Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 October 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 15

Aircraft carrier near 8G78+MR Camp Pendleton North, California

I spotted an aircraft carrier near 8G78+MR Camp Pendleton North, California around Oct 14th 8:20 AM local time. I did not have any binoculars or scopes so I could not make out any identifying marks. Is there any online public information on which carrier this might have been?

From this site[1], it might have been CVN 68, 70, or 71. That's all I've been able to find so far. Epideurus (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

According to Navy news, the only carrier close enough to Southern California to be seen is USS Nimitz (CVN-68). Nearby, USS Tripoli (LHA-7) is in Northern California and USS George Washington (CVN-73) is near Southern California, but too far from shore to be seen. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I did google quite a bit beforehand, but there were many purported "US carrier tracker" sites and it was hard to tell which one was correct. Epideurus (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Late reply; if it was off Camp Pendleton, it's close to guaranteed it was coming/going from/to Naval Air Station North Island, so one may also wish to check comings and goings there. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC).

Proletariat, etymology

Please see this quote from Terry Eagleton's "Why Marx was Right?" published in 2011.

"The word ‘‘proletariat’’ comes to us from the Latin word for ‘‘offspring,’’ meaning those who were too poor to serve the state with anything but their wombs. Too deprived to contribute to economic life in any other way, these women produced labour power in the form of children."

In ancient Rome, the Latin form of the modern expression carried the meaning of people having no other property than their children, according to many sources. None mentions it has anything to do with womb or giving birth. The sources I checked would rather suggest a destitute class of the society rather than a female section of that class. Eagleton cites no source. Anybody knows any scholarly source suggesting a meaning akin to Eagleton's? Thanks for any information. Narrativist (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "proletariat" comes from French "prolétariat", which is derived from Latin "proletarius"

• In ancient Rome, "proletarius" referred to a citizen of the lowest class, whose only contribution to the state was their offspring (proles)

• The Latin word "proles" means "offspring" or "progeny"

• Breaking it down further:

"Proles" comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *pro-al-, composed of:

• pro- meaning "forth"

• al- meaning "to grow, nourish"

The modern political and economic sense of "proletariat" to mean the working class or wage-earners emerged in the mid-19th century.

It was notably used by Karl Marx and gained prominence in Marxist theory to refer to the class of wage workers engaged in industrial production.

References

--136.56.165.118 (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Many dictionaries use this phrase "only contribution to the state". For instance, I looked at Chambers's from 1908 (since it's on Gutenberg), same phrase. I assume they all come from the same source, perhaps a Roman author? It carries a strange inbuilt assumption about Romans having a raison d'être of supporting their hive, like ants. Proletarians seem to be specific to the Centuriate assembly.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I got to know as much but my question is, are there any sources saying that the expression had a female specific meaning in ancient Rome. Narrativist (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are other sources with the same misunderstanding, they probably are based on a common source whose wording was, perhaps, ambiguous. The Latin noun proletarius is masculine; there is no noun *proletarias from which one might surmise prolétariat, first attested in 1832, to have been derived. Lewis & Short write: "According to a division of the people by Servius Tullius, a citizen of the lowest class, who served the State not with his property, but only with his children (proles), a proletary".^[2]  --Lambiam 17:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the specific references to women and their wombs is Eagleton's own poetic flourish (which though florid is not factually inaccurate) rather than a reflection of exact wording in any original source. Since he's still a practising academic, you could always try asking him directly. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Poetic or not, it is bound to mislead readers unfamiliar with Ancient Roman civilization. The formulation "these women" rather explicitly restricts the Roman citizens considered to be proletarians to members of the female sex. But Ancient Rome was thoroughly patriarchal; the status of a woman was that of her husband (or father, if still unmarried). The division by Servius Tullius (and any similar classifications of the citizenship) ignored the female half of the citizenship. Non-proletarians contributed by the tax on their property, levied on the (male) head of the household.  --Lambiam 07:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're over-reading Eagleton's intent: the wives and daughters of proletarians were themselves of the proletarian class (as you say), and they (not their husbands/fathers) were the ones with wombs. I suggest Eagleton wants to tug at the heartstrings by setting up a resonance with wombs, labour (geddit?) and children: he isn't setting out a textbook definition of the Roman proletariat or of the word's etymology. I don't, by the way, endorse his approach (I doubt I'd agree with him on virtually anything), I'm merely explaining why I don't think there's any point in Narrativist looking for mentions of wombs in the contemporary sources. {The poster formerly known as 87.812.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I did email Eagleton but no reply came from him. From what we get to know, his seemingly intellectual dash is far from being accurate. Ideology blinds, I guess. I would rather call it sloppy. Thanks for your take on the matter. Narrativist (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lambiam You threw much light on the question. Thanks. Narrativist (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in Afghanistan

I wonder where the information that Women's suffrage in Afghanistan was introduced in 1919 comes from? I have often seen the claim that women where given the wote in Afghanistan in 1919 in online discussions, debates, blogs, online comments, etc. But this is never claimed in any reference text book anywhere. On the contrary, text books always state that women in Afghanistan was given the vote in 1964. Where does the 1919 claim come from? Is it some sort of internet myth? --Aciram (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can point you to one textbook which states that Afghan women were given the vote in 1919, had it revoked in 1929, and regained it in 1964 ([3]); and to another which says more vaguely that the right of women to vote, initially granted in 1919, "was revoked and reinstated several times before most recently being implemented in 2004" ([4]). --Antiquary (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Did Afghanistan have a parlamentary system in 1919? Did men vote in 1919? --Aciram (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Previous thread on the same subject Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 July 28#Women's suffrage in Afghanistan. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Good Lord. I completely forgot about that.--Aciram (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)