the contingent and arbitrary forms of existence and the search for some kind of ultimate meaning. Perhaps existentialism might serve to go some way to satisfying your interest in this matter. I would refer you in particular to the work of Søren Kierkegaard, more specifically to Either/Or, The Concept of Dread, and The Sickness Unto Death. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest existentialism, which is interested with the importance of individual existence, both in relation to religion and society. Another good place to look would be at Friedrick Nietzsche. For a good overview, try here MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 21:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

--

The most broad answer to your question is the major branch of philosophy called epistemology. There is also an Epistemology Portal. This field deals with the question "How do we know things?", "What is knowledge?", or "How do I know I'm not in The Matrix?", etc. This field is closely related to Philosophy of science. This will attempt to answer the whole "Will it be a forever stuggle to know?" question. In general, I would say that much philosophy is being incorporated into our idea of science over the centuries, so I would say there is hope for what we can "know." We used to call science "Natural philosophy."

The whole "god" question arises in Philosophy of religion. The arguments for and against the existence of god are many, and many studied so well in Logic and critical thinking as to be categorized, etc. The problems with these arguments are identified as fallacies, and a defense of a belief in god is called a theodicy (and they are categorized as well).

It also depends on the meaning of your question. Are you more interested to know about the whole struggle of man, meaning of life, etc? Then you may want to look into humanism, and existentialism. If you are interested in a dispassionate study of the nature of the universe, you want to look into metaphysics. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aqiqah

I know about the Aqiqah but I want to know something. Why goat is the only animal to be sacrificed, can't it be a sheep, too? Where does it say that Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) used to sacrificed a goat? and whenever a boy is born, you buy only one and whenever is a girl is born, you buy two. Is this what the last prophet (p.b.u.h) used to do, also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.165 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any expertise on Islam, but according to this website the prophet (p.b.u.h.) said only that a sacrifice should be performed. He did not specify which animal should be sacrificed. Nor did he specify how many should be sacrificed for boys or for girls. In some communities, it may be the custom to sacrifice two animals for a boy and only one for a girl. Apparently, in your community, it is the opposite. In some communities, sheep or cows may be sacrificed. Apparently, in your community, goats are sacrificed. The quote from the prophet (p.b.u.h.) suggests that these differences are matters of custom and are not requirements of Islam. According to this website, no aqiqah is required by Islam, though the custom is permissible. So, the authorities differ on whether aqiqah is even required. If it is required, how it is performed is a matter of custom. I think that it is not known for certain what the prophet (p.b.u.h.) did. 71.192.23.229 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)