Humanities desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 11

Sci-fi story about life-forms from the Earth's mantle

I've been trying to find this for days and it's driving me nuts-- years ago I read a sci-fi short story about creatures that lived in the Earth's mantle, and ventured onto the surface in pressurized suits. Anyone know what I'm talking about? 75.4.21.75 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an Arthur C. Clarke short story (probably written at least 50 years ago) about deep-earth creatures poking through the remains of human civilization, whose existence they had not been aware of until humans started conducting seismic sounding experiments. Can't remember the title... AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fires Within. No article, but see this website. It's included in Of Time and Stars. Tevildo (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that sounds about right! I'll have to get that book from a library. 75.4.21.75 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the form of village government in Imperial China?

What was the form of village government in Imperial China? I have always been interested in the Qin-Han State as the first bureaucratic centralized state. I'm currently reading Fukuyama's Political Order, and he sees it as the precursor of the modern state that would not be realized until the French Revolution. There is a long history of debate, about just how powerful the Imperial bureaucracy actually was, with theories like Witffogel's Oriental Despotism seeing it as having totalitarian powers. Other sources claim, that like all other pre-modern states, the medieval Chinese state was actually relatively weak when it came to influencing the lives of average villagers. The typical peasant would have no direct contact with the government other than paying taxes.

My interest is in how exactly did the central government in Beijing actually reach down to the village level, and how were the villages governed? Particularly in the Late Imperial era of the Song-Ming-Qing.

Jack Weatherford in Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World suggests that the Mongols introduced some semi-democratic elements on the local level during the Yuan Dynasty at least serving a consultative function.

The Dibao or Headman and its predecessor positions, trace all the way back to the Qin dynasty and were selected in a quasi-democratic fashion by the local village elites. They were chosen bottom up and then answered to the Center.

How were pre-modern villages in China governed, and what was their equivalent of 'mayor'? How were they selected? How did local government function in Old China in relation to the Imperial Bureaucracy? --Gary123 (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found Arbitration in China: A Legal and Cultural Analysis by Kun Fan which refers to an edict in the reign of the Emperor Kangxi (1661 to 1722), saying that disputes should be settled by "some old man or the mayor of the commune". There are earlier mentions of "village elders". Alansplodge (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Village Governance in Chinese History, a background chapter from a 2006 thesis on Political Economy of Village Governance in Contemporary China has a few more references for you to dig into. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty and resource rich countries

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this question so bear with me. I'm struggling to figure out how resource rich countries like Saudi Arabia are still so plagued by poverty. Now you could say that it's because the wealth is being concentrated in just a small minority, but how is that any different than America? Isn't the divide between the rich and everyone else just as bad over here? But yet we don't have the same poverty issues in America as they do in Saudi Arabia. What is it about their government that prevents the poor from achieving middle class status over there, that doesn't in America? ScienceApe (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence for the claim that "we don't have the same poverty issues in America as they do in Saudi Arabia"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a very broad-based and vague claim, that requires some evidence before the question could be taken seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed we don't. I could be wrong. Taking a look at poverty a lot of the stats for Saudi Arabia are mysteriously absent. ScienceApe (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApe -- Not sure Saudi Arabia is the best example. Just like some of the Gulf states, the Saudis have intended to use their oil revenues to jump-start economic development, and share the wealth with their citizens, but (partly because of their larger population) they've been less successful at it, leaving their economy in a somewhat middling muddling state, but without a large-scale burden of absolute poverty (as far as I'm aware). Better examples of resource-rich countries with significant crushing poverty are Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find our article on the resource curse relevant. John M Baker (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is eimple. Check out the population of Saudi Arabia in 1960 and compare with the population today. Plus the fact that they did not spend money to increase the productivity of the citizens. From 4 million to 30 million, how could they wipe out poverty? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the slogan "We are the 99%" trademarked or in the public domain?

Is the slogan "We are the 99%" trademarked or in the public domain? It is used by the Occupy Movement for activism. It seems that the slogan has no official owner (non-proprietary) WJetChao (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To try to trademark that slogan would sink under its own irony. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... - "WE ARE THE 99%" was registered by one Ian McLaughlin of Brooklyn on October 7, 2011 for bumper stickers, bags, clothing and footwear, under serial number 85441931. The USPTO show it as DEAD/ABANDONED. Tevildo (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, Ian's attempt to join the 1% failed. That's capitalism. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better link. Tevildo (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WJetChao -- Trademark rights generally only protect commercial rights in a specific context, to prevent someone from making money using the same name or a "confusingly similar" name to the one you're using. In the United States, they cannot be used to restrict criticism and commentary, or non-commercial advocacy. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely get weird if that were the case, with boycotts against generic businesses, like ads for "big game" snacking requirements. Nobody would know where not to shop, only where. And many burned effigies would need to be replaced by non-descript sacks of straw. That's not civilized. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly be libertarian and socially conservative at the same time?

How can yu possibly be libertarian and socially conservative at the same time? It seems that many who say that they are for small government also want the government to regulate social issues. Wouldnt that require a nanny state? It doesnt make any sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.181 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 11 October 2014

People rarely fit into neat boxes that you can stick a label on. One can have a libertarian view on some issues, and not have a libertarian view on other issues. Few people are 100% libertarian or 100% social conservative (this goes for any other political label you may choose). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Libertarian Party in the US is a minor party. Thus, if they want to have a serious chance at being elected, in most places a Libertarian candidate would need to join either the Democrats or Republicans. The Republicans agree with them on some issues, like small government/low taxes, the right to bear arms, and the general "keep the government off my back" attitude. Of course, Republicans don't always hold to that, and are very much for government regulation when it comes to outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage, imprisoning people for possession of marijuana, etc. Also, Republicans are frequently for military intervention, which then requires massive taxes to pay for it all. Many Republicans also support "corporate welfare" like subsidies for US agriculture. But I've seen signs that the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party may be dragging the rest of the Republicans more in it's direction. The same may also be true of the Democratic Party, which no longer seems to support "the dole", at least not the old form where the recipients just get a check every week with no expectation that they will do anything to improve their situation. StuRat (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the tea party chose its direction. Being a third party was a waste of time. Instead, they are slowly hijacking the Republican party. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over simplification... not all Republicans think abortion should be illegal, or oppose same sex-marriage, or have a problem with the legalization of marijuana, etc. The Republican Party is really an alliance of three groups... 1) social conservatives, 2) fiscal conservatives, and 3) small government libertarians. These three "wings" of the Republican Party don't march in lockstep and frequently disagree. One of the things that made Bill Clinton successful as a President (and as a leader of the Democratic Party) was that he was able to (temporarily) woo the fiscal conservatives away from the alliance, by adopting some of the policies that the fiscal conservatives cared about. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar: in which category would you classify the sort of warmongers who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan? They don't seem to fit any of those. Wnt (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant (and unsupported) imputation of racism

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The "right to bear arms" is a constant debate in America. The most vociferous advocates say that the purpose of the second amendment is for the citizenry "to protect themselves from a tyrannical government". The rash of police killings of unarmed citizens in the St. Louis area has led to an acceleration of gun purchases. Are those folks looking to protect themselves from the tyranny of local police? Or are they looking to "protect" themselves from unarmed minorities? My money's on the latter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell has this to do with the question on the floor? —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or the one on the table? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The important thing to keep in mind is a libertarian is for limited government involvement, not no government (the latter bewing anarchists). Libertarians generally would permit the government to be involved in those things which are considered "core" government functions. This usually includes running a police force and prohibiting murder, for example. What they're against is the government making laws which, say, prohibit you from painting your house a color that offends your neighbor. The question you run into, though, is where do you draw the line between things like murder, which the government can prosecute, and painting your house, which the government shouldn't? Yes, the difference between them is obvious, but can you articulate that distinction precisely? That ambiguity is where the concept of a "socially conservative libertarian" can come into play. They're libertarians in the sense that they believe that government should be strictly limited to only the "core" functions, but they're socially conservative in the sense that they believe that regulating moral order is one of those core functions. For them, the social issues are being placed into the same category a murder - an offense severe enough that it deserves government regulation. -- That said, you may be talking about people like a number of Republicans in the U.S., who are for limited government but also for regulating social issues. I would say that often they're not really "libertarian", they're just pro-"small government". That is, limiting the size of government is not a core principle but rather it's more a practical matter to get government out of areas where it's doing harm by regulation. (Another way of putting it is they're for small government because of the observed harms big government does, rather than any belief that government is antithetical to liberty.) -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Limited government" is right-wing code for taking away the social safety net and reasserting white male supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does white male supremacy mean? Forced Mormon polygamy? No female news anchors? The leather guy from The Village People becomes president? μηδείς (talk) 12:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

It means returning the USA's social pyramid to the "good old days", ca. 1950. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but Jim Crow laws were put in place by Southern Democrats (as a boy, my father was shocked to encounter such things in Maryland, as opposed to his native Pennsylvania), Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat segregated the military, and lynching was simply murder, not a libertarian policy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had 80% Republican support and 20 points less among Democrats. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the "solid south", which melted once the Democrats became the civil rights party. Tell us, how did Barry Goldwater vote on the civil rights bills? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, do we have a break down per senator? I am not sure what you mean by "became the civil rights party". Some example like drafting more blacks proportionately to die in Vietnam, until Nixon ended the war and the draft, might help. In any case what this has to do with socially conservative libertarians escapes me. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More often it's code for "Keep the taxman's greedy hands off my porkbarrel," but sometimes it's principled and sincere. Please don't throw bait here. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more convenient to use ‘libertarian’ as a relative term, meaning "preferring less government" than someone else. Libertarians generally want to abolish state functions that do net harm, and those that can be done better by the economic sector; if one concludes that this criterion leaves nothing, does one suddenly cease to be a libertarian? —Tamfang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unsigned IP's question is vague, patronizing to the point of debate fomenting, and rather unimaginative. A libertarian can think organized religion is a good idea without forcing anyone to participate in it, or even himself believing in it. He might oppose late term abortions as killing viable persons, while having no problem with birth control or early abortions. He might oppose institutionalizing gay marriage with the force of law on the grounds it deprives children of either a mother or a father, and forces others to recognize the union or have their property taken away. He can do this while being gay himself, and having no opposition to any religious ceremonies, or the right of a couple to designate each other heirs and next of kin. If he does have children he might prefer to homeschool them, or send them to a parochial school, and not allow them access to social media, or sexualized songs and videos, while allowing other people to do so. He might even not have a problem with a law that says you can't paint your house pink within an established neighborhood if it means damaging the neighbor's property value: see "coming to the nuisance" as alternative to zoning. This all follows quite easily under minarchist laissez-faire classical liberalism. Try the literature section at mises.org, although you will find plenty of anarchists at that website. They are a different sort of animal. μηδείς (talk) 12:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)

The problem starts with "How can you possibly be...?" Anyone can have any set of viewpoints, hence anything is possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, if a Jew can join the KKK, then anything is possible: [1]. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Bobby Fischer. He didn't join the KKK, but he wasn't keen on his Jewish heritage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And most people don't spend much time worrying about whether their opinions on different subjects form a coherent overall theory. —Tamfang (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that you don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to share what gives you that impression, kindly do so on my Talk page rather than here. —Tamfang (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You attacked me here, not on anybody's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did I hurt your feewings by objecting to an off-topic flame and/or (separately) suggesting that you tarred with too broad a brush? Darn, I hate when that happens and it explains the motive for your last crack, but it doesn't clarify the substance. —Tamfang (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one on this website is capable of "hurting my feelings". I just wanted to see if you could put your money where your mouth is. Thanks for answering that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of money were you looking for? —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

199.119.235.181 -- Historically there has been a lot of quasi-hypocrisy in the positions of various groups which have simultaneously wanted government to be centralized or interventionist in certain contexts and hands-off or laissez faire in other contexts. The popular 19th-century idea of a so-called "Night-watchman state" seemed to be designed to allow those government activities which helped rich people to hold on to their wealth and forbid all others. In the pre-Civil-War United States, southern advocates were fervently pro-"States rights" and anti-federal-government when it came to nullifying high tariffs or claiming a right to secede, but fervently anti-"States rights" and pro-federal-government when it came to preventing northern states from interfering with the federal fugitive slave law, or demanding that Congress pass a slave code for the U.S. territories. The modern Republican party has often been accused of being "big government" interventionist when it comes to policing sexual morality or abortion, but laissez faire "small government" when it comes to allowing rich people to increase their wealth and large corporations to operate freely without much oversight... AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-summarized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers. I wasn't asking for a criticism of small government conservatives though.Maybe you thought that because I used the term nanny state instead of big government. I was asking how conservatives would resolve this paradox. Sorry to respond so slowly but I am quite busyWhereismylunch (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbia - Clodia

Does anyone know about a work\book dealing with the identity of Lesbia-Clodia only; I don't mean a commentary but a serious work, which examines all options that may have about the identity of this woman? --79.183.124.99 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Clodia#Identification with Lesbia for some references. Tevildo (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OECD and Romania, finding data on economy

Hello, Refdesk. How is your Saturday? I hope you're doing well.

I am currently a bit confused. Turns out Romania is not in OECD, so the wealthy database offered by said organization helps me not at all in finding economic indicators for Romania. I'm trying to find this out on my own, but perhaps some of you are uncharacteristically well equipped to offer advice? I was looking to esbalish nominal and real GDP, look at sectoral developments in regards to efficiency, growth, portion of GDP etc. Thank you in advance for any help, and a good weekend regardless.

80.212.65.241 (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Economy of Romania for our main article. Romania is part of the EEA, and statistics on its economy are available from Eurostat. Tevildo (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International organisations with very broad membership such as the International Labour Organization, IMF and World Bank will also publish economic statistics for Romania. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Roediger, editor of The Little Red Songbook, compilation of Wobbly songs

Dear Folks at Wikipedia:

Can you help me? I am trying to find a way to contact David Roediger, one of the editors of the 2009 version of the 'Little Red Songbook', the collection of Wobbly songs. Specifically, I am trying to find an old labor song call Barnacle Bill the Sailor, fragments of which I include here:

“Who’s that knocking at my door?

Who’s that knocking at my door?

What’s that noise and what’s it for?”

Said the rich ship owner.

“It’s me,” says he, “I’m home from the sea,”

Said Barnacle Bill, the Sailor.

[missing words]

“I want more grub and I want more pay,”

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

“And more time off and a lot more say,”

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

“I’ve sailed your ship through wind and fog

And I’ve made you fat as a corn-fed hog

And I’ll live no more like a hungry dog,”

Said Barnacle Bill the Sailor.

Many thanks for your help.

Barb Bernhardt <-redacted-> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tughillb (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on a David Roediger, a historian specialising in the American labor movement: I think it is safe to assume it is the same person. He seems to be currently teaching at the University of Kansas. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've never heard of the labour version of this - only the rather more vulgar drinking song - which we have an article for here:Barnacle Bill (song). This would be good to add to the article. - Eron^Talk 14:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are very similar lyrics to the ones above here. JMiall ₰ 14:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another copy of the lyrics here. This is a link to a scanned copy of "Waterfront Worker", Vol. IV No. 11, printed in San Francisco, March 16, 1936. On the last page are the lyrics to "The Awakening of Barnacle Bill," credited to Michael Quin and the note that it was reprinted from the "Western Worker". - Eron^Talk 14:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diminished capacity to consent and sexual assault

Hi,

I'd like to know :

how, under the "Yes means yes" rule, sexual assault allegations are handled when none of the partners expressed consent
or (more generally) how these allegations are handled when all partners expressed consent, but had a diminished capacity to consent: for instance, all partners were drunk or had taken drugs. In this type of cases, are all participants in the sexual act regarded as having assaulted all the other participants in this sexual act?

Thanks.

Apokrif (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases the male is by default the rapist as rape is defined by insertion of appendages into orifices, thus women cannot be guilty of rape in the eyes of the law. They may be guilty of lessor offenses such as molestation, sexual assault, etc. 111.10.44.20 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but my question was about sexual assult in general, not specifically rape, and my question was not imited to a specific jurisdiction (under the French definition, for instance, women can be guilty of rape). Moreover, even with your definition, a man can be a victim of rape (by another man). Apokrif (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) In any case, the previous answer was completely wrong. From our article Rape:

In 2012, the FBI changed their definition from "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." for their annual Uniform Crime Reports. The definition, which had remained unchanged since 1927, was considered outdated and narrow. The updated definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men, recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape, includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, and recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. The definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the federal, state or local level; it rather means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide.

And that's just the USA. There are other countries and jurisdictions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading this question a lot on newsblogs at the moment. I suppose it does depend on US law. Per JackofOz there are other jurisdictions. In the UK women have been convicted of rape, e.g. for facilitating and egging on. This will have to work its way out through the courts but note the following. Having drunk something is not the same as being incapacitated through drink. if two parties in a sexual encounter were both completely incapacitated through drink and incapable of giving consent yet did take part in sexual activity, then yes, both could in theory be liable, but who is going to pursue this in law? Note that there is absolutely no reason why both should not be guilty. It would be the same thing if two people took part in a fight, neither acting in self defence. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist Theological Dialectic

Hello, I am studying for Ph.D in Political Sciences and I am struggling to understand a political concept. If we were to understand the political 'thesis' as such in regards to cultural agendas, Marxist theological and dialectic origins could deserve admirable credit in regards to human application and thereof. However is it possible that such human application could be used to speculate social-economic tendencies within communities that adhere to the 'lumpenproletariat' or perhaps even the 'Petit bourgeoisie'? Marxists texts proclaim such articles as somewhat abhorrent, so I need this contradiction answered as it has left me a little confused. Thanks guys! --Saderette (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question isn't easy to understand, I'm afraid. Am I right in thinking that English isn't your first language? I don't think "theological", "human application", "speculate" and "articles" are the right English words to use. You may be able to get a better translation of your question if you ask at WP:RD/L - we'll then be able to answer it properly here. Tevildo (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English is my first language, however I have relayed the question to the Languages desk as requested. Thank you. --Saderette (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what part of the English-speaking world? Contact Basemetal here 00:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I get your question either, and I assume you've heard of Liberation Theology, but will mention the article. Also, you might want to contact User:Soman who's a resident specialist, either on his talk page or wait for him to see his name mentioned here. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I interpret your question. You note that Marx says that the "cause of labour is the hope of the world", which is not actually his words, but the sense of what he argued. However, although he saw the working class as constituting the majority of the population, and hence the victory of the working class would be the victory of all, he also delineated the working class to exclude the lumpenproletariat at the more excluded end and the petite bourgeoisie at the more privileged end. And that might diminish the universalist appeal of Marxism. Is that it? If so, you have a point but the solution, as always, is to read Gramsci. As Marx said, there is no royal route to knowledge. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep this factually correct - Proclus reports that Euclid said "There is no royal road to geometry", and Peirce (quoting Proclus) said "There is no royal road to logic". See Royal Road (which was an actual road in Persia). The phrase isn't (particularly) associated with Marx. Tevildo (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should talk to your supervisor immediately about this. After you've done that: Your question is incoherent from what little I know of political science, and from what much I know of Marxism. "If we were to understand the political 'thesis' as such in regards to cultural agendas," there's a tendency going around to analyse 'anti-politics' as in 'anti-parliamentary politics' in the working class as the working class is. I'm not sure you're making that claim. I'm not sure what a political 'thesis' is for you. This is not standard or one of the major heterodox forms of marxist analysis. "Cultural agendas" means you might enjoy reading about the Frankfurt school. I certainly wouldn't. "Marxist theological and dialectic origins," well, the proletarian movement has a number of theological origins, Luther Blisset amusingly explores these in Q, though Umberto Eco could be said to explore them as well in In the Name of the Rose. These themes aren't as present in Marxism. I think what you're getting at is that Marxism has humanist origins, see Imre Nagy or Jean Paul Sartre for the pro, and Althusser for the con. You then seem to go on to ask, "if workers possess a praxis, as a positive cultural programme, ie: if there is a working class culture that prefigures proletarian and then classless culture, what then of the lumpenproletariat and petits-bourgeois?" My understanding is that Marx saw that little could come of these. My understanding of concrete organisational movements is that the class has always found its power from the seemingly most dispossessed, the IWW and Syndicalism in relation to the new fordist workers, and the somewhat pathetic hungering after a new precariat by post-Fordists would be the example. My general suggestion would be that if someone claims to speak for the proletariat, that they're not, my more detailed suggestion would be to read more concrete labour history as a basis for making judgements here. Lowenstein's _Under the Hook_ and _Weevils in the Flour_ if you were Australian. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How successful were ostiaries in keeping non-Christians out of the church during the Eucharist?

Also, did ostiaries keep Christians who have not confessed their sins out? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Walmart greeters whose personal engagement is a shoplifting deterrent, the mere presence of a person at the door might make you think twice. A bit hard to find sources that aren't about the Pope's recent sermon about baptizing Martians where he says the job of the ostiary is to keep the doors open.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ostiarius is our article, which is largely copied from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia. Tevildo (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article says, "According to the 'Apostolic Constitutions' belonging to the end of the fourth century the guarding of the door of the church during the service was the duty of the deacons and subdeacons. Thus the doorkeepers exercised their office only when service was not being held." If that's still true, the answer is that the ostiaries didn't, and that the deacons did; as they might have been expected to know who the church members were. The ostiary's tasks seemed to be more about labor than about filtering the attendees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article link Ostiarius (not to be confused with Ossuary). I imagine that they were more concerned with Catechumens than non-Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by Ossuary, and thought that might work as well, except for the undead. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confused an ostrich, an aviary and a cassowary. So I'm not going to be any help. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]