Humanities desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

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 8[edit]

Jewis converts in nazi germany[edit]

what was the nazi's attitde towards gentiles who had converted to judaism. Because i thought that jews were killed on racial grounds as opposed to religious grounds, so just wondering where converts stood on the spectrum between living and dying --Thanks, Hadseys 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect lots of Jews simply 'forgot' their Judaism and hoped to escape notice, especially the less religious ones. The Nazi laws however defined a Jew as anyone with a Jewish Grandmother or closer relative. As such actual conversion was futile, though I think there was a brief period pre-war when the laws where more specific and the converts were spared for a while. Prokhorovka (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about gentiles who had converted to Judaism, not what you wrote about. I expect that converts to Judiasm were technically classified as non-Jews, but they would have been out of favor with the government and might have been persecuted. Christians who spoke in defense of the Jews were persecuted. Most converts to Judaism were gentiles who married Jews, and that itself was a violation of the Nazi racial purity laws [1]. Edison (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One book, "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and the Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military" by Bryan Mark Rigg, says that "Converts to Judaism were treated legally as Jews, and formally documented as such" per this review [2]. Edison (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, sorry. I saw 'converts' and just flew off into the distance before I read the rest. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 questions[edit]

I am being asked the following questions and I have searched but am still not sure what the answer would be:

What do the following Continents have in common
- Europe
- North America
- South America
What do the following countries have in common
- Mexico
- China
- Puerto Rico
- Italy
- Istanbul
- Cuba
What do the following Cities have in Common
- Boston
- San Juan

Any assitance will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.206.61 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of criteria are you looking for? Offhand, I can provide quick answers. 1) all end in a vowel. 2) all countries end in a vowel. 3) both end with an 'n'. However, that's not really useful information, and you'll probably need to clarify. — Lomn 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to all three questions (the same): They were all once part of Pangaea (or another supercontinent). Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about Q2, Istanbul is a city, not a country --Saalstin (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Puerto Rico isn't a real country either, it is some kind of part of the US. Not a state, not a territory, but somewhere in a grey area between the two. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Puerto Rico is a US Commonwealth, which has a specific legal meaning that shouldn't be confused with, say, the "commonwealth" of Kentucky, which is purely a naming affectation. — Lomn 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all have histories in Latin and/or Latin-based languages. Wrad (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever Boston the OQ is asking about hardly has a history in a Latin-based language, unless you are claiming that the Romans having conquered Britain gives Boston a Latin-based language. Both Bostons have Germanic-based languages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the OP was referring to Boston Ravine, California (formerly in Mexico) and China, Nuevo León. Latin all the way! Algebraist 15:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: None have been visited by Eni Abumere Okonofua of Kaduna, Nigeria. If that isn't good enough and these are homework questions, you are better off asking the teacher. -- kainaw ™ 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just blow the cover off your meatspace identity, Kainaw? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading kainaw's User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like 87 forgot to write "This is a joke, and as such not intended to be taken seriously; rather, it is an attempt to leaven the conversation and help create a friendly working environment for all involved. In no way does it suggest that I believe Kainaw is actually called Eni Abumere Okonofua, although of course this could be the case. After all, On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. But this is beside the point, because this is a light-hearted comment." at the end of their message. I'm sure they won't forget again, and thus we will all be saved this terrible confusion. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got me bang to rights, Guv: it's a fair cop. But how did Kainaw know Eni Abumere Okonofua's movements with such certainty? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the Socialist Workers' Party of China?[edit]

The Comintern article states that the Socialist Workers' Party of China attended the 1st Comintern 1919 meeting, what was this party and what were its views? How does it relate to the CPC?--Gary123 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book, the party was formed in January 1919 by Chinese workers in Russia who were active in the Union of Chinese Workers. That had been founded the previous year in support of the October Revolution by various Chinese workers, and some Russian Bolsheviks such as Yevgeny Polivanov. As a result, it appears that its views were essentially those of the Bolsheviks. Many of these workers returned to China during 1919 and 1920; there doesn't appear to be much record of what happened to those who returned, and there's no evidence of their involvement in the May 4th Movement, but some in Shanghai joined the Socialist Club there, which became the Socialist Party at the end of 1919. This seems to have started working jointly with some other small groups in 1920, and this appears to have shared many members with the original Communist Party of China - so basically, the group in 1919 and the CPC have only very tenuous links. Warofdreams talk 12:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a short stub. Let's get it expanded. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euroclear Bank / ClearStream[edit]

What is the role of Euroclear Bank or ClearStream in the Clearing System of equities? And what is the benefit for someone to subscribe shares under for example Citivic Nominees as custodian for an Euroclear A/C with a particular ISIN number of a fund rather than to subscribe it directly with the administrator of the fund? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.212.198.31 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Guardian[edit]

I remember back in school permission slips and other forms often required the signature of a parent or legal guardian. I've always wondered, beyond the legal nature of a legal guardian are there any people who recognize their relationship with a child as a legal guardian but not a parent. For example, would someone ever introduce themselves as "Billy's legal guardian"? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal guardians almost always have another title that may be used. Legal guardian is a very general term that covers people such as foster parents or grandparents with legal custody. Therefore, the more specific term would most likely be used. -- kainaw ™ 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would depend upon the circumstances. While I think Kainaw is generally correct, I have heard "I am XX'x guardian" when the adult's name was different from that of the child. (This was in a classroom on parent-teacher night.) One might use the word "legal" in legal circumstances -in court or a lawyer's office where one's relationship needed to be legally clear. Now, when having a parent with a name different from that of a child seems almost the norm, I doubt any such qualifier would be needed in person. // BL \\ (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be used in addition to the more specific term when it is necessary to be clear about that fact that you are responsible for the child. This might be legal circumstances or in relation to school/nursery. I can't think of any other likely times it would be relevant. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrh, Jim Lad![edit]

I'm an American of French descent, and I've lived for ten formative years in London.

So, please, don't interpret the following question as a sorry example of xenophobia: believe me, my bewilderment is authentic.

Why are Englishmen so enamoured of Long John Silver impersonations?

I mean, it's obviously funny per se, but still...I've made an informal survey, and out of 13 Englishmen asked: "Could you do a Long Jiohn Silver impersonation?", eleven said yes! Or rather, they didn't-- they just launched into "Eh, Jim lad!..." lunacy.

Is this disease universal?

Is it infectious? Aaarhhh... Rhinoracer (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he actually pronounce all the R's that were in a word and refrain from pronouncing those not in the word, like Americans, and unlike most Brits? "Shiverrr me timberrrrs! It's the law!" rather than "Shiva me timbas! It's the lawr!"Edison (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The classic Long John Silver accent was supposedly invented by Robert Newton in the film of Treasure Island (I first heard this on QI, but our article agrees). It's based on a kind of generic West Country accent, which would tend to be rhotic. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pure speculation, it's possible it sounds funnier to an Englishman, who is generally non-rhotic. Of course, such impersonations are not limited to England...see International Talk Like a Pirate Day (which is coming up on 19 September). Gwinva (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know how the English love football. It's likely that they're all fans of the Watford Long John Silver Impersonators (go to 1:45). Deor (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's broader than Long John Silver - it's general piraticalness. It's parrrt of our cultcherrrr y'know. (NB Edison - you've met too many Estuary Englishmen.) --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you perchance ask the question on International Talk Like a Pirate Day? The article credits Lionel Barrymore. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you asked them a leading question. Secondly, because LJS has a distinctive character, impersonations of him are easy to do. Ask them if they can do impersonations of anyone else equally easy to do and you'd get similar results. 78.146.236.46 (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of a Broadway musical, what does the term book mean.[edit]

Hello, wikipedians I only have one question In terms of a Broadway musical what does a book mean.

That part of the script which isn't songs. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can also mean the whole of the script, at least according to Musical theatre. I would additionally take it to mean the overall concept and plot of the show. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Succession to the British throne[edit]

I know that Catholics and those who marry Catholics are barred from the succession to the British throne. But what about Eastern Orthodox practitioners? I see Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia as in the line of succession, but is he not Russian Orthodox? If not, doesn't that preclude him from the Russian throne? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern Orthodox church has never had any influence on British politics, so no-one has ever had a reason to try and reduce that influence. So, as far as I am aware, Mikhailovich is eligible to become King. I'm not sure what you are saying about the Russian throne - last time I checked, there wasn't one. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but he's in the succession for the throne of Russia, even if there isn't one. He is the heir apparent to Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia a claimant to the disputed Headship of the Imperial Family of Russia. He uses the titles of Tsarevich and Grand Duke of Russia with the style of Imperial Highness Would anyone who aspires to be Tsar ever be anything other than Russian Orthodox? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no throne of Russia there are no rules about who can sit in it. I don't know what the rules were before it was abolished. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify this for the OP, there is no requirement that the King/Queen of England or his/her spouse be in the Church of England, just that they not be Catholic. Its a prohibition against that single religion, and that's all. As for why; see Glorious Revolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Act of Settlement 1701 says the monarch "shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants." Is an Orthodox Christian a Protestant? Generally, the term "Protestant" refers to denominations that arose during or after the Reformation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is being obtuse, either myself or Tango. If Grand Duke George wanted to be Tsar of Russia, wouldn't he have to be Russian Orthodox, or else kiss off any chance of support of the people? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any support of the people for any monarch, regardless of religion. The question is only relevant if something changes to make the Russian people want a monarchy, and that something could well change their opinions about religion so it is impossible to meaningfully speculate. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there an additional requirement, namely, that they be "in communion with" (whatever that means) the Church of England? It's not enough just to not be a Catholic or married to one. For example, a member of the Methodist or Presbyterian churches would fail this requirement. They're Protestants, but they're not in communion with the C of E. That would also seem to apply to members of Orthodox churches. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the Act of Settlement is 'That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established'. I think that means that the Grand Duke and his ilk can inherit, but are required to join the Church of England on doing so. I'm sure George I wasn't in communion with the CoE before his inheritance. Algebraist 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being in communion means to be a member of that church. In the view of most eighteenth-century Protestants the internal divisions in Protestantism were great but the division between Protestantism and Catholicism was even greater. Keep in mind that when in England the monarch is an Anglican and when in Scotland a Presbyterian.--Johnbull (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen, then, if a person acceded who met the first requirement (not a Catholic or married to one), but was not in communion with the C of E and refused to do so? Surely they'd be disqualified, and the next in line would be asked. That would be an interesting process: asking down the line until they found someone who could qualify. There might be a period where there was no known monarch, but when they finally found a suitable candidate, that person would retrospectively have been monarch from the moment of the previous monarch's death, because "the king never dies". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Polynesians in Australia[edit]

Why didn't the ancient polynesians colonise Australia, but chose to colonise New Zealand and other smaller pacific islands? Sonic99 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was already inhabited...maybe they weren't welcome there. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your definition of "Polynesian" and your view on the genetic homogeneity of Australian Aborigines. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polynesians were coming along the Indonesian archipelago and around Papua New Guinea no more than 6000 years ago. The Australian Aborigines had been there for some time. Their presence would not be helpful to colonising Polynesians. Furthermore, the Polynesian culture is island based, and would still have been so at that point. Adapting to life on the Australian continent would have been difficult. Other islands may have simply been the easier option. Steewi (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Australia more to the west of the area that the Polynesians were traveling? I don't know if they were using trade winds or such, but most of their travel was to the east. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, they settled as far west as Madagascar. Madagascar may have already been inhabited too, but no one is really sure. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard enough to believe Madagascar was settled by travellers from Borneo and Sulawesi (according to our article), let alone Polynesia (of which Borneo and Sulawesi do not form a part). -- JackofOz (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was unclear, Austronesians settled there, the same people who settled Polynesia. Why is that hard to believe? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. "The same people" in the same way as Ireland was settled by the same people who invaded India. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia observes thar "the Malagasy language is unrelated to nearby African languages, instead being the westernmost member of the Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian language family." --Wetman (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting. I had no idea about this. If Thor Heyerdahl's theory is correct, some Polynesians came from South America; and now it seems some of them sailed on to Madagascar. Maybe it would have been quicker to just go around the Cape in the other direction. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Diamond, in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, takes exception with Heyerdahl's theory, calling it basically racist that Heyerdahl believed that it had to be impossible for Polynesians from the west to have settled Easter Island. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Is there any evidence that the ancient polynesians tried to colonise Australia? Any oral polynesian story or artifact finding? Sonic99 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to your original question, Polynesian settlement expansion wasn't necessarily by conscious "choice", but often by ships that went astray happening to strike land. Any Polynesians would probably have had to hit a favorable spot on Australia's east cost to have a good chance of settling there long-term. It's one of those things which theoretically might have happened, but in actuality didn't (as far as available evidence goes). In Guns, Germs, and Steel there's a discussion about how Indonesians discovered north-central Australia before Europeans did, and regularly visited there (see Macassan contact with Australia), while aspects of Melanesian culture percolated into the northeastern tip of Australia, but neither of these external influences had any kind of major transformative impact on Australia as a whole... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entertain the possibility that Macassans etc sometimes became friendly enough with aboriginal or TSI people to impregnate them, and their descendants are with us today. I'm open to the idea that this could also have occurred with Polynesian sailors who were blown way off course, but there's no evidence this ever actually happened. On the question of prior inhabitation, Australia as a whole was certainly inhabited, but extremely sparsely. If Polynesians ever landed here, depending on precisely where they actually landed, it's possible they would not see any other signs of human life for days, weeks, months or even years, if they remained that long. But the longer they remained, the greater the chance that some evidence of their presence would exist. There is no such evidence, apparently, but who knows what may yet turn up. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]