Humanities desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

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.

September 17

Did the Germans fight back at Dresden?

Our article Bombing of Dresden in World War II mentions that the Germans had a night squadron of 10 fighters in the area of Dresden during the attack, as well as tangential references to possible dogfights over the city. But there are no references to planes being shot down on either side. So my question is, did the Germans fight back at Dresden? Did the Allies encounter either enemy fighters or anti-aircraft fire? Were any planes shot down or damaged on either side? Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was almost always anti-aircraft fire (though whether it was effective in any particular case is another question). AnonMoos (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden 1945 edited by Paul Addison, Jeremy A. Crang (pp. 66-68) says that by January 1945, nearly all the flak batteries at Dresden had been moved to the east to counter the Soviet offensive. Ten Me 110 night fighters were deployed against the first wave, but a second squadron of fighters were held on the ground because of "bad fighting conditions". Only 6 of 796 RAF bombers were lost, 3 of those due to being hit by bombs dropped by aircraft above them. On the following day, only one USAF bomber was shot down. I'll add this to our article when I have time. Alansplodge (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transsexuality: do psychoanalysts get referral bonuses?

When someone goes to a psychoanalyst of some sort to be diagnosed with gender identity disorder, and is referred to a surgeon for sex reassignment surgery, does the surgeon give the psychoanalyst a kickback for sending business his way? (If so, how much?) Wnt (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in most developed countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are you specifically talking about the (controversial) practice of psychoanalysis? Because usually people are not referred by psychoanalysts, but by ordinary psychologists/psychiatrists. - Lindert (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for certain that they don't, but it is highly doubtful. A therapist with experience with other trans patients will know what surgeons they have used and how they felt about the entire process and results, and can make recommendations from there. They work in the patients best interest in finding a surgeon. Often trans women (and I assume trans men, but I don't have the experience there), will do a lot of research on their own into finding the right surgeon even if it means travelling, possibly even to another country. Katie R (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this would be any different than any other gift-giving between a therapist and any doctor to whom the patient/client has been referred for whatever reason. Because this kind of compensation is seen as unprofessional and unethical (likely to create conflicts of interest) it is often also mentioned in laws or in the regulations of professional organizations. One example from the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs Laws and Regulations Relating to the Practice of Psychology 2012: "[...] accepting, or soliciting any consideration, compensation, or remuneration, whether monetary or otherwise, for the referral of clients" is defined as "unprofessional conduct", unprofessional enough to be cause for disciplinary action, such as revoking a psychologist's license to practice. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a pretty convincing source. But how typical are these restrictions? Wnt (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't check individual states within the US, or federal regulations, or other nations, but my impression from reading more global studies is that this is universally (let's say in the Western academic world) frowned upon and is indeed addressed in laws and especially in by-laws or regulations of organizations as mentioned. I'm sure loopholes can be found, and I'm sure this code gets breached, both reported and unreported, but I doubt this is considered "good practice" in any professional context. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you single out GID in asking this question? The practice you describe is plainly unethical on the face of it, whatever combination of specialists and conditions were involved. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people have been discussing these issues quite a bit of late after the Chelsea Manning announcement, and a sort of underlying uncertainty with all this is why the psychiatrists/psychologists don't make more effort to persuade people to accept their physical form rather than to become clients for surgeons. I mean, it just seems hard to believe that it makes that much of a difference to someone whether they're male or female, rather than the more important issue of whether they can be male or female on their own terms. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a psychiatrist's job to persuade people of anything? --Jayron32 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From that side of things, you should probably be aware that only about 20% of trans women and 5% of trans men have had "the surgery", and a good portion of those who haven't don't have any plans or great desire for it. A therapist won't try to push someone towards surgery if they don't feel that they need it to be comfortable with themself. For a lot of trans women the most significant transition expense is electrolysis to remove facial hair - hormones alone won't do that. For those without insurance coverage for transition that usually means going to a trans-friendly salon and paying $50-$100 an hour for regular (weekly at first) treatment over 2-4 years. The therapist certainly won't see any kickback from that. WPATH Standards of Care isn't without its controversies, but it would be a rather large conspiracy if it were written to support surgeon-therapist kickbacks. Katie R (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overlook the agenda behind the OP's question - namely, that all doctors are frauds and money-grubbers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should thank Sluzzelin and Katie Ryan A for giving some good answers that help clarify the issue. My naive assumption pretty much was that trans candidates were getting taken aside and given a fairly hard sell, and indeed it does sound from these sources like the policies are strongly opposed to that. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Indians love or hate the Gandhis (Indira and Rajiv)

I've seen the comments on videos related to them on YouTube and are pretty harsh. Accusing them both of corruption and of murderers. Why? Were they popular or unpopular among the Indian population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiplimo Kenya (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Operation Blue Star. This made Indira Gandhi extremely unpopular among Sikhs, leading to her assassination. See assassination of Rajiv Gandhi to see why he was unpopular with another minority, the Tamils. I suspect they were a bit more popular among Hindus, but perhaps almost as unpopular amongst Muslims. StuRat (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Gandhi became unpopular among some when population control measures got out of hand (the Indian government mandating that sterilization quotas had to be fulfilled); some Muslims were convinced that it was a plot to eliminate Muslims. Of course "The Emergency (India)" was going on at the same time... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, both Indira and Rajiv have positive images in India. There is still a fascination with the Nehru-Gandhi clan, which is almost as a sort of royal family. Both of the assassinations happened in the midst of electoral processes, and the reaction in both cases was massive at the polling booths (indicating real emotional engagement at grass-root levels). At the same time the excesses and repression of The Emergency are rejected by most sectors of Indian politics, and the Bofors corruption scandal is widely known. In the end there is, as is often the case, a strong sense of love/hate to those who rule; admiration (Indira as a strong woman), sympathy (Rahul having lost his mother), envy, frustration, fear, etc.. Now, on an online forum like youtube the situation can appear quite different, and those expressing themselves there might not be completely representative of the Indian population at large. --Soman (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism among Europeans?

Is there racism among Europeans? I am not talking about Asian or African or North/Central/South American immigrants. I am talking about peoples whose skin color have adapted to the amount of sun exposure. The only example I can think of is the Jewish populations in different parts of Europe, who were told to live only in certain areas. Any others? 164.107.102.70 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite follow your Q. Are you asking if there is discrimination based on how tan people are ? (I'd think you were talking about skin color, except that you excluded Africans.) And you can pretty much be sure that there is discrimination against people with any characteristic in common, in any part of the world, although the degree varies greatly. The historic discrimination was far worse than it is now (culminating in the Holocaust of WW2), but we still see some ugly examples, like in the breakup of Yugoslavia. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is "racism" in Europe (quotes because "race" is a fuzzy concept, in particular within Europe). Here in Germany we hear about "Itaker" (Italians), "Pollacken" (Poles), "Franzmänner" (French), and probably a lot more that I have forgotten. They are all some combination of lazy, dishonest, stealing, blood-thirsty, adulterous and/or cowardly. Luckily, this kind of talk is now rare, but it is by no means gone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Romani people are certainly victims of "racism" right now, although skin colour doesn't have anything to do with it. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skin color is one of the factors. I was told by a relatively dark-skinned Spanish woman that she had an unpleasant experience in Romania because "she was a Gipsy trying to pass for a foreigner".--Error (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Arthur de Gobineau, Joseph Deniker, William Z. Ripley, Madison Grant. The idea that there is a "Nordic" subtype of Europeans is still popular today. Similar thinking goes all the way back to before Plato. In Plato's Menexenus, Socrates says how the Athenians are superior because they are pure Greek, but other cities are semi-barbarian. This was like a common myth associated with the Spartans (that they were purebred Dorian invaders from the North, whereas other populations had miscegenated with the indigenous populations). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a broad sense, there's certainly bigotry in Europe; though each country defines its classes of people to "hate" on different criteria. The criteria used in, say, the U.S. may not hold much social meaning in, say, Germany. But bigotry and social discrimination certainly exist there! --Jayron32 18:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The British have plenty of words for other nations that fall in the category of "bigoted": Wops, Dagos, Eye-Ties, Krauts, Huns... we have a long and (ig)noble history of hating other nations! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sami_people#Discrimination_against_the_Sami. The attitudes referred to in the linked paragraph are by no means gone, although they're no longer official policy. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See limpieza de sangre, agotes, Lega Nord, Sabino Arana, Slavs as Untermenschen under Nazism. --Error

(talk) 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you talking about racism directed against non-European peoples with fair skin? Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking about white people against white people. Sometimes, white people may be against white people due to cultural or ethnic differences, thereby subjugating other peoples as "different (and often inferior) races". 164.107.102.21 (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just don't like foreigners; this is usually called xenophobia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely racism amongst Europeans, most prominently on behalf of Western/Northern Europeans towards Eastern Europeans. Swedish-Finnish relations is another complex issue, amongst many others. Racism and xenophobia are two concepts that are intimately intertwined, they cannot be separated into distinct categories. --Soman (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trip to New World

Hello, I am doing a project where we choose one of the original American colonies and "influence others" to migrate to the colony in the 1770s (mine is on Rhode Island and Providence Plantations). I know that indentured servitude was a popular method of bringing in others to the colonies, but I was wondering, how much did a trip actually cost to come from Europe to Rhode Island? I would prefer the price range not adjusted for inflation (i.e., the cost back then). Thanks so much!! 64.229.4.44 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indentured servitude was actually one way of paying for the trip - if you couldn't afford it, you could sell yourself, in a way, to the captain (who could then sell you to someone else when you got to America). So, it could be "free", but you'd have to work off the debt for years or decades. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The colonies were not independent so migration was pushed from the United Kingdom and not pulled by the colony.
Sleigh (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Indentured servant says, for the 18th century generally, £5 to £7 or equivalent of four to five years work. Other sources, such as this detailed description of how the indenture contract worked, have different numbers; it says terms were three to seven years with four the most typical sum, and it says in the 18th century ship captains would get about £10 or more, "nearly double the cost of passage". This eyewitness description from 1750 is also fascinating, and covers what happened with children, or if people died on the voyage. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work tracking this down, 184.147.120.88. It does make for fascinating reading. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]