Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 21

= March 21 =

habeas corpus
In the U.S. Constitution there is a provision in Article I Section 9 that the "privledge of habeus corupus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Why was that right presented here? It seems that this was one of the rights which many of the state constitions had in their Bill of Rights, but several framers of the Constitution were opposed to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights (like Hamilton in his Federalist No. 84) If the enumeration of rights in the Constitution was not desired by the framers, then why was this one included?

A second, and unrelated question: was the war-time exception of habeus corpus common in Europe at the time? Sjmcfarland 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sjmcfarland, the first part of your question is not entirely clear to me, so I address myself only to the second section. Habeas Corpus is specific to English Common Law-confirmed in statute by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679-and did not exist in the legal systems of Continental Europe. And, yes, the privilege has been suspended by the British government, and not just in wartime. William Pitt suspended it in 1793, shortly after the outbreak of war with France; but it was suspended again in 1817 by Lord Liverpool, when the country was at peace, as part of a programme of action against political radicals. The 1914 Defence of the Realm Act allowed the government to arrest and intern all suspect persons, regardless of habeas corpus. It was used in 1940 in the detention of Oswald Mosley, the English Fascist leader, who was kept in custody for three years without trial. Most recently it was used in 1971 in the wholesale internment IRA suspects in Northern Ireland. Clio the Muse 06:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct spelling is habeas corpus. --Mathew5000 06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Matthew! My own misspelling of the term has now been corrected. Clio the Muse 06:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An attempt at rephrasing the questioners first question. (Establishing the context:) The original text of the United States Constitution contained no bill of rights. The current United States Bill of Rights was only later added to the Constitution in the form of ten amendments. However, one right that you would expect in a bill of rights did find its way into the originally adopted text: the Suspension Clause. (Now the question:) Why, of the many possible clauses protecting important rights against infringement, was this clause singled out and exceptionally allowed to enter the Constitution? --Lambiam Talk  11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * To answer the first question, the Suspension Clause was included in the Constitution not to establish the right of habeas corpus, as the framers intended that the Constitution rest on a foundation of common law, including all of the rights guaranteed by common law, such as habeas corpus. (This is why the original constitution did not include a bill of rights.)  Rather, this clause was included to specify the circumstances under which this otherwise guaranteed right could be suspended.  Thus the intent of this clause is very different from that of the Bill of Rights.  Marco polo 12:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In Federalist 84, Hamilton says there was no need for a Bill of Rights because, in his view, the Constitution provided only very limited powers to Congress. For instance, there was no need to insist on a clause guaranteeing freedom of the press because Congress had no power to regulate the press at all. From that perspective, the limits on congressional power set in Article I, Section 9 were only those that spoke to the powers granted Congress in Article I, Section 8. (Although it would be the president, not Congress, that suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.) Ironically, Hamilton would later make a name for himself as the advocate of a strong central government. -- Mwalcoff 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about for the misspelling and the lack of context on that first question. Those answers clarify things significantly. Sjmcfarland 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible books
How many total books are there in the normal bible used by the Baptist faith? --Doug talk 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article on Books of the Bible (which really should be incorporated into the one on the Biblical canon, no?) suggests 39 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament, for a total of 66. (Many opt for the King James translation). - Nunh-huh 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My copy of the King James version has 66. My Catholic version has 73.  Dismas |(talk) 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding has been in the past of 66 books. What is different on the Catholic version? Do the following also have 66 books total or are some different: Methodist, Lutheran, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Christian Science.--Doug talk 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article on deuterocanonical books explains why a Catholic Bible has additional books not found in most Protestant Bibles. Gandalf61 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the Catholic Church was around a long time before the Protestant churches, I think it's more accurate to say the Protestant Bibles have fewer books than the Catholic one. The Protestants removed some books from the existing bible - it wasn't a case of the Catholics adding anything.  :)  JackofOz 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's about time you showed some Catholic pride, Jack! Good on you!Loomis 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with pride, mate. I severed my connection with the Catholic Church more years ago than most Wikipedians have been alive.  I'm more interested in factual accuracy and correcting misleading or distorted statements.  JackofOz 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * JackofOz, I take it you are referring to my response above when you talk about "misleading or distorted statements". For the record, I was using "additional" in the sense of "more", not "added". I definitely did not imply that the Catholic Church added books to the Protestant Bible - that would be nonsense. Please think about WP:AGF before you start disparaging other people in a public forum like this. Gandalf61 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, first things first. I apologise for any offence I may have caused, Gandalf61.  (I assure you I intended no offence.)  Now, I checked my handy dictionary, and it says additional means added; supplementary.  I accept you used it to mean more.  That's not a usage I'm comfortable with, because the first thing that comes to my mind is something being added to something already existing.  This is the direct opposite of what you were trying to convey.  It's certainly possible that someone reading your post, whose knowledge of the history of the churches is less than yours, could believe the Catholic bible came along after the Protestant one, and the Catholics added some new books.  It's just as easy to unintentionally mislead people as to unintentionally offend them.   All the best.  JackofOz 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Latter-day Saint Bible is the King James Version, and therefore also has 66 books (though it's possible that the JST omits the Song of Solomon and has only 65). Methodists and Lutherans almost certainly use something similar to the KJV in content, as well.  The Jade Knight 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Great information. Even under that article of the Section "New Testament" it seems to show an agreement that most of these Christian faiths agree that it has 27 books. The Hebrew Bible (sometimes referred to as the Old Testament) apparently then has 39 books, for a total of 66 books for the entire bible. --Doug talk 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned it recently, but I suppose I should repeat it. The Old Testament is a Christian concept, and though it's almost identical to the Hebrew Bible, the two aren't comprised of precisely the same books, nor are they in the same order. Loomis 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on the above point: The Hebrew Canon has 24 books, not 39. The 12 minor prophets were considered as one book; 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel together would have been considered as one book (same with Kings and Chronicles). The order of books is different in some areas as well. If you want to see a comparative list of the canons check out

Thanks, this is most useful information. It helps clear this up. --Doug talk 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter
How many tree's did President Jimmy Carter and Rosalynn Carter plant at the White House while he was President? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoeWeaver (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

What I don't understand about this picture and others like it
(The hypothesis in the "quotation marks" do not reflect my views im merely being hypothetical.) The image to the right of the screen is to me, quite confusing. They are Jewish people in Nazi-occupied Austria, who are being forced to scrub the streets. What I don't understand is, in events such as these where Jews were humiliated, how were they selected, why did the Nazis force them to do it, was it a case of "emigrate or you'll be doing this forever" or something like, "you think your better than us but this is all your fit for", I don't understand why people were made to do this and how did the Nazi officials know that the people were Jewish? Where the people dragged from their homes, or picked up off the streets. Also, I'm very interested in how the Nazi's humiliated their victims, and the psychology behind it. If anybody can recommend any suggested reading or links to things such as these, it would be much obliged. Ahadland 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In Germany, they knew which were Jewish in part because they had a very accurate census of the population (for practically the first time in Germany); Edwin Black's otherwise somewhat unreliable IBM and the Holocaust is very good on this part. They knew who was Jewish (in an unambiguous sense; later they would start finely hashing over geneologies to get people who were only 1/4 Jewish and the like) and they knew where they lived. If they had not known that they would have had a much harder time with these sorts of things. In Austria, I'm not sure; it is of course highly probable that they went to a "Jewish" part of town (in the same way that major cities today have "Chinese" parts of towns and the like), and picked people who were dressed in orthodox Jewish garb (orthodox Jews are very easy to spot in a crowd); I doubt that these humiliation bits were as comprehensive and thorough as their later anti-Jewish work (they would, one would assume, also want people who "looked" Jewish to be the humiliated ones; you would lose the effect if you were humiliating people who non-Jews could easily identify with). As for the psychology behind atrocity, Grossman's On Killing has a section devoted to that which is quite good. --24.147.86.187 13:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely though if they went to a Jewish part of the town there wouldn't be any onlookers. Do you know of any further examples of humiliation? I imagine it would be quite widespread as the Holocaust's early elements laste for nine years before extermination took root. Ahadland 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for why they did such things, I don't see the point in overintellectualizing it. It would appear to be a case of mere sadism in the extreme. As for how they were able to identify those who were Jews, and those who weren't, that's puzzled me as well. Perhaps in Germany it was easy enough, due to their accurate census records as mentioned above. Yet how they figured out who exactly was Jewish, in say, Poland, has always been a mystery to me. Not all Jews of the day dressed in obviously "Jewish garb". Many were completely secular, as was the protagonist in the film The Pianist. Yet the Nazi's seemed to have clearly determined him to be Jewish. In another film, Europa Europa, a young naive Jewish boy tries to escape his fate by actually...how can I put it...trying to "un-circumsize" himself by tying some sort of string or something around his penis. Of course it's impossible to "un-circumsize" one's self, and it only led to some sort of infection (pardon the details!) but being a kid he didn't know any better. Apparently, unlike today, circumcision amongst gentiles was rare or perhaps even non-existant in Europe. Of course that wouldn't account for how they identified the female Jews...Sorry for the non-answer! I just hope that at the very least I provided you with some information that hopefully will get you closer to getting the answer you're looking for. Loomis 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Circumcision is still relatively rare in Europe, although I can't offer a citation in support of that claim. That's my impression at any rate - that even today, circumcision would constitute circumstantial evidence of a Jewish identity of some description. --Diderot 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was also pointed out by Wakuran (below). The word "still" is a bit curious here. I'd say that circumcision is "still" relatively common in the US. --Lambiam Talk  18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually just checked out the article on Europa Europa that I linked to above. Though I generally don't rely all too heavily on the links I provide, and try my best to answer the question in the body of my post, only adding links as optional secondary sources, the article on Europa Europa actually stands out as a great source for examining the whole question of how the Nazis were able to identify Jews from Gentiles. I strongly suggest that you check it out as it's rather short, yet explores this very issue in striking detail. Loomis 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Ahadland, sorry for my bad english. One thing to seperate jewish people from other was the "Ahnenpass" - it was a proof of ancestry, which must show your ancestors till the third generation before you (great-grandparents) - that was at the beginning of 1933/34. Other ways to identify jewish people were done by their names, denunciation etc. -- Jlorenz1 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely though people could have misidentified themselves as Christian because the Jews in the picture are middle aged and elderly. So they would have filled out the Ahnenpass when anti-Semitism was still an accepted part of society. So maybe Jews didnt want to identify themselves as such. Also if these documents weren't compulsory, then the Germans may have accidentally selected Gentiles for humiliation. Just hypothesizing, the whole topic, if somebody answers a question it provides a whole new set of questions. The Holocaust is a very perplexing, and interesting and heartbreaking topic. Ahadland 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, there was no chance. If you haven't had a "Ahnenpass" with correct entries, you was automatically jewish - some example are known, that jewosh people tried to falsify these and other documents, but most of them were "brave citizen" and filled their documents thinking naive that it wouldn't become worther (I hope, I' ve found the correct words about this difficult theme) -- Jlorenz1 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (Johannes from Germany)

My goodness, where do I begin? First of all, I cannot say exactly how the people in that particular photograph were selected; it seems likely that they were simply picked off the street; and as Austria had a high concentration of Jewish people at the time, selection would have been easy. The people shown are actually being made to scrub the streets with toothbrushes; so this is an exercise in pure humiliation; humiliation, in other words, for the sake of humiliation. Since 1933 the Jews of Germany had experienced a steady escalation of anti-semitic measures: in Austria they came all at once, a combination of official policy and an outburst of years of built-up resentment and hatred by the local Nazi movement. Historians tend to view the Kristallnacht as the beginning of the new radicalism in Nazi policy, but I have always believed that this began with the Anschluss. The purpose of the wholesale terror was to increase Jewish emigration; and the scenes depicted in the photograph had the intended effect. By May 1939, some fourteen months after the Nazi occupation, almost half of Austria's pre-Anschluss Jewish population had left the country; all those, in essence, who had the means and the opportunity. There is a huge body of literature that you could refer to on the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but I will confine myself to recommending two books, the first a novel and the second a history. The novel is The Last of the Just by Andre Schwartz-Bart and the history is The Holocaust by Martin Gilbert. Both will show you in what manner humiliation and degradation became essential preambles to destruction; but The Last of the Just will break your heart. Clio the Muse 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If they picked them off the street how did they know they'd picked entirely Jews? Surely they must have checked that they weren't persecuting gentiles? Also how did the Nazis justify what they were making these poor souls do? Ahadland 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By appearance and by dress. Few, if any, Austrian gentiles wore beards in 1938.  But I stress, yet again, I do not know how these particular individuals were selected, nor does it seem to me to be the essential point.  They were picked, that is all that matters.  The Nazis did not need to justify their actions, as you will discover when you read a little more deeply.  Clio the Muse 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is like saying all Jews had beards, or can be grouped by their appearance. However some of the Jews in the photograph have no beard. Was the "Jewish nose" a determining factor in who was chosen to scrub the streets? All of the jews in the photograph look rather ordinarily dressed to me as well. Ahadland 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made my point: there is nothing more I wish to add, Clio the Muse 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please carry on, I'm interested in hearing your opinions. Im not questioning your viewpoint as a whole, I agree with most of what your saying but surely you agree that when you answer one question on this controversial topic, that question is replaced by several others. I am completely against the Nazi treatment of Jews, as I am a Jew myself, but it must have taken a great deal of planning and organisation to orchestrate an event on such a mass-scale Ahadland 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jews were required to mark Jewish ethnicity in their passport/identity papers. Once it was realized, identification would have been easy.
 * Surely though they never carried their identifacation with them at all times. My point is if they were chosen from the streets, for example the person on the left without the beard, how could they prove he was Jewish? Ahadland 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This contention is untrue for Austrian Jews in 1938. Please do not make claims like this unless you are absolutely sure of the facts.  Clio the Muse 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to me, Ahadland or both? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To the person who first mentioned identity papers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Since someone mentioned circumcision, it's still rare in Europe outside Jewish/Muslim populations. I believe it's only performed routinely for non-religious reasons in USA and South Korea. (Don't know all the facts...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm...didn't they have to wear the Star of David on their shoulder?...Found it!! See Yellow badge. FruitMart07 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite probably not yet in Austria at the time the photograph was taken, just after the Anschluss. --Lambiam Talk  17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The compulsory wearing of the Star of David was first introduced in the Occupied Poland in October 1939. Clio the Muse 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And in the unified German Reich wearing the Star (on the left breast, not the shoulder) was only obligatory from 19 September 1941 onwards. --Lambiam Talk  17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As to how people knew? In these days, if you lived in Austria and your neighbours were Jews, then you knew. People would warn each other: "So-and-so, do you know he's a Jew?". Your parents would know (from their parents) that the Grün family who ran the stationery store on the corner were Jews, and they would tell you, so you knew that the Grün kids, Eva and Bruno, were also Jews, and you would tell your children not to play with them, because, after all, they're Jews. Perhaps a few secular Jews could have managed to escape being identified as Jews by breaking all ties with friends and family and moving to another town, but apart from pride and the pain and risks of living a lie, who could have believed then things would get as bad as they did? --Lambiam Talk  18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Lambiam, what more can one say, other than that people who in February 1938 were Austrians had become Jews, and nothing but Jews, a month later. Clio the Muse 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This was probably not a case of soldiers from Germany coming in and finding Jews. I'd bet the perpetrators here were local Nazis. Austria had long had an active Nazi movement. Presumably the local Nazi thugs knew who was Jewish in their neighborhoods. -- Mwalcoff 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the very point I made above. Clio the Muse 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What had they done 'wrong'?
Well now i guess I should ask my next question. This is probably going to be really controversial, but in the point of view of the perpetrators and spectators, what had the Jewish people done wrong? Sorry if im asking too many questions its just a lot of my family were, well murdered, during it and its fascinated me. Ive always wondered if they died for a reason or merely to satisfy paranoid, archaeic fears. Ive always suspected it was the latter Ahadland 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They had done nothing 'wrong', other than exist. For centuries the Jewish people had been outsiders and scapegoats.  For the Nazis they were a convenient excuse for all of Germany's problems, and were blamed, with no sense of irony, for Communism, on the one hand, and Plutocracy on the other.  You are welcome to ask as many questions as you wish, but it might help if you digested the pages on Anti-Semitism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Nazism to help deepen your understanding.  In addition to the texts I have indicated above (and I can point you in the direction of a lot more, if you wish) you should also read Mein Kampf.  The prose is leaden, but it provides the perfect insight into the mind of a poorly educated anti-semite.  Also, if you can, try to locate a copy, any copy, of the semi-pornographic Der Sturmer, edited by the ghastly Julius Streicher.  A few pages will give you a far deeper insight into the pathology of anti-semitism than I can ever hope to do.  Clio the Muse 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of Jews were associated with Communism from the 19th century on, which made them a target of anti-Communists. Ironically, once Communists gained power they often turned on the Jews, as part of an anti-intellectual movement. Among the earlier causes of anti-Semitism were Jews being allowed to lend money for interest when this was condemned for Christians as usury, allowing some Jews to get rich, thus causing resentment by those who owed them money. Then there is the old "the Jews killed Jesus" line. Of course, Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus being executed was apparently (according to the Bible) God's goal, so it's hard to blame the Jews for following God's plan and executing one of their own. StuRat 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont get it though, they were forced to be money lenders. Theres no conclusive evidence Jesus existed, so why blame Jewish people. And the whole thing about communism, Jews did it because they believed in anti-capitalism, showing they were against profiteering and therefore not greedy money lenders. Please explain further, I'm really confused. Ahadland 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand how people's minds work, hatred isn't logical. If people owe others money, they tend to hate them, they don't care about how the situation arose.  I think the evidence is pretty good that Jesus existed and was executed, but that doesn't matter either, if millions of people think that he existed and was killed by Jews, that's enough for them to hate Jews.  Some Jews being anti-capitalism was also enough to make the capitalists (like Nazis) hate them. StuRat 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How can you say the evidence is good, its written in the Bible. The Bible is noting but propaganda, in favor of the "son of God"--Brent Ward 23:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Jesus is also mentioned in other writings, and is considered a prophet by Muslims. If Jesus didn't actually exist, a whole chronology would have to be devised as to who invented him, when, and how they managed to get everyone else to take part in this conspiracy.  It's far more likely that a person by that name actually existed.  This does not, however, mean that he was the son of God, performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. StuRat 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Aww :-( why can't everybody be nice to everybody? Its sad 82.36.182.217 17:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do the spectators accept...?
Why do the spectators in the photograph accept what the thugs are doing to the Jews? Surely Austria wouldn't have succumbed so quickly to anti-Semitism. Ahadland 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above (search for "virulent"), Austria had succumbed much earlier. This is not meant to imply that antisemitism was universally condoned, and in no way attempts to rationalize the Holocaust. --Lambiam Talk  12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely though, people must have challenged what the local Nazi authorities? Ahadland 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * @Ahadland: You have raised some thought-provoking questions worthy of serious consideration. This discussion thread is getting a bit long. Do you have a Wikipedia user account? You do have the option of requesting any further clarification on your own user talk page. (See e.g., User page, Why create an account? if you haven't already). dr.ef.tymac 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just feel I should mention, Ahadland, that my remarks were not directed at you in any way. My feelings about Nazism are surely very similar, if not identical to yours. I know I said I'd provide no further comment, and I won't, except in this case I just felt it would be unfair to you to not answer your question about my remarks. My remarks were in no way directed toward you, rather, they were directed to an entirely different post submitted by an entirely different editor. Loomis 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank god, i thought I'd offended somebody. Ye your right, the Nazi's are bastards. Although if they were on Wikipedia, they could contribute to this thread and explain why they feel this way about Jews? Although this may result in some serious impoliteness —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC).Ahadland 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm currently reading a really insightful book about the holocaust by a survivor, it's called "Survival in Auschwitz" by primo levi, it has a lot of info that you could use about the psychology of humiliation and stuff. Amirman 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, but this question strikes me as either naive or ingenuous. Bystanders, i.e. people witnessing an act in which a perpetrator abuses a weaker victim, refrain from intervening most likely out of concern for their own safety. There may also be a lack of identification with the victim, which is addressed in the Nazi context by the often-quoted "First they came for..." verse by theologian Pastor Martin Niemöller. For a heartening counter-phenomenon, I'd advise reading about the Righteous Among the Nations, those non-Jews who risked their lives to protect Jews under Nazi occupation. -- Deborahjay 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is your answer suggesting that these people weren't watching of they own free will, they could have walked away? --Ahadland 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer, as my initial one that was intended to be pertinent and informative, neither suggests nor addresses this speculation as to why these spectators were or remained present; all we can know is that they were present — as evinced by the photo itself. (One doesn't have to be a professional photo archivist of a world-renowned Holocaust heritage institution to see the logic of that.) Furthermore, the wording of your question, "Why do they accept...?" makes a fundamental presumption of the spectators' intent; perhaps you'd care to clarify the basis of such an assertion, or otherwise rephrase? -- Deborahjay 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all that was put up on my behalf, and second of all, I only wonder why people are standing there and not intervening? --User:Ahadland1234 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they did subsequently intervene, but we can't know that unless further documentary evidence or testimony of this incident were to be furnished. As it is, we have only the evidence that this photo survived: that someone saw fit to photograph this scene, the camera was not confiscated or destroyed before the film could be retrieved, the negative was printed, and the image circulated. Other than this: any speculation as to spectators' motives can only be tentatively resolved by gaining further understanding of the context in which this incident occurred. Guidance in how to accomplish this is what the respondents (including yours truly) have tried to provide in their replies to the present and related questions. Matters of such immense scope and profound significance (e.g. what has classically been termed "Man's inhumanity to Man") can't possibly be "answered" thoroughly or even adequately in a few lines here in the Wikipedia Reference Desk. You would do well to continue reading as advised. -- Hope that helps, Deborahjay 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Another_example_of_Jewish_humiliation.jpg|right|150px]][[Image:Yet_another_example_of_jewish_humiliation.gif]]

These are clearly not isolated incidents. They happened all over Nazi occupied territory, and in all instances there is an audience. My question is relatively simple why did the, excuse my language, sick bastards wanna watch people being humiliated? I still dont understand why people are tacidly watching it, and if you go to the British imperial war Museum's Holocaust exhibition there are at least 8 photographs of the same event happening over Austria with spectators laughing at them. For example there are 2 pictures here and the spectators are forming a chain prohibiting the victims from escaping, they are clearly getting off on it and i dno why. COuld you please attempt to shed some light on why nobody is doing anything. It really befuddles me. --Ahadland 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You really have to slow down a little, Ahadland, and try to spend some time reading and thinking about the nature of the Nazi state in particular, and dictatorship in general. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to tyranny, a courage which most people simply do not have.  It is a sad fact that most 'decent' people walked away from cruelty and barbarism like this into the isolation of their private lives; and for those who did not the gates of Mathausen would soon be open in welcome.  Clio the Muse 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Has any genocide death count surpassed that of the holocaust?
In terms of death count has any genocide surpassed the holocaust? Ahadland 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to look over the article: Genocides in history.&mdash;eric 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See also democide. Perhaps the most people killed by any one government were the 77 million killed in China by Mao Zedong, due to his "Great Leap Forward" and other idiocies.  StuRat 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Omitting those inter-ethnic genocides practiced by one people upon another, one notable characteristic of the Nazi Holocaust is its international scope, with victims in the countries of the Nazis' WWII allies and under occupation. -- Deborahjay 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Holocaust allowed to happen?
I don't understand how people claimed that they didn't know what was happening. I mean fair do's they were placed in Ghetto's, but surely when they were liquidated, didn't people question where they'd gone, didn't anybody wonder why they were so quiet? How did the local authorities deal with it? User:Ahadland1234
 * Separate, brief answers to the three questions posed above:
 * The liquidations of ghetto populations took place under martial law, and resistance was punishable by summary execution. Nevertheless, many thousands of people did resist (and were killed on the spot), many thousands of others succeeded in hiding or escaping.
 * The Nazis initially suppressed information about their extermination activities, and the Jews under occupation were denied access to the mass media (e.g. having a radio in a ghetto was a capital offense). The subsequent reluctance to accept the information, that was initially obtained and disseminated by camp escapees and members of the undergrounds, is attributed to the unprecedented nature of the Nazis' systematic and industrialized process of exterminating a civilian population on such a mass scale, particularly in devoting resources to this while they were waging a costly war.
 * The "local [Jewish] authorities," usually in the form of ghetto Jewish councils, were executed if they resisted compliance (or as in the case of Adam Czerniakow in the Warsaw ghetto, committed suicide), or if they complied (as in the controversial case of Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski in the Lodz ghetto), treated as were any and all Jews, i.e. shipped off on a transport for extermination.
 * This information can be generally studied on the relevant pages within Wikipedia and the references and links provided therein. More specific information may require library or archival research. -- Deborahjay 23:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval King fathering a child... while a child
I dimly remember that a medieval European King fathered a child at a spectacularly young age, 10 or 12 from memory. Can you help?

I had thought it was Louis the Pious, but our article shows he was married at 16, 17 or 19 (depending...!) and his successor and eldest son Lothair I seems to have been born when Louis was in his mid-teens.

Did a very young Louis have a child out of wedlock who didn't inherit? Am I thinking of a different King? Am I just imagining the whole shebang? --Dweller 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * His two bastard children, Arnulf of Sens and Alpais, seem to have been born about 794, making Louis about 16 at the time of their births. But a lot of the dates seem fairly nebulous. - Nunh-huh 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got any info about a different King siring children when still exceptionally young himself? --Dweller 11:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a real brain-storm over this, going through years of English and French monarchs, but have been completely unable to make any advance on Louis the Pious! Maybe the Germans are worth a go, but there were so many royal houses within the Holy Roman Empire that this would probably require a lifetime of genealogical research.  There is a book with the lovely title of The Royal Bastards of Medieval England by Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis, which might supply some juicy gossip, but unfortunately it is not in my collection.  I will say, in general observation, that a child as young as ten being in a position to father children would be very unusual, even in the Middle Ages.  Children could be betrothed at very young ages, though marriage-and the consumation of marriages-were generally postponed until the teenage years.  Arthur Prince of Wales, the eldest son of Henry VII, was married to Catherine of Aragon when he was fifteen and she was sixteen.  After the wedding night he claimed that 'had been in Spain last night', or words to that effect, though Catherine, subsequently married to Henry VIII, after Arthur's early death, always claimed that the marriage had not been consumated.  Clio the Muse 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Henry VIII used this argument when he divorced Catherine, that since Arthur had not consummated the marriage, his own Levirate marriage to Catherine was ineligible. Clever old sauce. (Actually, it was probably Cardinal Wolsey, but I digress.) Thanks for the research - very sad to put this down to my imagination! --Dweller 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why there are 2 third parliaments under Charles II. (England)?
Hallo, sorry for my bad English. In the articleList_of_Parliaments_of_England are two third parliaments mentioned? Why? Was the first election not valid? Please answer not too complicated and please declare your sources. Thanks in advance -- Jlorenz1 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Worse than that, the latter of those 'third Parliaments', the Oxford Parliament (1681) has its own article here, which describes it as the fifth Parliament of Charles' reign! Is the numbering at the list article is just out of synch and is one missing, compounding the error? --Dweller 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jlorenz1; I think we have met before, and not too long ago? It's very difficult to simplify this issue, but I will do my best. In 1678 a great political crisis overtook England, referred to as the Popish Plot. An individual by the name of Titus Oates managed to persuade some very influential people, and the nation at large, that English Catholics, a persecuted minority, intended to assassinate the king Charles II and replace him with his brother and heir James, Duke of York, who had converted to Catholicism some years before, despite the political difficulties involved. James' enemies, headed by Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, took the opportunity presented by the Oates' revelations to try to have James excluded from the succession, thus beginning what was called the Exclusion Crisis. Shaftesbury and his associates were united in a political movement known by their enemies as the Whigs, becoming the first ever political party in English politics. In the Parliaments you have highlighted the House of Commons was dominated by the Whigs, and the king, who refused to accept the 'revelations' of the Popish Plot, dissolved them in the hope of securing a more moderate-and conservative-Commons. But Whig representation simply increased each time. Even in the final Parliament of his reign, that which gathered at Oxford, the Commons was dominated by the Whigs. In the end Charles was forced to dissolve Parliament and rule by royal decree alone. The Wikipedia information incidentally is wrong: there were actually five Parliaments during the reign of Charles II: the Convention Parliament, the Cavalier Parliament, the Habeas Corpus Parliament, the Exclusion Parliament and the Oxford Parliament. I've tried to make this information as basic as I can; but please let me know if there is anything here you do not understand. I would recommend that you look at Charles the Second by Ronald Hutton, The Popish Plot by J. P Kenyon and The First Earl of Shaftesbury by K. H. D. Haley. Clio the Muse 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi @Dweller a fifth parliaments is definetly wrong, because I'm writing an article about Algernon Sidney
 * Hi @Clio the Muse, yes it's right and it was unpolish from me not to answer you the last time, but I'm in hurry to write my article, which grows and grows. I know the background, but it is difficult for me to understand all the intrigues from the court and Earl of Shaftesbury. I've read Jonathan Scott e-book (but you must have a google-account for this - it is free) please read the page 181, 182. Algernon Sidney was candidate for the second(for Guildford/Surrey) and third parliament (Amersham and Bramber). He won and lost the seat in the second parliament by intrigue from the court. The first (third parliament election)he won Amersham and lost Bramber(where his brother Henry was the candidate). But e few months later there was second third parliament and there he lost his parliament seat in Amersham. But why there are two third parliaments and no fourth? P.S. Jonathan Scott had sent me a short message in cause of my first question one week ago P.S. The Convention Parliament is for me not in the era of Charles II., it is still the era of commonwealth-- Jlorenz1 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I admire your courage and audacity, Jlorenz1, to be writing about the complexities of a political system that is not your own. I would be pleased to assist you in any way I can.  Now, although the Convention Parliament met without royal authorisation, it continued to sit until December 1660, and thus must be considered as one of the Parliaments of Charles II.  The Commonwealth ended at the Restoration in May 1660.  Clio the Muse 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Clio the Muse, thanks for your offer. But ...
 * what was the official reason to dissolve the Exclusion Parliament (inofficial it was certain the Exclusion Bill)
 * and what means in detail a "double return" like in this Link and others? Was it to candidate in two communities at the same time or was it to candidate in two following parliaments or does have it another meaning?
 * And what is the meaning if two men candidate together see "He is reported on the 10th of August 1679 as being elected for Amersham with Sir Roger Hill" Was Sir Roger Hill the substitute of Sidney or do they rotate in their work or do they work together having equals rights?
 * I was on your user page and saw, that you are a history PhD in this era. Fine.
 * By the way my grandfather Alexander Rüstow and especially his first wife were be friends of Käthe Kollwitz. They are mentioned also in the diary of Käthe Kollwitz. This is very exciting for me, because she was telling in 1918/1919 how my grandfather was standing between two women - his first and his second wife - my grandmother Anna Rüstow born Bresser
 * Thanks for your help -- Jlorenz1 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm always pleased to be of assistance, Jlorenz, and I welcome a fellow enthusiast for seventeenth century English political history, which, as you have clearly discovered, is my particular speciality. On your questions, the answer to the first is that the king did not need to give a reason for dissolving Parliament, which was summoned and dispersed by royal prerogative.  Charles obviously could not in any way agree with the agenda of the Exclusion Parliament, which was to interfere with the the succession.  In the end he was forced to rule for the last four years of his reign in the abscence of Parliament, because of the constitutional impasse caused by the Exclusion Crisis.  On your second point, since the early Middle Ages most English constituencies were represented by two members, elected, or selected, at the same time, a practice which continued right up to the reforms of the nineteenth century.  Once in Parliament members were more or less free agents, not obliged to follow a party agenda, though they would always be mindful of the interests of their sponsors, those who made it possible for them to attend Parliament in the first place, often a few wealthy individuals.  Nevertheless, double member constituencies could, and often were, represented by men with quite different views, under no obligation to agree with one another.  Finally, I thank you for that fascinating piece of information about Käthe Kollwitz, one of my very favourite artists, and your grandparents.  I shall make a point of looking up that reference in her diaries!  Clio the Muse 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Clio the Muse for your answer. I have a new question (and I hope you'll will guess what I mean): Bytheway (should I open a new entry or should I pose the question on your Talk page)? -- Jlorenz1 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In which year was Charles II. influencing the polls of county sheriffs for subdueing the influence of Whigs in the cities? Was is 1681 or 1682 or later?


 * Hello again, Jlorenz. Actually, even before the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in March 1681 there had been a steady reaction in the country at large against the excesses of the Popish Plot, especially amongst the country squires, the backbone of the civil administration in England.  Many of these men were gradually embracing Toryism, a movement that had sprung up in opposition to Shaftesbury and the Whigs, and were deeply concerned by the possibility of a renewal of the Civil War which had torn England apart in the 1640s. Although the Whigs remained strong in London they had effectively lost the country at large by early 1681, making the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament arguably one of the great anti-climaxes of English history.  The Tory reaction grew in strength throughout 1681 and 1682, so much so that Shaftesbury, faced with a prosecution for high treason, was forced into exile in Holland, where he died in January 1683.


 * You are welcome to continue to post questions on this subject here, though please bear in mind that this thread will be due for archiving fairly soon now. You can either raise a new topic for discussion on this desk or, if you prefer, take future questions to my talk page.  Clio the Muse 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Koreas and United Nations
We were unsure of the UN status of North Korea. Looking it up, we discovered that both South and North Korea were admitted to the UN on the same date, in 1991. This was suprising, as we thought South Korea would have been a member long before that (hosting the summer Olympics in 1988)...and also that w/ the unresolved conflict, its surprising then (perhaps) that both were admitted on the same date. There must be an interesting historical story behind this...but seems there is no mention in the Wikipedia article on either country, about their admittance in the UN. We would like to be pointed towards an internet reference where the story can be learned, and maybe someone wants to update the Wikipedia articles about these countries with relevant information? Thanks if you can help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.41.211 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * In the early 1970's president Park of South Korea proposed that both Koreas simultaneously become members of the United Nations. This was presented as a gesture of goodwill, but could also be interpreted as a manoeuvre to avoid a potential stumbling block to eventual reunification. Whatever the case, Kim Il Sung, the then president of North Korea, was dead-set against this proposal. North Korea was, also by its own choice, politically almost completely isolated. The Soviet Union and China, following the lead of North Korea which they both tried to keep as an ally, also opposed the plan. Then, in 1990, in what some people see as a masterstroke of diplomacy, South Korea announced to the world that it was to pursue its own membership, regardless of what North Korea chose to do or not to do. In the changed international scene South Korea had managed to gain the support of the Soviet Union and China. As a reaction, the outmanoeuvred North chose to also seek admission. --Lambiam Talk  19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the Communist Bloc would have prevented South Korea from joining on its own before the fall of communism. North Korea would have preferred not to do anything that implied recognition of the Seoul government. After 1989, it was clear South Korea could have been admitted by itself, so North Korea had no choice but to accept two Koreas in the UN. Although it has been talking to South Korea on and off over the past 20 years or so, North Korea still claims to be the only legitimate government of the entire Korean peninsula. In fact, it doesn't even like being called "North Korea," preferring the (completely false) name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." -- Mwalcoff 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you people for those insights. Very interesting. I hope someone (with time, skill, and inclination) will add some of this to the existing articles on the Koreas.


 * The hard thing is to find appropriate sources that can be cited. --Lambiam Talk  09:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta
From article Helots: "In the 4th century BCE, citizens also used chattel-slaves for domestic purposes". What author writed this information? I don't beliefe that in Sparta there was slavery (I don't retain Helots slaves). Vess 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, here is the edit whereby the claim (without the chronological limitation) first entered the (French) Wikipedia. One could ask the editor for a citation. In general, this featured French Wikipedia article is well researched on the basis of standard scholarly accounts.  If you read Garlan, Cartledge, etc., I think you'll find the basis of this.  Wareh 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this. The helots were serfs rather than slaves as such; but the margin between the two was so fine that it makes little sense to draw a strict line of demarcation. The point is that their labour was forced and unfree. Clio the Muse 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm the author of this particular edit which, I reckon, should be rewritten in a more careful way--for that matter, the whole article should be rewritten.
 * There are mentions of people freed by Spartans, which is supposedly forbidden for Helots (Alcman, according to Suidas and Herakleides; a Cytherean man reputedly enslaved with all his fellow citizens, according to Suidas), or sold outside of Lakonia (a Spartan cook bought by Dionysius the Elder or by a king of Pontus, both versions being mentioned by Plutarch; Spartan nurses, Plutarch again). Pseudo-Plato in Alcibiades I mentions "the ownership of slaves, and notably Helots" and Plutarch (in Comp. Lyc. et Num.) writes about "slaves and Helots", which tends to indicate that both are not the same thing. Finally, according to Thucydides, the agreement which ends the 464 BC revolt of Helots states that any Messenian rebel who might hereafter be found within the Peloponnese "is to be the slave of his captor".
 * Concerning scholars, Lévy (Sparte, 2003) thinks that the existence of chattel-slaves in Sparte is likely, if infrequent--at least for citizens: if we admit that Perioikoi could not own Helots, they must have had slaves. For Ducat (Les Hilotes, 1990) and Oliva (Sparta, 1971), the presence of bought slaves is plausible after 404 BC, but only in the upper classes. Lotze, (Metaxy, 1959) denies their existence because of the absence of real currency. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Were helots owned collectively by the state or by individuals? Never mind - found it in the article (state owned). Clarityfiend 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer
What was daily life like in the United States during Tom Sawyer's time?


 * Tom Sawyer is eternal, and thus has no time. But Tom Sawyer and, above all, Huckleberry Finn, give a reasonable insight into aspects of daily life in part of the old south before the Civil War.  There are no Wikipedia pages that deal with this subject directly, but you might, for some background information, have a look at the History of the United States (1849-1865) and the Origins of the American Civil War.  There is also a brief page on the Antebellum topic.  Clio the Muse 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And note that it depends on where you are. Daily life in the North, South, and West would have been very different at these times. --140.247.250.115 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why aren't there articles for such topics? Certainly there has been plenty of research done and many papers written on "American life in the XXs", not to mention daily life all around the world in history. I think such articles would be a great project for history buffs, and I don't see why they couldn't be made. 222.158.162.242 10:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Henry and Eleanor's children (Q moved from Miscellaneous Ref Desk)
I have been looking among the files on Henry the second and Eleanor of Aquitaine and there childrens pages for the infomation about who is the favrite of the parents.- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.226.248 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC). (Moved here by Dweller 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Henry's favourite was Prince John, but I think Eleanor favoured Prince Richard. In any case it was he who inherited her great duchy of Aquitaine, the very heart of the Angevin Empire.  Clio the Muse 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you've ever seen The Lion in Winter, you'll see poor Geoffrey moaning about being unloved by both his parents. However, prior to his death, I believe Henry the Young King was their father's favorite.  Corvus cornix 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the 1968 movie on DVD not so long ago; great performances by Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn as Henry and Eleanor (and a young Anthony Hopkins as Richard). On your main point, Corvus, all the evidence suggests that Henry favoured John and Eleanor Richard.  I have never come across anything to suggest that either of them had any deep regard for the Young King, who was treated by Henry as little more than a political cipher.  If you could point me towards anything that suggests the contrary, and indicates Henry's true attitude towards his eldest surviving son, I would be most grateful. Clio the Muse 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Inanity warning) As it happens, I also just recently watched TLiW for the first time, and, having similar questions, I too came to WP looking for answers, and dind't find them all here either. My main surprise, however, was seeing Philip II of France, in a 38 (!) year old film, being played by a Timothy Dalton looking (and acting) much the same as the Timothy Dalton I knew from the late 80s / early 90s. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio, my memory comes from the reading of The Conquering Family by Thomas B. Costain years ago, so I may just be talking out my hat. If so, I apologize.  Corvus cornix 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Komandorski Islands
What were the names of cruisers and destroyers that assisted USS SALT LAKE CITY in this battle on March 26, 1943. My wife has an uncle who was in this battle and we are trying to find out info.

Thanks, Ssearan 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the first external link listed in Battle of the Komandorski Islands: the old light cruiser Richmond and the destroyers Coghlan, Bailey and Dale. It also says the battle actually took place on the 27th. Clarityfiend 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (2x ec) I've got a ref which also lists USS Monaghan, Lt. Cmdr. Peter Harry Horn.&mdash;eric 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake - it did say there were 4 destroyers. Clarityfiend 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fawcett Club Inc.
My grandfather, M. C. Schill was the president of the Fawcett Club from 1916 to 1918. To my knowledge, it was located in Brooklyn, New York. What was the club and does it still exist? Sincerely, Elaine Schill Kurka —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.99.35 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Seppuku
How common was this in medieval Japan? Clarityfiend 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very uncommon. The Samurai themselves were a tiny warrior-caste of the Japanese ppl. AFAIK only they praticed this ritual form of suicide. Flamarande 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant among the Samurai. And now that you bring it up, how much of the population did the Samurai comprise? Somebody tell me before my hari meets my kari. Clarityfiend 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Far from me to dissuade you from redemming your precious honor by a beautiful act of honorable suicide :). I remember that the History Channel said that the Samurai were about 5% of the total Japanese population but I will not vouch for this number. I believe that the number of warriors of a society normally increases in periods of war and then decreases during peace. I also read somewhere that nobles in Mediaval Europe where of the same percentage so I guess it can be somewhat accurate. But in studying the Samurai you must distinguish between the legendary Samurai, who have been heavily idealized by later accounts. The true Samurai would flee if their enemy was too strong, to fight again under more favourable conditions. Flamarande 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you found Seppuku. The practise was never widespread, even among warriors. In some ways it may be seen in similar terms as what was done in Athens so that Pericles' son (Battle of Arginusae)was executed: An honor killing. The Wiki article states it was preferable to torture. This puts the actions of some Japanese soldiers at the end of WW2 in perspective, in that they were suiciding in a manner preferable to the alternative. DDB 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychology
For my AS pyschology specification we have been given a question that is really puzzling me, I don't know where to begin. Could somebody please give me a few pointers; "to what extent is there a relationship between stress and illness". Im not asking for anybody to do my own homework, merely to provide pointers. 82.36.182.217 20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a connection between stress and illness. For example, generally if you are overstressed, you may become more suceptible to some diseases. (Not being a science major, I can't tell you why exactly.) It may have something to do with the fact that your body is overloaded.


 * Since it's for school, I'm assuming you want more than just opinion, you want data, right? So HERE is a general place to look, and HERE is a more specific, scholarly search result. Many studies focus on the effect of stress on the endocrine and immune systems, the pattern of stress→depression→self-neglect→illness, psycho-somatic illness, for a start. The endocrine and immune system angles are well-documented. Good luck! Also, the WP article isn't too helpful, but still worth reading. Stress (medicine). Anchoress 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychoneuroimmunology and psychosomatic may be informative -- Diletante 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be an excellent question for the Science Ref Desk. StuRat 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)