Humanities desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 22

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Illness a topic in campaings?

Hey there,

Yesterday I saw a documentary about the Great Depression and the presidential campaign of 1932 and I wondered whether his political opponents ever "used" it in public campaigns. I find it hard to imagine, that Hoover or Ottinger in New York did not know about that and tried to take advantage of it.

I couldn't find anything about that in the articles on Wikipedia. Does anyone know, whether Roosevelts political opponents ever mentioned his disability in a campaign or know where I could read up on that? --2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you begin by reading Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt and then move on to reading the relevant references in the article. I was born seven years after Roosevelt died, and as a child, older people told me that his disability was well known but not discussed much, because he was an effective leader and won four consecutive presidential elections, and that social mores were very different then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine in the era of Trump, but back then there was the concept of decency in politics. And it wasn't just because everybody was a nice guy, but because anyone trying to bring up the "private lives" of candidates would be slapped down hard by the voters, who considered such behaviour totally unacceptable. SinisterLefty (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was also seldom photographed in his wheelchair or "walking" with his assistant and a cane. Newsreels often showed him standing at a podium - with an iron grip on the sides of it. His disability was well-known, just not necessarily a news item. The Republicans had plenty of political reasons to hate him. Also notice that he founded the March of Dimes during his second term, and his support for it probably didn't catch many by surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

looks to me the "good old time" syndrome stroke again. Old time politics are not short of mean and base and gross personal attacks, slanders etc. as evidenced by records from parliament or newspapers. Lord, they even killed people on these "good old time" before the civic right movement, when "negroes" and all kind of racial slur was everyday language. You think they would refrain to apply such to Roosevelt (or Hoover, or anyone, anyway), if it worked? Roosevelt was obviously able to withstand the hardship of his illness, so attacking him on this point would backfire as highlighting his strength. Gem fr (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some things were better then, and many were worse. Jim Crow laws come to mind as a "worse". SinisterLefty (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Negro" was not an insult at the time. It was the equivalent to what "African American" is now. If it was an insult, the United Negro College Fund would not have chosen that name. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Negro Leagues of baseball. It's not a slur, it's just "old-fashioned". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your ideas. I started reading some of the references as Cullen238 suggested and it is really an interesting read. I think we are all aware that there was no shortage of mean and vicious attacks on political rivals, but it struck me that Republicans at the time seemed to feel that an attack on Roosevelts condition would backfire and I wondered why. Maybe it has also something to do with the development of Polio epidemics during the early 20s when it became an increasingly widespread -phenomenon among young adults to be left paralyzed by the disease. However...it's an interesting detail of the time. So thanks again for your inputs --2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9597:9F05:F1E:7370 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were probably more "crippled" people then (as they would have been called at the time). In addition to polio, doctors regularly amputated limbs that could be saved today, such as from war injuries. So, mocking them might well backfire. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Just about everyone had at least one beloved relative that had lasting war injuries back then. Even though FDR's disability was due to illness rather than war, mocking or suggesting it signified weakness would probably not have been well-received by WWI veterans and their families (or soldiers injured in WWII for the 1940 and 1944 elections). That was relatively a much larger percentage of the population in those days. I'd actually be interested in figures on that: In the 1932, 36, 40, and 44 elections, what percentage of voters (whether eligible, registered, or actual voters) were veterans? Then compare that to more recent elections. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And disrespecting WW1 veterans, in the mistreatment of the Bonus Army, may well have contributed to Herbert Hoover's defeat. Also, the paralyzed and amputees would have been more visible then, having to work (or beg), due to fewer disability benefits like Social Security Disability, workmen's compensation, and those offered through the Veteran's Administration. They also lacked flexible prosthetics and subtle braces. Wooden legs of that era tended to be rather obvious. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Newspapers.com (a pay site), FDR's use of a wheelchair was not a secret. One paper said that he had been a strong governor of New York despite physical limitations. The fact he was able to govern was not in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be hard to believe now, but some reticences about publicly discussing aspects of a politician's strictly private life (which did not appear to have any relevance to his fitness for office) persisted until the infamous Gary Hart incident in 1987. After that, the floodgates were fully opened... AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reading suggestions

Hello,

I am a Criminology student and I am stuck with the following question: How do psychological approaches of Crime differ from sociological approaches to crime.

In this regard, any reading suggestions/recommendations would be welcome. Particularly journal articles, or book-length manuscripts would be very helpful. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.13.56 (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is a good list of databases that will provide the kind of articles you need. In general, you should be able to find better articles, and more quickly, if you search through your university library's portal than through google or the internet generally. Especially since some of the best sources, like Proquest and Nexis, require an institutional subscription. Another great starting point for a general question like this is a well-regarded primer in the field. Best to you! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"No answer" came the stern reply

This is a commonly used quote (in the UK at least) and I had always assumed it came from Lewis Carrol. However, Google directed me to The Bunyip, a poem by Frances King. Having never heard of the poem or the poet, a Google search only came up with Francis King who I don't think can be the same person (wrong gender probably?). Apparently a Bunyip is "...a large mythical creature from Australian Aboriginal mythology" but Frances King doesn't get a mention as far as I can see at Bunyip#In popular culture and fiction. So how did an unknown poem and poet get to have such widespread currency? Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility: The line was quoted in the television programme Rumpole of the Bailey. per this source 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the phrase (previously unknown by me) was "Known by the 1930s but in various forms, including: *'No answer, no answer' came the loud reply* and *'shrieks of silence' was the stern reply*. If these are quotations, the original source has not been identified. (_Dictionary of Catchphrases_, 1995)". As far as I can tell, the Bunyip poem is relatively recent (I think Poetry Soup is mostly user-submitted original work) and Ms. King is just using the phrase rather than coining it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss King wrote the poem around 7 June 2009 [1], shortly before the line was heard on television. 2A00:23C1:E101:4900:F9D6:E449:7B77:7388 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So? It apparently dates from the 1930s and was well-known enough to get entered into a compendium of catchphrases in 1995. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you one and all. I've found the phrase used in a debate in the Western Australia Parliament in 1972 [2], so definitely predates Rumpole (1975). Fascinating that the correct answer to this question is "no answer"... Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Indonesian Sultans not speaking

In The Cowboy Captain of the Cutty Sark, Scrooge McDuck meets two Indonesian Sultans: Sultan Mangkunagara V of Djokja and Sultan Pakubuwana IX of Solo. Neither Sultan says a single word during the entire story. Instead, they speak with moving their hands, which their assistants then interpret as audible speech. Was this customary of Sultans at the time, something specific to these two, or something Don Rosa invented? JIP | Talk 20:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Sign Language existed; "it was considered undignified for the sultan to address his subjects orally, and also unseemly for those before him either to speak aloud, disturbing him, or to whisper secretly". But nothing further east so far... Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common trope in popular culture to portray a villain or a leader as being "so powerful he doesn't need to speak" to give orders. I don't know where it originates, however. --Xuxl (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French au doigt et à l'oeil, German Fingerzeig und Augenblick (literally: [obeying] to a movement of a finger or eye, that is, without saying). The English equivalent (to the beck and call) does imply words, however.

Silence is golden, as the saying goes, and having people doing the speaking for you IS power, just everywhere around the world.

Also, indonesian traditional dancing is intended to convey meaning without words, and although our articles history of sign language and sign language are very western-centric, there is no doubt that such existed all over the world.

so the anecdote is not surprising at all.

Gem fr (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the Artist "Mojer" who's paintings were reproduced by Prints For Pleasure in England, United Kingdom?

Prints For Pleasure Limited was registered on 30 Mar 1951 with its registered office in London. The business has a status listed as "Dissolved". They were located at Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, 25 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OEX, United Kingdom. The artist "Mojer's" work was reproduced by them. The artists work is stunning featuring Girls mainly and one Boy, all with big eyes. Some of the names/content of the pieces are "Vanessa" "Innocence (Girl With Kitten)" "Two Girls And Yorkshire Terror" "Playmates (A Girl with a Doll)" "Boy Holding Puppy" "Ballerinas" "Emma" "Nude" There may be more but those are the ones I could find. If anyone has more info on this Artist it would be nice to know more about them and his or her stunning work. Was it a "nom de plume" they used? I have hit a brick wall trying to find anything about the artist.Stew25 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...by Mojer, British artist print, Mid-Century Kitsch" was the most detailed description that I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be pseudonym for a "leading artist" according to an advert for "Innocence" in 1972 in the Sunday People. MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the it helps with Mojer but the Prints for Pleasure company was started by Paul Hamlyn. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the highest title of nobility that can be bought?

I've seen a website that listed Scottish baronecties for sale to commoners without a drop of noble blood. I don't know if that is a scam. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... that’s a scam. That said, at various points in history, rulers who were hard up for cash effectively sold titles... if you gave lots of money to the king (no strings attached, nudge nudge wink wink) he would thank you by giving you a minor title. As for the highest title you could buy... if you include bribery, then Holy Roman Emperor might qualify. It usually cost a fair amount... especially if your last name wasn’t Hapsburg. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember the position of Roman Emperor being auctioned off... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's Didius Julianus. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the Principality of Sealand also sells “the right to call yourself a lord or lady, baron or baroness, a count or countess, or even a duke or duchess” according to its website. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False titles of nobility may help point you in the right direction. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In recent history, a life peerage (as a baron) was probably the only UK title that could be bought with money. --49.255.185.235 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You can legally buy yourself a title here, but it only makes you the titular lord of the manor of somewhere, which is not a peerage. Alansplodge (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah this takes me back to when Zonker Harris bought the title of His Lordship the Viscount St. Austell-in-the-Moor Biggleswade-Brixham :-) MarnetteD|Talk 09:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the shadier side, see Maundy Gregory, "who is best remembered for selling honours for Prime Minister David Lloyd George". Such activities were brought to an end by the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, unless (as in the 2007 scandal linked above) you make sure that nobody knows what you're up to. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original baronetcies were sold (by the Crown) to raise money for a couple of projects, but that was a long time ago. See also Barons in Scotland. —Tamfang (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe is perhaps best remembered for saying "When I want a peerage, I shall buy it like an honest man". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]