Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 5

War of 1812
Why did the War of 1812 occur, didn't the fighting end after the peace treay of Paris? If Americans celebrate the fourth of July, why do they sing the national anthem. The national anthem was written for the war of 1812, not for the War of Independence.


 * We have articles on the Origins of the War of 1812 and the War of 1812, which give you the basic causes of the war, although not entirely accurately. Perhaps the Star-Spangled Banner was picked as the national anthem because Yankee Doodle (the tune most associated with the American Revolution) is a bit too frivolous. The War of 1812 was sometimes known as the "Second War of Independence", and so the Star-Spangled Banner, written after a failed British attack, may have some vague emotional connection to the Revolutionary era. Of course, a number of Americans have wished that a different song had been picked as the national anthem. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The SSB is associated with all things American, including but not exclusively the 4th July. It only became the official anthem in the 1930s, and amazingly there was no national anthem prior to that.  I can't think of any other country that had existed as a sovereign nation for 150 years before it got around to naming a national anthem.  JackofOz 12:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * National anthems (like national flags) are a modern invention. Hardly any country had a national anthem before the nineteenth century (I think the Dutch anthem, from the early 18th century, is one of the oldest). The United Kingdom still doesn't have an official national anthem, and it's been sovereign for centuries. EdC 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because people didn't know about the peace settlement until news made it across the Atlantic in sailing ships. AnonMoos 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it ended with the treaty of Ghent, I am quite sure as I live near that city (well that is not a guarantee:))

Wasn't the main reason for fighting with Canada, that USA couldn't target the British navy as they didn't have proper sea forces?Evilbu 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * James Madison thought that Canada would be easy to annex while the UK was in difficulties in Europe, and that English-speaking Canadians would rise up in support of his forces. The impressment controversy and the Orders in Council (1807) were useful causes that prejudiced opinion against the British. (Madison was able to start the war only just in time, as the UK repealed the Orders in June 1812.) Note that we also have an article on the Treaty of Ghent, 1814. Gdr 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gdr's explanation is an old conspiracy theory of questionable veracity. A vocal American opponent of the war, the eccentric John Randolph of Roanoke, claimed that the Madison Administration really declared war because the "War Hawks" wanted to conquer Canada, and that all of the maritime issues were just pretext for conquest. (Probably most major U.S. wars have had critics who claim to know the "real reason" that the U.S. entered the war.) Randolph's claim was taken seriously by a few historians, particularly for a brief while in the 1920s, and I believe it survives in Canadian national mythology, but it may not have much serious modern scholarly support. (Which of course doesn't stop it from showing up in Wikipedia articles.) In reality, invading Canada was not the reason for the war, but the only practical means the Americans had of waging it in 1812. And even that proved a bust, of course, since the amateur American army was in no shape to invade Michigan, much less Canada, although they all thought it would be a cakewalk.


 * The favored conspiracy theory now is that the Americans really wanted Florida in 1812. Americans in 1812 knew almost nothing about Canada, and weren't interested, but Florida they knew, and wanted. And, in time, would get. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly does survive in Canadian mythology, it's really the only thing we get nationalistic about. Not only did America really want to invade Canada, simple Canadian militias defeated them and then burned down the White House! Adam Bishop 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And let's not forget my favorite Canadian myth — Tecumseh died to save Canada! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Web forum warning: The War of 1812 is one of those topics where each nation has an entirely different story to tell.  For Canadians, it was the repelling of an American invasion.  For England, it was their reconquest that was sidetracked by Napoleon.  For Americans, it was a war about impressing citizens.  I've seen arguments (particularly among Canadians and Americans) get hot enough that one person actually had a heart attack.  Let's just say that America didn't invade Canada, because Canada wasn't a nation but was British, that they did so out of a foolish belief in a missionary ideology that we have not yet shaken and because Canada was this massive staging area for the troops of a hostile power to invade, that Canadians repelled them, in the sense that they were natives, that Napoleon was a big factor in the US surviving, that England was mighty enough to have militarily conquered the US but not to have survived the ensuing guerrila war that would have broken out (and which had been the 1775 war in the first place), and that everybody was a hero, everybody was a villain, and everyone should be terribly proud of themselves.  Is that ok?  Geogre 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that you've got the British reasons confused. It wasn't a "reconquest that was sidetracked by Napoleon." but a war with the French, which Britain had been fighting since 1793, which was sidetracked by a U.S.A. declaration of war. Britain wasn't trying to reconquor the U.S.A., for us the 1812 war was an unsought distraction from the more important business of fighting Napoleon. AllanHainey 08:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I gladly stand corrected. The Napoleonic Wars led to the impressment (and sometimes proper impressment, sometimes not), and that led to the declaration of war, which led to the invasion and the counter-invasion.  Geogre 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Eras of History
OK, I would like a simple explantion of the Eras of Human History from the Mesolithic to the Viking periods, with dates of the starts to end of the above periods. The main area I'm looking into is Europe. Thanks to anyone who helps

Is this a homework assignment? Have you read the relevant articles here on these eras? They are a pretty good start. Trollderella 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

An explanation or a list of the eras? I assume you mean the latter. There's no definitive answer.


 * Try this breakdown, based on Britain, which will undoubtedly cause historians who read it to double up with laughter or swear loudly:
 * Pre-history (roughly until Caesar's visit)
 * Ancient (until the Romans left)
 * Late Antiquity (until Edward the Confessor)

That should cover the period you refer to. But there's no real consensus, and I'm no great historian, in case it wasn't already obvious. --Dweller 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try List of time periods You are probably looking for something like the human historical periods section about half way down the page. I think the confusion is in mixing palentological time periods (based on human technology, stone, bronze, etc) with historical time periods (romans, vikings, etc.) Two different classification systems. Nowimnthing 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What's a Jelly Date?
I've run across the term "jelly date" in 1940s-50s malt shop, or young adult, novels. Can't figure out what it is. Can anyone help?

Thanks!

Julie


 * Googling just that term results in lots of meaningless links. Can you provide some context of how the term is used?  --LarryMac 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find jelly date, but there are various meanings for jelly from the 1930s-1940s in the dictionary of american slang. It can mean: dancing, a girlfriend/boyfriend, lounging about, having sexual intercourse or refering to the vagina. I suppose context would be very important here :^) Nowimnthing 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cassell's Dictionary of Slang says that it is a date where you eat and chat and they also list cake-date/bean-date/coke-date. Letting your imagination run wild on some of the other slang meanings of jelly certainly sounds more interesting. MeltBanana  19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably a date where you eat some food such as jelly. --Proficient 09:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

how about Beans:Jelly Beans::Dates::Jelly Dates? :P 82.131.188.84 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

Bach
Is Opus 17 by the Four Seasons, circa 1966, music composed by J.S. Bach? If so, what is the title of the original work? 66.213.33.2 18:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the Four Seasons verison Bach also has a work called Opus 17, but I can't find anything about a relation. Nowimnthing 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be a pathetic composer who has fewer than 17 works to his name. Even I have more. :) DirkvdM 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The quality of music is not judged by the quantity of works someone writes. Henri Duparc left only about 17 works, all songs.  His entire oeuvre would only take about 45 minutes to perform, yet each song is a priceless gem.    JackofOz 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And how many people have heard of Henri Duparc? Is his article a "featured article"?  Shit, the article is literally 7 lines (110 words) long, with no talk page.  I rest my case. 82.131.188.84 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC).
 * What "case" would that be? You have not participated in this conversation until now.  In any event:
 * the quality of a piece of music is also not judged by the size of the Wikipedia article on the composer, and
 * what is this about anyway? Where did it say that "Opus 17" was the last work written by its composer? If it was by Bach, he wrote thousands of pieces (almost). JackofOz 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the length of an article is representative of the quality of music Britney Spears has more talent than Ludwig van Beethoven :) Z iggurat 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

just looking at the guitar chords it doesn't look very Bachian, but i can't say that it isn't for sure. --Alex.dsch 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

both world wars started in the balkan?
Someone told me in 1999 when Serbia was bombed that the area is sensitive : all world wars started there.

Now for WWI he probably meant the shooting of Ferdinand. But what about WWII? Evilbu 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * World War II 'officially' started when Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. But you have to keep in mind that there is rarely a single cause for a conflict involving that many different nations. WWII didn't have much to do with the Balkans, and I'd argue that WWI didn't either, even though its start date is usually given as the day Franz Ferdinand was shot. - ulayiti (talk)  23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One perspective on the WWII is that it was chiefly a war started by Hitler to secure Germany's hegemony over Europe. Hitler may have believed that the best way to do this was to secure the Balkan oil fields, especially in Romania.  In order to secure these oil fields, Hitler wanted to create a huge buffer zone out of western Russia.  --198.125.178.207 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)