Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 18

= February 18 =

Cambodian Kings.
Norodom Suramarit says he was king 1955 - 1960 and that he was Norodom Sihanouks father.

Norodom Sihanouk says that he was king from 1955 - 2004.

Sisowath Monivong says that he was king from 1927 - 1941, when he was immediately succeded by Norodom Sihanouk

doesnt take much to see there are some serious incontinuity issues here...


 * Okay, it seems there are some overlaps, abdications and other things. I get N. Sihanouk made king by the French at 18 which must be 1940 or 1941. When he abdicated in 1955, his father N. Suramarit took over until his death in 1960. S. Monivong was Sihanouk's grandfather. Looks like the succession was preempted by the French putting Sihanouk on the throne hoping for a puppet king. He didn't comply. Then again succession may have been from the grandfather to the grandson because Suramarit was Monivong's son-in-law and only became king when Sihanouk abdicated in his favour. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Percy Shelley's politics
I just read Percy Shelley's The Mask of Anarchy in which originated (?) the famous phrase “We (originally: Ye) are many — they are few.” While I see no reason this couldn't be applied to any popular uprising, I've often heard in reference to socialist and/or anarchist causes. And yet, quite centrally, Anarchy in the poem is one of the horsemen, claiming “I am God and King and Law!” This seems like an attack against anarchy and, perhaps, other egalitarian forms of government. The verse: “For he knew the Palaces/Of our Kings were rightly his;/His the scepter, crown and globe,/And the gold-inwoven robe.” seems to fit with other anarchist literature I've read, as well. The next verse, beginning, “So he sent his slaves&hellip;,” does (emphatically) not fit with what I understand of anarchy. (How could Anarchy hold slaves?!)

While the articles here indicate to me that Shelley was anti-tyrannical, they don't seem to indicate what sort of politics he espoused. Furthermore, how ironic would it be for an anarchist to borrow the phrase, "we are many -- they are few"? What did Shelley mean by the term Anarchy, anyway?

Thanks&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite the same, but makes me think of - because none of us are as cruel as all of us.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  11:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to explore the periodical literature, for example: Redfield, M. (2002). "Masks of Anarchy: Shelley's political poetics." Bucknell Review: A Scholarly Journal of Letters, Arts and Sciences, 45(2), 100-126. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librsh (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't really until a few years after Shelley in the 1840s that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon redefined anarchy as a political ideal worth trying to achieve, before this anarchy mostly held negative connotations. So Shelley is really criticising an anarchic state that can kill its citizens without due process of law. Also, divining Shelley's political views from that poem is not going to be easy as he wrote in in anger and in a hurry after the event and the imagery is deliberately chaotic and can often be rather surreal. Shelley's politics are often simply described as radical as he was typically against much of the conventions of the day but his political ideas had not settled down into some fixed system and there was not really a clear creed around for him to follow at that time either.  meltBanana  14:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Shelley's specific beliefs, but the closest thing to an anarchist theorist in his time was William Godwin, and he ended up marrying Godwin's daughter. However, Godwin apparently didn't use the word "anarchy" in a positive sense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. One of these days I'll learn my history; it seems that a time-line understanding of the political ideas in question would've gone a long way toward knowing what was going on. And, Librsh, thanks for the reference. Bane, interesting comparison since, in this case, it was the few being cruel to the many.&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

phil? plato dubois douglas ect. ideas related in america today
how was democracy seen by these philosophers(plato, dubois, douglas, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke) and what are some view of theirs are present in our current day America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.35.34 (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a huge and unformed topic, but you might start by perusing the classic book The Liberal Tradition in America by Louis Hartz... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like homework.10draftsdeep (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you ask about Plato, W. E. B. Dubois, Frederick Douglass, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke? Because we do have articles on each of them.  They also all wrote books.  You could read them to get their own philosophies in their own words.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be difficult to answer your second question without speculating (which we aren't here to do) since many of the listed philosophers died hundreds if not thousands of years before America was even a glimmer in England's eye. Livewireo (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Poetic Technique
I've seen several poems where there are intertwining narratives, usually with one written in italics, that alternate stanzas within a poem. I can't think of an example at the moment - if one occurs to me I'll add it here. Does anyone know what I mean? If so, is there a specific term for this technique?

Thank you,

D aniel  (‽) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen this too. I googled intertwining narratives poem to see if a separate term for this appeared, but no luck – however, that search did provide many examples.  Another one from my own collection is Rupert Brooke's On the Death of Smet-Smet, the Hippopotamus Goddess, which alternates the voices of "the Priests within the Temple" with those of "the People without". The People's words are italicised.  (But the Priests' words are not, for some odd reason, in Egyptian type, but Roman.  What was Brooke thinking?  In his defence, maybe the poem was set in the period when Egypt was ruled by Rome.)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a short story by John Sladek which contains IIRC thirteen nested levels, the outermost one of which is the word 'SHIT' shouted by a character in some of the others. I don't recall the name, nor whether he had a term which described the technique. --ColinFine (talk)
 * Maybe off topic since you're asking about intertwining narratives, but there is call and response though the article is a tiny stub. It's also liturgical as per Brooke's use and reminds me of modified Greek chorus. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the help; I shall have to invent a term, if I do use it. D  aniel  (‽) 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NYSE and NASDAQ
Are there any large US businesses (similar to Walmart size) that do not participate in any stock exchanges? --Emyn ned (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of privately held companies from 2007. The 2008 list should be available, but I'm pressed for time right now. -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Topping that list is Koch Industries, with revenues approaching 100 B US$ and 80,000 employees. Wal-Mart has revenues of just over 400 B US$ and 2.1 million employees. So what exactly do you mean by “similar to Walmart size”? It's lonely at the top; there aren't many corps, public or private, that are so large.&#8201;—&#8201;gogobera (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that after the federal government, Wal-Mart is far and away the largest employer in the country. I don't think that any other company, publicly traded or not, comes even close to them.  Even such massive companies as General Electric and General Motors don't approach 1,000,000 employees... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism and the Second world war
OK everybody knows that about 5.1 million Jewish people were killed during the second war and they were liberated by an allied victory. My question though is what would have happened to the Jewish faith internationally if their had been a Nazi victory. Would they have been completely annihilated? Or would the international community have banded together to try and protect them. I know this is hypothetical, and thankfully the allies won, I'm just interested in peoples theories on the matter. Thanks, Hadseys 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Ref Desk tries to avoid theories about alternate universes. There are a number of good fiction writers who treat the subject. Try Harry Turtledove's In the Presence of Mine Enemies. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and normally people believe that it was 6 million Jews not 5.1.--Mr.K. (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe there are legitimate claims to be made between 5 and 7 million. No one knows the number within 900,000.  --Sean 00:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have been weakened certainly, but not annihilated unless the Nazis could have somehow conquered the U.S. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A little pedantic, maybe, but the Jews were killed during The Holocaust, that's not quite the same a the Second World War - it started a few years earlier. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jews were repressed in various ways before the war started, yes, but if we're talking specifically about the systematic mass killing of Jews, then that didn't start until well into the war. Algebraist 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on your definitions. There were certainly Jews killed before the war (Kristallnacht, for example). I don't know if there were enough killed before the war to make a difference to the statistics. --Tango (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Algebraist said systematic. Before that, it was ad hoc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, the Nazis made a distinction between the Jewish race and the Jewish religion. It wasn't so much that they were against the religion as they were against the race.  For example, if a Jew converts to another religion, he/she would still be a Jew to the Nazis.  Nazis were obsessed with "blood".  Second I think it is a common misperception that the Nazis wanted to kill every Jew on the planet.  Maybe some of them did, but it wasn't their general policy.  Their aim was to get rid of the Jews who lived in Europe (or perhaps the territories they controlled).  By 'get rid of' I don't necessarily mean kill.  It could also mean relocation (voluntary or forced).  But other countries had their own problems with antisemetism and weren't exactly friendly to Jews either.  For a while, they considered the Madagascar Plan.  After that proved impractical, they started the systematic killing of Jews.  When Himmler ordered the roundup of the last remaining Jews in Germany, their non-Jewish relatives staged a protest and the Nazis uncharacteristically backed down.  By the end of WWII, there were still some Jews free (for lack of a better term) in Germany.  Of course, I haven't really answered your question.  Most if not all Jews in territories conquered by Germany and Italy would have been killed.  I'm not sure what the Japanese policy was towards the Jews.  But internationally, most Jews would have been safe.  The idea that one country can conquer the whole world is hugely impractical.  It's unlikely that Germany could have conquered the United States, for example.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Fugu Plan gives an insight into the Imperial Japanese attitude towards Jews, and for a wider view there is the History of the Jews in Japan. More germane to the original question is our article on the International response to the Holocaust. Lantzytalk 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin American Human Rights Award?
Hi. Is there a such thing as a "Latin American Human Rights Award" or a "Honorary Award of the Latin American Human Rights Organization"? I'm struggling with two vague sources in a foreign language. Punkmorten (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything reference to either of these terms. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights covers Latin America, so they may have an award scheme.  I couldn't find any trace of the 'Latin American Human Rights Organisation', which would lead me to suggest that there is not an 'Honorary Award of the Latin American Human Rights Organization'.MarquisCostello (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could there be one, or something like it, with a Spanish name? I don't know enough Spanish to check. // BL \\ (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)