Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 7

! width="20%" align="left" | &lt; October 6 ! width="25%" align="center"|&lt;&lt; Sep | October | Nov &gt;&gt; ! width="20%" align="right" | &gt;
 * }

= October 7 =

Surfing the web
Is it legal to surf the web without trousers? If so, how about completely naked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.161.158 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, reference desk guidelines forbid us from giving legal advice. - Eron Talk 00:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think he or she needs medical advice...which we are also barred from giving. Clarityfiend 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I rather think you're pulling our leg, 88.110.161.158, but no doubt the answer depends on where exactly you were thinking of doing this trouserless or completely naked web surfing. At home, you should be safe from arrest in both cases, in a public library you may run into problems in the second scenario.  Xn4  00:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Folsom Chevy in Folsom, California encourages it. Corvus cornix 01:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LC? Clio the Muse 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think she means User:Light current. a.z. 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're at home, then yes, it's legal in most jurisdictions. —Nricardo 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you wear a mask. DirkvdM 07:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Health and safety advise, not medical) You need to take care if you are sitting on a hard chair, as naked flesh can get stuck to such furniture. SaundersW 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I frequently surf the net without trousers and in public too.Of course I'm a woman.-hotclaws 08:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a slob. -- BenRG 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Colleges/Universities in the US
How many are there? A single number of total 2-year and 4-year public and private is what I'm looking for, but a breakdown of how many of each type might be interesting too. Thanks in advance :) --YbborTalk 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here 'ya go: . -- Mwalcoff 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So 4,276 colleges (or 1 for every 70,761 people). I wonder other countries compare. Rmhermen 04:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Canada has something like 44 four-year universities and about 138 2-year community colleges for its about 33.4 million people, so that's about one school for every 183,000 people. -- Mwalcoff 04:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The usage of the word "college" varies wildly in different countries, and many do not have a similar educational institution, making comparison with other countries difficult or meaningless. --Lambiam 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If that were true, students would have a much harder time studying abroad. Colleges here (as stated in the beginning as "colleges/universities" refers to tertiary education) Are there any developed countries that don't have tertiary education institutions. Rmhermen 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The link for Tertiary education redirects to Higher education, and in the UK, at least, Tertiary education is what you do BEFORE you go into Higher education. DuncanHill 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In several countries, apart from vocational education, the only, or predominant, form of higher educational institution is that of a full-fledged university, conferring Masters and Ph.D.s, with a broad range of faculties: science, medicine, humanities, economics, sociology, psychology. These tend to have large numbers of students. These universities are, catering for the same number of students, much fewer in number than two-year community colleges. --Lambiam 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Boxer shorts
When did boxer shorts replace pajamas as the preferred form of sleepwear among teen-age boys? 67.188.22.239 02:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1960s.--Wetman 07:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At age 13, in this house. SaundersW 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think jockeys may also need to factored in there as well as boxers. Corvus cornix 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal question
This is a legal question, but not related to anyone in particular: just general. Why is it seen as a breach of the peace etc if you drop your trousers in public (you still have your shorts on), when it would be perfectly legal if you were walking down the street in just shorts and shirt (hot weather). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.198.32 (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LC, (it is you, isn't it?) you might get a better response to this silliness on the Miscellaneous Desk. Clio the Muse 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends what kind of shorts you have on. If they are the kind of shorts that it's decent to wear in public, then I see no legal problem.  Of course, if you are playing games like this for the purpose of annoying the local policeman, don't be shocked if he arrests you anyway -- police in most nations have plenty of authority to detain troublemakers for a couple hours without arresting them.  --M @ r ē ino 03:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have wondered about something similar concerning some seaside holiday resorts where people walk around town in swimming attire. If that is accepted (and presumably legal) there, then how about elsewhere? Can someone be arrested for wearing clothing that is not considered appropriate for the specific surroundings? How much freedom do police-officers have in being their own judge about this? DirkvdM 07:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ohio Revised Code section on "public indecency" requires the exposure of "private parts." It doesn't define "private parts," but the courts have ruled that exposing female breasts is legal. -- Mwalcoff 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In Franco-era Spain the beaches were patrolled by a special branch of the police in white jackets who checked the appropriateness of bathing wear and the same police also prevented people walking about the towns in bathing wear. Even quite small children had to dress properly beore leaving the beach area. SaundersW 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK this question relates to something I saw on Street wars (UK Tv program). A young man momentarily (1 sec)dropped his trousers (whist holding on to them) to reveal a perfectly decent pair of boxer shorts: possibly as a sign to (an)other young person(s) in the vicinity of the nightclub/pub he was exiting. He did not notice the police car. The police arrested him for indecent exposure. Legal or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.198.32 (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea about the UK, but in Canada the Criminal Code provision against public nudity includes a clause reading "For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order." So the authorities have all the scope for interpretation that they want, up to the point where they are restricted by precedent from earlier cases.  --Anonymous and fully dressed, 12:42 UTC, October 7, 2007.


 * Generally, the police have broad discretion in applying such statutes to individuals whom they justifiably perceive as a risk to public safety. Catch-all statutes such as the one you cite are rather well-known for (what some consider to be) quite arbitrary enforcement patterns. (See also Disorderly conduct). dr.ef.tymac 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok If haitians are mostly descended from West Africans, Why did half of the slave population descended from the congo's?
Most haitians descended from West Africans which came from the Western Sudan depending on the Tribes: Ibos, Nagos, Bambara, Arada, Mines, Morriquis, Sosos, Thiabas, Bobo, Mondongues, Senegals, Mozos, Hausa, Tacouas, and Yolofs. Only a minimum percentage came from central africa (Congo) so what is going on?--arab 05:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

According to a study, 49.2 % of the slave population of Haiti was originally from the Congos during this period!!?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) --arab 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The questioner is referring to an article in Historia Thématique, no. 80, Novembre-Decembre 2002, p.41, which is referenced in the Haiti article. The theme of that issue was: L'esclavage un tabou français enfin levé. I don't have access to this journal, so I can't verify if the findings of the study are correctly reported. It would be nice to have the title and names of the authors of the cited article. I must say that the number 49.2% is presented with a precision that is only attainable if the researchers had access to comprehensive accurate logs for the whole French period. It is not clear to me whether "originally from the Congos" only includes such slaves as were shipped from there. There is a lot of material on the web from Black History sites and such, but it is not clear what the sources are for their (sometimes contradictory) statements. What is missing in general, here as well as in our Saint-Domingue article, are reliable (scholarly) references. --Lambiam 13:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jesus! I can't believe I forgot my books at home again!  The stats on the Haitian population can be a bit confusing.  I promise to bring the facts back to you all with citations tomorrow.  But for now, let me point out that there like 6 or 7 really prominent groups.  The majority of these groups were from West Africa (Senegal to Nigeria).  However, the largest number of slaves brought to Haiti just prior to its revolution were from Central Africa and called Kongo or Congo on slave rosters.  The political impetus for the revolution came from the men of color (mulattos, quadroons, etc) and Gbe speaking slaves (where Voodou originates).  The backbone of the war effort however came from recently arrived central african slaves (mainly from the kingdom of Kongo and areas around it).  I'll get back to you with more info later.  Really excited ppl are talking about this.  Cheers!  ;) Scott Free 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The ethnic groups brought into Haiti (Santo Domingo at the time) were Arada, Igbo, BaKongo, Chamba, Wolof and Yoruba. This info comes from page 25 of Gwendolyn Midlo Hall's "Slavery and African Ethnicities in the Americas: Restoring the Links" published by University of North Carolina Press in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4shizzal (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Catholic and Orthodox
What are the roots of the divisions between the two churches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra One (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All is explained at East-West Schism. Xn4  12:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

English Catholics after the Reformation
Did their attitudes towards the Papacy change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electra One (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * After Henry VIII left the Church, yes. They changed back and forth, depending on whether the monarch at the time was Catholic or Protestant. The Pope in Elizabeth's day put a price on her head, for anyone who would assassinate her. Wrad 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of native English Catholics in Elizabeth's reign pretty much just wanted to be tacitly left alone to practice their own beliefs in private, and had very mixed feelings about such efforts as the Papal bull Regnans in Excelsis (in which the Pope declared that English Catholics were absolved from all bounds of loyalty to the pope, and also effectively called for her assassination, which meant that from the English government's point of view, it was a proclamation that all Catholics who were loyal to the pope were traitors to England), Philip of Spain's preparation of the Spanish Armada, and the threatening polemical jeremiads and bloodthirsty political fantasies of people like Cardinal Allen. So unfortunately, international politics and tensions made the tacit accomodation of private Catholic worship -- which both Elizabeth and many English Catholics would have been moderately satisified with -- much more difficult. AnonMoos 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem for English Catholics, Electra, after the break with Rome was in essence one of politics: the head of the Universal Church was now no more than a foreign potentate, and as their principle allegiance was to the crown, any lingering attachment to the secular authority of the Pope opened them to a possible charge of treason, especially after the excommunication of Elizabeth I. Yet it should not be assumed that English Catholics always had an uncritical devotion to the Papacy. In the period before the onset of the English Reformation, when Sir Thomas More, later a Catholic martyr, was advising Henry VIII on the composition of his book, Defence of the Seven Sacraments, a polemic against Luther, he advised the King to tone down some of the arguments in favour of papal authority,

''The Pope, as your Grace knoweth, is a Prince as you are. It may hereafter so fall out that your Grace and he may vary whereupon may grow breach of amity and war between you both. I think it best therefore that that place be amended, and his authority more slenderly touched.''

I suppose the point here is that pontiffs like Alexander VI and Julius II, were almost entirely worldly figures, who impinged very little on Catholic practice and conscience. It was possible, in other words, to be a sincere Catholic yet distrustful of the Pope. So, those who in the end held to the 'Old Religion' may very well have done so for other reasons than loyalty to Rome.

The real break, the crisis of English Catholicism, if you like, came not in the 1530s but in 1570, with Pope Paul V's bull, Regnans in Excelsis. In forbiding English Catholics to obey Elizabeth and her laws, whether they paid heed or not, Paul effectively forced the government to treat them as a source of potential treason. The new class of 'Recusants', those who now refused to attend their local parish churches, were treated with increasing degrees of severity. Even so, while there was some plotting against the throne, centering on Mary Queen of Scots, the Catholic alternative to Elizabeth, most of those who continued to adhere to the Old Religion, had little or no interest in treasonable actions; and regardless of papal instructions they effectively trimmed and compromised where they could, rendering unto Caesar what was due to Caesar. There were even Catholics who declared openly at the time of the Spanish Armada that if the enemy landed they would come to the defence of the Queen.

By the end of Elizabeth's reign, and into that of James I the pragmatic tendency in English Catholicism was well-established, expressed most particularly in the views of a new class of priests, known as the Appellants. The argument was now put forward that one could be loyal by both Pope and Crown, because the Pope had no claim on the political allegiance of Catholics. In this it is possible to see a 'national' reaction to the 'internationalism' of the Jesuits. In effect, the Pope's authority in civil matters was denied, just as he continued to be recognised as the supreme arbiter in matters of faith. And it's worth emphasising that there was nothing new in this. Even rulers as orthodox as Philip II of Spain placed clear limits on the degree of papal interference allowed within their realms.

It was, in short, possible for Catholics to be loyal subjects of a heretical crown, no matter how much the Pope may have disliked this development. The English Civil Wars were to provide the best demonstration of the new dual tradition, with Catholics high among the Royalists. Clio the Muse 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

wise leaders
Stalin published some scientific or pseudoscientific papers, and during his reign it was considered prudent to pepper one's publications with grateful allusions to Stalin's expertise on any subject. Now it seems that in North Korea all the arts and sciences are sprung from the brow of the Great and/or Dear Leader. Other examples? Offhand I don't recall hearing that Hitler had any such pretensions. —Tamfang 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the days of the Cultural Revolution, it was de rigueur for Chinese scientists to state upfront that the publication had greatly benefitted from the correct application of Mao Zedong Thought. While Mao's works were philosophical rather than straightforwardly scientific, it was nevertheless taken for granted that the applicability of the philosophy extended to the scientific realm, all in the tradition of Marxism-Leninism, in particular in the strict adherence to the doctrine of dialectical materialism. --Lambiam 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know that scholars and scientists in Nazi Germany had to pretend that Hitler was the source of all scholarship and science, but many fields of study were realigned to reflect the alleged importance of "race" to just about every subject (including "Jewish physics"). AnonMoos 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Though it should be noted that the Deutsche Physik movement was largely a failure, especially by comparison with the far more consequential re-alignment that took place among the German medical profession, which actually had real and nasty consequences.) --24.147.86.187 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We might say Hitler was the supreme art critic. &mdash;Tamfang 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One common theme during the Nazi period in Germany was to consider Hitler "the great doctor" and label him as a "scientific thinker," but he was not considered to be the source of scientific knowledge in the way that Stalin and Mao were at times. In general it seems that this was more common in Communist regimes than in right-wing ones, probably because Marxism purports to be a "science" and a general sieve for dealing with the world, and no doubt as well because early Marxist philosophers (in particular Engels) did believe that they were putting forth a new theory of the world and of knowledge, one which took many points of departure from the standard scientific worldview. --24.147.86.187 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can think of Henry VIII and James I who both published, against Protestantism and tobacco respectively. Henry was rewarded by the Pope giving him the title Fidei Defensor, which to this day appears on British coinage ("FD"). James was rewarded by becoming known as "the wisest fool in Christendom". --Dweller 13:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From footnotes to James I of England ""James VI and I was the most writerly of British monarchs. He produced original poetry, as well as translation and a treatise on poetics; works on witchcraft and tobacco; meditations and commentaries on the Scriptures; a manual on kingship; works of political theory; and, of course, speeches to parliament...He was the patron of Shakespeare, Jonson, Donne, and the translators of the "Authorized version" of the Bible, surely the greatest concentration of literary talent ever to enjoy royal sponsorship in England." Rhodes et al, p 1." --Dweller 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Henry's book was entitled "The Defence of the Seven Sacraments"--Dweller 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And Hirohito did some legitimate work in marine biology. &mdash;Tamfang 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon III of France published on a range of topics, in addition to being Emperor Marcus Aurelius was also considered one of the most important stoic philosophers, and America's founding fathers include two individuals Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who would have been remembered even if they had not become involved in politics, in addition to being the greatest of Britian's Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill was a Nobel laureate for his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and other works. On the other hand Elena Ceauşescu used her position to create a persona for herself of a respected scientist for, Imelda Marcos considers herself an artist and Saddam Hussein wrote novels and staged plays, Muammar al-Gaddafi has his Green book. As to Hitler his pretensions was to painting, the world would have possibly been spared much pain if he'd managed to get into art college. KTo288 00:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read a story in which a time-traveler, intending at first to murder young Adolf, instead gets him a scholarship ... &mdash;Tamfang 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism then and now-part II
In answering my question on Terrorism then and now (October 4) Clio mentioned the lax attitude of the British to the problem of nineteenth century terrorism. I think she has touched on a very interesting topic and I would like to know some more about this, if possible. All information (Clio?) greatly received. Ta. Gordon Nash 09:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to read The Secret Agent, which deals with this to some extent. Hopefully someone will be along to say how accurately it does so. Algebraist 14:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, Algebraist; this is a work I flagged up the first time around! Clio the Muse 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting topic, Gordon, which reveals quite a lot about changing attitudes. You see, Britain in the nineteenth century considered itself in every way more advanced politically than just about all of the powers of the Continent, most of which were considered to be under some form of despotic rule. This gave rise to the view that if foreign rulers were the targets of terrorism then it must be partly their own fault for ruling in an unreasonable way. It was also responsible for the liberal approach towards all those seeking political asylum. Foreign governments even suspected that the British were encouraaging plots for their own particular ends, the Iran of the Victorian age! This view became especially pronounced after Felice Orsini threw his Birmingham-made bomb against Napoleon III in 1858, killing twelve by-standers in the process.

The reality, of course, was quite different. The government was always embarrassed when any given incident could be traced to English shores, but was still unwilling to risk a challenge in Parliament by making any fundamental alterations in the law, or to undermine a well-entrenched liberal tradition. This attitude was shaken somewhat when terrorism came home, as it did in the Fenian bombing campaign of the 1880s. But the only new law this led to was the Explosives Act of 1883, which obliged those possessing dynamite to prove that they did so for legitimate purposes. It is not as if the government ignored the advice that it gave out so freely to to the Continent: namely, address the root problem and the violence will go away. Some attempt was made to tackle discontent in John Bull's Other Island with the introduction of the First Irish Home Rule Bill.

Sir William Harcourt, the Home Secretary of the day, responsible for domestic security, in a further, less publicised, attempt to improve matters, and to placate the Continental powers, created a section within the London Metrapolitan Police, charged with keeping an eye on foreign socialists. This was followed by the creation of an 'Irish Branch'. In the end the two new offices were combined in a single Special Branch, charged with two functions: to be ready for any revival of the Fenian threat, and to reassure the Europeans that no threat would be mounted against them by exiles living in England. The Special Branch, whose activities were largely unknown to the wider public, could thus operate in such a way that did not mount a direct challenge to the liberal tradition. Clio the Muse 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's Legacy: Did He Intentionally Bankrupt the Soviet Union?
In recent years I have observed a growing media consensus that Reagan's huge military exenditures were an intentional and and specific strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union by means of Soviet attempts to match the U.S. buildup. Is this conservative mythology or is their a public record of Reagan expressing his intentions before the actual outcome? This has been frequently touted as Reagan's great accomplishment but was the dissolution of the Soviet economic system attributable specifically to Reagan in any varifiable way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.184.222 (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really a Reagan-specific doctrine. From what I've read, many major projects and campaigns from the 1970's onward were designed to draw resources away from the Soviet Union, such as funding & supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan. I'd have to do some digging later to find specific citations. -- Kesh 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect, 67.189, that this question will have to wait for another fifty years or more for a complete answer; until such time (if ever) that all of the relevant documents are declassified. I'm certainly not aware of any statement by Reagan, or by a member of his administration, that there was a clear intention to 'spend' the Soviet Union to death, though this is effectively what happened. It was, however, already known in academic circles that the Soviets were in trouble well before the Reagan presidency. I would refer you in particular to Andrei Amalrik's seminal work of 1970, Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984? There were also more objective indicators of problems. For example, the Soviets stopped publishing figures on infant mortality, used in international comparisons, because they were becoming embarrassingly high. So, there were clear underlying strains in the Soviet military-industrial complex, strains that the war in Afghanistan only served to emphasis. Reading the signs, it would not be at all surprising if Reagan received advice from the Pentagon, the CIA and others on what it would take to push matters over the edge. It was a high-risk strategy even so, with lots of variables that could not be fully controlled. And who is to say what would have happened if Gorbachev had been able to implement an effective strategy for renewal. Anyway, you were looking for concrete answers, and I have only been able to offer some speculations. Sorry. Clio the Muse 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For some more speculation, I don't know if the USSR was on the brink of economic collapse (I had understood it was more of a political/social change due to different leaders), but the high level of bureaucracy (strictly top-down, leaving little room for initiative) must have kept the country from reaching its full potential (though I wonder if the present situation, the exact opposite, is much better). In the beginning, the USSR was an economic miracle because it really started up the industrialisation that was much overdue. Society as a whole needed to be completely turned around, setting people to work on industrialisation in stead of sucking them dry as peasants. For this sort of change, a top-down approach is needed because it won't get off the ground if left to individual initiative (or at least not as fast). But once the development was complete and the groundwork was done, the state should have let go and liberalised its policies. But established powers rarely let go. Actually, it's quite a miracle that this happened from the inside, and at the time I suspected the plan was to give these state-pampered people such an overdose of capitalism (no socialism at all, so no more safety-net) that it would scare the shit out of them so they would massively vote for the communist party. That did indeed happen to some extent, but if that was the idea behind the experiment, it obviously failed. The rule of the communist party wasn't just about economics. I suppose the ability to speak freely without fear is something the Russians (especially Russians!) found more important in the end. DirkvdM 07:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Soviets weren't adverse to sucking peasants dry themselves... AnonMoos 09:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How's that? DirkvdM 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's called "primitive socialist accumulation" -- to build up heavy industries at the fastest possible pace, the peasants had to send the food they grew to the cities and factories (to feed the bureaucrats and workers), but couldn't be allowed to receive much in the way of consumer goods in return. Stalin was adept at using brutal force, threats of brutal force, skewed administrative policies, and outright dirty tricks (such as the currency demonetization of December 14th 1947) to ensure that peasants handed over the bulk of their agricultural products without gaining much in the way of improved living standards. 20:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)


 * Soviet industrialisation, from the First Five Year Plan onwards, was built on the expropriation of the Russian peasantry. I would refer you to the Wikipedia pages on Collectivisation in the USSR, Kulak, and, most important of all, the page on the great Ukranian famine, known as the Holodomor.  It is difficult to establish exact figures, but it is thought at least three million people lost their lives in the latter event alone.  In addition, we know from figures released from the Soviet archives that close on two million peasants were sent to the Gulags for resisting forced collectivisation, where some 400,000 died in the period between 1932 and 1940 alone.  I would also suggest that you consult Robert Conquest's monograph, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror Famine.  Clio the Muse 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, if you send most farmers to the new factories (urbanisation went incredibly fast in the USSR) then the remaining farmers need to do all the work and give away most of the food. I could have thought of that. However, I don't see how collectivisation would worsen the problem. Actually, it should have lessened it, industrialising agriculture and thereby increasing productivity. And the Gulags weren't a form of 'sucking farmers dry', at least not in the sense meant here. They were also bad, but something different. Btw, did urbanisation go faster in the USSR than in 19th century Western Europe and what effects did it have there? Weren't farms there (here) also industrialised and thus effectively collectivised (just by a different method) as well? DirkvdM 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Collectivisation when coupled with the Five Year Plan entailed a massive shift in investment in the Soviet Union, away from agriculture towards heavy industry. All agricultural surpluses were taken forcibly and used for other ends.  The subsequent underinvestnent in the rural sector-when coupled with lack of peasant motivation-meant that agriculture was to be the weakest element in the whole Soviet economy.  Indeed, it was only the small private family plots that were left after collectivisation that were to be at all productive.  The Gulags were an instrument of repression and thus an essential part of the destruction of the so-called Kulaks, those who had been the most productive under the New Economic Policy, whose liberty and whose lives were taken, along with their 'wealth.'  The surplus rural population-those not sent to the camps-flooded into the cities to augment the industrial workforce.  The process of agricultural change in western Europe, and I have the example of England in mind, was quite different.  It involved rationalisation and enclosure of common lands, which rewarded the most productive and efficient.  Farmers were not expropriated in any wholesale sense.  Improvements in farming techniques, along with mechanisation, impacted most on the smallest, least-efficient farms and on landless rural labour in general.  In addition, people drifted towards the towns, attracted by the higher wages in the new cotton mills, not because they were forced to leave.  Clio the Muse 22:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't factually know, but wasn't that economic force? I mean, the ones who performed less (or were worse businesspeople in a changing economy) couldn't cope, were effectively forced to sell their farms and had no other choice but to move to a city. At least, that's how I understood it, but I now wonder why they thought they would do better in the cities, because newcomers probably didn't have a lot of fun in the slums. Then again, one sees this happen again in third world countries in the second half of the 20th century. Urbanisation is a fascinating subject - I should read up on it, because throughout mankind's history it has been a decisive factor in the development of mankind (be it for better or for worse). DirkvdM 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My bet is that if there is a document saying such a thing explicitly, it is probably among the still-classified NSDDs of the Reagan administration, which include things like the top-secret authorization of CIA operations with mujahadin fighters in Afghanistan (NSDD 166) and other nasties. --24.147.86.187 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If any such "let's spend 'em to death" directive from Reagan did exist, it would have been trotted out for (justifiable) praise long ago. It hasn't, to my knowledge.  Furthermore, the American intelligence community was famously taken by surprise at the collapse.  If they had been operating a deliberate plan to bankrupt the USSR, surely they would have been keeping careful track of the progress of that plan?  --Sean 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

French Franc 1965
Shall appreciate if anyone can tell me today's value in Euros of 15,000 1965 French Francs. Info needed to illustrate history of a small village.86.197.151.8 08:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

'' Question moved here from the Mathematics section. --Lambiam 12:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC) ''


 * The franc introduced in 1959 was the version which was converted to the euro at €1 = FRF6.55957. FRF15,000 is, therefore, €2286.73. If you're looking into the history of a rural area, be aware that for many years after the 1959 re-denomination it remained common, particularly among the elderly, to reckon prices in "old francs" (100 pre-1959 francs = 1 new franc) so you need to be sure which kind is being referred to! -- Arwel (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that may not be accurate. Was the 1965 franc not devalued to create the franc that converted to the Euro ? And I also need to know the inflation data to secure an accurate comparision.86.200.4.62 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel


 * A better approach is to say that in 1965, the French franc was pegged (by the Bretton Woods system) at 4.9371 francs to the dollar, with very small fluctuations. So 15,000 French francs was $3,038 US dollars in 1965. That was then more than the average annual income for a manual worker in the UK and the US. Price inflation since 1965 has been roughly 1,500%, so if you take that approach then 15,000 francs in 1965 is about 45,500 US dollars, or about 32,200 euros. Xn4  14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that comparing the value of the franc to the US dollar is particularly meaningful, other than to know that the sum was more than a workers' typical annual income, particularly once we reached the era of floating exchange rates from 1971 onwards. -- Arwel (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree with you, Arwel. You can't really equate money now with money in a past generation. Even forty years ago, people generally expected much less from life, and inflation for some things has been far more than for others. But I also find it's very hard to get a handle on an amount expressed in a foreign currency. I did say "if you take that approach..." Xn4  16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again. Done some more research. The old franc was devalued by 100 in 1960. So that's out of the equation. But I have discovered an Economic survey that relates prices from 1965 to 2006. On that basis the 15,000 francs would be equivalent to roughly 115,500 francs today. i.e. an increase of 100,000 francs. Of course I appreciate that this is a crude measure... but sufficient for my purpose. Many thanks for the assistance.86.200.4.62 14:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)petitmichel


 * For comparison it is better to look at the ratio: 15,000 is 13%, or slightly more than one eighth, of 115,000. That is in the same ballpark as what our article on the French franc states: "when the euro replaced the franc on January 1, 1999, the franc was worth less than an eighth of its original 1960 value." Also, the euro of December 31, 1998 has not quite the same value, presumably, as today's euro. --Lambiam 14:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can also find an index to the various French consumer prices indexes from 1970 to the present here. It looks like they habitually re-based their inflation indices to 100 every 10 years (1970, 1980, 1990, and again in 1998) so working out a cumulative inflation rate from 1970 (can't find an earlier index from my search so far) to the present will involve a little calculation! -- Arwel (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward and Piers
Is there any real evidence to support the belief that Edward II and Piers Gaveston were gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.78.76 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The short answer is no, but it appears from the contemporary sources that by the time he was about twenty-two Edward loved Piers more than he ever did anyone else. The Vita Edwardi Secundi says of them "I do not remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus. But we do not read that they were immoderate. Our King, however, was incapable of moderate favour, and on account of Piers was said to forget himself, and so Piers was accounted a sorcerer." Material of this kind has led to plenty of speculation, but we don't really know. Xn4  15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, beloved Piers! I said recently with reference to a later king that the question of his alleged homosexuality was one that could not be subject to any test of evidence; that it was essentially unknown and unknowable. This is also true of Edward II, though to a far lesser degree, and there is enough material to make out a good circumstantial case, if one were so minded. So, at my peril, here it is.

Piers was introduced into Edward's household by his father, seemingly as a suitable role model for the young prince. Later the Chronicle of the Civil Wars of Edward II was to claim that an immediate bond formed between the two; that Edward felt such regard that "he tied himself against all mortals with an indissoluable bond of love." The first contemporary reference we have is from a letter written by Edward himself in 1305, after the King had reduced his househld, separating him from Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare, another young knight. In this he urges his sister Margaret to persuade Queen Margaret their step-mother, to intervene with the King to allow both men to return-"If we had those two, along with others we have, we would be greatly relieved of the anguish which we have endured and from which we continue to suffer from one day to the next."

Both were eventually restored, but in 1306 Gaveston was banished for unspecified reasons. He was only allowed to return after the King's death in the summer of 1307. It is now that expressions of disquiet become ever more evident in the sources, including that given by the Vita Edwardi Secundi. Robert of Reading goes even further in the Flores Historiarum, saying that Edward entered into 'illicit and sinful unions', rejecting the 'sweet embraces of his wife.' In the Chronicle written by John of Trokelowe, Edward no sooner brought his new bride, Isabella of France, to England after their marriage at Boulougne in 1308, than he rushed to greet Gaveston, showering him with 'hugs and kisses.'  During the Queen's coronation Edward's attentions to Gaveston, and his neglect of his bride, caused her uncles, Louis de Everaux and Charles de Orleans to storm out in anger. That same summer Isabella wrote to Philip the Fair, her father, complaining of ill-treatement.

The final piece of evidence comes in the spring of 1312 when Edward fled in the company of Gaveston from the Baronial forces of Thomas of Lancaster, abandoning jewels, plate and his pregnant wife in his haste.

None of this amounts to a conclusive case-and one always has to be mindful of the bias in Medieval sources-, but it shows both an astonishing lack of judegement and degrees of intimacy with a single individual that exceeds all reasonable fraternal bonds; a degree of intimacy that would seem to go beyond mere considerations of personal loyalty. Edward was a king who came close to losing his throne not for the love of a woman but for his love of a man, in whatever form that was expressed. Clio the Muse 01:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The bit most likely to persuade us is the 'illicit and sinful unions' quotation from Robert of Reading, but we need to add (1) that Robert hated Edward and (2) that that passage doesn't refer specifically to Piers Gaveston and could also mean adultery and/or incest. Perhaps we could say that the 'balance of probabilities' test is met, but no more. Xn4 03:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not just Gaveston who was a male favourite of Edward, after Gaveston's downfall at tha hands of the barons, Hugh the younger Despenser became the King's new favourite. He was much more ambitious and power hungry and it was this second close relationship that would lead to Edward's own downfall. Again sexual relations were rumoured, again nothing can be proved without time travel. Cyta 09:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware, by the way, the tale of Edward's uncomfortable demise (involving a poker, a lot of heat and a bodily orifice). It may or may not have happened... when I was studying the period c.15 yrs ago, historians of the day were tending toward the 'may not', though I'm sure someone can bring us right up to date... --Dweller 09:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's gratuitous nonsense, though, as I have said before, once a myth is up and running it is almost impossible to knock it down. The hot poker story appears well after Edward's death, and does not take its final form until the sixteenth century, in the chronicles of Raphael Holinshed and Sir Thomas More.  Death by this method would have been far too elaborate (and far too gothic!) when simple suffocation would have served the same ends (leaving no external marks).  The story was an invented elaboration, a comment on Edward's alleged homosexuality.  Why should it have mattered, moreover, how Edward died? It certainly did not matter for Richard II and Henry VI.  They were too dangerous to leave alive, and that is the simple truth.  But, what the hell; it's a good and lurid tale; of pits and pendulums and gruesome deeds!  Clio the Muse 23:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Si non è vero è ben trovato? Xn4  00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Clio the Muse 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cooking, Children and Church
Is this an accurate definition of the limits of female involvement in the Nazi State? Judithspencer 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I shan't try to answer the main drift of your question, which calls for someone who knows more about the period, but the expression "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" predates the Nazis and is credited to Kaiser Wilhelm II. Adolf Hitler's spin on it was "Die Welt der Frau, die Familie, ihr Mann, ihre Kinder, ihr Heim" (The woman's world: the family, her husband, her children, her home.) On the whole, the Nazis had less to say about Christian religion than the old ruling class did. Xn4  16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an article Kinder, Küche, Kirche... AnonMoos 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS See Magda Goebbels, Leni Riefenstahl, and Gertrud Scholtz-Klink. Xn4  22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS A substantial book by Claudia Koonz called Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics (1986) is well reviewed, a good university library should have it. It followed a paper by Coonz and Renate Bridenthal called Beyond Kinder, Küche, Kirche: Weimar Women in Politics and Work in Liberating Women's History: Theoretical and Critical Essays ed. Berenice Carroll (1976). Xn4  23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as so often in these cases, ideology had a tendency to be undercut by practice. Blood and soil and other rural themes favoured by the likes of Walther Darre was effectively superceded by the need for a strong urban and industrial base. To begin the role assigned to women in the Nazi scheme of things was narrow and domestic; but once the pressures of sustained ecomomic growth began to feed through, then the fortress of theory began to weaken, especially from 1936 onwards. The demands of the armaments industry were such that the state had no choce but to dig into the reserve pool of female labour. Economic pressures thus had the effect of improving the status of women, a case made out by Jill Stephenson in Women in Nazi Society, and David Schonbaum in Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany. Wage differentials remained, though the gap began to close. Schonbaum concludes, "The pressures of the totalitarian state combined with those of an industrialising and industrial society to produce for women...a new status of relative if unconventional equality." This meant that some figures in the pre-Nazi women's movement, including Gertrud Baumer of the Federation of German Women's Associations were happy to reach an understanding with the regime, praising policies like labour service for young women, introduced in 1937. Clio the Muse 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

history
who in history said "the british are comming"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.80.31 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul Revere. (Although it is doubtful that he actually said that, it is a part of the legends surrounding his actual midnight ride.) - Eron Talk 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I always knew it as 'the Redcoats are coming'? Cyta 09:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably lots and lots of people have said that. --Dweller 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From the article: Revere certainly did not shout the famous phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects. Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "the regulars are coming out." --M @ r ē ino 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

difference between the mercantilist and the liberal perspectives on IPE
What difference can we make,firstly, between the mercantilist and the liberal perspectives on IPE, then , between the liberal and structuralist perspectives on international political economy. from farafina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.106.240.12 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll be happy to answer this question, but first, can you convince us that it isn't homework, or can you fess up that it is homework, and show us what you've done to solve the problem yourself??? 203.221.126.202 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And Christ said, "Don't bite me!"?
I just finished watching Donnie Brasco. In it there is a scene where he mentions to his daughter to not bite the eucharist. Having been raised Catholic, this confused me. I'd never heard that you weren't supposed to bite the wafer before. So, is this just a thing with some churches? Was it dropped at some point along the way? I googled for "Eucharist bite" but didn't find anything. Although I did learn that the term "sound bite" comes up a lot more often than I thought it would in the company of the word eucharist. Dismas |(talk) 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I went to a Catholic church as a young boy, the classes we went through told us we weren't supposed to bite Eucharist, since it would be like biting into Jesus. My Grandmother, who is also Catholic, said that that was unnecessary. If you told someone you didn't bite the bread at my Protestant church, you'd likely get a lot of strange looks. It's pretty much up for you to decide what you believe. Assuming you're Catholic, you can check out our articles on Eucharistic theology, Transubstantiation and Eucharist (Catholic Church). --YbborTalk 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know my mother was kept in fear when she was young as they told her that if she bit the bread, the blood of christ would flow in her mouth. How delicate. Keria 19:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd think you'd want to try it, at least once, to see if it was true. I mean, I find the whole transubstantiation thing to be pretty unlikely to begin with, but if it were easy to check, you'd think you'd give it a shot once. --24.147.86.187 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was thoroughly drummed into me as a Catholic-raised kid that one should swallow the wafer, never bite or chew it. But that was a fair while ago and I don't know what current practice is.  --  JackofOz 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was raised Catholic (in the 1970s and 80s) and never heard of such rules. I always ate mine like any piece of food.  It's not like Jesus said "this is My body, which shall be given up for you; take it and eat... but don't chew!"  If you're going to participate in a religion that incorporates God-eating into their ceremony, what's the point getting squeamish about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From : "Jesus is risen, gloriously immortal, incapable of being harmed by our teeth.". Try googling "Eucharist wafer chew". -GTBacchus(talk) 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The original ceremony must have been with a piece of bread cut from a solid loaf. Not biting is obviously a much later taboo.203.21.40.253 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My experience was in the '50s. As I say, it may have changed since then.  A lot of things have in RC Church.  Even some mortal sins are not even considered sins at all now.  I wonder what happened to all those poor souls who went to Hell on the strength of these teachings, who shouldn't have gone there.  --  JackofOz 06:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So Donnie Brasco basically said that "Eat, for this is my flesh” should not be interpreted as bite me? DirkvdM 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

European Domesticates
There are two actual European Domesticates (a food that orginated in Europe). I think Goosefoot or Fat Hen is one but I am not sure and I cannot ascertain what the other is (perhaps the European Wild Boar)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.100.112 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Domestication does not necessarily imply food. Dogs, horses, camels, ferrets, honey bees and the silkworm have been domesticated for other reasons than serving as food sources. Also plants can be domesticated for other reasons, like cotton and the bottle gourd. Domesticated implies not wild, so the wild boar is not domesticated. Pigs are, but that did not happen in Europe. Our Domestication article has a list of the places where different species of domesticated animals are believed to have first been domesticated. --Lambiam 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Goosefoot and fat hen are both plants and neither are are particularly major food or crop items.I wonder if someone is pulling your leg?-hotclaws 09:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Guns, Germs, and Steel, poppies and oats were domesticated in western Europe... AnonMoos 09:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)