Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 2

= October 2 =

French and Arabic names
Is Lebanon the only country whose Christians have French name first and then Arabic name last? yes or No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.219 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer is clearly no, because there are Christian Arabs in many other countries, including France. Also, it depends what you mean by 'French names'. There's a surprisingly big Christian minority in several Arab countries you don't mention, such as Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Territories, including some with origins in Lebanon. Xn4  05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to any question of the form, "Is [SOME COUNTRY] the only one with [CITIZENS WITH SOME QUALITY]?" is almost always going to be "no". Only today I learned that a 300-lb ethnically Chinese man was a powerful political sheriff of a Louisiana parish for 30 years.  Who knew!  --Sean 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner Execution
Is there some kind of law that states that condemned cannot be executed if unhealthy or injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.68.59 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Laws vary by country (and sometimes smaller government units). Where did you have in mind? Rmhermen 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, capital punishment has been abandoned in civilzed societies. However, during executions in the USA, medical personnel make sure to sterilize the patch of skin where the lethal injection is set to insure that the prisoner does not catch any disease while dying. Asav 22:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to say which country you have in mind, but I've never heard of such a law in any part of the English-speaking world. However, while we had capital punishment in the British Isles, the law did protect pregnant women from being executed. There's a famous case of two women in the early eighteenth century, Mary Read and Anne Bonny, who were among a pirate crew who were all sentenced to be hanged, and they said "My lord, we plead our bellies" and got off. Xn4  05:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Got off"? I thought the execution was just postponed - which may end up in the sentence being commuted, or the woman absconding, I suppose. When a convicted woman claimed that they were of pregnant to avoid the gallows (see "Pleading the belly"), the truth of the claim was determined by a Jury of Matrons.  Prisons were poorly regulated at the time, so convicted women could often fall pregnant between conviction and execution, until the Murder Act 1752 mandated execution within 2 days after sentence. -- !! ?? 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, the reprieve was normally only until the child was born. According to Anne Bonny, Mary Read later died of a fever, possibly in childbirth, but "there is no historical record of Bonny's release or of her execution." Somehow, she disappears. Xn4  22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - I suspect you're thinking of the fact that in many countries a defendant can be found to be "unfit to stand trial", so even if he has committed a capital offense he won't get to the point of being convicted. For instance, in 1998 Augusto Pinochet was arrested in the UK on a Spanish warrant for the murder of Spanish citizens while he was president of Chile, and a few days later he was also charged with torture and kidnapping. He was released in 2000 on medical grounds, so there was no trial. Xn4  05:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On a similar note, I remember hearing of a U.S. case where the accused was found guilty but not given the death penalty because of their age/health. It was thought that if sentenced to death that the condemned would ask for an appeal and use up more time and resources of the courts. Though if simply sentenced to life imprisonment, the case would simply be closed and the criminal would die relatively shortly of natural causes while in prison. I don't remember where or when this was, I have no sources but my own memory. Dismas |(talk) 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the USA one has to have some degree of mental competence to be executed according to the US Supreme Court or various state laws. So there have been inmates who intentionally do not take psychiatric medication and Supreme Court cases about the legality of forcible administration of medication in order for them to be executable.  Don't have the time or more precise recollection to give citations.John Z 07:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In most countries (yes?) the law holds that people should not be executed. Period. DirkvdM 08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly capital punishment has been abolished in almost all European countries, due mostly to standards set by the Council of Europe. But in that, Europe is quite different from the world beyond. Xn4  08:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Europe is certainly not exceptional as regards abolishing the death penalty. According to our article on use of capital punishment by nation, 50 of the 90 countries that have completely abolised the death penalty lie outside of Europe. These countries include South Africa, Hong Kong, Phillipines, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And our capital punishment article says that over 90% of the executions carried out in 2006 took place in the following 6 countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, and the United States. Gandalf61 08:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That map in Use of capital punishment by nation does show that Europe is quite different from the world beyond. Xn4  21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Only because of it's concentration of right-thinking countries. The majority of the 90 countries that have completely abolised the death penalty still lie outside of Europe.Gandalf61 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See also this map. DirkvdM 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I counted 66/207 who fall under "Legal Form of Punishment" (mauve). Presuming the map is accurate, you could probably say most countries don't have the death penalty in common practice. However I don't know about "the law holds that people should not be executed". I would say it's probably not accurate. Considering that there are a lot of orange countries (who's law doesn't say people can't be exectured but in practice people aren't executed) I would say it's a very close call. Indeed that statement implies we should only count blue countries/"Abolished for all crimes" IMHO since even if a country only allows executions for extremely exceptional crimes like crimes during war time, clearly their law doesn't say people can't be executed. So I would say it's almost definitely not accurate. If one considers the worlds population, then most people by far live in countries where people can be and are executed (considering all top 4 are mauve and also of the top 15 world population, only 5 Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Philippines, Germany don't so you already have 56.5% of the world's population). Of course, there is a big difference between India's use and China's use of the death penalty considering mauve countries for example and I don't think it's just because of the level of crime in these countries. Also, according to capital punishment the ratio of support/oppose in popular opinion worldwide is 52%/39%. I personally have doubts about the reliability of these numbers (it's a Gallup poll and they often publish worldwide numbers but for something as polarising as the death penalty I think these numbers would be a rough estimates at best). If anything I suspect there may be higher support. Considering developing countries particularly, I would suspect that there is a large problem gauging support in rural areas but I also suspect that they tend to have higher levels of support and I wonder how well this was accounted for. All in all, I would say a majority of people support the death penalty to some degree. But no one ever said the majority is always right Nil Einne 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I see now has countries listed and numbers. It lists 64 retionists so maybe I counted wrong. However it seems to be missing 10 countries anyway since our total is 207 theirs is 197. In any case, 90/197 or 100/207 (assuming the 10 they're missing are abolitionist for all crimes which is unlikely anyway IMHO), it's not a majority of countries that have 'law holds that people should not be executed'. Also I'm not sure if I'd agree with all of AI's 'abolitionist in practice' classifications either. See the Talk:Use of capital punishment by nation for specific comments on Swaziland which I noticed while looking into this. I didn't look into many other countries so there could be more Nil Einne 23:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

British Empire
Was the British Empire 'a good thing.'Captain Beaky 05:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Depending on your point of view, the answer could be either yes or no. Your question is too ambiguous to answer succinctly.  Is this a homework question?  If that is the case then your teacher most likely wants the answer stated from a certain point of view or even wants your view on it.  If this is the case, the article on the British Empire would probably be of help to you.  Dismas |(talk) 05:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those questions which asks us for an opinion rather than for hard facts. And I think your question really comes down to this: 'Objectively, did the British Empire do more good than harm?' Unfortunately, most opinions will be subjective.

The main reasons why the British went out into the wide world were (1) that there was money to be made out of trading overseas; and (2) that there were new lands to settle. Religious minorities, men and women out of work, adventurers, younger sons with no inheritance, people running away from the law, and many other kinds of people, went out permanently to find new land and a new life, often to escape a hard one at home, or else they went out to do money-making or imperial things and later to come home. Some flourished, some failed, but on the whole the Empire was seen (subjectively, of course) as a good thing from Britain's point of view, a source of strength and pride. It made the United Kingdom into a Great Power, with command of the seas, leaving it generally safe within its own shores: the Pax Britannica, which had much wider benefits. The Empire also gave an impetus to every kind of art and science.

The British didn't set out to rule vast areas of the world as an idealistic enterprise, although they often persuaded themselves that to spread Christianity, science, medicine, economic development, and so forth, was a noble thing. Often, when settling new lands, they found they belonged to someone else already, and where that was the case people who were dispossessed were often monstrously treated. If you were at the sharp end of it, the British Empire could (subjectively) be a terrible thing. It's arguable that it brought more peace and prosperity than it brought war and poverty, that it was 'the policeman of the world', but it had bad impacts on individuals. In the 18th century, the British were a major force in the slave trade, and few people in the world now see colonialism in a positive light.

Your problem is to balance vast interests against each other, which in itself calls for the judgement of Solomon, and also perhaps to ask what might have been if there had been no Britain and no British Empire. Generally speaking, I suppose, the impetus of European expansion was so great that the other European powers would have filled the gap and taken the parts of the world that the British in fact took. If the great wars of the 20th century were all but inevitable, might they have gone the other way, and (in the end) would it have mattered if they had? Anyway, all this ground can't be covered in an essay. Xn4 07:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For Britain,yes; for the countries involved? probably no.--hotclaws 09:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're an untermenschen or reasonably civilised (or both), you'd probably think it was a pretty good thing, if badly flawed. --Dweller 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I suspect most people now frown on colonialism, but those were different times. The British Empire brought oppression and lack of self determination, but even advanced Britain itself was undemocratic, and most of the countries it conquered would have had oppresive rule anyway, even if under a leader of their own nationality. And the alternative was not freedom, but colonisation by another power. Half the battle for empire was to avoid the French or Spanish getting one either. Notice the French involvement in the American war of Independence, and the battle over Canada. Although the slave trade and imperial ambitions can be linked, to a certain extent, Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807, I think only Denmark did this earlier. The Victorian British empire (as opposed to the earlier one based mainly in America) in Africa, India etc came later than this. And the all powerful British navy did much to stop other countries continuing to trade slaves, so a British Empire could have been seen as atleast the lesser of two evils. Resources were stolen, but also much infrastructure was developed. Would there even be an India without the railways the British built? So in conclusion, I think it was a good thing, with bad effects on individuals, but very much of its time I don't think a return to it would be possible or desirable. However we could do without some of the post-colonial guilt which is allowing for one the terrible starvation in Zimbabwe, for fear of being seen as imperialists. Cyta 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most English colonies prospered after independence, such as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong (semi-independence), and (somewhat) India, with some exceptions, such as Zimbabwe. This is not true of most former French colonies (Haiti, Vietnam, etc.) and most former Spanish colonies (most of South and Central America).  Former British colonies also tend to be more politically stable.  So, from the economic and political POV, British colonialism can be seen as beneficial in the long term. StuRat 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with many that this is too broad a question to be answered in any resonable way. I personally believe colonialism was wrong so from this point of view the British empire was not a good thing. However as large scale colonists go, I agree with StuRat that the British was probably the best of the lot. I'm a Malaysian and I studied Malaysian history in school and parts of Malaysia was colonised by multiple parties including the Portugese followed by the Dutch and then the British and the Japanese during WW2 (after that back to the British obviously). (Obviously my views may be biased by this) I've also some knowledge from various sources of the history of other countries particularly Malaysia's neighbours (which is important since there was obviously a change in attitude of colonists as time progressed). (Further back, some people argue that earlier foreign parties like Parameswa who founded the Malacca Sultanate can be called a colonist but that's rather complicated IMHO and somewhat against the point here). Amongst other things, the British tended to encourage the participation of the local people in lower levels of civil service and government, sometimes even maintaing a semblence of the existing structures (e.g. a resident 'advisor' who gave the sultan 'advice' on matters affecting the British. If the sultan wasn't happy about this there would always be other ones willing, divide and rule although that tactic itself has often left some rather nasty divisions). Indirect rule covers the British government of many of their colonies and contrasts it to others to some extent. They were also perhaps were better at controlling the work of missionaries+respecting the beliefs of the locals and educating the native population (in stuff other then religion I mean) to some degree (which of course meant that they had a fair amount of control of what the people learnt). These factors helped reduce strife and rebellion and therefore helped greatly in forming and keeping the British empire together. So ultimately they were the better colonists because they were the smarter colonists and hence the British empire was so successful. (Of course many of them did to some degree believe they had a noble mission to better their world and did think they were helping the native population and in a number of ways they obviously were even if many of their beliefs and some of their actions may seem offensive nowadays). Back to the topic, all of these things ultimately meant that when their colonies achieved independence even if it had not been their intention for a lot of the time, they were better prepared then other colonies. I think also the British were better generally in managing the transition from colony to independent country whereas others were more cut and run (for a variety of reasons). It surely helped too that for the later part when many of the colonies were achieving independence they were probably more stable then most other colonies. Obviously these things are difficult to analyse. For example, it's perhaps not entirely the Dutch's fault that Indonesia achieved independence directly after WW2 after being occupied by Japan whereas Malaysia had a transition period. Edit: I didn't mean to suggest that the only reason the British were successful was because they generally ran their colonies in a smarter way Nil Einne 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can shed some light on the independence of Indonesia. The Dutch government had started around 1900 with a paternalistic policy to educate the natives of the Dutch East Indies towards a greater degree of self-rule and autonomy (all within the Kingdom, obviously), known as Ethical Politics (Ethische Politiek in Dutch). This was part of a mission civilisatrice that was commonplace in that period. See for instance the liberal and the socialist movements of the time, or the anti-alcohol movement. Part of the Ethical Politics was for instance the establishment of universities. Many prominent people in the independence movement were educated at these universities, like the first president of Indonesia Sukarno for instance. The creation of this policy occurred at the same time as the unification of what we now know as Indonesia under Dutch rule; Aceh was the last area to be conquered, between 1898 and 1904. This also coincided with the birth of a Javanese nationalism in the first decade of the 20th century, with Budi Utomo. Anti-Dutch sentiments on other islands in the archipelago stimulated the spread of this nationalism. They were further fuelled by the Japanese, between 1942 and 1945, who put natives in important positions of government in the archipelago, and who put the Dutch people in the archipelago in concentration camps.
 * When Japan was defeated in August 1945, there was a small Dutch fleet in the area, who tried to stop the rebellion, with the help of the US, the UK and Australia. These efforts were hampered by the fact that there was still barely a Dutch government in the Netherlands, let alone a colonial administration in the Dutch East Indies. The US and Australia withdrew their support for the Netherlands, and when the US threatened to stop Marshall aid to the Netherlands in 1949, the Dutch government had no choice but to accept the independence of Indonesia. A  ecis Brievenbus 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Cyta-and with Niall Ferguson- that it is indeed time to stop saying sorry for the Empire! Was it a good thing? Yes, it was. Was it a bad thing? Yes, it was. The answer obtained really depends on your point of departure, but no historical question can ever really be answered in absolute terms. In the end nothing became the empire, perhaps, like the leaving of it, all conducted in such a unfussy English fashion, with few of the horrors that accompanied the French wars in Vietnam and Algeria. So, apart from the common law, the administration, the railways, the shared language, a belief in freedom and fair-play, a sense of belonging to a greater communty and a greater world, what did the Empire ever do for us? Well, quite a lot, actually. Clio the Muse 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the UK was not forcibly ejected like the French (Palestine could be a counter-example - although not a colony, it had been under British control for a couple of decades), and many of the transitions to democracy were peaceful and successful - particularly in the White Commonwealth - if we ignore the loss of the US - and in Asia and the Caribbean. But the speed with which Britain abandonded its colonies, and lack of support for the newly independent states afterwards, does the UK little credit.  And it was not all sweetness and light - the thousands to die in the over-quick Partition of India; EOKA in Cyprus; the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya; racist regimes in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia; the Malayan Emergency; the Aden Emergency; Biafra; the decaying infrastructure and non-democratic regimes which blight much of Africa today.  Some of the problems were not of Britain's making, but it shares some of the blame for not laying the foundataions for success. -- !! ?? 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes-the debit sheet; I suppose somebody had to produce that! I'm puzzled by the reference to Palestine, though.  Colony or mandate it really makes no difference: the British decided to end control of their own volition, much as they did in India; they were certainly not forcibly ejected.  Anyway, in any realistic scrutiny of the end of Empire one has to take into consideration the circumstances of Britain at the end of the Second World War; morally among the victors, but in economic terms almost among the defeated.  Certainly a lengthy transistion to Indian independence may have been desirable-assuming the Indians themselves would have wished for such a thing-but the simple fact is that Britain had either the economic means nor the political will to hold on.  Attempts to control inter-communal violence-which was widespread well before the partition-would have required huge numbers of extra troops, delayed demobilisation, and ever increasing expenditure.  For a war-weary and bankrupt country this was quite simply the impossible option.  I completely fail to see how the British could have stopped the violence in India, just as I fail to see what responsibility they had for the terrorism, and the gratuitous violence, practiced by EOKA and the Mau-Mau movement.  Also, I have to say that the logic behind your 'grouping of incidents' escapes me, assuming there is a logic.  There were many failings in decolonialisation, yes, but not surely the Malay Emergeny, which saw the defeat of an ugly and brutal Communist insurgency and the eventual emergence, at one and the same time, of an independent and democratic Malaysia.  Again, what responsibility the British had for the racist regime in South Africa-or Rhodesia-completely escapes me.  Boer racism in South Africa went before the British, just as it came after them.  And as far as African dictatorship is concerned, that is the responsibility of the Africans, of the Wa-benzi, and not the British.  Colonialism has for so many incompetent regimes become a crutch to explain their failure, their corruption, their lack of accountability.  Colonialism did not destroy Zimbabwe; Robert Mugabe did.  Biafra?  I rather thought that was an Nigerian affair.  Oh, but let's just keep it simple, shall we: the British are to blame for everything, having an Empire and not having an Empire; for what came before, and what came after.  History does not move on; it only marks time.  Clio the Muse 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Palestine: yes, the British "voluntarily" decided to terminate their mandate in 1948. I am sure the continuing violence from Irgun and others had nothing to do with their decision.


 * India: I think it is generally accepted that the loss of life in the immediate aftermath of the partitiion of India could have been reduced if (a) it was not so rushes and (b) the British armed forces had been more involved in trying to stop the ethic violence. But, as the anon mentions below, it would have cost more and taken longer, and the Beitish wanted out.


 * Mau-Mau, etc: my point was really that the end of Empire was not just British troops marching reluctantly on to cruise liners as the natives waved their handkerchiefs and dabbed their tear-stained faces, thanking their lucky stars for the roads, and railways, and schools, and hospitals, and well-oiled machinery of civil democracy that the British were leaving behind. Plenty of people wanted them out right now, and in many cases the British were only too glad to oblige.  The reasons and methods and results were different in different places, but the legacy remains, for good or ill. -- !! ?? 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oscar Wilde: "Children begin by loving their parents; after a time they judge them; rarely, if ever, do they forgive them." Xn4  23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! Clio the Muse 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? 80.254.147.52 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is what I was alluding to, yes. Clio the Muse 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a waste of money; the profits accrued from the Empire were less than what was needed to pay for the defence of it (and by the way the UK paid for the defence of the Dominions and the Dominions didn't and they still put up tariffs against UK exports). The British thought too much of a "civilising mission" than in enhancing national wealth and therefore power. It is also interesting to note that "in the history of British imperialism economists have hitherto figured chiefly as skeptics&mdash;brakes on the chariot of expansion, critics who would sacrifice the imperial to the cosmopolitan ideal...considered the value of the existing empire and the wisdom of expansion from the standpoint of national wealth".--Johnbull 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Poland and the Holocaust
Further to a question that appeared here a few days ago and would be interested to know something of post-war views of the Holocaust in Poland, particularly in the light of that country's former tradition of anti-semitism.Captain Beaky 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "tradition of anti-Semitism" in a country that Jews regarded as a "Jewish paradise" and a new Promised Land for centuries, but anyway, have you tried History of Jews in Poland and Jewish Polish history during the 1900s in particular for a start? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 08:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As the former of those articles makes clear, oddly, despite the fact that there was something of a golden age of Jewish culture and learning in Poland before WWI, there was a substantial and distinctive tradition of Polish anti-semitism. --Dweller 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cf: History_of_Jews_in_Poland, History_of_Jews_in_Poland, History_of_Jews_in_Poland. There's also the extraordinary 1946 (yup, post WWII) Kielce pogrom. --Dweller 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All countries that had Jews, also had antisemites, so I don't think you can talk of an antisemitic tradition. And even if you could, then it's nothing specifically Polish, that's my point. Anyway, the question about views of the Holocaust in Communist Poland is a perfectly valid one. I would say that, generally, the Nazi German genocide was viewed as a terrible atrocity, but from the Polish point of view, the mass killing of Jews was not much different than the mass killing Poles. In other words, Jews were just one of many groups targeted by the Nazis. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 12:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all countries had pogroms, and certainly not into the twentieth century, much less the postwar period. --24.147.86.187 12:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all countries had Jews. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're basically denying that Poland had a notable history of anti-Semitism, including pogroms well into the 20th century and even after World War II? You're basically trying to assert that the history of Polish anti-semitism is no more virulent in the immediate pre-WWII period than any other country with Jews? I mean, give me a break. I don't think Poland was exceptionally more anti-Semitic than Russia or Germany, but that doesn't put it in very good company, as both of those countries had virulent and violent anti-Semitism. Other countries indeed have their own out-group troubles—the treatment of African-Americans in the United States, for example, was horrific until the end of the 1960s—but pretending that Poland didn't have a specific and particularly violent manifestation of anti-Semitism is ludicrious. --24.147.86.187 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Compared with efforts to exterminate Jews by ancient Egyptians (Exodus), Babylonians (Babylonian captivity), Persians (Esther), Romans (Jewish-Roman wars), exploitations and expulsions by medieval England (Statute of the Jewry), France, Spain, Portugal and various German states, Russian progroms of the 19th century, not to mention the Final Solution carried out by the Germans, I do think Polish antisemitism was really rather mild. I'm not saying it didn't exist, but hey, if Poland was such a terrible place for Jews to live in, why did it have the world's largest Jewish population prior to WW2? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research, a UK academic think-tank, maintains a website called "Xenophobia and antisemitism today", which is an attempt to contextualise and update on modern antisemitic trends. Their current (!! it's dated 1996!!) report on Poland can be found here. It's instructive both in answer to the original question and the issue of Polish antisemitism that's been discussed so far. --Dweller 13:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a little more recent report here. Still, it's six years old. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw a TV documentary on Jews returning to Poland after WW2, both to live and just to visit. In both cases they seemed quite unwelcome.  I don't attribute this to traditional anti-Semitism, however, but to more practical reasons:


 * 1) Some blamed the Jews for bringing about the Nazi occupation, thinking it's only purpose was to hunt down Jews.


 * 2) Jews reminded them of a time they would rather forget.


 * 3) Some were living in houses and holding property formerly owned by Jews, and didn't want to give it back.


 * 4) The presence of Jews made retaliation against Polish collaborators more likely.


 * So, overall, the Poles just wanted to pretend the War had never happened and get on with life, and having Jews around made that difficult. StuRat 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would never say that Poles are anywhere close to pretending the war had never happened. The part about Jewish claims for property restitution is most plausible. One thing is bugging me though: if a Pole says that Poland is not a right place for Jews to live in, they'll be labelled as an antisemite. But there are also many Jews in the US, Israel and elsewhere who say Poland is a cursed land and after the Holocaust, no Jew should ever set their foot in that country, let alone live there, and if there are any Jews still living in Poland, they must be out of their minds. Are those people antisemites too? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear, dear, Kpalion; I'm really quite surprised. No, sorry; that is not quite right; I am totally surprised.  Yes, I admire your patriotism; I, too, am a patriot.  We all have a responsibility to our nation and to our people; but we have an even greater responsibility to the truth.  Now, I have no desire to get into a battle with you, and I am truly sorry to have to say this, but some of the things you have written here are not just misleading; they are grossly misleading.  It does no good at all to try to score points by some ill-conceived attempt to place a nation further down the 'table of infamy', as you have in contending that Polish anti-semitism was 'mild' compared with others.  What is infinitely worse is your suggestion that Poland was some kind of 'Jewish paradise'. I personally find this unbelievably crass.  I had to read what you had written twice, because I simply could not absorb it the first time around.


 * Now, I know you are knowledgeable about Polish history-probably more so than I-, and I have been pleased to accept a correction from you over a past error in terminology. So, I know that you are as aware as I am that Jewish people did not settle in Poland in such large numbers because it was a 'paradise', but because they were, first of all, forced eastwards by the kingdoms of the west, and second, because they were forced westwards by the kingdom of the east.  The old Russian Empire, in other words, only allowed Jewish people to live in the Pale of Settlement, the border regions of Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia and the Ukraine.  You are also fully aware, I am quite sure, that anti-semitism was on the rise during the time of the Second Polish Republic, especially in the period leading up to the outbreak of the Second World War.  Discrimination also had the effect of reducing the living standards of the community in the 'Jewish paradise', to the point where it was amongst the lowest in the world.  During the occupation the Germans were actively assisted by many Polish anti-semites, and some incidents, most notably the Jedwabne pogrom, were the responsibility of Poles alone.  The violence did not stop even after the war ended.  As far as I am aware the Kielce pogrom remains the worst post-Holocaust outrage in all of Europe.


 * I am truly sorry for having to write in such a fashion, first, because it takes me far away from the point of the original question; second, and more important, because It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to launch such a broadside against a useful contributer as you clearly are. Please understand that none of this is an attack on you personally, but on a misreading of history, a misreading which I do not believe is worthy of you.  I deeply regret having to be so woundingly direct.  Clio the Muse 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there's a difference between "I don't want to live there" and "I don't want you to live here." - Eron Talk 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. But what I described above is a situation where some Poles are telling Jews they don't want them to live in Poland, and some Jews telling other Jews they don't want them to live in Poland. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question (after an edit conflict), the post-war views (I assume this means the official stance of the Communist authorities) on Holocaust. I just had a look into the Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN, a large Polish encyclopedia published in 1962-70. There's actually nothing between Holmes, Oliver and Holocene. There is a long article about "Hitlerite camps" though. The word "Jews" appears for the first time down in the fourth paragraph. Here's the fragment (my translation):

"All types of Hitlerite camps, regardless of their names, carried out, with various intencity and in various scope, three basic tasks: terror, exploitation of workforce, and physical extermination of [entire] nations, mostly Slavic, and among them especially Poles and nationalities of the USSR, as well as Jews and persons deemed Jewish by the Nuremberg Laws."

The 16th paragraph concentrates on the extermination of Poles; the 17th – of Soviet PoWs; and the 18th – of Jews. The last two sentences of that paragraph say:

"The tragic fate of the Jewish community – Polish citizens – are an integral part of the history and tragedy of the Polish state. Many thousands of Gypsies also perished in Hitlerite camps."

I hope it gives you an idea of what the official view was. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All that now follows is addressed to the original questioner.


 * This is a difficult question, Captain Beaky, because it raises all sorts of complicated issues: that of Polish people towards the Jewish community in their midst, and that the post-war Communist authorities towards the political significance of the Holocaust. The official investigation into the Holocaust began with the setting up of a commission to gather evidence of war crimes, which included the Jewish Historical Institute (JHI), a body of independent historians.  This was a time when Poland was not yet fully controlled by the Communists, so some degree of openness and objectivity was still possible.  Things changed from 1948 onwards.  In 1950 the JHI was placed under the control of the Ministry of Education, with all inquiry not approved of by the Party coming to an end.  The new line was to stress the passive response of the Jews to the Nazis, while minimising Polish anti-semitism and collaboration.  It was said that the western emphasis on the persecution of the Jews had only obscured the persecution of the Poles.  The official attitude towards the Jews was further modified by the emergence of the state of Israel.  Now anti-semitism was replaced by anti-Zionism; but both still drew on the traditional streotype of the greedy, manipulative and exploitative Jew.


 * After Wladyslaw Gomulka came to power, following the 'Polish October' of 1956, old forms of Polish nationalism received at least a partial rehabilitation. This was accompanied by old anti-semitism wearing new clothes.  Jewish people were removed from their positions in both the army and the civil service, while at the same time an active press campaign was launched against all of those associated with the former Stalinist regime.  The particular Jewish suffering associated with the Holocaust slipped even further into the background.


 * The political struggles of the 1960s saw the emergence of even more strident forms of anti-Jewish nationalism, most associated with the group around Mieczyslaw Moczar, notorious both for his xenophobia and his anti-semitism. After the victory of Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 the position for Poland's dwindling Jewish minority became steadily worse, with all sorts of people being attacked for 'Zionist sympathies', whether they had them or not.  The whole programme embraced Holocaust history.  Any and every attempt to define this as a uniquely Jewish event was denounced as 'part of a chauvinist Zionist propaganda plot to justify the existence of Israel and turn the world against Communism.'  It was, so it was said, a new 'Jewish world conspiracy.'  In 1968 all the records of the JHI were taken over by the government.  Subsequent to this a conference was held to 'rebut the slanderous campaign of lies in the West...especially with reference to the accusations about the alleged participation of Poles in the annihilation of the Jewish population.'  By now the JHI had all but ceased to exist.


 * The fall of Communism has been accompanied by a new openness; a willingness, at least by some, to confront unncomfortable truths; issues like the Jedwabne pogrom and other matters touching on the relations between the Jewish and Catholic communities during the Holocaust. Clio the Muse 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed. Thanks.Captain Beaky 05:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Masked Balls
Can anyone please account for the popularity of masked balls in eighteenth century England? Mr. Crook 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe kings masked their balls because they were the nation's greatest assets - the means to produce a new king. Probably not what you were asking about, though. DirkvdM 08:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tricky to answer that. How can you account for any vogue? Personally, (using more modern cultural idioms) I can't think of any excuse for teddyboy sideburns, the funky chicken, Crocs or (ugh) men wearing flared trousers. --Dweller 08:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't believe Teddyboy is a redlink. Ref Desk strikes again. --Dweller 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A licence to misbehave and flirt more than would be deemed socially acceptable at that time perhaps? Lanfear&#39;s Bane 11:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We can speculate. Lanfear's Bane's suggestion is a good one. It will also have provided an edge of excitement and glamour (the masks/costumes were often extremely ornate). --Dweller 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the days before dental hygeine and proper make up it was just more pleasant for everyone involved. I wonder if everyone really knew who the others were, or whether it was a key-ring style gamble who you ended up with at the end of the night? Cyta 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is pure speculation, but weren't protocol and rules of hierarchy especially stringent at that time? Masked balls would have provided an excuse to break them, since one could claim not to know whom one was addressing.  It offered the titillating prospect of flirtations with others or much higher or lower rank.  For monarchs and their families it might have offered a refreshing opportunity to interact with others like a normal human being instead of a demi-god.  Marco polo 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Masked balls? I simply love masked balls, both exciting and dangerous! They were certainly a great favourite in the eighteenth century, precisely because of the challenge they offered to the accepted conventions of the day. Their popularity was even the occasion for a minor 'moral panic', with The Spectator announcing in an issue of 1711 that "Fishes are caught with Hooks, Birds are ensnared with Nets, but Virgins with Masquerades." So, there you have it!

They only really began to catch on in England in the early 1700s, in imitation of the Italian fashion. The earliest were in fact advertsised as 'in the Venetian manner.' The first large-scale public masquerade was that organised by James Heiddeger in London's Haymarket in 1708. From that point forward they became the new fashion. In 1717 Alexander Pope wrote a letter to a female acquaintance, which serves to sum up just how central a part the season they had become, "For news in London, I'll sum up in short; we have masquerades at the thetare in the Haymarket, of Mr Heideeker's institution." And Marco is quite right in his suggestion that these events allowed for otherwise unacceptable degrees of familiarity between the classes, from the highest to the lowest, as we know from the correspondence of Horace Walpole-"On Monday there was a subscription masquerade. The King was well disguised in an old fashioned English habit, and much pleased with somebody who desired him to hold their cup as they were drinking tea." Dear old Georgie was so fond of these events that he even appointed Heiddeger Master of Revels in 1728.

As for the element of sexual release, well consider this from an issue of the Town and Country Magazine in 1770, describing an event at Carlisle House. A young woman was in attendance, "Wearing a double mask, one side a decriped old woman, the other a young girl; the mask curtsied both ways, so that it was for some time difficult to discover which was the real front; on being asked by a Domino whether he should take her before or behind, the mask replied, which way you please sir, for it will come to the same thing in the end." In general, it was a moment of liberation for woman, allowing them not just to shed the conventions of the day, but also some of the accepted forms of clothing, corsets most notably. One maid of honour to the Queen attended an event dressed as Iphigenia, causing Walpole to observe that "Miss Chudleigh was Ipigenia but so naked she could have been taken for Andromeda."

Given all of this, it is hardly surprising that such events were so popular. The real question is surely why did they decline? Clio the Muse 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Such larks they had!Edison 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They did-and they do! Clio the Muse 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

as a member can i ask for compansation to the society chairman/secretry/committee members for threatning me for expelltion from society as i have kept a licence dog breed pamlelin
i live in india maharashtra pune in an co operative housing society and i owe my flat and as a member can i ask for compansation to the society chairman/secretry/committee members for threatning me for expellsion from society as i have kept a licence dog breed pamelin khaanchandani enterprises--220.224.11.45 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. You should consult a lawyer. --Lambiam 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * People in a variety of places and situations "can ask for" a wide variety of things, but they don't necessarily get what they ask for. Edison  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Find the right lawyer. If you can't or won't see a lawyer, then at least ask for copies of all of the relevant documents and read them carefully. Those will include the constitution and all rules for tenants of the Housing Society and the minutes of any of its meetings which took decisions affecting you, plus of course your tenancy agreement, if you have one. At your local library, you may be able to find some books on housing law, but it should do you more good to find the right lawyer. You may also be able to find other tenants in the same position as yourself who can give you useful information and who may be willing to share legal expenses. It's nearly always better to focus on the matters actually in dispute and not on minor issues to do with compensation for hurt feelings, but that's up to you. However, it's important to understand the processes which are going on. There may be appeals and delays you can make use of. Xn4  05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Economics
What are the economic laws,and in how many groups are they categorized?Georgekalusanga 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC) What is the fundamental laws of social development,and in which law does that development takes place?Georgekalusanga 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this a homework question? You can look at Category:Economics laws, which are some but not all laws that have been formulated by economists. Many theories (see Category:Economic theories) claim their own set of laws, and it is hard to find two economists who agree. Anyone can try to categorize the laws in as many groups as they want; if this is a homework question the answer is probably in your textbook or course notes; for the course given next door the answer would be different. The same holds for "the fundamental laws of social development". --Lambiam 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar
Your article on the Knights Templar asserts that their downfall was largely due to the greed of Philip IV. Was it is simple as that? 81.156.0.118 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as that and you're slightly unfair on our article. There had always been resentment and envy of the Templars' wealth, but also of their power and influence, in the Holy Land and also all over the Christian world. Their communities were closed and secretive and made kings nervous, being effectively kingdoms within kingdoms. When the reputation of their military prowess took a serious knock with the reverses in the Holy Land, there was a crack into which Philip drove a coach and horses. It's significant that it was the French king taking the lead - France's medieval history can be simplified as a theme of the kings asserting control over the country they nominally ruled, in the face of difficulties of geography and particularism and immensely powerful local barons. (Interesting parallel with the Albigensian Crusade here). You also have to ask yourself "why the Templars?", not, say, the Hospitallers instead or as well. This is complex indeed, but note that some contemporary chroniclers express (within the constraits of the genre) mildly surprised at The Suppression, but hardly outraged. The Templars were widely disliked, in a way that the Hospitallers were not. Hope that's a help - it's a big subject and even before all the Dan Brown / Holy Grail nonsense, it's been a subject for many authors to investigate in detail. --Dweller 11:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I had similar questions about the Templars, and found the article here equally lacking. Not through lack of effort so much as lack of space and appropriate explination which really requires a full text.  You can't just skip to the end without fully understanding the beginning and various middles of the Crusades.  I approached a professor of history at KU that specializes in Middle Ages' history, and he suggested | this book.  I finished reading it about a month ago and I was very satisfied with the presentation of the knowledge.  It's a broad topic and you really need to get all of the facts and theories of facts to understand Philip IV's role, which was largely tied with Pope Clement V.  So, no, it wasn't as simple as you first stated.  It's vastly more complicated.  Good luck! Beekone 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The book Beekone is suggesting, I think, is Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History.--Wetman 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And for the Templars specifically, the best place to look is "The New Knighthood" by Malcolm Barber. Adam Bishop 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The real point, I think, to hold in mind with regard to the Templars and the other military orders of the day is that they had, by the time of Philip the Fair, been 'weighed in the balance and found wanting.' Philip was the first to accuse the Templars as being practitioners of magic, sodomy and other sexual vices, though this was really no more than a standard charge leveled against all heretics at the time; he was even to make similar accusations against the Pope himself! The wealth of the Templars was certainly a temptation. Far more important, though, was the fact that they had, by 1307, really served their purpose. Moreover, while Philip's accusations are clearly ludicrous, the Templars had been guilty of some long-standing abuses, abuses that were widely recognised, and resented. For one thing they had legal privileges not granted to others; and for another they were wealthy, though they continully pleaded poverty. Matthew Paris, the chronicler, noted in 1245 that "The Templars and Hospitallers receive so much income from the whole of Christendom, and, only for defending the Holy Land, swallow down such great revenues as if they sink them into the gulf of the abyss."

The greatest offence of the military orders, though, was that of pride. Jealous of one another, it was thought that their chief energies were expended in mutual hostilities, rather than against the Saracens. In Renart le Nouvel, a satire of 1289, Jacquemart Gelee, makes fun of the competion between the Templars and the Hospitallers in trying to recruit Renart the Fox. More seriously, Pope Nicholas IV suggested that their quarrels had contributed to the fall of Acre in 1291, the last fragment of the Holy Land still in the hands of the Crusaders. Some even went so far as to suggest that the military orders were unwilling to fight the Saracens because they were secretly in alliance with them.

So, by the time that Philip decided to act in 1307 the orders were no longer highly regarded, with few powerful friends. So, why the Templars and not the Hospitallers? Quite simply because they had long promoted themselves as the greatest of the orders, the first in the ranks of the defence of Christendom. But in the accounts of the fall of Acre it is they who come off worst, more interested in saving their treasure than in fighting the enemy. Their fall was the price of wealth; it was also the price of failure. Clio the Muse 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

India and the railways
In the British Empire thread above a contributer has touched on the importance of the railways for the Indian Raj. This is a fascinating subject for me and I've been browsing through the pages you have on the Indian railway system, which has only left me hungry for more! the History of rail transport in India is a reasonable start, though it loses steam very quickly! What I need to know is how the system was conceived and used by the British and how it was perceived by the Indians themselves? Thanks, all you clever people. Irishbard 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The rail system was conceived by the British mainly as a way to increase the colony's economic potential and thereby to increase their own revenues from the colony. By linking up the interior with the great port cities of Bombay, Calcutta, Karachi, and Madras, the railways made it possible to vastly increase India's exports of cotton, tea, opium, and other commodities.  The railways were designed to pay for themselves through freight and passenger bookings.  To promote passenger travel, the British were careful to connect the leading destinations for pilgrims, such as Benares, to the rail network.  Finally, the British promoted railways as a source of income for British steel and engineering firms.  This was particularly important during the Long Depression, which was partly a consequence of the most lucrative rail lines in Britain and Europe already having been built.  Railway-building in India helped to sustain the British industrial economy.  Probably equally important, the railway system facilitated the movement of troops around India, a vital concern after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, or, as the British called it, the Sepoy Mutiny.  As for Indian perceptions, I know little.  Probably perceptions varied depending on whether you were a peasant farmer who now faced a national rather than a local market or a merchant who enjoyed both greater opportunities and challenges.  Railways also must have eroded the power of local potentates and elites by making their regions more dependent on national markets.  Pilgrims may have rejoiced in the ease with which they could now reach holy places.  Marco polo 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect, Irishbard. According to the article the system originated in 1832 and did not lose steam until 1985 :-) -Arch dude 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * India has indeed cut out steam on its main lines, but (as in the UK) there are still some lines which have steam locomotives running on them. See, for instance, our article Fairy Queen, which is about the world's oldest locomotive still in service. Xn4  02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can give you one small aspect of railway construction in India that had a deliberate political intent, Irishbard, perhaps not as well recognised as it should be. When Edward I completed his conquest of Wales in the late thirteenth century he set about bulding some magnificent castles, as symbols of English power, yes, but also as a way of impressing and intimidating the natives. Now, by the time of the Raj the day of the castle was long over, but there were other routes to the 'architecture of power', none better than the railway station! Consider Bombay's Victoria Station or Calcutta's Howdath; or Madras with its clock tower in the form of Big Ben; or Lahore, which must, in its sheer fortress-like magnificence, have had the same effect on the Indians as Caernorfon on the Welsh!

Seriously now, I agree that the greatest benefit of the British railway system to the Indians was to create, in its unifying effect, new forms of national consciousness. It gave people, in other words, a proper idea of their country for the first time; of its range, of its variety and of its majesty. Not, I assure you, a condescending 'imperialist' view, but one that I heard expressed by a former associate of Ghandi in a documentary on the history of India, recently screened in England by the BBC. Clio the Muse 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was me who made the comment originally, and I was referring to a comment I had heard this year in a discussion of the 50th anniversary of Indian independence and partition. India was not one country before the arrival of the British, and would likely have not been able to be one country, of such vast size, without a huge and efficient transport system. I should in reply to the previous question also mentioned the civil service, another British institution which allowed a reasonably stable handover of power and governance of a sub-continent. Luckily, as always, Clio was on hand to correct my omission. Cyta 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Word
word for high standards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.188.55 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * this might be a good place to start, under the synonym's category. I would try "demanding" or possibly "exacting" or "strict" depending on the context. Then again, there's nothing wrong with "high standards." --YbborTalk 02:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A slightly more "coloured" word for it might be "elitist". SaundersW 08:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the entire comment from the original poster could be taken as praise for Wikipedia rather than a question. Edison 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * | "high-maintenence" Beekone 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * High-end. Keria 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

History Writer Adrienne Koch
I recently finished a book called "Jefferson & Madison: The Great Collaboration" by Adrienne Koch, which was very interesting. I've been trying to find out information about the author and I can't seem to locate anything. I can find that she's authored other books that are available on Amazon.com and I can find random scholarly essays she's written but I can't find anything out as far as biographical information, degrees, etc. If anybody could provide me with biographical information on her or a link to where I can do the reading on her myself I would be most grateful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some information from Historical News and Notices in Journal of Southern History (vol. 38, No 1, February, 1972): Adrienne Koch's bachelor's degree was from New York University, and her master's and doctorate were from Columbia. She was professor of history at the University of Maryland and before that taught at Tulane, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan. She died in New York on August 21, 1971, at the age of fifty-eight.  Xn4  00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And see new stub Adrienne Koch. Xn4  04:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)