Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 5

= September 5 =

The Greatest Audio Dramas
What is the single best-known and greatest(General supremacy ,actually most people can communicate with ,a perfect style ,powerful intelligence and creativity in whole layers and excellent technical characteristics, and no matter what it's genre is anyway its expressive and impressive.)episodes of radio dramas of all time?(for example I know Orson Welles-directed adaptation of The War of the Worlds.Flakture 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, War of the Worlds(radio) by Orson Wells 1938, although if you count non-fiction World War II wins hands down. I heard some of the Edward R. Murrow reels [CBS Broadcasting], very intense--with war background sounds.  I assume the speeches by Goebbel's were pretty intense on the Volksempfänger --i am the kwisatz haderach 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

World War II weapon "superiority"
In the RefDesk's opinion, which nations in WWII (Soviets, Germany, Britain, US, maybe Japanese) not sure had the "best" (subjective, I know) of each type of firearm:

1. Rifle

2. Sub-machine gun

3. Anti-tank rifle

4. Sniper rifle

I have seen some reports of Allied soldiers picking up the MP38 as it was superior to their own submachine guns. The SG44 was also a vast technological improvement, as the first real "assault rifle". I've browsed our "list of weapons of X in World War II" articles to try to answer this question, but wikilink at will! - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 09:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot answer the question, but I can muddy the waters with two notes of caution:

1. Military technology advanced rapidly from 1939-1945, so the answers change as the war progresses.

2. Sometimes the "best" weapon is the one that you can manufacture by the truckload and teach a 17 year-old how to use in a day -- even if that weapon has technical flaws. --M @ r ē ino 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, essentially I'm looking for weapons that were the most unique and technologically advanced for their time, not necessarily the most effective in a general sense. This is for a game mod that will have some "unique units" beyond simple general rifles and machine guns and such for each side. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's unique you're after, I am unable to resist mentioning the Great Panjandrum, which may have been militarily impracticable, but looks like enormously good fun. DuncanHill 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you defining as "technologically advanced"? Again — beware your own normative prejudices, without analyzing them, at least! Interchangable parts is a form of technological advance, even though it looks more "simple" than a laser; the philosophy about what an "advanced" weapon is varied greatly between the USA and the USSR, for example (the former, in comparison with the latter, valued precision and power over cost and repairability, for example). --24.147.86.187 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmph, I knew I'd get that! Suppose you're an average Axis or Allied soldier in the field and you had a choice of what weapon to use of each category, assuming that your commanders had a infinite supply of every weapon available in the entire span of the war (even if it had not been invented yet)? - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

India after the Mutiny
Apart from the dissolution of the east india company what were the other outcomes of the Indian mutiny? 86.132.5.31 09:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You could start at Indian Mutiny (which redirects to the more neutrally-titled Indian Rebellion of 1857; some Indians refer to it as the First War of Indian Independence, which may give you a clue). The last sentence of the lead section says:
 * This rebellion brought about the end of both the East India Company's rule in India and the Timurid dynasty replacing it [them, surely? - ed.] with direct rule by the British government (British Raj) of much of the Indian subcontinent for the next 90 years, although some states retained nominal independence under their respective Rajas, or kings.
 * More particularly the Reorganisation subsection in the Aftermath section, mentions the creation of an India Office with a Secretary of State for India, and of the title of Viceroy of India, a program of reform to try to integrate the Indian higher castes and rulers into the government, bringing Indians in the administration (Satyendra Prasanno Sinha is a later outstanding example) and preventing the worst excesses of the earlier administrations, and reform of the army in India. -- !! ?? 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The very first thing to happen after the deposition of Bahadur Shah, marking the final end of the Mughal Empire, was that Victoria was declared to be Queen of India in August 1858. In January 1877 the titles was altered to that of Empress of India. Essentially the old East India Company bureaucracy remained, though there was a major shift in attitudes. In looking for the causes of the Mutiny the authorities alighted on two things: religion and the economy. On religion it was felt that there had been too much interference with indigenous traditions, both Hindu and Muslim. On the economy it was now believed that the previous attempts by the Company to introduce free market competition had undermined traditionl power structures and bonds of loyalty, placing the peasantry at the mercy of merchants and money-lenders. In consequence the new British Raj was constructed in part around a conservative agenda, based on a preservation of tradition and hierarchy.

The problem with this was that the whole Indian Army was also reconstraucted, giving it a much more European face. This had the effect of drawing in families and other civilians. Transport links thus had to be improved, as did communications in general, with a modern and European world arising alongside 'India in aspic', so to speak, making the contradictions and the tensions that much greater.

On a political level it was also felt that the previous lack of consultation between rulers and ruled had been yet another significant factor in contributing to the uprsiing. In consequences Indians were drawn into government at a local level. Though this was on a limited scale a crucial precedent had been set, with the creation of a new 'white collar' Indian elite, further stimulated by the opening of universities at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, a result of the Indian Universities Act. So, alongside the values of traditional and ancient India, a new professional middle class was starting to arise, in no way bound by the values of the past. Their ambition can only have been stimulated by Victoria's Proclamation of November 1858, in which it is expressly stated that "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to our other subjects...it is our further will that...our subjects of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge."

Acting on these sentiments, Lord Ripon, vice-roy from 1880 to 1885, extended the powers of local self-government and sought to remove racial practices in the law courts by the IIbert Bill. But a policy at once liberal and progressive at one turn was reactionary and backward at the next, creating new elites and confirming old attitudes. The IIbert Bill only had the effect of causing a 'White Mutiny', and the end of the prospect of perfect equality before the law. In 1886 measures were adopted, moreover, to restrict Indian entry into the civil service. The worship of 'Indian Tradition' was to go hand-in-hand with new forms of European exclusivenes and racism. Doors had opened, only to be shut again. With the formation of the Congress Indians began to look away from the new Mughal Empire, Kipling's realm of the Babu and the Sahib, towards their own authentic past-and to their own authentic future. Clio the Muse 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

toyota in Europe
Hi, i was reading your article on toyota which says that toyota's market share in Europe isn't that great. Why then, given that, and also given that Europe (I'm really thinking of the UK) has exorbitantly expensive petrol (especially when compared to the US) do Toyota not market more hybrids here? We currently have the Prius and one Lexus but you guys have loads! Any factors i'm missing? 195.195.248.252 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would guess it's because they're competing with other Asian and European car manufacturers, who produce equally fuel-efficient cars. Random Nonsense 10:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This more emphasizes the above point than contradicts it -- Citroen does not sell any cars in America. Based on what I know about them, their strengths are very similar those of Toyota (and Honda, the other big fuel-efficient brand in the US).  --M @ r ē ino 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From an American perspective, the strengths of Citroen (fuel efficiency) are similar to those of Toyota and Honda, but in Europe, fuel efficiency in American terms is a given. So cars compete on other terms.  For example, Citroen produces some very small models that are even more fuel efficient than most Toyotas or Hondas.  Based on my limited experience, I think that European drivers often value a level of performance that Toyota does not generally offer outside of their expensive Lexus brand.  (Honda might be a little better in this regard, but not clearly better than several European brands.)  Marco polo 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Marco, I guess it depends on what you mean by "performance", but if you mean that Europeans care more about the craftsmanship of their cars, that would not explain why American companies have larger market shares than the Japanese companies. --M @ r ē ino 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also there is 'appeal'. Certainly most people acknowledge that Toyotas are very well made, reliable cars but they are also often considered quite boring (save for their t-sport/sports coupes). Things like the Toyota Corolla (now Auris?) are considered 'old' people cars so lose a beat against things like the Peugoet 307, Citreon C3 and other cars in the class. These brands have to market their cars with more 'toys' as standard (air-con/electric heated screen etc.) than their counterparts that can sell for more with less spec because of prestige/curb appeal. The mpg for Toyotas are not particularly outstanding compared to their rivals in the uk market. As noted above it seems that the US market is very different in its wants to the Uk/European market. Style, quality of interior, performance, prestige - all seem to vary. ny156uk 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Toyota doesn't market "loads" of hybrid models in the U.S. The Prius makes up the largest part of all hybrid sales here. Other than that there is the Hybrid Camry, the lower selling hybrid Highlander and three Lexus models: Lexus RX 400h, Lexus GS 450h, and the $100,000+ Lexus LS 600h/LS 600hL. (Comparison of Toyota hybrids and Hybrid Synergy Drive). Ok, that's two more than I remembered but is six "loads"? We also have Ford, GM, and Honda hybrids on sale here which adds up to loads, though, right? Rmhermen 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What does the Dept. of Agriculture have to do with my gas?
While fueling up the Jeep this a.m., I noticed a shiny gold colored sticker on the gas pump that read "Vermont Department of Agriculture" across the top. It had what appeared to be the state seal in the center and then the words "Customer Assurance" at the bottom. Thinking, "This has to be something someone just jokingly stuck on this one particular pump", I went 'round to the pump on the other side. The other pump had this as well, though the top of this sticker was in a bit better shape. It had a series of years at the top where, presumably, someone could mark down what year the sticker was placed there such as "2005|2006|2007|2008". This second sticker also differed in the words at the bottom of the sticker; it said "Customer Protection". So what are these stickers for? And what does the VT Dept. of Ag. have to do with gas pumps? Dismas |(talk) 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This page at their website suggests that "weights and measures" are part of their consumer protection responsibilities. DuncanHill 11:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on DuncanHill's research, it sounds like this responsibility goes back to the days when the only weights and measures that people cared about where those of agricultural products. --M @ r ē ino 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Agriculture needs to determine the size of a gallon, because someone selling a gallon of milk needs regulation.  This is particularly true in a dairy state.  Similarly, the state needs to specify exactly what makes a bushel, an acre, etc., so that buying and selling of food (which has yet to be antiquated) could be on the level.  Thus, they might well be the ones involved in determining the "gallon" of gasoline the pump is putting out is an official gallon, and darned glad of it you should be.  Utgard Loki 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates
Does anyone know how to change/get changed templates?

The template I have in mind is , specifically I would like added optional sections for

The term 'subbookname' refers to a one 'book' of a number of 'books' contained in a single bound edition - someone may know a better description for this. Thanks.87.102.5.137 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please ask this question at Template talk:ME-ref. The reference desk is not for this sort of question. If no-one answers at the template talk page, you should try Help Desk. Carcharoth 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to your similar posting at Template talk:ME-ref. --CBD 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

reference template
I'd like to learn how to create/edit a template for literature citation, for a specific project. The doesn't have enough fields for my purposes.

Can anyone help?87.102.5.137 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't quite clear whether you want a table (or infobox) designed for a particular page or a new template to be used on a series of related pages. If the first, you can pick up a basic infobox from a page which has its own (there's one on Norwich School, for instance) and adjust it. If the second, if I were you I should start by looking at all the existing templates in Category:Citation templates to see if there's one which suits your purpose. If there isn't, then you can go into the edit page for an existing citation template (such as ), copy and paste what's there into a new template, and adjust that. You create a new template just like any other new page. Please let me know on my talk page if you need more help. Xn4 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed the comments at Templates above by Carcharoth and CBD, pointing you to Template talk:ME-ref. I'm sure that's a better place to get advice on these matters. Xn4 16:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Size of American home
I have not seen any American house. Just want to know what would be the size of an average American home in square feet of carpet area. Also tell me how much would an average home cost. Please explain.-Sandhya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.123.194 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NPR says the average is 2,349 square feet. The National Association of Realtors says the median price is $222,000, but that varies widely by location.  See Real estate pricing.  --Sean 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "carpet area"? Did you mean interiors, or did you mean to exclude something? In some cultures, carpets are not used in certain rooms, like bathrooms and toilets... did you mean to exclude them? Or were you just using a euphemism for "indoors"? --Dweller 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly many homes and apartments are still small, or have a lot of people in a modest sized home. People can buy land in the country and build huge homes, but many need to be in a suburb from which they can commute to a city job. The suburbs may have been divided into building lots of a size which, with line setback restrictions and height restrictions, limit the ultimate size of dwelling that can be constructed. Homes on large lots in desirable suburbs are often considered "teardowns." Even though they might be nice enough older homes, perhaps architecturally distinguished, they are apt to be torn down and replaced by huge new homes. New homes in the U.S. are larger than new homes were in the post-World War 2 era, and cost more. There has been a trend toward people desiring larger and larger homes, up to 6,000 square feet in some cases for a family of 3 or 4. This would not be unusual for the wealthy's palaces or country homes in other countries or other eras, but the modern American "McMansions" or "starter castles" tend not to have the live-in help that would have been thought necessary in the former cases. Edison 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a reliable number for the median square footage of all American homes. You can find such claims as "The median size for a new single family home in 2003 was about 2300 square feet (National Association of Home Builders)."  I am suspicious of the NPR number quoted above, because elsewhere (1995 report) we read "While all units average 1,732 square feet, those built in the last 4 years have an average of 1,920 square feet."  Is it really possible that in the last dozen years, the average of all the country's housing stock has gone up 36%?  But again, a median number would be more interesting than the average, which is inflated by the McMansions Edison mentions.  Wareh 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lest any UK readers be confused, the term 'average' tends to be used in the USA only to refer to the mean. Skittle 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I took "carpeted area" to mean what in the US they usually call "heated area". --Sean 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * New houses being built today are certainly larger, on average, than the existing housing stock. I am certain that the median single-family house has less than 2,000 square feet (185 m3) of floor area.  In older urban areas, 1,200–1,400 square feet (110–130 m3) is typical.  Urban apartments (flats) probably average around 1,000 square feet (93 m3), with two bedrooms and one toilet.  The cost of an average single-family house ranges from around $70,000 in depressed cities and rural areas to $700,000 in San Francisco and its suburbs.  Outside of the west coast and the Northeast, I would think that $180,000 is close to average.  Prices are two to three times higher on the west coast, in the Northeast, and a few other places with high-paying jobs, such as Denver, Colorado.  Condominiums (basically, flats) also count as homes, and they typically cost about 40% less than a single-family house in the same area, though they also typically offer less floor space.  Marco polo 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleopatra
Did Cleopatra invent oral sex? --124.254.77.148 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I find that hard to imagine, I'm sure some inventive cavepeoples would have given it a shot. She may or may not have popularised it though.. I'll leave that to the better informed inhabitants of the desk to comment on... Capuchin 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Invent? There really isn't that much technology involved, for most people, and the equipment is not modified in the process.  If we haven't documents discussing the act, that does not mean that the act was not going on.  Cleopatra had huge tracts of land, and that made her very, very attractive.  She was the Kansas of the ancient world, plus the Baltimore, and controlling her was controlling reliable food supplies, huge navigational and naval assets, and massive numbers of people, and any attempt to explain her "mystery" in terms of particular sexual acts is just more smoke.  Utgard Loki 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly implied in the song "Cleopatra" from the Adam and the Ants album Dirk Wears White Sox. It goes on about her wide mouth, and how "she gave a service with a smile". Stuart Goddard's reliability as a historical source is, however, doubtful. 80.254.147.52 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had heard it was "invented" by Caesar. Yet I somehow doubt that they invented something which has probably been done for millenia. The Evil Spartan 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Catullus (who predates Cleopatra by a few years) wrote about homosexual oral sex...we have an amusing article about the famous Catullus 16, actually. The Romans also borrowed the Greek word "cinaedus" which refers to (or can in one sense refer to) male-on-male oral, and you know those Greeks, a bunch of effeminate pederasts...I'm sure they had come up with it hundreds of years before Cleopatra. I wouldn't know where to look for a Greek source for it though. I don't know about the sex practises of any other ancient cultures, but I'm pretty sure anything you can think of doing, they would have already done, and more. Adam Bishop 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't bonobos engage in oral sex? —Keenan Pepper 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have long argued that every great invention has a thousand fathers (or mothers) and every failure is an orphan. To substantiate that someone invented some useful thing, I like there to be a record of them patenting it, and of their having given well publicized public demonstrations before learned societies. Is there such evidence in this case? Edison 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe they give public demonstrations at zoos all the time. Alas, I doubt they filed a patent in the requisite amount of time, but it's rather easy to show prior art in this case! -- Kesh 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Parents of Suresh Peters
Suresh Peters is a famous music composer. I want to know which country Suresh Peters belongs to. Where he was born? Was he born to American White father and Indian mother? Or was he born to two persons of Indian origin who stayed in USA when he was born? What is his mother tongue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.115.22 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hearts and Minds
During the present campaign in Iraq there have been attempts-not very successful-by the west to win over Muslim opinion. Are there any past examples of this process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.245.163 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The expression "hearts and minds" is closely associated with the Vietnam war; according to our article Hearts and Minds (Vietnam), Lyndon B. Johnson used it 28 times in his speeches. Still, the Vietnamese remained unconvinced. Skarioffszky 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean specifically the West winning over Muslims, then there is the Algerian War. Recury 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing to bear in mind with these campaigns is that they fail to entirely succeed, but this does not mean that they have entirely failed. First, it's desperately hard to measure success.  One never knows how many guerrilla's didn't take to the hills, how many bits of sabotage didn't take place.  If one bomber detonates a bomb, it looks like a town is against the occupiers.  That said, these efforts tend, when successful, to lead to emigration rather than quietism, and none of them can possibly persuade a people that they are not being invaded or occupied.  Anyone who sets out those things as goals for a psychological operation is a fool, and I do not doubt that some of these fools are in office now.  Geogre 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there past examples of this form of propaganda? Yes, there are. When Napoleon landed in Egypt in 1798 he brought a printing press with him, with the specific intention of disseminating literature justifying his invasion among the Muslim people. When the British came the same way in 1956 they also distributed leaflets, saying that the quarrel was not with the Egyptian people, but with the 'dictator', Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Napoleon's proclamation is particularly interesting. Clearly concerned that his campaign would recall the ancient Crusader campaign of Louis IX, it was declared that the French army, far from coming to 'eliminate your religion', are themselves 'sincere Muslims', evidenced by the recent invasion of the Papal States. General Bonaparte himself, it was further declared, worshipped Allah and revered the Quar'an. His only enemy was the Mameluk regime. Abd al Rahman al-Jabarti, a local chronicler, found the whole thing 'illiterate and insincere', though he admired the discipline of the French troops while deploring their personal hygiene! But in fact the economic cost of the occupation was quick to turn the local people against the invader, with riots breaking out in Cairo in the October following the occupation. Order was restored, though the resentment continued. After Napoleon left both of his successors were assassinated. Clio the Muse 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio, you've reminded me of Greenmantle, which involves the Kaiser's very similar pronouncements to Muslims in the First German War. DuncanHill 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Did you also know, Duncan, that when it looked as if the Ottoman Empre was about to join the war on the side of the Germans, the British authorities in India, fearful that the Sultan, in his authority as Caliph, would declare a jihad, issued a communiqué stressing that "Britain was the greatest Muhammaden power in the world and the staunchest friend of Turkey"?  Clio the Muse 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople is rather good on Haji Wilhelm Mohammed's nefarious shenanigans.I shall now have to re-read it! DuncanHill 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

European baby
Who was the first European baby born in America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shihpoo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember to a) sign your posts and b) create a new heading for your question. I have done the second one for you. And the answer to your question can be found here :) SGGH speak! 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some would dare to mention the first child born in the Americas to English parents. The Spanish were here first, and there might have been children born to them. Some scientists who espouse the Solutrean hypothesis believe that Europeans came to America long before the Vikings, from 17,000 to 15,000 years ago, travelling in watercraft similar to those used by Eskimos, and hunting seals along the ice which covered the North Atlantic, providing the basis for the stone tools known as Clovis culture. So "unknown Spanish child" or "unknown Solutrean child" are also possible answers. See also Kennewick Man, Models of migration to the New World , and Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. Edison 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The key to this question is surely that Greenland is geographically part of North America. Edison's "unknown Solutrean child" is certainly arguable, but the alternative to it (and the only answer for which there is clear evidence) is that the first European-American child was born to Norse settlers in Greenland in about 986, probably at Brattahlíð. According to the Icelandic sagas, 985 was the year the first colony was established there, by a fleet from Iceland under Erik the Red. Twenty-five ships set out, and fourteen arrived safely in Greenland. See History of Greenland: Norse settlement and Vinland. Xn4 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If "America" means the USA, then "unknown Spanish child" is Martín de Argüelles (referred to in first white child); but presumably other children of Spanish descent were born elsewhere in the Americas before him.


 * Do we have any evidence to date the first children born to the Norse settlers in Greenland? -- !! ?? 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The best is in the Grœnlendinga saga, which mentions the birth of Eric the Red's own children, including Leif Ericson. Frankly, the dates are hard to pin down, but we're in the 970s and 980s. Xn4 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There were almost certainly half-Spanish babies born on Hispaniola in the 1490s, since the men had lots of sexual relations (consensual and non-consensual) with the Arawaks. --M @ r ē ino 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did the Ku Klux Klan burn crosses?
I know they did it to invoke fear, but why the christian cross? And why burn it? Were they religious?

I read the article Ku Klux Klan and Cross burning. PitchBlack 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cross burning didn't originate with the original, Reconstruction-era Klan. The article on cross burning states that it may have come from the early-20th century novels of Thomas Dixon Jr.. In The Clansman, which was set during Reconstruction and told of the Klan of that era, he described a cross burning and wrote "in olden times when the Chieftain of our people summoned the clan on an errand of life and death, the Fiery Cross, extinguished in sacrificial blood, was sent by swift courier from village to village… The ancient symbol of an unconquered race of men." Dixon may have been inspired by the works of Sir Walter Scott. When the Klan was revived in subsequent years - inspired in part by Dixon's novels and the movie Birth of a Nation, which was based on them - they adopted the practice. A modern "justification" for the practice can be found here. (Follow that link with care if you have a low tolerance for hate.) - Eron Talk 22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were (are) religious and specifically Protestant. Rmhermen 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)