Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 17

= April 17 =

Does anybody know where i can get the piano sheet music for tubular bells???
I need to find this sheet music. I would prefer if i could just get it off a website for free. But i have looked on google and i can't find it anywhere.Please help me!!!Tubular Bells on piano. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryPie12 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably Tubular Bells, the album by Mike Oldfield, not Tubular bells, the musical instrument. Pfly (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you ever used Guitar Pro software? I'm a big fan. Many people use it to create sheet music transcriptions of all kinds of popular songs including the one you're looking for (I searched for the song on a Guitar Pro online community and found several versions).  But you need the software first (also, don't be put off by the word "Guitar" in its title--the application can be used to score all sorts of instruments).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Statz
What is good site that has statistics on prices for key items (e.g. bread, cars, houses, milk, and gas [especially gas]) for past years? Thanks, schyler (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

world's wealthiest ethnicities?
Is there a breakdown of the wealth of the world's ethnicities/religions? Also, a correlation of their worldwide population percentage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.35.234 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be possible to make a calculation. Most countries do not collect or publish data on the wealth of their citizens by ethnic group or religion.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in reading our article The Bell Curve which discusses the relationship between race and intelligence, and intelligence and financial success. However, be aware that many of the authors' conclusions are controversial.  GreatManTheory (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only the conclusions are controversial, but also the assumptions and the sources. Mr.K. (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obviously that the white people are the oppressors of the other races. 194.99.216.135 (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

guam history perspectives ed by carter lee d
Dear Editors:  How about including volume two (2005) of Guam History: Perspectives? Most of the citation info is the same -- title, editors, Univ of Guam as publisher. Date and number of pages are different. Please check it out and bring it in along with volume one from l997. Thank you. ,email address removed>   4-17-08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.243.221 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You could, I suppose, do this yourself, so long as the page references remain consistent. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sculptor sought
Does anyone know who the sculptor/medailleur of the medallion of Christabel Pankhurst displayed on the right side of the Pankhurst memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, London, right next to the Parliament Building in Westminster, was? It was not A.G. Walker! Walker did the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst, but he died in 1939 while the medallion was made 1958/59. See Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg for the information I have already found. The medaillon itself is shown e.g. here and here. A possible source might be the Memorial Appeal Fund brochure from about 1958... Lupo 07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's some information about this memorial on page 513 of Elizabeth Crawford's The Women's Suffrage Movement: a reference guide 1866-1928 (1999). For instance, the plinth is by Sir Herbert Baker, Baldwin unveiled the memorial in 1930 using a purple, white and green flag, and it was moved into a more prominent position in 1955... but alas! no mention of the medallion. Xn4  21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I already knew that ;-) See Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg... the image description also has some links to mentions of the medaillon, but so far I have not found the medailleur. BTW, according to, the statue was moved in 1956. In November 1955, the House of Lords was still debating about the move: . Lupo 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears just possible that the image is signed on the cut-off surface of the neck. Cursory image manipulation seems to show a lower case "a" there. I don't have enough time to search deeper though. SaundersW (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been there and have looked hard for any signature, but didn't see any. To me, the plaque looked unsigned, and I didn't see anything on the side of the memorial either. (On the left side, next to the plaque of the WSPU badge, there is some text explaining its significance, but again, that plaque is unsigned, too.) I did forget to check the backside of the half-rotunda, though... maybe a Londoner could go check again? (I'm no longer in London, and don't know when I'll be there again.) The memorial is at the park entrance right next to the Houses of Parliament. Lupo 07:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The plaque was unveiled on July 13 1959 by the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir, according to a leaflet listed in the Kenney papers held by UEA. SaundersW (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a letter from the memorial fund committee to the BMJ asking for support, and outlining the design, but sadly, no sculptor is mentioned. SaundersW (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I hope you're not disappointed, though: these links were mentioned at Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg all along. ;-) The Kenney papers also list that Memorial Appeal Fund brochure, where I think the sculptor should be mentioned. Lupo 18:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact
Hi. Is there any evidence of Russian collaboration with German anti-Semitic measures during the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact?217.43.13.34 (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wannsee Conference, which is generally accepted as sealing the 'Final solution', took place in January 1942, whereas Operation Barbarossa had already taken place in June 1941. QED, there cannot have been liason with the Russians regarding death camps; Russian prisoners, too, were amongst the first guinea pigs in respect of both mass-gassing and cremation (see: Auschwitz I).


 * The time-frame that you are talking about is, therefore, between the German invasion of Poland (August 1939) and the subsequent invasion of Russia (June 1941). There was liason and co-ordination between Germans and Russians (see: Gestapo-NKVD Conferences) during this time, but it appears to have been aimed at wiping out any possible locus of opposition to either of the new overlords. When the Germans invaded Poland, they generally herded the Jews into ghettos and organised mass-arrests of those classes of individual - priests, trade unionists, political activists, professionals - around whom they thought opposition might form (Aushwitz actually began as a prison for these individuals); at this early stage of the war, the Jews were actually slightly better off. Only when Hitler attacked Russia were there ad hoc massacres such as at Bialystock.


 * At the risk of political incorrectness, it is worth pointing out that Communism was seen as very much a Jewish movement, and at this time Hitler did not want to antagonise Stalin or, to a lesser extent, Roosevelt.


 * The History of Poland has more. You might, as an aside, be interested in the Jedwabne massacre. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this question a little bit more widely there is, indeed, evidence of degrees of Soviet complicity in German anti-Semitic actions during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Really it's not at all surprising when one takes into consideration the political history of the Soviet Union in the years leading up the accommodation with the Nazis.

Yes, the Nazi's were forever talking about 'Jewish Bolshevism' as they were about 'Jewish Capitalism', but most of what remained of the Jewish leadership of the CPSU had been eliminated during the Great Purge. Of course the execution of people like Grigory Zinoviev or Lev Kamenev was for reasons of politics, not of background or race. However, in 1939, following the sacking of Maxim Litvinov, the last major Jewish figure to hold office, the purge of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs acquired very strong anti-Semitic overtones. The NKVD even made preparations for a new show trial-the 'trial of the ambassadors'-in which all of the accused were Jewish, and where the charges included alleged contacts with 'Zionist circles'. Though this was never held there was to be a later echo of the actions taken at this time, which also included the wholesale removal of Jews from the state security apparatus, in the post-war Doctors' Plot.

So, given this background of hostility, the Soviets were drawn forms of collaboration, without any illusions over the consequences of their actions. After the outbreak of war in September thousands of German and Polish Jews attempted to cross the new Soviet-German border. Many were simply turned back, even when the Germans fired upon them in no-man's land. What is worse, German Jews, including some senior members of the KPD, who had taken refuge in Russia in the early 1930s, were rounded up and sent back to Germany.

In the Polish areas under their occupation the Soviets also adopted a specifically anti-Jewish policy. Jewish leaders were arrested and deported; Jewish organisations and youth movements were closed, as were most of the synagogues. Almost all aspects of Jewish religious and cultural life were under attack, including circumcision and bar mitzvahs. All Jewish holidays, including the Sabbath, were abolished. This persecution only ended in August 1941, after the German invasion. Stalin may not have shared the same kind of visceral anti-Semitism as Hitler; but he had all of the classic Russian prejudices against the Jews. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I'm going to argue against Clio again!


 * There was a very interesting article in The London Review of Books some 20 years ago, which has always stuck in my mind. It claimed that of the original 1917 Bolshevik government, 3/4 were Jewish, and then went on to argue that Communism/ Bolshevism arose as a Jewish political movement in Russia as a response to the pogroms organised from the 1840s onwards. These pogroms were themselves directed by the state in order to dissipate and divert discontent about the lack of political, social, and economic reform. It's worth pointing out that the Russian empire at this time included much of present-day Poland, so what became the Polish Jews had had experience of the Russian pogroms.


 * Since the time of that article, we have had Ian Kershaw's thesis that one should analyse Nazi-ism as though it were a religion and, if you wanted to be bold, you might take the opportunity to argue that Communism was, or at least began as, a Jewish sect. Certainly Hitler seems to have viewed Judaism and Communism as essentially indivisible, and there is considerable evidence that this was actually the case in Poland: Norman Davies in Rising '44. The Battle for Warsaw, for example, describes evidence of Jews putting out red banners to greet advancing Soviet troops as they invaded Poland; Jews being promoted to mayors in occupied villages; and, at the end of the war, being instrumental in both establishing the new Communist government and suppressing organised resistance. You should, however, be aware that the nature of Polish Christian and Polish Jewish relations during the war is a the subject of considerable dispute for historians.


 * In response to Clio's claim that Russians fired on Jewish refugees and closed down Jewish organisations, I don't think that one should see these events as specifically anti-semitic in nature. Stalin and his armies were not particularly concerned about the preservation of life, and being nominally Russian Orthodox themselves, didn't care overly much for either the Catholics or Jews that they found in Poland (check out the plot of Boris Godunov (opera)). Stalin had already imposed a 10-day week in Russia and suppressed the church, so taking similar actions against the Jews was not specific against them. What one can say was that Stalin was a thoroughly unpleasant character, playing off factions against each other and thoroughly trying to liquidate any opposition, potential, real, or imagined, against the State. The most significant action that Stalin took during this time in relation to Poland was the Katyn Massacre, which was not directed against the Jews so much as liquidating any opposition. You might, as an aside, also be interested in this film: Europa Europa. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree away, Major, dear, but might want to glance back over what I have written in the above! Anyway, here are some points of clarification.


 * It’s hardly surprising that a large number of people with a Jewish background were attracted to Bolshevism because of the high levels of anti-Semitic persecution in the Tsarist Empire, but this in no sense makes it a 'Jewish political movement', an argument put forward by their enemies in the Russian Civil War and later by the Nazis. The London Review of Books is both wrong in the generality and in the detail of its argument.  Indeed, if one examines the composition of the original Sovnarkom, established soon after the Revolution, only Trotsky, Commissar for Foreign Affairs was Jewish.  By 1919 six of the nineteen ministers were Jewish; Uritsky, Steinberg, Teodorovich, Dimanstein and Sokolnikov, along with Trotsky.  In the Central Committee, Secretariat and wider party the prominent Jews included Sverdlov, Zinoviev and Kamenev.  By 1922, as you will see from the page on Jewish Bolshevism, only some 7.1% of the Old Guard, those who joined the Party  before 1917, had a Jewish background.  So, not a Jewish sect; not by any measure.


 * But all of this is really quite immaterial to the argument I made above, which was that almost all of the senior Jewish figures in the Party were eliminated during the Great Purge. Thereafter, hostility towards Jewish influences, usually described as anti-Zionism, became ever more evident.  By the 1950s and 1960s the 'anti-Zionist' images being promoted in Soviet publications were taking forms that would have easily been recognised by Julius Streicher.


 * It was the Germans who fired on the Jews in no-mans land, not the Russians. Also note that I deliberately used the term 'anti-Jewish'-anti-Judaic, if you prefer-to describe the Russian actions in their part of the Polish territory they occupied in 1939. In other words, it was a political offensive against the forms of Jewish religious and cultural identity, no less effective for that.  Finally, I hardly think the NKVD can be described as 'Russian Orthodox', not by any measure!  But by this time all state organisations were imbued by Stalin's Great Russian Chauvinism, from which a whole variety of minority groups were affected.  But I return to the main point of my answer, which is that Soviet actions at this time showed high degrees of complicity with those of the Nazis.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

X years to life
I'm watching a documentary series on Discovery Channel at the moment called Forensic Detectives, and one of the criminals in there was given "25 years to life in prison", and I'm wondering what the "to life" part implies. Is this guy out after 25 years or is he in prison for a lifetime? Does anybody know what it means? DarkPhoenix (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on life imprisonment states that in some countries a "life term" is equivalent to 25 years. Assuming that Discovery Channel is referring to the USA, the quotation is:
 * For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence".
 * There is also some information on Norway and other Scandinavian jurisdictions.
 * --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To further illuminate the US interpretation, "25 years to life" means a life sentence, but with parole eligibility after 25 years. &mdash; Lomn 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * William Heirens, a convicted serial killer in the U.S., will complete his 62nd year of imprisonment June 26, 2008. He seems to hold the world's record. Sometimes life means life. Edison (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And some life sentences are short by design: Capital Punishment -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you Forgive Her
Please explain how Trollope's novel Can You Forgive Her? fits within the political themes of the Palliser series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.86.120 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some starting points here which make this question more difficult than it needs to be. Can You Forgive Her? is the first of the Palliser books, introducing Plantagenet Palliser, so it shouldn't really be expected to 'fit within' the themes of the rest of the series. Trollope's world grew in all directions. In any event, Trollope's interest (like Balzac's) is in the whole of the society which centres on the metropolis, of which politics is an important aspect, but only one. To Trollope, as to most gentlemen of his day, politics was only part of life. As time goes by, Palliser himself, awkward and high minded as he is, sees that there's much more to life than ambition. Xn4  14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In essence it really only serves as an introduction, though I suppose it also has a strong focus on the question posed by Alice Vavasor, namely 'What should a woman do with her life?' To that degree Can You Forgive Her? shares at least some of the preoccupations of the characters in Dostoevsky's The Idiot over the 'damned woman question'! In other words, it's about sexual politics; about woman who look for paths in life beyond matrimony and family, to the obvious disapproval of the author. Can you forgive her? Well, perhaps the best answer to Trollope's question is that given by Henry James, "Of course we can, and forget her, too, for that matter." Anyway, the novel is best read as a guide to mid-Victorian attitudes towards feminism. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read CYFH, but isn't there quite a bit about George Vavasor's efforts to get into Parliament, and about his debts? The financial difficulties encountered by MPs who are not independently wealthy is a theme that returns in Phineas Finn. I tend to re-read these novels as a group, so I could be conflating some of the plots/characters.Catrionak (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Colonies that went independent

 * 1) How many former colonies went independent after WW II and recent years?
 * 2) How many of them enjoy more freedom and prosperity?
 * 3) How many of them outperform the majority of today's remaining colonies?
 * 4) How many of them actually declined substantially?
 * 5) How many of them are still functional? -- Toytoy (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There aren't many straightforward answers here, but I wonder if you have Africa on your mind? We have quite a lot of articles which might begin to answer your questions, such as Freedom in the World (report), Decolonisation of Africa, Human rights in Africa and List of human rights articles by country (which has links to articles on human rights in many individual countries), African Union member economies (links to dozens of articles on individual countries), Decolonization of the Americas, French colonial empires, Decolonization, Postcolonialism, Neocolonialism, History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991), History of post-Soviet Russia, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of African countries by GDP, List of Asian countries by GDP, Third World debt, List of revolutions and rebellions, and List of coups d'état and coup attempts. I don't think comparisons with 'today's remaining colonies' will achieve very much, as such territories are mostly (by definition) ones which aren't politically and economically viable on their own, needing outside resources. "How many of them are still functional?" depends on the odd idea that a country is either 'functional' or not: but all countries have a kaleidoscope of functionality, it's nothing like a light bulb being switched on or not. Xn4  15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I may ask the question from another direction: Are there any successful examples of decolonization? In alphabetical order:


 * African countries:
 * Liberia: Established by former slaves shipped from the U.S. in the 19th century. They controlled local peoples. They did not like each other. They fight all the time.
 * Countries established shortly after WW II (formerly British, French, Belgian, and German). I am not familiar with this complex history. Generally these countries are not functioning well.
 * South Africa: Seems to be in struggle after the end of apartheid.
 * Zimbabwe: In a very bad leadership.
 * America (North): Mostly controlled by British immmigrants because French and Spanish lost the wars. European immigrants went independent (the U.S. and, much later, Canada) and became very successful. Natives are still relatively poor or driven to extinction.
 * America (Central and South): Mostly former Spanish/Portuguese colonies. Generally good. Natives are generally assimilated.
 * Austrilia/New Zealand: Former British colonies. Aboriginal peoples never gained any power. Rich thanks to the low population density and abundant natural resources.
 * East European countries: Too complex.
 * Guam, Hawaii (a U.S. state), Purto Rico, Virgin Islands, BVI, ...: Still owned and controlled by the 1st World. Mostly good and well-organized.
 * Hong Kong/Macau: British/Portuguese colonies returned to China. Populated by Chinese people. Mostly rich.
 * India: An old empire colonized by the British before independence. Today's India is quickly catching up. Except for occassional conflicts, peoples of different races and religions may peacefully co-exist.
 * Pakistan: I know very little about its history.
 * Bangladesh: A country established between India and Pakistan. Generally very poor.
 * North Ireland, Scotland, Wales: They used to have their own countries, don't they?
 * Okinawa: Protected by China before Japanese invasion in the 18th century. Controlled by the U.S. from 1945 to 1970. Now a prefecture of Japan with U.S. troops stationed almost everywhere. There may be discriminations but the Uchinas live relatively well. Their traditional cultures and languages declined.
 * The Philippines: Spain and U.S. (after the 1896 war). Not very well organized. Many poor people.
 * Singapore: Colonized by the British Empire and then Japan. Now ruled by mostly Chinese-origined people (have been there for hundreds of years). Malays are majority. Generally, rich and well-organized.
 * Taiwan: Aboriginal peoples were invaded and mostly replaced by Chinese immigrants. Colonized by Netherlands, Spain (before 17th century) and Japan before and during WW II. Ruled by another wave of Chinese immigrants after WW II. Generally, rich and well-organized.
 * East Timor: I know very little about this recently established poor country. Did it get any better?
 * Vietnam: Protected by China before French colonization. Established after the bloody Vietnam War. Catching up quickly after the introduction of capitalism.

It seems like the most recent trends of decolonization are failures. Colonization may be positive in certain aspects. At least a colonizer enslaves most local peoples equally. Some areas are populated by unorganized tribes. To me, unless they evolve a way to organize themselves, independence may cause more damage than good. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you're starting to answer your own question. In terms of colonialism, here are some curious comparisons there. India and Pakistan have much the same colonial history, but (broadly speaking) we consider India to be free and developing, Pakistan much less so. Liberia, theoretically not a colony since the 1850s, is just about the poorest country in Africa, whereas South Africa is much, much richer. Zimbabwe is still, on the face of it, less poor than Zambia. Of course, there are huge discrepancies between all these in natural resources, a factor which seems unconnected with colonialism, except that we Europeans were most enthusiastic about controlling territories with riches to be exploited. Nothing here is simple. Xn4  16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with newly established countries is that people do not self-organize easily. Without the attack of Pearl Harbor, there may be a million voices in the U.S. regarding the wars around the world. But without a conceptual framework that Hawaii is a part of the U.S., people in Oklahoma may not give a damn to the attack. In some "countries," even such a frontal attack may not bring up the idea that we must work together.

To me, there may be two major attractors: (1) self-organization; (2) hatre and conflicts. If a group of peoples have not have any valid record of self-organization in history, there may be very little external factors that force them to evolve such desirable behavior. Independence may cause much harm than good.

Egypt and today's Iraq developed advanced civilations thousands years ago. Then, what are the environmental factors that drive people to cooperate? Why do once formidable peoples become disorganized? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in this: . --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For a snapshot of which former colonies have succeeded in terms of individual freedom and the local economy, our most helpful articles may be Freedom in the World (report) and the series which includes List of African countries by GDP, giving GDP per capita. It's a rough and ready measure, but a real one. (Separate articles for the other continents are linked at the bottom of that Africa list.) The reasons for success and failure are much more complicated, but political instability and corruption nearly always drive out capital, brains, and everything else a country needs, whether it starts from a strong position or a weak one. Xn4  18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cote D'Ivoire was one of the most successful post-colonial African nations, at first. Later developments changed that outcome, but the article explains some of the alleged reasons for its prosperity compared to its neighbours in the immediate postcolonial years. Steewi (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC's Mark Doyle compares the relative progress of Ghana and Malaysia 50 years after their independence from Britain in this 2005 essay. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sivaji's letters
Hi!

Could someone tell me whether Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ever wrote any letter to Mirza Raja Jaisingh? if so, have they been preserved? Are they available in English translation?

Polarization
I'm a bit on the side of the California hot tub crowd who indulge in random esoteric thought as a pass time. What occurred to me is that religions like Judaism and Islam seem to be polarized like physical magnets having the same pole. While they tend to remain separate without chance of coming together they do attract the same metal objects. My question is whether there are other fields besides religion where the concept of magnetic repulsion and attraction have been applied, where polarization is a key point in explaining the high falootin' concept, be it legal or otherwise? (My hot tub buddies have left for the day.) 71.100.164.179 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The most genteel response in my vocabulary is:
 * Fuck off. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your speculative postulation may be better taken to an Internet forum or chat room rather than the Humanities Reference Desk of this online encyclopedia, where the participating editors are likely to refer you to factual information found in Wikipedia articles or other resources. May I suggest a combination of reading/relaxing/resting till your tub buds return? -- Hope that helps, Deborahjay (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if we don't like a question or don't think that it belongs here, I think that we owe the questioner a politer response than Cockatoo has offered. Our initial attitude should be WP:AGF unless a questioner has a clear abusive or disrespectful intent.  While some Muslims or Jews could possibly take offense, there is no reason to think that the questioner intended to be offensive.
 * Now, to respond to the question, based on my somewhat cursory knowledge of religious studies (i.e., the social science of religion), the "concept of magnetic repulsion" is not part of that field's toolkit, nor is it an important theoretical concept in any field other than physics. While it is a metaphor that you may want to use—inappropriately, I think—it is not part of any of the many social theories that I encountered in my academic career.  Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually if you look through their edit history you'll see that this same IP (and variants of it) have been posting various vaguely racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim questions and comments on the RD for some time now (the same IP signs for User:Multimillionaire as well). I think we're beyond AGF with this one, personally; I've seen no evidence that they are really interested in learning anything beyond their own pre-held beliefs. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So the question header announces the name of the aim of the game. The hot tub California furphy it is. Beyond AGF, yes. Go away. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been on call since originally posting this question or I would have responded sooner.


 * First, I am not racist in the sense that I do not accept people of a different race or feel they have no right to exist or that they are inferior to my race. In fact, quite the opposite. What I do think is that certain other races do not have the 4,000 to 10,000 year heritage that my race has (for the most part) and although desirous of having it, simply do not. I believe that it is this discrepancy in heritage which is the reason behind any apparent difference upon which all claims of racism are based.


 * Second, I notice Captain Ref Desk failed to list anti-Christian. As far as anti-Semitism goes I think Jesus Christ was a Semite and I am most certainly not against Him. In fact, I think He is Devine as He claimed, that He came to save other Semites who believed in Him… lets see that would be Peter and John, and Mathew and Luke and a whole bunch of other Semites.


 * Third, I am not anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic either since I do not know enough about Islam to form an opinion, although 9/11 appears to be a wake up call.


 * Forth, I believe in innocence until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. This difference in belief separates me as an American from the State of Mexico.

Although I think Captain Ref Desk is an idiot, despite his rather very good response to the question on development of nuks by Iran, Pakistan and Cuba, I think he is also a truant instigator who may be on the same side but not yet quite up to par with Ayers.

Now as far as this question and your (some) responses to it so far are concerned... the concept of polarization is a good one and I'm going to keep it despite your lack of references to examples within your own or the Wikipedia's knowledge of the humanities which I have now come to view as limited.

Thanks for revealing yet once again your (at least some of you) allegiance to your own pre-held beliefs that defy any hope of your reaching a state of true comprehension and have a great day. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I admire your 4,000 to 10,000 year heritage. I infer from that remark that you must be Chinese or Indian - or perhaps Egyptian ? I must admit that my own Western European ancestors were really quite barbaric until as recently as 1,000 BCE or so. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he is Khoikhoi. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On a sidenote, thanks for that link Adam. I've now learnt yet another childhood word is offensive ('hottentot') and thus will have to avoid reading my little nephew the book about the cat who eats everyone until he's old enough to study it as historical text. Good to know, although rather sad. Skittle (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I was taught that my culture is in fact based on, if not a composite of, many things originating from Chinese, Indian and Egyptian cultures, all of which seem to endorse the idea that spitting where people walk is not the best idea. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Assimilation of ideas from other cultures is certainly a good thing. And, although public expectoration is considered impolite in modern England, we must remember that customs change over time, and it was considered a normal and hygenic practice in the Middle Ages. Indeed, our spittoon article says that the practice was still widespread in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and apparently each Supreme Court Justice is still provided with a ceremonial spittoon to this day. A quaint reminder of a bygone age ! Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not referring to public expectoration, necessarily, but rather to where the spittle lands. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Indian people don't spit where they walk? FreeMorpheme (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of cultivating crops such as paan one goes into the field expecting to get dirty with cow manure so I would imaging nor thought is given to adding a little spittle to it. In fact this might actually be seen as beneficial. The same Indian, however, that spit in the field would be summarily thrown out of his house if he spit on the dirt floor in his wife's kitchen or on the paths of a Hindu temple. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Expectoration was one of the customs that disgusted Charles Dickens during his first visit to the United States. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If only one were blessed with a time machine. 71.100.164.179 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Walter Blume's Chaos Theory
Much thanks to Clio the Muse (a country woman of mine I think) for the answer to my question on Alexander Lohr. I am doing some work on the Greek resistance and am coming across lots of things, in German sources mainly, that I simply do not understand. Do you have any idea what Sandartenfuhrer Dr Walter Blume's 'chaos theory' was? With respect. Vasilis Tsironikis (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not talking about the mathematical/scientific Chaos Theory are you? If so, you may want to consider asking the Math Reference Desk or the Science Reference Desk as it falls more into their area of expertise then Humanities. The theory is truly quite fascinating, discussing how the unordered is in fact order, that nature is really just repeating figures, the nature of randomness etc. etc. Rather philosophical in its beauty. Zidel333 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * SS Colonel Walter Blume, commander of Sonderkommando 7a, Einsatzgruppe B. Tried for war crimes in the "Einsatzgruppen Case" and sentenced to death 10 April, 1948, latter commuted to life in prison. From 1943-4 he served as head of SiPO/SD in Greece.


 * In the summer of 1944 Blume proposed what he called the "Chaos Thesis". As the German armies began to withdraw from Greece they would follow a scorched-earth policy, destroying factories and infrastructure, and also arresting and executing the entire political leadership.


 * At his trial, when asked whether or not he knew that the killing of civilians was contrary to the laws of war he replied: "...for me the directive was the Fuehrer Order. That was my war law."


 * Tenenbaum, J. (1956). Race and Reich; the story of an epoch. New York: Twayne. pp. 353, 369.
 * Mazower, M. (1993). Inside Hitler's Greece: the experience of occupation, 1941-44. New Haven: Yale University Press..
 * Maguire, P. (2001). Law and war: an American story. New York: Columbia University Press. p 178.

Vasilis, Blume's Chaos proposal had a specific political purpose: to leave Greece in a state of complete anarchy. The proposal was so extravagant in nature that it led to a rift between him and Foreign Office, where Hermann Neubacher, the plenipotentiary for South-east Europe and Serbia, had formerly been a strong ally.

Blume evolved his 'Chaos Thesis' against the background of the anti-communist sweeps in the suburbs of Athens, a regular event in the spring summer of 1944, and intensely brutal in design. For Neubacher Blume's actions, increasingly indiscriminate in scope, were beyond all reason and purpose, undermining his attempts to interest the western Allies in a joint drive against the Soviet Union and the Communist National Liberation Front.

The implementation of the Chaos Thesis was stopped after the Wehrmacht declared all of Greece or be a combat zone in September 1944, which had the effect of transferring security duties from the Sicherheitsdienst to the military. Blume was ordered to leave Greece by Ernst Kaltenbrunner, head of the SD and Neubacher's friend. At a meeting held in Athens in September Löhr agreed to abandon the political Chaos Thesis. You will find the details here in Inside Hitler's Greece: the Experience of Occupation, 1941-44, an excellent study by Mark Mazower. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fridays
What are the main things people abstain from on Firdays for religious reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Religion. I also abstain from it, for religious reasons, on Saturdays, Sundays, Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, and erm, Thursdays.  Hope that helps ;) I am not a dog (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Climbing conifers (Fir days)? Sorry, I couldn't resist. On to the main event . . . Abstaining from eating meat on Fridays is/was a Roman Catholic tenet. If you are Jewish, there is much from which you must refrain after sundown, depending on the degree of your orthodoxy, including: all work, driving cars, riding in elevators, turning lights on or off . . . See Jewish Sabbath for a list of the whats and the whys of prohibited activities. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thusly, if you are Jewish and move from Ontario towards the North Pole in winter / the South Pole in summer, you must abstain from work - like chopping down coniferous gnomons - in the middle of the night. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I met a Jew from Trondheim, Norway once. Trondheim is near the Arctic Circle. I asked about Shabbat, and she told me that the community simply sticks to a reasonable service time regardless of the sunrise and sunset. The Trondheim Jewish community is fairly liberal, apparently. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Muslims go to mosque on Fridays. The Arabic word for Friday is actually based on their word for mosque, I believe. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The word for Friday and the word for mosque (well, one of the words) are from the same jim-mim-ayin root, which means to gather or collect or anything like that (it's an extremely productive root, used also for university for example, and I think it probably has a form in every verb pattern). Another word for mosque, the source of the English word, is masjid, "a place for kneeling", from sin-jim-dal, to kneel. Anyway, sorry for the long diversion, I was going to say that when I lived in a dorm in a Catholic university, the cafeteria always served fish on Fridays. They had meat too, for non-Catholics, but it tended to be something like meatloaf that was of dubious meat provenance... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)
 * Other Christian denominations, not only Catholicism but also Eastern Christianity, have their abstinences. Ethiopian food has many vegetarian dishes for this reason. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

new mexico
what are nms resources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopity (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What sort of resources are you looking for? Natural resources?  New Mexico should be a start.  Dismas |(talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Jews
If the Jewish Sabbath runs from sundown on Friday to the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday, how do Jews north of the Arctic Circle handle things? There's a shortage of both sundowns and stars for significant portions of the year. --Carnildo (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that they would just base it on the times Jews below the Arctic circle would use. (I'm not positive though). Anyways I doubt there are many Jews up there, so you shouldn't worry about it. Leave the arctic to the Eskimos and oil drillers.


 * See my comment above about Trondheim, Norway. My guess is the only Jewish community above the Arctic Circle is Murmansk, Russia. Here is a complicated document about current Jewish laws regarding Shabbat and latitude: . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My favorite sentence: "Ideally, one should not travel to outer space." Lantzytalk 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)