Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 7

= December 7 =

Which Songs Are These?
I was wondering who sings the songs with the lyrics along the lines of 'NAH NAH NAH NAH, NAH NAH NAH NAH, HEY HEY HEY, GOODBYE' and 'HI HO, LETS GO'? Thanks.100110100 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey hey, do you mean mean Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye? Clarityfiend 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye --Diderot 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ramones, but wrong section. Moving. 惑乱 分からん 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The second song is Blitzkrieg Bop by the Ramones. - AMP&#39;d 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No no wait, in the first one I think this guy meant the lyrics in the running gag in WWE, when a wrestler lost his job after losing a fight. I can't remember when it first started, I'm sure there's an article about it somewhere? Druss666uk 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a very common use of the song. Baseball teams will use the music when someone strikes out or is removed from the game, for example. &mdash;Seqsea (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that Hey Jude. &mdash; Seadog 14:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Extended Quotes from Iraqis about war
I'm looking for any good source for extended quotations or essays in which "average Iraqis" talk about sectarian conflict/civil war which is ongoing. Doesn't have to be fancy, any extended essays talking about personal experiences, personal views, etc. Hafta be in English (though translated would be fine). Anyone know any good sources? --Alecmconroy 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many Iraqi bloggers who write in English about their experiences. Go to Iraq Blog Count, which has a lot of links to other blogs at the left-hand side of the page. Two of my favorite blogs are those by Konfused Kid, a college student who uses a lot of English slang, and Sunshine, a 14-year-old girl. --70.112.100.172 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other christian country that still have murder sentence except USA?
And another question,is it true that in America if you have been sentenced on criminal changes you cant vote in election ever again?

Thank you YXYX 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any country that does not consider murder illegal, therefore having a murder sentence for those found guilty of murder. Perhaps you meant to ask if there are any Christian countries with a death penalty.
 * As for the second question, there are many crimes that result in a person losing their right to vote. It isn't just any crime - for example, you won't lose your right to vote if you are caught speeding.
 * One final note: The U.S. is a not a "Christian country". There are many who like to call it Christian, but the government itself avoids association with any religious group until elections roll around. Then, you end up with a white girl from the south telling New York Jews that she's Jewish too. --Kainaw (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On that basis, Italy is not a Christian country, because there is no formal state religion. However, any reasonable person would concede Italians are predominantly (perhaps almost overwhelmingly) Christian.  Governments can make all the decrees they like, but that doesn't change what their citizens believe.  The USA is de facto predominantly Christian, which is what I think the questioner was referring to.  JackofOz 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mexico isn't a Christian country either, and its Constitution is specifically anti-clerical. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not convicted criminals can vote is left to each state. The article on Capital punishment has a map that shows the stance of every country in the world. Even in the U.S., states regulate capital punishment except for federal offenses. Some states don't have the death penalty. Texas makes up for them. -THB 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proud of it, too :) schyler 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's good to be proud of something; I'm not sure this is one of them. Clio the Muse 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It's just like anything else that anyone from around the world would be like. New Yorkers are proud of their big buildings, French are proud of their wine, and Texans are proud of their blattent overuse of the death penalty. schyler 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and remember the Alamo! schyler 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes,thank you,what I ment was: most people in USA are christians,most people in all europe countries are chistians,I know it is separated from that state,secular state and all.

So,if I get it right,except Mexico and USA there is no "christian"(in the sense of having most chrisitans by precent) country in the world that still have capital sentence??

Thanks once again YXYX 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, YXYX, the death penalty was abolished in Mexico. I'm not sure of the position elsewhere in Latin America, though.  Clio the Muse 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've now had a chance to look into this a little more deeply. According to Amnesty International, of all of the countries in the world where death sentences were carried out in 2005, the US is the only 'Christian' country among the top ten, coming fourth after China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, followed by Pakistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Jordan, with Mongolia and Singapore in the ninth equal position.  .  Of the 73 retentionist countries only 19, according to my quick calculaion, are majority Christian. I'm uncertain about the proportion of Christians in some of the African countries. Clio the Muse 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See Use of capital punishment by nation for a nice table. -THB 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and then compare with Christianity by country. ---Sluzzelin 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * YXYX, what do you mean? Most people in all European countries are christian? In Albania's case that's definitely not correct.  (And if one considers Turkey to be European as well..)  By the way, in Belgium, lots of kids have to go through the rites (like baptism) but most of them don't bother to go to church once they're mature, and most people I know don't pray before they eat or anything.  Catholicism is just something oldfashioned for most people here.Evilbu 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Evilbu, most of Turkey is, of course, in Asia. You are right, though, that Albania should be considered majority Muslim, at least in was until Enver Hoxha abolished all religion.  I'm not quite sure about the situation in Bosnia.  I think almost all people would consider Belgium as a Christian country, despite the declining rate of church attendance.  It's a cultural reflex, as much as anything else.  Clio the Muse 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And the election question? Seems to have been forgotten, here... 惑乱 分からん 14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In some states people convicted of specifically felonies lose their ability to vote. It is pretty controversial—after all, it is an additional punishment which comes after having already served ones punishment—but is explicitly included in the 14th amendment as a possibility if I recall. --140.247.251.173 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Albania and Turkey are mostly muslim,but it doesnt matter,since they do not have death penalty.My question was about contries with dominant Christianity in them. Off course that none of europian countries doesnt have death penalty,but my question has nothing to do with it.

And from what I see from those tables you gave me,Belorusia still have death penalty,so from all chritian countries only America and Belorusia still have it. Maybe some african country still have it,Im not sure.

Thank you,anyway YXYX 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Christians and the Old Testament
I was intrigued by a comment by Loomis in a discussion above, and I wanted to ask further about it. He writes, ''with the coming of Jesus, the slate was cleaned. The harsh rules of the antiquated Old Testament no longer applied. The Kingdom of Christ spelled a new beginning for mankind. A virtual Tabula rasa. Pork is now ok. Circumcision no longer necessary. (Ouch!) The harshness of "an eye for an eye" was replaced by the kindness of "turning the other cheek". Fair enough. But why then, do some Christians still look to the Old Testament for authoritative guidance on certain (I would say, arbitrarily selected) issues? For example, many interpret the Old Testament as defining such practices as, for example, homosexuality and masturbation, as mortal sins. But it's the Old Testament! I thought the "old rules" no longer applied!''

Where and how do Christians draw the line between what is moral law and what is antiquated custom in the Old Testament? I'm sure that many Christians read the Bible selectively in order to make their beliefs conform to the status quo, but...how do they excuse themselves for that? What do some of the more rational Christians believe? Are there actual guidelines from theologians or churches about this? --70.112.100.172 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of the injunctions against sexual practices, like sex before marriage, homosexuality, and masturbation, can also be read from the teachings of Paul, especially his letters to the Corinthians. I don't have a bible handy, but I'm sure others can weigh in on this. -sthomson 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet they do quote the Old Testament in support of these injunctions. Surely the New Testament doesn't cover everything? --70.112.100.172 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a "Christian" issue. Humans use the concept of "God" to justify anything they want.  Humans are very good at rationalizing, regardless of religion.  They don't even need religion.  Some rationalize that religion is evil and do the opposite of the teachings.  However, they are technically using the religion's book to rationalize that the book is wrong and they are right. --Kainaw (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that everyone rationalizes, but I am just trying to understand the internal logic of Christianity. Thanks anyway. --70.112.100.172 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed my point - the rationalizing you referred to in your question is not "Christian". It is "human".  An equivalent question would be something like, "Mexicans eat food all the time.  It seems like every day they are eating food again - at least most days.  What is it about Mexicans that makes them eat all the time?"  Eating isn't a "Mexican" thing.  It is a "human" thing. --Kainaw (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have heard a Christian minister and scholar discuss an Old Testament chapter which forbids a number of things, and decide that the prohibitions he agrees with is permanent moral or holiness law, (no homosexual relations) while the others were only meant to apply to Old Testament Jews (do not make a garment of two kinds of fiber; do not plant 2 kinds of seeds in the same field). Making this distinction seems to constitute prophecy, in which God tells him which of the old laws still apply and which no longer apply, although he did not claim to be a prophet.Edison 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just noticing this -- while I'm waiting for my other question to be answered, I can weigh in. Generally Christians divide the law in the Pentateuch into three categories: the moral law, as in "Thou shalt not murder", "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman," etc; the ceremonial law, as in "Make this sacrifice at this time and that sacrifice at that time, and use these animals for sacrifices, and come to these feasts at these times."; and the civil law, as in "Do not plant two crops in the same field, build a fence on the side of your roof, wear four tassels on your cloak." The way most Christians take these, then, is that the moral law still exists and is still binding on humanity. The ceremonial law was abolished at the death of Christ, as His sacrifice now precludes the need for any further sacrifices. Most Christians also believe that the civil law was abolished when the Jewish state was destroyed in 70 AD, as there was no further need; however, some believe that it still applies, and some believe that there are analogies of the civil law to modern life that we should take heed to obey -- ie, "Do not plant two crops in the same field" becomes "Be holy -- do not mix within you the life of a Christian and a non-Christian" and "build a fence on the side of your roof" becomes "make sure that nobody will be able to accidentally die on your property." Note that not everybody subscribes to the using of the divisions I've explained above -- for example, the Catholics replace the ceremonial law with a whole bunch of other ceremonial laws, and live by them; other people believe that the moral law is also abolished and that Christians have leave to live lawless lives. Hope this helps. 70.17.199.244 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add one of the most notorious examples of the historical use by some Christians of an ambiguous portion of the Old Testament to justify what is surely one of the most evil and one would hope and expect un-Christian of institutions, that being the enslavement of Blacks in the US prior to the Civil War. Quoting Genesis 9:25 "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." "Canaan", son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, is purported to be the father of the "Black Race". Ergo, according to many 18th and 19th century southern American Christians, the enslavement of Blacks by Whites was not only tolerable, but in fact mandated by God. Of course the Book of Genesis is the very first book of the Old Testament. Apparently, and quite conveniently, this particular passage of the Old Testament, as well as its tortured and inhumane interpretation, was still "in". I should just add, lest anything I've said may lead to any contrary assumption, that Jewish law most definitely does not share this interpretation. Loomis 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just one more thing: I believe it to be a common misperception that the Jewish dietary laws of kashrut should be described as mere "civil law" (though it is believed to have its practical health-related components as well). Though the prohibition on eating pork is the most well known of these laws, it is but one of many. For example, observant Jews do not mix dairy with meat in keeping with Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.". To myself at least, the essential purpose of that particular prohibition is clearly a "moral" one, a matter of the respect one owes to the dignity of all forms of life, even those being slaughtered for consumption. With this in mind, as well as the contention of the original questioner's assertion that Christians chose to retain only the "moral" laws, shouldn't cheeseburgers be forbidden by Christianity? I suppose they're just too yummy! :) Loomis 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the very early church the Ebionites were the most closely related to judaism, retaining the laws of the OT, whilst the Marcionites rejected most of the the ideas of the OT going for the tabula rasa approach. 17:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that both the Ebionites and the Marcionites were considered heretics by the rest of the church, who generally took the middle ground I described above. 70.17.199.244 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The question examines but one example of how people justify their world-views. What is true for the Christian view of Bliblical Law may be said for all people on any subject.

The fact of the matter is that different Christian communities, even in the First Century, had widely disparate theologies. Paul reports four different views in Corinth as early as the 40s (1 Cor. 1:11-12). The reality is that the gospels (both the four that are in the canon, and the dozens that were left out) all attempt to put the authors' spin on what Jesus said. Frankly, each Evangelist recorded Jesus as saying whatever would confirm that their community was doing what was right. What he actually said, if anything, was of small concern. How else does one reconcile these two statements? For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. &mdash; Matthew 5:18 The law and the prophets were until John. &mdash; Luke 16:16 Matthew's community maintained that Jesus supplemented Biblical Law; Luke's community believed that Jesus replaced it.

Most Christians ignore the obvious contradiction, never having given it a moment's thought. Most Christians - the same may be said for all people about their religion or any other portion of their world-view - don't actually think about such things.

Of those who do, many attempt to weasel their way around the issue by claiming that the words don't mean what they obviously do. Having twisted the clear meaning of both statements into some sort of amalgam whereby Biblical Law both is and is not in force simultaneously, they go their way picking and choosing whatever Biblical Law they would care to follow and convincing themselves that they've got it exactly right. They also never seem to wonder why Jesus didn't express himself more clearly.

Others do notice the discrepancy. Now, having realized that the words and views can't reliably be ascribed to Jesus, as they are the Evangelists' own, they are free to ignore whatever they wish to ignore, and, once again, do whatever they wanted to in the first place, convinced that they are exactly right.

As mentioned at the beginning, this is not merely a trait of the members of one religion on one issue, but of all of us on most issues. Pulling one's head out of the sand to confront reality is a rare activity.

B00P 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe what I'm reading. Has it escaped your notice that the Gospels are in perfect agreement, and that most scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a starting point? Something tells me you haven't paid much attention at all if you believe that the Gospel writers only wrote what their readers wanted to hear: Most of the time, people were doing certain things and Jesus was saying, "don't do those things". People were not doing certain other things, and Jesus was saying, "do do those things". User-friendly? I don't think so.


 * And with regards to the two verses you have listed: the verse you quoted from Matthew is also in the very next verse after the one you quoted from Luke. It is part of the same stream of thought, not two separate people's accounts or interpretations of Jesus' teachings. Before you go accusing Christians of being inattentive, perhaps you should be more careful yourself! BenC7 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that BenC7 can't believe what he's reading. Of course, his ability to believe things is not what is at issue.


 * Now, Luke 16:16-17 reads"16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."So, I take it take BenC7 feels that Luke 16:17 refers to "the law and the prophets" rather than "the kingdom of God." (I find this dubious because in the very next verse Jesus changes the laws of marriage from the Biblical original.) But if BenC7 sees Luke as in agreement with Matthew, who am I to stop him? I'll merely ask if, as a result, BenC7 is following the Old Testament commandments regarding foods and holidays? B00P 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a little confused as to what you mean by your first question. With regards to the last question, I've answered that below. BenC7 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be rare, yet some clearly try harder than others. I, for one, like to think that I try my very best at confronting reality, as ugly or as beautiful as it may be. Loomis 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the original question a bit: “Are there actual guidelines from theologians or churches about this?”

There are, of course, it’s called church doctrine, for example see Nicene Creed. In many ways, all of the splits that the Christian churches have undergone specifically occurred because of how the Bible was to be interpreted and used (I say “in many ways” because politics also played a huge role in the divisions).

More generally though, regarding the conversation about how people “justify” the inconstancies in their faith, I’d direct you to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. And also, the documentary on the BBC called The Root of All Evil?:

"I want to examine that dangerous thing that’s common to Judaism and Christianity as well: the process of non-thinking called faith."

That’s the thing about belief and faith, it doesn’t need to make sense or be justifiable; it just is. Trying to make sense of it is a practice in futility. --Cody.Pope 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also returning to the original question and the opening statement. It is important to understand that Christianity did not supersede the Old Testament. Indeed, after the death of Jesus, his followers continued for some time as a specifically Jewish sect, under the leadership, amongst others, of his half-brother, James the Just.  The sect continued to observe Jewish rituals and customs, including circumscision.  It was the advent of Paul and the broadening of the Church's ministry to embrace non-Jews, who were generally more receptive to the message, that Christianity began to adapt to new circumstances, including the relaxation of strict dietary and ritual laws.  All faiths show elements of inconsistency, and it is always a mistake to take a literal reading of sacred texts, one of the chief Catholic objections to the Protestant Reformation.  And in the end there is no real contradiction between supplement and replace.  Christianity was based upon and supplemented all that went before.  It replaced in the sense of offering a new interpretation of the old and a radical point of departure.  Clio the Muse 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (Actually, the relaxation of dietary and ritual laws was before Paul. Jesus said, "The food that you put into your mouth doesn't make you unclean and unfit to worship God" and "Eating without [ritually] washing your hands will not make you unfit to worship God." - Mt. 15:11, 20 BenC7 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC))


 * OK, but how did they decide, say, to allow pork but keep the ban on male homosexual activity? -- Mwalcoff 02:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-reproductive sex would be considered an evil, easily translated from one code of ethics to another. The eating of pork would not be an issue of any fundamental importance, as the specific circumstances surrounding the original interdict-cultural and tribal-no longer applied.  Clio the Muse 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But Judaism doesn't say that sex is only for reproduction; it has nothing against post-menopausal sex, for instance. Anyway, who chose what Jewish laws to keep, and what standard did they use? -- Mwalcoff 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that I had already given some general outline for the shift in practice and conduct within early Christian communities. But I suspect you already have your own answers lined up; in which case you need no further guidance from me.  Clio the Muse 04:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you might have me confused with someone else. I really am unclear about this, have no preconceived notions and am unaware of what you said before. Were you logged in when you wrote it? -- Mwalcoff 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Mwalcoff, I had the sense of being set up for the kind of debate I studiously try to avoid. I clearly misread your intentions.  Anyway, as Christianity drew in ever increasing numbers of people who had no Jewish background, it was politic to drop the more irksome aspects of Mosaic Law, particularly those touching on ritual and diet.  The elements retained, particularly those concerning ethics and conduct, were the more universalist, those which might be said to lie at the core of all belief.  It was a relatively simple process. Clio the Muse 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose, then, in order to not irk the Greeks, one of the earliest nations to adopt Christianity, there must have been something of a moratorium on the whole anti-homosexuality thing for a while, at least until this particular "evil, easily translated from one code of ethics to another", (curiously though, not translated into a code the Greeks could understand), had finally fallen into disfavour in Greek society. Somewhere around the 6th century CE. Still, for at least a couple of hundred years, newly converted Christian Greeks must have been given the fullest of liberties by the Christian establishment to engage in pederasty. As to forbid it would be quite impolitic. Loomis 07:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify my position lest anyone misinterpret my remarks. I'm a skeptic, yes, but a cynic, no. I'm a skeptic in that I question everything, including religion, including even my own. On the other hand I have an ultimately positive view of humanity. In particular, I generally take a very POSITIVE view of religion and spirituality. To me, spirituality is one of the most definitive aspects of humanity, the truest of human virtues. Further, to recognize the limits of one's mere humanity by the mere contemplation of the existence of a Supreme Being, even if He indeed does not exist, is to me the ultimate expression of humility, a virtue I cherish. Yes, I have apparently asked many provocative questions about Christianity. Yet this should in no way be taken as any sort of cynisism about or ridicule of Christianity. No, I'm not a Christian, and I disagree with many precepts of the Christian faith, yet nonetheless I admire Christianity and Christians to the extent that they possess the spirituality and humility I mentioned above. At the same time I have nothing but utter disdain for those who so summarily reject spirituality and religion and have the arrogance to insist that humans beings are the ultimate "supreme beings" in the universe, and who cynically ridicule those who actually do possess the virtues of spirituality and humility.

Of course there is much truth to the assertion that much evil has been done in the name of religion. Many even twist their holy books to justify violence and murder in teh name of God. Yet to make a sweeping indictment against religion as being "The Root of all Evil" is clearly an excercise in both prejudice and ignorance. One need only look at all of the death and misery committed in the name of Soviet Atheism. And they say religion is the cause of all war.

In sum, I have many questions and disagreements with my Christian brothers and sisters. We all have our religious texts, and, the imperfect humans that we are, we most often misinterpret them, and, sometimes even, consciously distort them to suit our needs. Most misinterpretations, even if irrational, are understandable. Of course any "misinterpretation" that rationalizes the purest of evils, is absolutely unnacceptable. Otherwise, after all, we're only human and we have our flaws and limitations. After all, we're not perfect. We're not God. Loomis 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, let me try and answer the question as a Christian. In short, no - the old rules no longer apply. We don't have to follow rules about animal sacrifices, Sabbaths etc., because Jesus was the fulfilment of those things. Animal sacrifices, particularly the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, were a picture of what was to come in Jesus, for example, so once Jesus died, there was no need to continue doing it. God was making a new covenant (agreement) with people, now written on their hearts rather than on tablets of stone.
 * This does not mean, however, that God suddenly changed his mind about aspects of people's behaviour. Sexual immorality is still wrong. Neglecting to help others or exercise due care in making sure that 'others do not injure themselves on your property' is still wrong. Financially supporting people who dedicate themselves to do God's work (in the OT, priests and Levites; in the NT, pastors, ministers etc.) is still necessary.
 * So while some may continue to quote OT scriptures about homosexuality etc., (if they do it right) it is the heart of the command that they are trying to get at, not the letter of the law. In other words, while Christians are not judged by their obedience or disobedience to the Old Testament law, some preachers will use the OT scriptures to show generally what God's standards are for a person's behaviour, or what the new testament means when it says "abstain from sexual immorality". BenC7 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreigners in the American Revolutionary War
Are there any notable people who weren't Americans or British who fought in the American Revolutionary War, aside from Lafayette, Rochambeau, Pulaski, Kosciusko, Galvez, de Kalb, and von Steuben? 70.17.199.244 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If WP-notability is enough, then there are Friedrich Adolf Riedesel, Heinrich von Breymann, Carl von Donop, and Friedrich Baum (all Hessians, but not mentioned in the corresponding article). ---Sluzzelin 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Try looking through Category:French people of the American Revolution, Category:Native Americans in the American Revolution, Category:Spanish people of the American Revolution. Rmhermen 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! 70.17.202.155 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC) [the questioner, though different IP]

Did he/she mean on the American side, or the British? | A ndonic O Talk 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans in Congress
I'm trying to found out who was the first Native American in the U.S. Congress. There is a List of Native American politicians but it is woefully incomplete. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found that "Ben Nighthorse Campbell...who, in 1987, became the first American Indian to serve in Congress since 1929." so we need to look for someone in 1929 at the latest. Rmhermen 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1929 probably refers to when Charles Curtis moved from the Senate to the Vice Presidency but I don't know who the first was yet. Rmhermen 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Dutch Wars?
I am interested to know how many wars there have been in history when the dutch, Kingdom of the Netherlands, or something akin have been on one side, and the British, English or something akin have been on the other. Any help would be appreciated. J Milburn 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Anglo-Dutch Wars Rmhermen 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might also be interested in William III of England who was a Dutchman (Dutch nobility) also Revolution of 1688 he landed in England to take the throne with " approximately 15,000—12,000 on foot and 3,000 cavalry. It was composed mainly of mercenaries recruited from various countries abroad" see Revolution of 1688 - this was primarily an English affair fought between rivals for the English/British crown, one of whom happened to be Dutch83.100.174.147 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. I have briefly studied William of Orange in the past, but I had never heard of the Anglo-Dutch Wars. I feel a fool for not finding the article, despite the fact it has the same title as my question! Were there any others at any point? J Milburn 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in question might be just a little misleading. For English people the term Anglo-Dutch Wars really only conjures up the three commercially-based contests of the seventeenth century, all fairly close together.  The fourth war tends to sink into the background of the general wars surrounding America's struggle for independence.  On a small point of information, you might also be interested to know that the expression for using alcohol to enable one to face up to difficult situations is still referred to in England as 'Dutch courage.'  It was coined in the seventeenth century, in the somewhat unfair belief that the only way to force Dutchmen into battle was to oil them with liberal quantities of gin!  Clio the Muse 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yeah, that is actually very relevent! Thanks a lot! Any other details of anglo-dutch wars would be very much appreciated. Thank you all! J Milburn 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, J Milburn. Do you have something specific in mind?  If you fine-tune your questions I might be able to supply some useful additional information.  But amongst other things you might care to look a little more closely at the Dutch attack on the English fleet in the Raid on the Medway during the Second War, a kind of seventeenth century version of Pearl Harbor.  Also the Third War saw a major change of mood among the English people (as opposed to the king), who began to see Catholic France as the greater threat than Protestant Holland.  And did you know that the Dutch American settlement of New Amsterdam was captured just before the outbreak of the First War, and renamed New York, after the king's brother and heir, James, Duke of York?  Clio the Muse 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to include the Boer wars in the list, although they were between the British and Dutch colonists (among others), not with the Netherlands directly. Also note that the Anglo–Spanish War (1585) (think Spanish Armada) involved the Spanish Netherlands. StuRat 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou to all of you, you have been very helpful. I did not realise how useful the reference desk was! J Milburn 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. Come back soon ! StuRat 11:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Macbeth
I'm hoping that it's alright to ask this question here, and it doesn't break the 'Do your own homework' rule. For a project, I need to find an event in fairly recent history, and write it a scene about it in the style of Macbeth. After searching for three hours, I can't really find anything suitable without possibly plagarizing (which I know I spelled wrong). I was hoping that I could get some help finding a topic to base my scene on, as I'm drawing a blank. I'm hoping to stay away from the topics of 9/11 and Katrina, as I don't feel right writing about them in something like this. Even if no one can help me, thanks so much for reading the question! JellyFish72 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ask any kind of question you like: someone will always respond positively! In your position, and assuming you are not confined to an American event, I would be really topical and choose to base a scene in the style you are looking for around the mysterious death of Alexander Litvinenko.  It has it all: intrigue, ambition, and treachery.  Who knows-maybe the three witches are there somewhere? By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. Clio the Muse 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * interesting point of view clio, If you'd take that then you might as well ad the fact that litvinenko knew he was going to die, and also most likely to whom, but how... that was the question. and the forest that moves might just be that human rights reporter that "died to natural causes" in russia. just to give a few pointers... as for the style of english, try opening with revealing the end:

friar; 'T is with a heart filled with the sadness of grieving that we let our beloved friend, who never held a trace of fear for death and had embraced his fate so long ago ascend into the heavens. (use this at your own bidding). again just a small pointer... oh and over the average a teacher will prefer you writing in your own way of poetry or plays instead of that of macbeth, just try to use the major subjects of shakespeare: intrigue, ambition, and treachery as said above and don't forget a harsh fate known before the event itself took place. Graendal 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose, Graendal, that Litvinenko could be could be cast in the role of King Duncan, in which case he would know nothing of his coming fate. Then the question arises, just who exactly is Macbeth? Clio the Muse 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, many of our political masters seem to spend their days and nights in a state of moral somnambulism, or asleep at the wheel of the ship of state. JackofOz 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Or Banquo. "the times have been, /That, when the brains were out, the man would die/ And there an end ... "  Putin would make a marvelous Macbeth, no?  Oh, and don't forget irony as a component of whatever you do:  Macbeth, especially that magnificent banquet scene, is riddled with it.  Fun assignment.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed so! Just imagine the scene at high table in the Kremlin;


 * Avaunt! and quit my sight! let the earth hide thee!


 * Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold;


 * Thou hast no speculation in those eyes


 * Which thou dost glare with.


 * Of course, we may be jumping to conclusions here. But, I agree; it's a great assignment.  Clio the Muse 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, y'all! I really appreciate it, and it's given me alot of ideas for my project! Now for the fun part - getting it written by Monday! :)


 * Thanks again! JellyFish72 07:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The only place I can be free on earth
Is it true that the only place where I can be FREE on earth is the DMZ between north korea and south korea? That I can perform any action while I'm there and not be subjected to any laws of any countries. And provided, I remain in DMZ, I can do anything I want as a free person? 202.168.50.40 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If you're a citizen of the U.S., you can be charged with a criminal offense for some (all?) crimes that you commit in other countries.  For instance, the U.S. gov't is arresting quite a few people who travel to Asia to have sex with minors once they return to the States.  Dismas|(talk) 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So? Don't return to USA. If the US army tries to extract you, you are FREE to kill them in self defense (provided you remain in the DMZ). 202.168.50.40 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly anyone who took residence there would be 'free' for about ten seconds, if that. Then they would be dead: another kind of freedom, I suppose.  Clio the Muse 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the high seas? -THB 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ships in International waters are still subject to the laws of the registering country: not a place where one can be free, as in capital-FREE. Lowerarchy 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it should be added that, much like the ten-second freedom of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, you're free to do whatever you like no matter where you are - provided nobody stops you. Liberty and not license, and that sort of thing.Lowerarchy 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Korean DMZ may be demilitarized, but it is not de-country-ized. You would still be subject to the laws of whichever side of the actual armistice line you are on. In fact, since both the ROK and the DPRK claim to be the legitimate government of the whole peninsula, either side could try to convict you for committing a crime. -- Mwalcoff 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there still "Neutral Zones" on the borders of Saudi Arabia in the middle of the desert? I remember seeing old maps with a diamond-shaped area attached to the western edge of Kuwait called "Neutral Zone", but it doesn't seem to be there in modern maps. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It went some time ago, Zoe. Clio the Muse 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, for oil production purposes, there is still a "Neutral Zone" - it is not the former diamond shaped one, which is indeed gone, but is along the coast of the Persian Gulf. The border between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is usually drawn in the middle of it, but the oil produced within this zone is shared between the two countries.  I don't know how it works in terms of other jurisdictional issues.  Cheers Geologyguy 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Antarctica? The article says there's no government there. Clarityfiend 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you saying? You can do anything in Antarctica and not be subjected to any laws of any country, provided you remain in Antarctica? 202.168.50.40 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See the Antarctic Treaty System for some guidance on this question. I suppose you would have a choice between being shot to death in Korea or freezing to death in Antarctica.  Clio the Muse


 * Smoke in restaurants (if you can find any), park wherever you like, run around nekkid! Well, maybe not that last one, brrrr. Clarityfiend 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Go here in Berkeley, California, and you'll be fine. Wareh 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe they are not subject to any law, what if someone went in there with an assault rifle and started shooting people? --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the questioner implying that law, (well at least "just" law,) is an impediment to freedom? I suppose that, in the absence of law, one would have the absolute freedom to do whatever one wishes. Yet it should not be forgotten that the inevitable flip-side of the "absolute freedom for one to do whatever one wishes", is the accompanying "absolute freedom for others to do whatever they wish to you". I've never been able to figure out why anarchists find it so hard to grasp such a ridiculously simple concept as that. Loomis 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anarchists don't find it hard to grasp that: there are large literatures about the issue. The philosophical background to the original question, I suggest, is a particular understanding of freedom - as the absence of restraint - and of law - as command backed by threat. Both of these can be challenged: freedom might better be understood as the power to do what one desires (or even what one ought to desire). Law, as Loomis hints, might be understood as indirectly providing that power for certain classes of action. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The rule of thumb I heard was "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else". Sure, it might be more complex than that, but it's alright as a basic rule. 惑乱 分からん 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in 100 years or so, the moon might be a good option. :-) | A ndonic O Talk 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * AndonicO, vous me l'ôtez de la bouche! -- DLL .. T 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a scene in Illusions by Richard Bach where the concept of "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else" was tested. In it, a vampire comes along to the protagonist and says that he's dying and if doesn't drink the protagonist's blood, the vampire will cease to exist (never mind him being undead in the first place). In this case, the rule as you've described it would not allow you to refuse the vampire. Of course, this is fictional, but you could extrapolate this to a real-life possibility where a person who has murdered your entire family requires a bone marrow transplant and you are the only match. Thus, the book continues on, the real rule is, "You are free to do whatever you want." The only caveat then is that you are now responsible for the consequences of your actions. You are free to kill, but you could be arrested and jailed; you are free to be a callous asshole with no cares for anyone else, but you won't have any friends.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Could one be convicted on murder in space? Perhaps on a spaceship one is on the territory of the country, but if Buzz Aldrin had on the Moon, say, stabbed Neil Armstrong with the flag, or locked him out of the Eagle lander, could he be tried? EamonnPKeane 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident he would have gotten in trouble for that. Court-martialed perhaps? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are a US citizen you could be arrested for the murder when you return to the US from space. If you want to be free from other people you need it isolate yourself, but then you are still not free from need of food shelter. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

history
why did virginians and other southern planters make the decision to implement salvery in the seventeenth century? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.32.65.23 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Read Slavery in the United States and Slavery in Colonial America. It was considered the most viable form of labour, especially in large plantations.  Clio the Muse 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for the slave-owners, they were too stupid and too blinded by their racism to understand the economic reality that slave labour is no less costly than hiring free men and paying them "slave wages", which is just what they did after abolition. Think about it. A slave has to be bought, housed, fed, attended to when ill, etc., all of which costs money. It may be counterintuitive, but it can actually be more economically efficient to just hire a "free man", (no need to put down any cash to "buy" him), pay him barely enough to survive, and no worry if you work him to death, you haven't lost any valuable "property" that you paid money to acquire, all you would have to do is hire another. Loomis 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly not all slaveholders were racist and stupid. You are talking about people's grandparents' parents and grandparents you know. A good many slaveholders were former slaves, as well. Surely you wouldn't consider them racist. -THB 11:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But you left out of your calculations the ability to profit by selling off the natural increase of his slaves. Remember that the U.S. didn't import any new slaves after 1808. After that slavery continued for almost 60 years from the children and grandchildren, etc. of those earlier slaves. Rmhermen 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right of course. The right to the ownership of the offspring of one's slaves would tend to balance things out a bit. (I'm actually rather disgusted with myself right now for referring to human beings as mere animals, but the point must be made). Still, I haven't dreamt up this argument all on my own. The diseconomics of slavery has actually been the basis of much academic study I've read. The consensus seems to be that slave labour was far less economically inefficient than slaveholders believed it to be, and that the late 19th century classical liberal model of the "free man" entering into a completely unregulated contract of labour tended to be actually more economical for the slave-owner/employer than pure and simple slave labour. Loomis 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, there was profit in slavery alright, and not just in the sale of surplus people. It was a northener, Eli Whitney, who breathed fresh life into the general economics of the south.  Slavery was wrong in principle; but the people who operated the slave system did not do so because they were stupid.  Clio the Muse 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In inventing the cotton gin, Eli Whitney definitely benefited slaveholders in an economic sense and provided them much wealth. And it's only common sense that the wealthier one is, the longer one can afford to maintain a wasteful lifestyle and inefficient business practices. So yes, Whitney's invention indeed "breathed fresh life into the general economics of the south", and if anything, prolonged the ability of the south to withstand abolition. However, what that has anything at all to do with the proven diseconomics of slavery, I have no idea. Loomis 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You might begin, then, by recognizing the contradictions in your own statement, and then proceed to a little more in-depth reading on the Cotton gin, to take one obvious example, and other aspects of the southern economy. It will help to give you at least some idea.  It's best not to use meaningless terms like 'stupid' in describing motives and attitudes from the past.  Clio the Muse 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Contemporary scholarly anaysis said that a free workman who was paid piecework or a share of the crop was more productive than a slave, whose incentive was only to do enough work to avoid punishment, and who therefore required a high degree of supervision. Edison 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Help! Thanks, Edison, but I am not trying to claim that slave labour was more productive than free labour, because it was not by any reasonable economic criterion. What I did say was that the cotton gin made southern plantation economies, based on slavery, profitable, and thus gave fresh life to the whole system.  And this was not because southern plantation owners were stupid.  Clio the Muse 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Oh, there was profit in slavery alright, and not just in the sale of surplus people" (03:08, 8 December 2006). "I am not trying to claim that slave labour was more productive than free labour, because it was not by any reasonable economic criterion" (08:55, 8 December 2006). Talk about a flip-flop! Why is it that some people are completely incapable of admitting they were wrong? Loomis 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll try to put it as simply as possible, in terms I hope you'll understand. Please try your best. Imagine a shopowner who happens to be a simpleton. His shop doesn't even make a profit. In fact, it generates a loss of £1,000 a month. The business is basically managing on bank credit, but his credit limit is near the its limit. In other words, without some sort of miracle, he'll soon be forced into bankruptcy. But lo and behold! The lucky bastard happened to have bought a lottery ticket that week, and his numbers came up! He's just won £10,000,000! Simple as he is, he's a man of habit. Despite his newfound wealth, there's still nothing that gives him more pleasure than running that little shop of his, and so he continues with it. Though wealthy, his meagre intellect remains unchanged. The simpleton then pays all his debts to the bank out of a tiny portion of his winnings, and puts all the rest into a savings account. Now he's both debt and worry free, and free to continue to run his pathetic little shop, which continues to lose £1,000 a month. Yet the simpleton that he is, the way he looks at it, he's a wealthy man running a shop. He still doesn't have a clue that the shop is still losing money. All he sees is a bank account that keeps rising in value (due to interest). He's making money now! Isn't he? He's turned his business around and now he's making a profit! Isn't he? Of course not. He's a moron living in a world of illusion. His business is still a pathetic failure.


 * With the introduction of he cotton gin, slaveholders, in a sense, "hit the jackpot". Their plantations were now cash cows. Yet none of this in any way, has anything remotely to do with the proven diseconomics of slave labour. (Thanks Edison, for your corroborating remark!)


 * You might also want to read up on slavery. It's been around since pre-history and exists even today.  It certainly wasn't confined to the Southern United States and the planters didn't suddenly decide to implement it.  It was legal in England and other places the original planters moved from.  There were slaves in the north as well but the farms there were smaller.  A lot of labor was needed for large plantations.  The ultimate reason was to earn a profit from the labor the slaves provided.  Indentured servants were used, too. -THB 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some good work on this question: Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery; David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage; Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death. In general, the debate about how to explain the Atlantic system and plantation slavery (and the debate about how to explain abolition) is over the relative contributions of 1. economics and the rise of early modern capitalism; and 2. culture in some broad sense covering religion, the invention of race, the emulation of (supposed) classical greek and roman models, etc. Yours, Sam Clark 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Another excellent source on this question is Audrey Smedley's Race in North America. Smedley finds evidence that the conditions of indentured servitude and of slavery were nearly indistinguishable in early 17th century Virginia.  African slaves, for example, were often freed after a period of servitude.  The lines began to be drawn more sharply and the institution of slavery crystallized in the late 17th century after white indentured servants, black slaves, and newly freed servants and slaves banded together in revolts against the exploitation and power of the plantation-owning gentry.  In order to create divisions among the colony's landless majority, poor whites were granted privileges and encouraged to feel superior to blacks, who were thenceforth trapped in a more rigid state of servitude.  Smedley argues that the institution of white privilege and superiority across class lines was crucial to the cultural construction of race in North America.  Marco polo 14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did they implement slavery? The Native Americans died or rebelled when enslaved. Indentured servants worked their 7 years, then went into business in competition. Slaves were like multiple generation indentured servants without the scant legal rights of white indentured servants. It is hard to imagine from today's perspective the fundamental lack of legal rights of slaves in the southern U.S. in the years before the Civil War, which were in practice far less than the rights they had before 1800. In the best cases, they were practically members of the family, and had living and working conditions similar to those of the owner's hired hands. In the worst, they were whipped, raped, branded, abused without practical limit and worked to death on sugar plantations or murdered outright. While there were laws on the books making it a crime to kill or maim a slave, and requiring clothing, food, shelter, and meal breaks, in practice a slave could not file a complaint or testify against a white, so the legal protections would require the intervention and testimony of another white person. If a slave owner caused a ruckus by beating his slave in a mad drunken rage on the town square in front of some other white man's family, legal process could be instituted to take the slave away from the abusive owner, in the same way that early cruelty to animal laws could be used against a teamster who whipped his horses excessively. Yet there were cases where skilled slaves (carpenters, ironmakers, etc) were paid wages sufficient to allow them to buy their own and their family's freedom. This provided a positive incentive to be productive, not break equipment, not poison the master, not burn down the house with the master in it, and not run away. Edison 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)