Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 10

= March 10 =

Artificial Competition
Is there an example (from past or present...NO FUTURE PLEASE) of a Parent Company manufacturing two different but similar products for the purpose of creating the illusion of competition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.192.184 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Procter & Gamble produce detergents and haircare products under many different brands. Another classic example is the car industry, where multiple marques are owned by one parent company and vehicles are badge engineered; for example, in the US market GM produces the all-but-indistinguishable Chevrolet Trailblazer, Oldsmobile Bravada, GMC Envoy, Isuzu Ascender, Buick Rainier and Saab 9-7X.  Whether the goal is to "create the illusion of competition" is debatable; more often, it's because one company has bought out another, and fears losing market share if they retire one of the brands. FiggyBee (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When I worked for Sony, the professional equipment was sold at a high price with a Sony brand on it. The same internal equipment was placed in a drabber looking case and branded either National or Panasonic and sold at a lower price.  As such, I performed the same repairs/maintenance on Sony and Panasonic equiment - often switching parts between the two brands.  I can only assume the reasoning is that some people will buy Sony because of brand loyalty, but others will pay 1/3 the price to Panasonic because they think it is a great deal over the Sony model.  Wish they'd do that with the PS3.  I'd be more than happy to buy a Panasonic FunStation3. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that all the many margerines sold are owned by a few companies. I don't think the idea is to create the illusion of competition, but that the different images appeal to different people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the UK, the same company owns more than two newspapers including The Times and The Sun. One upmarket, the other a downmarket tabloid or comic-for-adults. 80.2.206.197 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the US, newspapers are per-city rather than national, and for cities that have two major newspapers, it's not uncommon for the two to be run by the same company and share printing facilities. Sometimes the only difference is that one paper is written from a Republican/conservative perspective, and the other is written from a Democratic/liberal perspective. --Carnildo (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon for a single company to make products aimed at different segments of the same market. P&G and GM have been mentioned before. Anheuser-Busch markets Busch Beer for the working class, Budweiser for the middle class and Michelob for the upper-middle class. None of those examples meet the original poster's criteria, however. There may be examples in antitrust law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called product proliferation, and the aim is not so much the "illusion of competition" but a desire to gain a larger market share, and make it more difficult for new companies to edge in. If, say, there were 5 brands of shampoo, and you had 1, then you would cover approx 1/5 of the market.  If someone else steps in with a new brand, then that drops to 1/6.  Better, then, to market 5 brands yourself: 5/9 is a much bigger share, and a new one-brand competitor will only shift that to 5/10.  FiggyBee mentions P&G above.   Check out how many laundry detergents (for example) are listed at the List of Procter & Gamble brands.  As Mwalcoff notes, it also enables them to aim at different markets. ps. Product proliferation is an orphan stub.  A worthy candidate for an eager editor. Gwinva (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

People Who Were Important in Establishing Bilingual Education Programs in the United States
I need to know about three or four people who were important in establishing bilingual education programs in the United States. 99.135.154.196 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look on the website of, or contact directly, the professional organisation known as TESOL Inc.. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Chancellorsville
I read about the battle of Chancellorsville as a result of an interesting discussion here about nineteenth century battles. General Hooker lost this battle but what I would like to know is could he have won the campaign if he had pressed the attack as General Mead wanted? I know this may call for a lot of speculation, but I still think it worthwhile. Also I am amazed in considering these civil war battles more generally just how fantastically high the casualty rates were. Figures like this today would cause national outrage. Was there a reason for such high battle casualties, apart from clumsiness by the opposing commanders? 217.43.8.37 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Casualties of that time were particularly high for a number of reasons. I would note particularly the primitive battlefield medicine of the time, as medical-related casualties were fearful.  Additionally, the war coincided with major advances in infantry weapons -- the rifled musket and, to a lesser extent, the breech-loader.  It took quite some time for tactics to catch up to the realities of the battlefield, much as with World War I and the machine gun. &mdash; Lomn 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The weapons used at the time weren't conducive to minor wounds, either: the muskets of the time fired bullets that today would be considered small cannonballs. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressing myself to the first part of your question, 217.43, I do not think that Fighting Joe was the man who could have won that campaign. His plan was bold, but he simply lost the will and the ability to execute it; he had lost confidence, in other words, in Joe Hooker.

But looking at your question from a slightly difficult angle, I think George Mead was right: the Army of the Potomac could have pressed on despite the losses at Chancellorsville. After all, Mead's own V Corps had hardly been engaged. More than that, despite the heavy losses, the Army of the Potomac was still in better shape than Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Chancellorsville's was indeed Lee's masterpiece, a victory gained by a combination of audacity and tactical brilliance; but he and the Confederacy paid a heavy price. Proportionally his casualties were far greater than Hooker's, amounting to a staggering 25% of the total force engaged. What is worse, the Confederacy had reached a stage in the war where such high losses could not easily be made good.

The simple fact is the path to Richmond was never going to be easy. For as long as the Union army was commanded by generals who were in the habit of retreating at the first reverse no progress was going to be made. I am convinced that if US Grant had been in command, and even if he had suffered the same scale of defeat as Hooker, he would still have continued the advance, as he was to do the following year, time, and time and time again. By 1863 the Army of the Potomac had become a superb fighting force. It just needed the right man at its head. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The decision to advance or retreat after a battle comes from two different schools of thought. The early commanders of the Army of the Potomac were of the "decisive battle" school: they were looking for a decisive battle that would break and scatter the Army of Northern Virginia, leaving the road to Richmond open.  When they failed to get such a battle, they would retreat and rebuild the army for another try.  Grant was of the newer "campaign" school of thought: instead of trying to destroy the Army of Northern Virigina, he applied pressure to it, forcing it to either retreat or move out of his way, trusting his supply lines to make up for losses of men and materiel. --Carnildo (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 US presidential Campiagn
Sirs, I am compiling a dossier on the present American presidential campaign, press cuttings, magazine articles and the like. At the moment I am looking for amusing comments on any of the main candidates that have appeared in the form of letters to the press. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Ward Jason (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I might just be able to help you, Ward! The Spectator, carried at article in the issue of 23 February by one Venetia Thompson, entitled Obama is the Othello for our times.  I've been reading The Spectator for some years now, and I feel confident enough to say that this was possibly the silliest piece that it has ever carried.  Let me give you a flavour:


 * Say a white girl introduces her new black boyfriend to her largely white group of school and university friends. He will be embraced into the fold like an old chum.  But watch carefully and you might see one of her white male friends conspiratorially whisper in her ear 'So is it true what they say?' as soon as his back is turned.


 * Yes, it's as crass and stupid as that! This elicited a hilarious response in the letters page of the 8 March issue from a reader in North Kingstown, Rhode Island:


 * I am relieved to know that my concerns about the possibility of a President Obama are due not to any substantive matters but solely to my 'primeval racist fears of the black super-male.’


 * Before reading Venetia Thompson's article I had mistakenly attributed my opposition to Senator Obama to his hard-left notions about government policy. It is a comfort to know that objection-and others, such as his lack of executive experience and minimal tenure in national politics-are mere self-deluding artifices to conceal racism within my fearful and embittered psyche.


 * I can stop fretting now over superficialities-like not wanting my country to be led by a socialist-and focus on making amends for my thoughtcrimes. Thank you, Venetia, for helping me see the light.  (Meanwhile, is it true what they say?)


 * Enjoy! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Confederate Emancipation Proclaimation
In late 1864, Davis authorized an envoy, Duncan Kenner to go to France and GB and offer emancipation for intervention, sacrificing slavery for independence. The war was fought to preserve slavery. So why would the Confederates strike such a dumb bargain?

Lotsofissues 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the period, but surely the fact that the confederates were obviously losing the war is relevant? Algebraist 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The war was not about slavery, it was, from the Confederate point of view, about states' rights.  Corvus cornix  talk  16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Corvus is right. Even the Union fought more for preservation of the Union than for slavery. Wrad (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The slavery issue with the Civil War is a product of revisionist history. In my history book when I was in grade school, it stated clearly that Lincoln demanded that all slaves be freed and the South revolted and immediately went to war with the North.  There is no truth in that at all, but it is what was taught to every student who used the same text book.  The goal is to rewrite history by repeatedly telling each generation the same thing until anyone who states what actually happened is deemed an idiot. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the article Origins of the American Civil War shows that the reasons were much more complex than that. However, I think that the issue of slavery became the apple of discord/bone of contention before the civil war. Someone of the north would attack slavery passionately and someone of the south would defend his right to enslave blacks with tooth and claws. After the war there was trend to focus upon pre-war slavery by part of Northern historians and academics and upon states rights by part of their Southern counterparts. I particularly like this statement inside the article Lost Cause: "Stampp also mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States" as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat". Flamarande (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the claim that the Civil War was not about slavery is, in fact, a revisionist position, since it ignores what Confederate leaders said about the meaning of the war at the time. (For example, Southern slave owners were not in favor of states' rights when it came to protecting slavery: the Southern demand for the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was the antithesis of states' rights.) A second claim—that the North went to war to end slavery—is also false, of course. I think people tend to realize that this second claim is false, which then seems to confuse some of them into thinking that the first claim—that the war was not about slavery—is valid. —Kevin Myers 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it really revisionism if it's a grade school textbook? Do you think it would do any good to teach children anything more complex than that? They wouldn't understand, and they mostly think history is boring enough already. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, Ppl who believe the CONFEDERACY (not Union) didn't fight the war to preserve slavery should be deemed idiots. The casus belli is so plainly written. In the South Carolina secession document, what completely engrosses what they say? Lotsofissues 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.224.203 (talk)


 * Flamarande is right. The pernicious and tendentious revisionism has been from the pro-South side, which labored with unfortunate success for a long time to disguise the obvious, that  the war was about slavery. The old saw was that if history is written by the victors, then it is clear the South won the war.  The origins article here understates the past dominance of these views.  The Southern position on states rights was not due to some inherent bias or philosophy compared to the North - it was an effect of its desire to have a local right to enslave, not an independent cause.  If sectionalism was what it was about, why did Southern representatives wax wroth, practically foam at the mouth, when John Quincy Adams proposed the North secede from its slaveholding rump? If one understands how slavery was a cause of the other causes, one is left with little else. See Cornerstone Speech for more on Stephens' speech.4.234.135.242 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple way to demonstrate this is to look at the arguments for and documents of secession from the various states. Yes, it was about "states rights" -- solely, however, the right to own human beings as chattel slaves. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution as it existed in 1860 didn't give the federal government any authority to interfere with slavery within each individual state, and no mainstream northern politician ever claimed that the federal government had any authority to interfere with slavery within an individual state. So the Civil War wasn't originally about that issue. However, the origin of the Civil War was in fact very closely connected with the issue of the extension of slavery into the various mid-west territories, since the origin of the Republican Party (and the corresponding decline of the Whig Party) was closely connected with the repeal of the Compromise of 1850 by Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to Bleeding Kansas (a controversy which was exacerbated by the Dred Scott decision). The vice-president of the Confederacy himself said that racial supremacy as expressed through slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy in his infamous Cornerstone Speech. -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we all know that the constitution of the USA was a compromise in some delicate aspects. Let's wrap the issue up with: "If the Southern states had ended with slavery on their own (as the rest of the civilized world was slowly doing anyway) they wouldn't try to leave the Union in the first place (they would have been left in peace by the abolitionists - whose whole reason of being would cease to exist). Without an attempt to secede - and the Lincoln/Union's (North) reaction and determination of preserving it - there wouldn't be a American civil war. Flamarande (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming babies after dead siblings
It seems to have been usual in nineteenth-century England, at least, for a family to keep giving each newborn a certain name until one lived. For instance, if a Molly Smith died at age three, the next girl born to her parents would often be named Molly. Is there a name for this practice, and is it codified or sanctioned anywhere, such as in the Bible or in tradition or in imitation of blueblood practice? In other words, is there some reason for it beyond the obvious reasons that come to mind? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a practice of letting land with the lease to run for the length of the lifetimes of persons named in the lease (which seems to be related to pur autre vie). I have found this in relation to the practice in Ireland. ''Lease:

The frequent term of a lease was 21 or 31 years, known as a 'lease of years'. Alternatively land was leased for the life time of named individuals otherwise known as a 'lease of lives', eg. typically there were three named lives, including the tenant, his son and another named individual. The lease and rent agreement remained in force until the death of all three named persons. Some of the more prosperous tenants secured the right to get renewable leases for ever, or leases for several hundred years, which were essentially freehold in all but name. However over 80% of all tenancies in the mid nineteenth century were annually set, with no security and no formal lease. ''


 * The naming of several children with the same name was sometimes related to this type of lease, since only the name of the son, and the fact of his relationship was given, not the date of birth. I read this in the notes on a novel, and sadly can't remember which, so sorry, no ref. SaundersW (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of Salvador Dali, his parents told him he was the reincarnation of his dead brother Salvador, who died 9 months before he was born. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for the Victorian era, but during the Middle Ages is was quite common to give children the same names -they didn't even need to die first! (eg. Two of the sons of John Paston, of Paston Letters fame, were named John, and both lived to adulthood.) Names were generally chosen to be meaningful in some way. Children were frequently named after their godparents, so if they all had the same names (or you reused godparents), then so be it.  Family traditions also counted, so names were sometimes reused if the original bearer died, or several living children were named after key family members.  Saints were also important: if you felt your family was blessed by a saint (or you were desirous of obtaining the blessing of a saint) then you might name a number of your children in recognition of that.   But don't forget, these are their baptismal/legal names; they probably all had pet names that their family used. Whether this all instituted a tradition that continued into the 19th century would be speculation on my part, but someone else might know.  Gwinva (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This practice has contributed to false claims of extreme age. Someone claims to be 112 years old. Records from long ago show a child of his name living with his parents, but that was his older brother and he was given the same name when he was born years later after the older brother died. Edison (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic but former US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger has three sons, all named Lawrence, but with different middle names. Tonzo (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lorna Doone
I'm reading Lorna Doone and there are some things I just can't get. Who are the men of Gotham (page 116)? What was the dispute between court and city mentioned on page 186 and what is the great conspiracy mentioned on page 187? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myra McCartney (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't have the book handy at the moment, but assume that he's referring to the legendary Fools of Gotham and the royal-parliamentarian tensions that led to the English Civil War... AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's on wikisource. The dispute is in 1683, so it's not civil war-related. The conspiracy is the Rye House Plot. Algebraist 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a BBC account of the Wise men of Gotham and their adventures with King John. The great dispute is explained in that paragraph: the court (of the king) wishes to appoint the chief officers of the Corporation of London, and the citizens maintain that they have the right to appoint the officers themselves. From the names Lord William Russell and Algernon Sidney, the great conspiracy would be the Rye House Plot. SaundersW (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Accounting practises for branch accounting
I am working for an organisation which has field offices around South India. All the expenses for the field offices are being sent by Head Office. what sort of accounts the branches should maintain ? Is there any book in India which can be referred for this purpose ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.81.248 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Profit centres or cost centres perhaps? 80.0.98.55 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discrete and Insular Minority
I have been trying to understand the legal meaning of this phrase for a paper I am writing. The phrase si first seen in Carolen Products v United States, Footnote Four in 1937. I understand what discrete means, as well as what insular means, but there is a great difference between the legal meaning of a word and the practical representation of the same word. If anyone could point me to any legal references, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.210.17 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital copy of House Bill 775?
Does anybody have a digital copy of House Bill 775 filed by Tim Couch (R-Ken) or where I could find one? I did some perusing of Kentucky's Legislature website to no avail. It's the bill proposing to make illegal anonymous posting on the internet, and I have a strong desire to read it. There's a fair amount of buzz on sites like Digg if you don't know what I'm talking about. Here7ic (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's proposed in the US house of representatives there's no reason it would be on the kentucky legislature website. —Random832 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, Couch is a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives; this question concerns a bill introduced at the state level. The parenthetical notation after his name should read "R-Hyden".  --LarryMac  | Talk  19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a link to the bill (MS Word format) on this page. Oh, and I suppose you could call him (R-90th) also.  --LarryMac <font color="#3EA99F"> | Talk  19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is it with Kentucky and intellectually challenged people named Tim Couch? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What is Rep. Couch's relationship to the quarterback of the same name? They're both from Hyden. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Machiavelli-the devil?
The church put Machiavelli's The Prince on its index of banned books, and it is sometimes said that Old Nick, another name for the devil, comes from his name. Is there a specifically anti-christian message in the Prince? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.7 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definately an un-christian message contained there. Not much of 'the meek will inherit the earth' 'or blessed are the alms givers' type thought in there - maybe that's the reason?
 * If you search for the "prince machiavelli banned" it will turn up numerous essays explaining why the church found it unnaceptable87.102.94.48 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it was considered a satire at the time, such seeming cynicism? Does satire have a tendency towards papal bans?87.102.94.48 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The old Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about The Prince:


 * "Again, a prince must keep clear of crime not only when it is hurtful to his interests but when it is useless. He should try to win the love of his subjects, by simulating virtue if he does not possess it; he ought to encourage trade so that his people, busied in getting rich, may have no time for politics; he ought to show concern for religion, because it is a potent means for keeping his people submissive and obedient. Such is the general teaching of the 'Principe', which has been often refuted. As a theory Machiavellism may perhaps be called an innovation; but as a practice it is as old as political society. It was a most immoral work, in that it cuts politics adrift from all morality, and it was rightly put on the Index in 1559. It is worth noting that the 'Principe' with its glorification of absolutism is totally opposed to its author's ideas of democracy, which led to his ruin. To explain the difficulty it is not necessary to claim that the book is a satire, nor that it is evidence of how easily the writer could change his political views provided he could stand well with the Medici. Much as Machiavelli loved liberty and Florence he dreamed of a 'larger Italy' of the Italians. As a practical man he saw that his dream could be realized only through a prince of character and energy who would walk in the steps of Cæsar Borgia, and he conceded that the individual good must give way to the general well-being."

There is, I believe, some debate over whether Machiavelli was actually advocating the ideas contained in The Prince, or was just describing the fractious politics in the Italy of his day. Keep in my also that he was involved with the Florentine government that had kicked out the de Medici family, which hardly endeared him to the papacy. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, 217.42, let me give you just one reasonably well-known statement from Chapter Six of The Prince: "Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed." For Machiavelli this is the central lesson of history.  But it is also a message that goes against that of the church: for the 'unarmed prophet' is Christ.  The 'prophet armed' is, of course, Mohammed.


 * However, I do not think that 'Old Nick' was delivering am anti-Christian message as such. After all, for centuries the Christians had taken up arms, in wars both just and unjust.  Machiavelli’s great crime was, as I have said on other occasions, to describe the practice of politics, free from ethical and theological fictions: for it was right, as he puts it, "to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined."


 * In essence, therefore, the message was a practical one; that in a world of deceit and treachery that those who seek to act virtuously in every way-to follow pure Christian doctrine, if you like-are on the road to self-destruction, not self-preservation. If the Prince is to maintain his rule he must learn "how not to be virtuous and make use of it according to need."  Christ was shown the kingdoms of the world and rejected them.  For the Prince Machiavelli repeats Satan's temptation, urging him to take up the sword for the sake of the good that can only be accomplished by the possession of power.


 * I do not in any way think that Machiavelli intended his brilliant little treatise as 'a satire', but an analysis of how attain power and, more important, how to hold it. In the treacherous world of sixteenth-century Italian realpolitik there is simply nothing to be gained from the exercise of virtue for the sake of virtue.  The exhortations of his Humanist contemporaries, notably Thomas More and Erasmus, the Christian ethics they advance, were no more than a comforting illusion.  It's acutely ironic that the Church, for all its disapproval, advanced men like Pope Julius II, for whom The Prince might very well have served as a personal manifesto.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In 17th-century English, there was even an eponymous word "Machiavel" which meant "an intriguer or unscrupulous schemer" (OED 1st edition). AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that the fundamental difference between the mindset that produced The Prince and that which banned it would be this: Machiavelli is interested in how to keep power, and advocates what might be seen as extreme measures in doing so. The papal authority is (in theory, anyway) not interested in power, it is interested in human goodness. To them, the ends do not justify the means. Machiavelli would counter that such rank idealism ('everyone treat each other nicely!') produces worse conditions for the populace at large, and that by making a few brutal examples of your enemies, the greater happiness and harmony is achieved.


 * In summary: Machiavelli is pragmatic, the Church is idealistic. I leave it to the reader to decide which mindset is more conducive to a good life. Vranak (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the English popular mind of ca. 1600, I think that followers of Machiavelli and Jesuits were at least vaguely associated with each other, since both groups were considered to follow an amoral or immoral "by any means necessary" or "the end justifies the means" philosophy, which would permit lying and committing crimes in order to achieve a desired goal... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The modern English equivalent is the adjective "Machiavellian". --Carnildo (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Southern States: which US states are "southern"
Which U.S. states are considered as Southern due to their Southern accent and history of slavery?
 * Have you read Southern United States? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The South" has always been hard to define. One definition is "where kudzu grows." A good sociological one might be where a plurality of people in the 2000 census considered their ancestry to be "American" or "African American." (outside of Northern urban counties with large black populations) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Counties with Baptists as the leading church body, as in this map, make a semi-decent delineation -- with a few caveats perhaps. Pfly (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Those states which formed the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War are, from a historic perspective, the Southern States. These states ceded from the union over the issue of slavery. C mon (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The CSA seceded over the issue of states rights. Slavery was brought into the equation by Abe Lincoln halfway through the war in order to convince the European Empires to support his side. After the war ended, the Union did everything within its power to revise history to make it show that the war was always about the protection of human dignity. It wasn't. Ninebucks (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Ninebucks, if you go back and read the debates over secession in the Southern legislatures and newspapers, it's clear that secession was almost entirely about slavery and the fear that slavery was under threat. I think you have the slavery issue as a whole mixed up with the issue of abolition, which was not adopted as a Northern strategy until a couple years into the war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Disraeli and Jewishness
Benjamin Disraeli famously defended his Jewish ancestry but could it not be said that in some of his published writing he actualy provided grounds for anti-semitic conspiracy theory? I understand that he may even have been responsible for giving Gobineau inspiration for his theory of races, though I cannot trace the source of this story. Do any of you know anything about this? 86.157.194.63 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean his novels, 86.157, when you refer to his 'published writings’? It is here that he advances a view of human history based on the pre-eminence of race.  Anyway, here is what he says about the Jews in Coningsby;


 * And at this moment, in spite of centuries, of tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect.  You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.  The first Jesuits were Jews; that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution which is at the moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs in Germany...(1844, pp. 182-3).


 * It's all really terribly silly, a form of bragging not taken at all seriously in his homeland; but on the Continent it was fuel for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which were to proceed, with variations on this basic theme, right into the twentieth century.


 * So far as I am aware the theory that Disraeli met and advised Gobineau on matters of race was first put forward by one Karl Koehne, a German author, in an essay published in 1926. It's complete nonsense.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And don't forget about one of the all-time great comebacks, albeit perhaps apocryphal, in political history (perhaps mixed up with a similar retort by Judah Benjamin). In a debate with an Irish opponent, Disraeli took a remark as a slight against his heritage. He responded: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, Mwalcoff, the facts are are not quite as straightforward as often assumed! The 'Irish opponent' of Disraeli was none other than the Great Liberator himself.  Now while O’Connell’s remarks were anti-Disraeli, rather than anti-Semitic, Disraeli's response was most definitely anti-Irish, using imagery that would have been readily understood by a mid-nineteenth century Victorian audience.  Anyway, I've copied below a response I gave to this last March.


 * I suspect the remark in question may have been made in an exchange with Daniel O'Connell during the Taunton by-election of 1835 (which Disraeli lost) rather than in Parliament. Disraeli did not enter Parliament until July 1837, as the member for Maidstone.  To be fair, insult had been traded for insult, and Disraeli had previously referred to O'Connell as an 'incendiary and a traitor.'  The two men even came close to fighting a duel.  Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian.  Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858.  Clio the Muse 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right folks, I've now managed to track this down, with some degree of difficulty, I have to say. It is a popular misconception that the remark was made in the Commons; it was not: it appeared in an open letter in The Times in 1835, addressed to Daniel O'Connell.  During the Taunton by-election Disraeli, standing as a Tory, attacked the Whigs and their alliance with O'Connell, and the Irish radicals, in highly immoderate terms.  He was particularly offensive in his remarks about the great Liberator.  In response O'Connell, no less skilled in invective, denounced him as the 'worst possible type of Jew'-He has just the qualities of that impertinent thief on the cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, that same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude.   Disraeli responded by challenging O'Connell's son, Morgan, to a duel; and when this was refused his letter with the famous quote was published.  O'Connell was not, in fact, denouncing Disraeli as a Jew as such, but as the descendent of a criminal.  Disraeli took the occasion not just to celebrate a more elevated Jewish ancestry-the priests in the temple-, but to denounce the 'savage' Irish, in terms that would have appealed to all the prejudices of Victorian England.  The whole matter, therefore, is not quite as simple as conventionally depicted.  The details of the quarrel can be found in Disraeli by Sarah Bradford, published by Weidenfield and Nicholson in 1982 (and which I have just hooked out from our library).  Clio the Muse 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Clio -- interesting that at least one "apocryphal" story is actually true. My guess is that like many a politician, Disraeli had the line "in the bank," waiting for the first excuse to use it. Just like Lloyd Bentsen when he humiliated Dan Quayle with the Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy line. Quayle hadn't really compared himself to Kennedy; he had simply compared the length of his congressional service to that of JFK. But you can't leave a comeback like that sitting in the closet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote does seem to be apocryphal. The quarrel is described in Disraeli by Sarah Bradford on p.81 of both the London edition and the 1983 New York edition published by Stein and Day but though O'Connell's words are mentioned (without any reference) she doesn't mention the quote and Disraeli's response is only referred to as appearing in a letter in The Times, no date mentioned. David Cesarani also describes the quarrel on pp.68-70 of Disraeli: The Novel Politician published by Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016 in their Jewish Lives series. He quotes both O'Connell and Disraeli, referring to the edition of Disraeli's letters edited by M. G. Wiebe et al. published by the University of Toronto Press, 1989. He also does not mention the quote. The Times Digital Archive has an exchange of letters between Disraeli and Daniel O'Connell and his son Wednesday, May 06, 1835 (the source is given as pg. 3; Issue 15783) but the quote does not appear. Sue Brewton in her July 16, 2016 at 8:56 pm reply to David L. after her "No, Benjamin Disraeli did not write that." post on https://suebrewton.com/2016/04/30/no-benjamin-disraeli-did-not-write-that/ describes the quote as "more legend than fact" and then quotes a “famous apocryphal story” Emmanuel Nathan and Anya Topolski "Is there a Judeo-Christian Tradition?" with its URL, as well as including URLs for The Yale Book of Quotations and Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Mcljlm (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Classical or pastiche? Dido and Aeneas
I have a printed page before me with forty or fifty lines written in a classical or mock-classical tone. It begins "Oh, sorrow crowned love of my life, why hast thou forsaken me? Am I not fair? I have loved thee long, and all the places of silence know my wailings. I have loved thee beyond life with all its sweetness, and the sweetnesses have turned to cloves and to almonds..." and it ends "May the gods bless thee and sustain thee, oh light, and may their judgment not come too heavy upon thee for this thing thou hast done. Aeneas, I burn for thee! Fire, be my last love!"

Anyone know what this is? Obviously the Aeneid is the first port of call, but I would have thought some googling would throw one of these lines up, but so far, nothing. FreeMorpheme (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would guess the lines are spoken when Aeneas meets Dido in the Underworld in Book VI. I don't have a copy of the work handy, though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be directly from any straight translation of the Aeneid, Obiterdicta: neither in the underworld, nor when Dido earlier threw herself in the flames. But it is clearly based on this episode. Nor is it closely related to anything in the libretto of Purcell's Dido and Aeneas. I do like the lines! They look latish-19th-century mock-archaic, to me. I am reminded of these lines from Leonard Cohen's song "Joan of Arc":
 * "'then fire, make your body cold, I’m going to give you mine to hold,' Saying this she climbed inside To be his one, to be his only bride."
 * Same general theme. But she died a virgin...
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor to Marlowe's Dido, Queen of Carthage. [Christopher Marlowe, Dido, Queen of Carthage] SaundersW (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a superdelegate
If Eliot Spitzer should step down as Governor of New York prior to the Democratic Convention, would he lose his Superdelegate status? How would his superdelegate vote be replaced? <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he'd lose the spot, as he'd no longer be governor. Lt. Gov. David Paterson is already an at-large superdelegate as a DNC member; I guess he could step down from his DNC position, and it could be filled by someone else? Regardless, subtract one from the Clinton column for the meantime. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting blog post: Would Spitzer Lose His Superdelegate Vote? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both. That slate post is informative.  <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Books on Sexual Practices & General Sexuality in America 1900-1940 Needed
Hello,

I'm currently doing a research paper for my American History Class. My topic is "Sex, Sexuality and Sexual Attitudes in Early 20th Century America, 1900-1940". I have tons of sources on feminism & women's rights, gay & lesbian history and gender roles, but I can't find many sources relating directly to sexual practices and other "in the bedroom" information of around that time. I've got the "Sexuality" and "Sexual Attitudes" but not the "Sex". Can anyone point me in the direction of some good books on this particular theme so that I can order them from the library?

Thanks, Slayton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.235 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The classic is the Kinsey Report, though how valid its statistics were is a matter of dispute. AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Kinsey Report was published in the fifties. I need books both from and about sex from 1900-1940. ~Slayton~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.242.162 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * However, much of the data for the Kinsey report was collected in retrospective life interviews, conducted beginning in 1938... Another interesting source might be the Middletown studies.  They probably don't contain any sexual statistics as such, but from some abstracted excerpts I once read, they apparently include detailed insights into changing courtship customs and attitudes from ca. 1890-1937... AnonMoos (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See Ideal Marriage: Its Physiology and Technique (book) by van de Velde from 1926. The article about that book includes links to other sources of info on such books from the era you are interested in. It was a widely cited and reportedly wildly wrong book of that era, per later writers such as Masters and Johnson. The Van de Veld book was also sold under the English title "Perfect Marriage." You might wish to compare the first edition with the later revisions, since it has been brought up to date. Edison (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck on finding anything accurate and direct for the early C20. There will be plenty of circumlocutions, but your best bet might be a bit of lateral thinking. For example, look for surrogate indicators: venereal disease (as they called it then) will rise and fall, and you can extrapolate.  Another useful phrase to search for is "sexual hygiene" -- the latter word means healthiness in general, not washing  behind one's ears. You might find many promising books with that in the title.   Whatever they inveigh against must have been popular enough to command attention.  No use in fulminating against lesbianism if no one was doing it.  Vibrators began to be sold to individuals (previously only doctors had used them on "hysterical" female patients -- yes, really). Finally, I know she wasn't American, but read up on Marie Stopes and her crusading attitude,  including Married Love.  PS Forgot to sign but it was me (and why didn't it get autosigned in 24 hours?) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. I haven't been signed autobotically at times lately, either. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)