Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 23

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 23

Controversies around Christianization of Scandinavia

Were any parts of the Christianization of Scandinavia accomplished through violence or controversial methods? NeonMerlin 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversial now, or then? Marnanel (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It frequently happened in such situations that if a king converted, then he wanted the people that he ruled to convert en masse, and that refusal to convert was interpreted by the king as personal disloyalty to himself. But in most such cases, Christians from outside the society had no coercive powers (unless they were given them by the local king). If you want a much more "controversial" Christianization, then consider the case of the Baltic coasts, where tribes without strong local kings were made the object of a dubious "crusade" by the Livonian knights and Teutonic knights which turned into an ethnic German land-grab and led to the extinction of several Baltic languages and many centuries of German-Slav struggles and ethnic displacements which ended only with the adoption of the Oder-Neisse line... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Most likely at least Olaf I of Norway and Harald I of Denmark in order to convert reluctant areas did resort to force on some occasions, but there are not many sources that touch on that side of these events, as this is very much a case of history being written by the winners. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the subsidiary articles, which contain a lot more detail than Christianization of Scandinavia? Our article on Christianisation of Iceland states:

[A missionary called] Stefnir violently destroyed sanctuaries and images of the heathen gods -- this made him so unpopular that he was eventually declared an outlaw. ... [Another missionary] named Thangbrand managed to convert several prominent Icelandic chieftains, but killed two or three men in the process. Thangbrand returned to Norway in 999 and reported his failure to King Olaf, who immediately adopted a more aggressive stance towards the Icelanders. He refused Icelandic seafarers access to Norwegian ports and took as hostages several Icelanders then dwelling in Norway. This cut off all trade between Iceland and its main trading partner. Some of the hostages taken by King Olaf were the sons of prominent Icelandic chieftains, whom he threated to kill unless the Icelanders accepted Christianity. The Icelandic Commonwealth's limited foreign policy consisted almost entirely of maintaining good relations with Norway. The Christians in Iceland used the King's pressure to step up efforts at conversion. The two rival religions soon divided the country and threatened civil war.

That counts as violent and controversial in my book: not exactly freedom of religion. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What the heck does "freedom of religion" have to do with anything that people thought at the time (as opposed to retroactive anachronistic judging of events of a thousand years ago by the standards of today)??? There were very few people of a thousand years ago who thought that freedom of religion was a virtue in itself or a "positive good" (as opposed to people having an indifferent apathetic tolerance towards foreigners and their bizarre gods, as long as they stayed at a certain distance -- an attitude which was common at the time). And monarchs with strong powers generally greatly preferred religious homogeneity among their subjects (a principle later formalized as "Cuius regio eius religio"). So these people, whatever you may think of their actions, were not hypocrites, nor were they necessarily in violation of commonly-accepted moral standards of their time... AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked about "violence or controversial methods" without defining those terms. I provided examples from our articles. I never said the Icelanders were hypocritical, as I am no expert in the "commonly-accepted moral standards of their time". Cutting off trade routes to an isolated island and threatening to kill high-ranking hostages may well have been par for the course. As for freedom of religion, well, by this time the world had heard the phrase "There is no compulsion in religion" (though, admittedly, I don't know if word had got that far north by then). BrainyBabe (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- before roughly the late 17th century, only a very few isolated advanced thinkers thought that religious tolerance was a positive virtue (as opposed to a grudging concession to necessity). Feel free to point out instances of brutality and violence which occurred, but it still seems quite absurd to sanctimoniously judge things according to a principle of positive valuation of religious diversity which simply didn't exist in the world until 500 years afterwards.

And contrary to your implications, Muslims did very little towards establishing religious tolerance as a positive virtue (as opposed to a "grudging concession to necessity" or an "indifferent apathetic tolerance towards foreigners and their bizarre gods, as long as they stayed at a certain distance"). The alleged principle of no compulsion in religion did nothing whatever to prevent Muslims from issuing threating threatening letters to rulers of non-Muslim realms telling them to convert to Islam or be conquered (Aslim Taslim), subjecting non-Muslims to extra taxes (jizya), decreeing that non-Muslims can convert to Islam but Muslims are strictly and absolutely forbidden from converting from Islam (defined as "apostasy"), decreeing that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women but Muslim women are forbidden from marrying non-Muslim men, etc. etc. ad nauseam... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Already in 1573 (a century before the late 17th century), all of Polish and Lithuanian noblemen (not just a very few isolated advanced thinkers) agreed to obey the act of the Warsaw Confederation. Here's a fragment of the document (my translation):

As in our Commonwealth there is a considerable variety within the Christian faith, in order to prevent any harmful turmoil which we have clearly seen in other kingdoms, we promise to each other... that we who differ in faith will maintain peace among us and that for the differences in faith and churches we will not shed blood or punish each other with expropriation, defamation, prison...

— Kpalion^(talk) 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Did that go significantly beyond a grudging concession to necessity? -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It would not be controversial in Norway to state that Christianization of this country was accompanied by violence; that seems to be the widely accepted version of the story. Olaf II of Norway, later sainted, was killed during his effort to increase his power / spread Christianity. Also, there has been some (very low-volume) debate about the logo of the Church of Norway lately - it contains two axes, alleged (at least by some) to be a reference to the Christianization of Norway. Jørgen (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Human nature

I vaguely recall an inspiring song about technological progress. It was similar in theme to the Carousel of Progress song, but longer--it talked about technological development, the dream of space travel, and the hope that each day will be better than the ones preceding it. I think it said something about humans exploring the universe and watching other civilizations develop.

I also remember a book that started with a large group of (a hundred?) starving girls in a desert engaging in cannibalism. They were apparently survivors of a death march and were portrayed as smart, cute, and generally admirable. By the end of the book, they had set up a leadership system even more brutal than the one persecuting them, and not one character remains admirable.

Can anybody help identify these two works? I don't remember anything about the titles or the authors; I'm horrible at remembering either. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(the song:) I don't recognise this specifically, but there are many filk songs with this sort of theme. If you follow some of the links from that article, you might find it. --ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm Conon O'Brian

Let's say I get fired from hosting an evening comedy show on one of the major US television networks, and the network pays me tens of millions of dollars in order to be able to bring back the guy whom I succeeded. Can I get unemployment benefits? Nyttend backup (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Most jurisdictions require that you have used up your termination benefits before you can claim amy kind of public assistance. Some categories of employment are also exempt. Bielle (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. In Massachusetts at least, unemployment benefits begin at the moment of termination, irrespective of severence pay. My dad was recently laid off, and started collecting unemployment the moment he was terminated, and he's also collecting his severence pay. --Jayron32 16:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bielle said "most jurisdictions", so a different rule in one jurisdiction is not evidence "to the contrary". As I recall, The Tonight Show is shot in California, so the real question would presumably be what their law on this is.

Of course, the real answer is that if you're Conan O'Brian, the Reference Desk cannot provide you with legal advice. We can only answer your question if you're not Conan O'Brien. So there! --Anonymous, 16:26 UTC, January 23, 2010.

Yeah, Conan, stop posting legal questions to the Reference Desk already. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just his cousin Conon, man :)) Rimush (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see a movie sequel coming: Conan and the Golden Parachute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See my userpage: I don't own a TV, so I'd never really heard of this guy before the recent controversy erupted — thus the misspelling :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See, I thought unemployment benefits in the USA were a federal thing, not a statewide thing. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Money is provided to the states by the federal government (see Federal Unemployment Tax Act); the states decide how to manage it, much the way that Medicaid works. The federal government does set some broad guidelines, but generally does not interfere with the nitty-gritty of how states decide to distribute their funds. Only a portion of the funds comes from the Federal gov't anyways, much is from the states. So basically, each state has a pool of unemployment insurance cash; some comes from the feds and some comes from their own revenue streams, and then the states decide themselves how to distribute it. See Unemployment_benefits#Federal-State_joint_programs. --Jayron32 18:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick glance at the California government's pages on unemployment benefits here and here turns up no mention of severance pay. Best, WikiJedits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

Betty Ong's call on 9/11

I watched on YouTube, the call of Betty Ong with Nydia Gonzalez. I have never been on a plane and I want to know where was she calling from (Betty Ong) she says they were all in the coach, and she was calling from a jump seat. I have no idea of those terms because English is not even my language. Can anybody help me to understand what the coach and jump seats are?. And why didn't the hijackers see her calling?, if pictures are on here would be great. Thank you all very much friends.--190.50.124.223 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coach is a mainly North American term for Economy class, a Jump seat is the type of folding seat that air stewards use or an extra seat in the cockpit. I haven't seen the episode you're talking about but economy is generally towards the rear of an aeroplane, it's possible she was calling from another part of the plane from them. Nanonic (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and apparently this is related to the September 11 attacks in the USA and not a TV show, eek, sorry for missing that. Nanonic (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A seating plan for the relevant aircraft can be seen here; it's the top one. (Different airlines may have somewhat different seating arrangements, but that almost certainly doesn't affect the positioning of the jump seats, which as our article says are used by the cabin crew whenever they need to be belted down, as during takeoff and landing.) The blue area at the rear of the plane would be the "coach" cabin, and the jump seats would be located at the rear of that, behind the rest rooms and thus out of view of someone in the passenger part of that cabin. Deor (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis Simons

hello my name is bernie i am doing some research for a friend about Phyllis Simons who was murdered and buried by her lover in the victoria tunnel wellington new zealand i have tried many websites and the dominion post and new zealand herald whic are local newspapers and found nothing the murder acured in the 1930s as that was when the tunnel was dug through and wasnt open till 1931

this is all i could get

A well-known local story revolves around a murder that occurred during the construction of the Mount Victoria Tunnel. A young woman named Phylis Simons was murdered by her lover, who buried her alive in the fill from the tunnel. It is suspected that the girl was pregnant to her lover and the story was later covered in the Wellington newspapers. Upon learning of the murder, police ordered workers to excavate the tunnel's fill in order to find the victim's body.

this is the web address http://wikimapia.org/13966509/Mount-Victoria-Tunnel

would much apreciate your help my email is <email removed> look forward to your reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.170.106 (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted your email address to try to stop it being picked up by spammers. Replies to questions to the Reference Desk are posted here, not sent to email addresses. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That Wikimapia text comes from our article Mount Victoria Tunnel. If you look in that article's history you may be able to find who added that paragraph and then contact the user for details.--Cam (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

candidates for hottest picture on the internet?

I know this is kind of subjective, but what are the best candidates or pics that have won contests (albeit obviously not net-wide) for the hottest photo on the Internet. Yes, I mean like sexy hott, and I'm being serious. If you don't know of any such contest or ranking or any photo with any claim to being the hottest photo on the Internet, just don't respond. Thanks for any serious responses. 84.153.228.114 (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We will both be sharply rebuked for participating in a categorical orgy of subjectivity and opinion, but I will say that Shannen Doherty was maybe the slinkiest little kitty to ever crawl in front of a camera back in the late 90s, when sexy still meant something. [1] . Of course tastes vary! Vranak (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of "rate this photo" sites out there on the web, and you could see which photos have high rankings on those sites. Since the matter is entirely subjective (not to mention that you haven't specified your personal inclinations), it's difficult to see how any very meaningful answer could be supplied here. (For example, the photo linked by Vranak shows someone who appears to be kneeling in a pool of diluted blood, which I do not find to be sexy...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This picture should qualify... --Jayron32 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Joan of Arc. But too early for photos. 92.24.56.246 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hot indeed! But a little Jennifer Love Hewitt, or Jennifer Tilly would have improved it! 220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a little known fact that Joan was given the chance to be decapitated instead, but she opted for immolation, saying, "A hot stake is better than a cold chop!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a perusal of FHM Magazines' '100 sexist women' or similar, would be a good starting point --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"100 sexiest women" might get better search results... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Best laugh I've had for a long time! ROFL! Though, our feminist editors might agree more with my typo than you! . But this is supposed to be serious, lets try to answer the OPs question! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no objective answer, that's the point (and the original questioner hasn't even made it clear that he's interested in women rather than in men)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Or even that the OP is a he at all. Buddy431 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn (Y) Rimush (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Catherine of Aragon. Hawt. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hot stuff! --Mr.98 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting back on track, hopefully, as AnonMoos says it's extremely subjective. 'Sexy Hott' is entirely in the eye of the beholder, with a lot of overlap between viewers. There must be literally billions of photos on the internet, and there is no central repository that ranks them. I do not believe that there is any photo with the "claim to being the hottest photo on the Internet" (My personal opinion does not reflect the official position of Wikipedia, the Wikipedia Foundation or any associated entities)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this drawing depicts the aftermath of what would be one of the hottest photos on the internet. Unfortunately taking such a photo is not possible, and would be rather boring anyway. Whether you find this sort of hot, sexy hot, I'm not particularly sure as others have mentioned you didn't really specify what you find sexy Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if you're a Physicist, I suppose that may get you flustered, each to their own! (How hot would that event depicted have been?) Though I wonder if this question should have been accepted at all, we're not supposed to give opinion here, I gather. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP did ask for references, i.e. of contests or rankings, not just our opinion. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly some female balance is needed here, so the hottest pictures currently available on the 'net are all those depicting Christian Bale, Edward Norton, James McAvoy, Hugh Jackman, Colin Firth, and Kate Winslet (she transcends sexual orientation, okay?). No charge for such indispensable information, but you can thank me later. As has been mentioned, there are lots of "rate me" sites out there, but they rely on submissions and not just internet-wide availability. My googling was quite fruitless. Maybe you've spotted a gap in the market. Maedin\^talk 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really a "gap", since unauthorized linking of an image on one site from another site is a shady and often unethical practice which the victims can actually take simple measures to counteract -- see Inline linking and further links there... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's a list of 100 individuals that may fit this definition [2]. And another [3]. This poor chap is so hot, he had to take his shirt off. Most inconvenient. 86.178.230.208 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A picture that is entirely black would absorb rather more of the light and heat travelling through the room, and so gradually heat up, particularly if you aimed a lamp right at it. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Correlation between inflation and social mobility

In the UK social mobility is said to be less now than it was in the 1970s. We had lots of inflation in the 70s, very little now. Is there any correlation between the two? 92.29.130.174 (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of an obvious link (presumably this would rely on inflation having a disproportionate effect on some sections of society). Your other problem is, social mobility is rather subjective, whereas inflation is completely objective. Comparing the two can be difficult. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You could measure social or economic mobility by changes in social class, income, wealth. 92.29.81.16 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Policies which favor creditors can have an effect of discouraging social mobility, while policies which favor debtors can have an effect of encouraging social mobility. A moderate degree of inflation (not significant enough to disrupt the economy) can favor debtors, and so could theoretically favor social mobility (though to what degree this would actually happen in real life is another question). AnonMoos (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A moderate degree of unexpected inflation favours debtors. If the inflation is expected then it will accounted for in interest rates. That means you can't intentionally use inflation to increase social mobility. --Tango (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any more statistics for different time periods for social mobility please? Currently I've only got vague information about two points. 92.24.56.246 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Capital and Labour

1843

Could you say something about this caricature??? --Michael Reschke 21:08, 23. Jan. 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Reschke (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a homework assignment? Reference Desk doesn't answer homework assignments unless you've put in good faith effort first? However, what is there to say? Clearly the cartoon shows the stark contrast between the wealthy and privileged members of Western/European and/or United States society of the 19th century vs. the life of the poor and working classes. And some racial inequity as well. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The key may be identifying the women with the anchor, accompanied by the cherub, and what she symbolizes. The rich family's wealth is clearly founded on the suffering of the poor, but there is also the fact that the overseer's pile of gold is blocking the door, preventing the anchor woman coming in. Could she be justice, or compassion, or the government? I can't read the letters on the door. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Illustration by John Leech (caricaturist), Capital and Labour, Punch Magazine, May, 1843 - at least according to the internet. He has shown the locks on the door in detail (Chubb and Brama), so the woman is locked out. The woman may be Brittania. Perhaps it symbolises the squalid exploitation of the workers being kept hidden from government or public scrutiny. I think aristocrats quite often obtained their great wealth from owning mines, living in luxury and choosing to ignore the misery of the workers they exploited. Some further internet searching says that the phrase "working class" was first used in 1817, suggesting a growing awareness of the poor at that time. Perhaps attitudes were changing I speculate - in the past social class may have been seen fatalisticly as the work of God, "the rich man at his gate" as the hymn said, but with the increasing science of the time less religious and more compassionate attitudes may have started to appear. 92.24.56.246 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks rather like the hand of George Cruikshank; "the modern Hogarth". Alansplodge (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, I thought Shallabala was R. J. Hamerton? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Put "'punch and labour' 1843 punch" into Google Books and you can find lots of scholarly analysis of the piece. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Love Opens the Door to Hope?" --Wetman (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this page[4], an anchor is a symbol of "hope"; so it makes sense. Alansplodge (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In case y'all were doing a cartoon analysis of this cartoon for a certain test, look no further. The Lady represents either Dame Fortune or Lady Luck, who, you guessed it, represents luck, and controls power in human affairs. The Cherub (winged child) is an angel who's main 'gift' is knowledge. The anchor is a symbol of hope. These objects are locked away, representing the lack of knowledge and hope in the mine shaft. Next to this is a door dividing between where the hope and knowledge is and the mine shaft. On the other side, sitting against the wall is the 'overseer', sitting on a pile of bags labeled 'gold'. He also holds keys. This also signifies the fact that he does not want knowledge or hope let into the mine shaft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.84.155 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is 'A man's a man for all that' mostly liberal or socialist?

The WP article tells you that it could be interpreted as both, but what is it most? To me it feels more like liberal, because the essence of "we're poor, but we're honest". A socialist probably would have said, "we are poor and we deserve better". Also the song speaks in favour or "free thinking", which not all socialists agree with. What's your opinions? Yrge (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't tell you our opinions (that's not what the reference desk is for); you have to make up your own mind. As you say, and as the Robert Burns article notes, his work (including "Is There for Honest Poverty") is regarded (by modern folk) as both (or either) liberal or socialist. But I fear they (and perhaps your teacher) are too keen to project the politics of today onto the romantic works of a somewhat dissolute taxman who died more than two centuries ago. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Burns himself, of course, would have been bewildered by the question. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As a point of interest, Colin Fox, leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, sang it when being sworn in as an MSP in 2003, as a protest against having to swear the oath of alleigance to the Queen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3006175.stm Dalliance (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a paraphrase of "When Adam delved and Eve span / Who was then the Gentleman", a couplet which had wide circulation across several countries of Europe centuries before anyone had heard of liberalism or socialism... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it might be nice to have a central Wikipedia article on "When Adam delved and Eve span" (currently information on this historically-significant mini-poem seems to be scattered in fragmentary form across a number of different articles). In case the verbs are too archaic to easily grasp the meaning, it refers to Adam digging in the fields for agriculture and Eve spinning material into thread (to be later woven into cloth). AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Burns was quite a radical and a supporter of the French revolution. Liberalism and socialism didn't exist as concepts and tended to blend into general "radicalism" in practice. Both a (proto-)liberal and a (proto-)socialist at Burns' time naturally wanted a revolution and total change of the status quo towards greater justice; both felt that the masses were oppressed and deserved better, and certainly neither would content himself with a resignated "we're poor but honest", as the OP suggests (hardly anything "liberal" about such a statement either, even from a modern point of view). As for Burns, he doesn't stop at "we're poor but honest", and he clearly expresses hope for some kind of egalitarian revolution to improve the situation of those who "deserve better" in the last stanza: "For a' that, an' a' that, It's coming yet for a' that, That Man to Man, the world o'er, Shall brothers be for a' that". Now, the rich elite he condemns in the song is mostly composed of aristocrats and not of capitalists, because aristocrats were the most obvious bosses at the time; thus, one could say that the song is more liberal than socialist. But since aristocratic power is now history and the most obvious bosses today are the capitalists, modern socialism shares more of the song's egalitarian sentiments than modern liberalism does. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)