Humanities desk
< July 22	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 23

Butternut color

Uniforms of the Confederate States Army have been referred to as being "butternut" in color. Our article on butternut says the color is similar to khaki. Can anybody find some examples of the color so I can see the differences? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The khaki link that you included has some examples but here is what comes to mind first when I hear the word khaki. Dismas|^(talk) 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

compare the color of butternut squash. --Ludwigs2 03:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what khaki looks like, my badly-worded question is, what does butternut look like. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a dark khaki brown. I think it possibly refers to the colour of the wood of the butternut tree. Searching the Pantone site [1] for butternut turns up an example. Also, a google image search for "confederate butternut" shows, well, a variety of possibilities. Some are dark khaki, some are practically orange. (There also seems to be butternut yellow, but I think that's a modern invention.) "butternut brown -squash" is another possibly useful image search. With that I found this colour chart: [2] 213.122.54.16 (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of today's Confederate "butternut" tan uniform material started out as gray, either warm or bluish in tone [3], [4]. There were home-made Confederate uniforms dyed with the brownish gray butternut color, but the better uniform coats were of a gray which quite bluish. Cloth dyed gray with butternut dye can fade to a more brown color over the ensuing decades, since the dyes were far fro colorfast: [5]. See images of museum examples: [6]. See "Official records of the Union and Confederate navies in the war of the rebellion(1905)" which tells of a captured shipment of British woolen material intended for Confederate uniforms, which was "neither blue nor gray," but "a shade between these." Surviving uniforms in museums bore this out. There were many different uniforms used by various units. Here [7] is one description of the "official" uniforms. There was no big central warehouse with the ability to order up and issue identical factory made uniforms to all troops, and local tailors and seamstresses did with what they had.

That pantone search was great, thanks for al of the replies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20th century

Does anyone know of any nice quotes from or about the 20th century? Preferably from a wide range of different years and places. Also, whilst I'm here, does anyone know where I can find pictures of famous people or events from the 20th century, but taken this century or late in the 19th?

80.47.250.144 (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to mention, I would like for the quotes to be in some way relevant to the subject of history, if that is alright. 80.47.250.144 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find photographs (which I assume is what you mean by "picture", given your use of the word "taken") of events from the 20th century that were taken in another century, that would require a camera that can see through time... --Tango (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OP is looking for a photo of a person/place etc that came to prominence during the 20th century but was taken outside of the 20th century. An example would be a photo of FDR as a younger man during the late 1800's or perhaps a present-day photo of Hiroshima. --Zerozal (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that makes sense for "people" but not for "events". --Tango (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country". {Citation reference not necessary, surely.} MacOfJesus (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933. --Zerozal (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=20th+century+quotes - there are many sites.77.86.82.77 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is too vague. If you want quotes about the 20th century, that can be rather specific (for example: [8][9][). But from the 20th century—a near infinite number are out there. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article about this: 20th century. The article needs a lot of help and editing, but it's got a lot of material that should be useful. In a box toward the top, the article has helpful links to our articles 1920s, 1930s, etc., if you need more detail. These articles have a lot of iconic photos that should be useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a Santa Clause!" "One small step....One giant step for mankind", in 1969. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get it right, Mac. That's Santa Claus, no e (unless you're referring to a movie). And Armstrong said "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong was supposed to say that, but in the event seemingly omitted the 'a'. Much argument about transmission faults and scientific analysis of the recording has been expended over this question. see this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most human beings who were alive then, and millions more born since then, have been involved in some way with the debate about what Armstrong actually said. Let us PLEASE not have yet another debate about it here. My point was that he used "step" for (a) man, and "leap" for mankind. MacOfJesus seemed to not quite appreciate the contrast Armstrong made there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

"....This was their finest hour". "No other time ... so few for so many." (All linked to History).MacOfJesus (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a non-English quote: "Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt erst vorstellen können?" (Joseph Goebbels). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Plastics". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking it would perhaps be better to direct the OP towards some Quotations or Image-website. I fear the he/she may not fully grasp the grand scope of the question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I see myself as pointing the OP in the direction of the quotes). (I was expecting more come-back in not giving the Churchill quotation exactly). MacOfJesus (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't like me when I'm angry, I'm racist when I'm angry! A. Hitler Ideas are more dangerous than guns, and we dont let our enemies have guns Stalin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Money

Let's say I had a ridiculously large sum of money, like several trillion dollars. I then, in a scene not dissimilar to the scene in the esteemed cinematic film, the Dark Night, piled this money in a warehouse and lit it all on fire. What would this do to the economy, if anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToilFoil (talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the supply of money is a cause of deflation. How much of an effect there would be would, I guess, depend on the ration of money destroyed to money in the economy in question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where the money came from. If you had been keeping it in a vault and not doing anything with it, then it would make no difference (money in a vault doing nothing doesn't affect the economy, so getting rid of that money wouldn't affect it either). If it had been in circulation just prior to you destroying it, then it would cause deflation. --Tango (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The M0 number published by the government would be decreased by several trillion dollars, which some people would notice and react to. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the government noticed you burning it. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, while there are a few trillion dollars in the economy (depending on how you count it.) there's nowhere near that amount in cash money that you could actually set on fire. APL (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the flip side? If he (the OP) had stored this money in a vault for many years, and then tomorrow decides to go out and spend it all? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It would cause the opposite - inflation. There would be deflation when he stored it, though, which in theory would all cancel out. In practice, if the storing was done gradually and the spending quickly, then the markets would overcompensate and you would get net inflation. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people are so stupid above. What would happen if you burned trillions of dollars that you already physically had, and people knew about is, is that suddenly there would be a panic as to the "true value" of the dollar, the dollar would plummet on forex markets, people would desperately try to acquire anything instead of their dollars. The likely effect of that, nobody knows, but I for one think it would be great economic stimulus. 92.230.65.204 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure 92? Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also IP 92 please refrain from making personal attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? If you reduce the money supply you get deflation and a rise in value on the forex, not a fall. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think his point is very clear: if people were to see you burn US dollars publicly, they would assume that you have some insider information and know that the US dollar is about to become practically devoid of value (say, that the entire US is going to be destroyed by a meteorite). So they would panic and try to sell their dollars. I think the people are more likely to think that you're just crazy, though.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See K Foundation Burn a Million Quid. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In June 2010, the amount of US currency in circulation was $941,097 million. So, first I’d suggest scaling down your ridiculous amount of money from trillions to mere billions. So, let's say you personally destroyed 10% of the money supply. If the money is isolated, there's no effect. If, on the other hand, the money is part of the banking system's core capital . . . baby, it's 2008 all over again! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of Conflict and International Security

Poverty, Conflict and International security: Analysis of Linkage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.193.222 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question? If not, then look at the relevant pages, article pages on Wikipedia. International threats to security come from terrorist groups with different idology. They offer a threat to those of their own race but with a different idology. This is not linked to poverty. It is more to do with land ownership and power. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is quite large and no doubt has numerous books written about it. No one-paragraph answer (like the one given above) will be of much use, especially if it is unsourced. Googling "poverty, conflict and security" turns up all sorts of books that are probably good places to start, like this one. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

This question is for reference only, no offense. If Prince Charles succeeded the throne of England and became King of England; would his current wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, became Queen of England? If so, what title would she take?--AM ^(talk) 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in the article at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall#Titles and styles. There are even sources and everything. Also, there's no "throne of England" anymore. The full title is a bit of a mouthful, for more info see "Style of the British sovereign". Gabbe (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. According to the article, the expected title of Camilla queen Prince Charles become king hasn't been decided yet. I have one more question. My British civilisation lecturer said that if Camilla can't be entitled Queen, Prince Charles could refuse/deny to become King and, instead, his eldest son Prince William could be the next King. Is this possible?--AM ^(talk) 13:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Elizabeth II dies today, Charles would immediately be king whether he wants to or not. However, he could choose to abdicate. The last time a British monarch abdicated it proved to be a sticky situation, see Edward VIII abdication crisis, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, Statute of Westminster 1931#Implications for succession to the throne, etc. Gabbe (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But note that Charles can become King and be married to Camilla without her becoming Queen. Neither Albert (of Victoria) nor Phillip (of Liz-2) were Kings, after all. And the UK "constitution" is flexible enough to allow for a lot of meddling. If Charles wants to remove himself from the succession, he can convert to Catholicism ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert and Philip weren't Kings because that isn't the title for the husband of a Queen Regnant. The title is Prince (Consort). The wife of a King, on the other hand, is a Queen. Camilla would be entitled to the style "Queen" if and when her husband becomes King, however that doesn't mean she would use it. She's entitled to the style "Princess of Wales" now but doesn't use it because the public associates that title with the late Diana, Princess of Wales and would object to Camilla using it. She might choose to use a different style while Queen Consort for similar reasons. At the end of the day, it would be Charles' decision (the title's of royals is one of the few things where the monarch is allowed to act other than in accordance with the advice of ministers), so him abdicating because someone won't let his wife be called "Queen" doesn't seem likely. It's not impossible that public pressure would cause him to abdicate, but it's very unlikely. A lot of people perceive a monarch abdicating as a dereliction of duty and would strongly object to an abdication due to nothing more than pride. --Tango (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you all very much for these clear explains. I think I've got the picture now.--AM ^(talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more information under Morganatic marriage, specifically Morganatic marriage#United Kingdom. My own opinion is that Charles (or George VII to be), will be highly unlikely to abdicate. His grandmother (to whom Charles was very close) always despised the Duke of Windsor for deriliction of duty. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case of "Prince Consort" is a little more complex. Victoria actually bestowed it on Albert as his official title, and he's the only example of one (Philip is a "prince consort", generally speaking, but it's not his official title, and "king consort" has also been used to describe the husband of a queen regnant). In fact, it has already been officially announced that Camilla will be "Princess Consort" when and if Charles ever becomes king. See the last paragraph, here. Ka renjc 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert and Prince Philip were already "princes" before they married a reigning monarch, and they retained these titles on marriage. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert was a Prince. Philip was not. He had been born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, but renounced these titles in March 1947, becoming plain Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten (in private life he was simply Mr Mountbatten). In November 1947 he married Elizabeth, who was not the "reigning monarch", but the heiress presumptive, as her father George VI was still reigning. At that time he was created Duke of Edinburgh. Elizabeth became Queen in February 1952 when George VI died. Philip remained Duke of Edinburgh, nothing more. Only in 1957 was he created a Prince of the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent as regards prince consorts is surely more complex than this. Philip II of Spain during his brief marriage to Mary I of England was officially recognised as King of England and Ireland (although this ceased on Mary's death) and Mary's sister Elizabeth I of England famously refused to take a husband. But things had changed by the reign of Anne of England - her husband, Prince George of Denmark, was always referred to as such, never as a king. --rossb (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, Anne's older sister Mary married William of Orange, and he ruled as William III of England even after Mary's death (but then, he was next in line after Anne, anyway). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to an inaccuracy above. Husbands of Queens can become Kings of the realm themselves. It is called being King jure uxoris, or "by right of (one's) wife". England had at least 2 such kings, Philip II of Spain, who got pissed when Parliament wouldn't let him keep the title after his wife Mary I of England died (see Spanish Armada and William III of England, who was techinacally King jure uxoris from his wife Mary II of England, but remembering the problems Philip had, demanded that Parliament name him king in his own right as well. --Jayron32 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how much is spent on various activities in the US per year

I am looking for a list or table that shows how much money gets spent in the US/year for a wider range of things and activities in everyday life, eg how much gets spent on, say milkshakes, or dog grooming.

This question arose in the context of a debate (on slashdot) about how much money is being spent on solar energy research, and is this "alot" of money. This question can be answered in a lot of ways, eg the amount of money spent on solar RnD relative to how much we spend for other energy sector activites, but I thought relating it to something ordinary like dog grooming would be a good perspective - I don't know what the answer is, but my personal feeling is that if, hypothetically, we are spending 1$ on solar RnD for every 5$ of dog grooming, then we are not spending "alot" on solar.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Market-research firms compile these kind of numbers (all estimates, of course) and charge thousands of dollars for the data. Sometimes information is available from a trade association. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US government is probably the source you want. A bare start is this document, which mentions how much the average consumer in the US pays per year for clothing, insurance, rent, and food. It's much more general than you asked for but it's a start. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another BLS document that drills down further: How much did the average American consumer spend on doing the laundry in 2008? A little multiplication should get you the answer you asked for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confucian ritual

Does Confucianism (neo or otherwise) have a ritual that involves kneeling and silent prayer. The ritual might even involve moving forward, backward, and side to side before the kneeling. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]