Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 19

= September 19 =

Participation of wealthy people in WWI - conscription
Did people of a high status or the wealthy have to fight or participate in World War I? Or did only people of lower classes participate in the fighting? Thanks in advance.

HihoJohn (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * According to World War I by Priscilla Mary Roberts, "young [British] public school men from the professional classes and the aristocracy joined the forces in disproportionate numbers during the war's early years, and the casualties these social classes suffered were also considerably in excess of the general population." Lost Generation states that, in Britain, the term implicitly refers to the perceived inordinate casualties borne by the upper class. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Was this due to the 'upper class' being the officers who led from the front and were early casualties I wonder--88.109.168.43 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The people who were at the front in WW1 were the working class. The officers were the ones behind the front line, making the decisions, and based miles away from the action. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a lie. Many male members of the lesser aristocracy had been supplanted by successful businessmen who had became increasingly wealthier and influential. Young aristocrats with little else to do joined the officers corps under the reasoning that they had to lead and show their worth. Those with 'the right amount of proper connections' were certainly put in safer positions. Those without them (the vast majority) would lead (certainly as officers) the charges and, as their men, die by their hundreds and thousands. The assumption that all aristocrats were wealthy and cowards is a bitter insult by those who should know better. Flamarande (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it was a lie. It was most likely a mistake. Please assume good faith and be civil. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sons of the wealthy and educated power class of Britain led the charges from the trenches in WW1. If all the officers (who were heavily from the more educated and professional class, as well as nobility, had stayed miles behind the front, no one would have left the trenches. Edison (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that there were some officers in the trenches. But from my own OR into my family history, the proportion of privates (who were almost universally working class) to officers (who may have been middle class but generally not upper class) in the trenches was at least 20:1. This website claims that, at the start of WW1 the British Army "... comprised just 450,000 men - including only around 900 trained staff officers" http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/pals_01.shtml If you read further into that article, you will see that Liverpool - not noted for being a middle or upper class city - raised 4 battalions of volunteers in 1914. The initiative that followed raised a million volunteers by the end of 1914. I do accept that some of these volunteers would have been middle or upper class: however, because the policy was to recruit people who knew each other, or "pals", and the classes just did not mix at this time, it is more likely that the vast majority of these volunteers would have been working class - just as the population of England was at this time. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have changed your prior claim of "working class at the front and officers miles away from the action" to a "some officers in the trenches". The 900 trained staff officers at the start of the war were the professionals, during the war the was a need for many more (as the army was bigger too). During a full-scale war starts the officer corps (as do all the ranks) is heavily increased and the logical criteria for officer training is higher education, certainly twisted with a "right family connections" flavour. It's painfully obvious that on average the sons of the wealthy and powerful are better educated (their parents can afford it and are expected to do so by their peers). Therefore the bulk of a very large officer corps are the sons of the so-called "higher class". What you fail to realize that the vast majority of the officers are not in the rear eating fine meals and drinking wine. Most of them are leading the fighting units into danger. I suggest that you read this and . The second one claims that "About 11 per cent of the privates who were mobilised never returned; among the officers the proportion was about 22 per cent". Flamarande (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there were more men than officers in the trenches, that's because there were more men than officers in the army. There were also more working class than upper class people in the country, so the proportion of each class signing up wasn't necessarily any different. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tango is absolutely right here. A typical ratio of officers to men is maybe 1:20 or 1:30, so the proportion of officers in the trenches is on the high side. Remember that you need privates behind the lines too - some of them are putting up signal wires, manning supply depots etc.
 * As for the BBC quote, "900 staff officers" does not mean "900 officers". A staff officer is a particular kind of high-level specialist. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The staff officers would probably be the guys behind the lines drinking the wine and pushing markers around on a map. the other 90% of the officers would be with the men at the front.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth remembering that I would expect many of the staff officers got to be staff officers because they were capable people who had been in in service for a long time, including potentially putting their lives at risk (likely there were less times when they had to put their lives at risk but the potential was there). Some did of course just likely did just get their for reasons of family etc Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish vs Germans in America
Why is it considered mainstream American to be German, but not Irish? Aren't the Irish from the British Isles, like the Colonists and Founding Fathers, whereas the Germans are Continental Europeans like the French, Swiss and Austrians? After all, there was no German country which colonized any of the present US apart from the Northern Mariana Islands. The closest to German in the historical records, to have any colonies in the US as it existed in 1776, were the population descended from New Netherland and New Sweden. Their settlements were pretty much hemmed in by English conquest, in which the proprietors were Catholics, such as Lord Baltimore and the Duke of York, who were friendly to Irish indentured servants, even though other colonies refused them. I guess one could say that if there was a German land to provide colonial background to America, it would have been the Duchy of Brunswick, Luneburg and Westphalia, in connection to the British House of Hanover. There was a Hessian dynasty in Sweden after New Sweden was conquered by the Dutch, whose Stadhouder Willem III later kicked out the Duke of York aka James II of England, for what seemed like revenge in the Anglo-Dutch Wars. As to the Germans being a backbone of Americana...I just don't see it. They refused to conform to English culture into the 19th century, with German societies and newspapers. The Amish are the original example of multiculturalism in America, calling everybody else: "English", whilst they never want to give up their German identity. So then we come to the Irish issue; apart from religious or political estrangement from their insular relatives, there is nothing dissimilar in their cultural constitution from Americana. For instance, when I hear or see performances of Irish Catholic pub music, compared to Appalachian Baptist country music, there is little to commend in trying to find a difference, except the Irish are more instrumental. Enlighten me. How have the Germans managed to co-opt Americana to the point where people believe they are representative of Americans, or the idea that they are the "normal White American"? I don't understand it. I'm American as we come and have a hard time finding any Germans in my family or family tree for several generations, if at all. Plus, I'm puzzled by the attempt by Germans to make it seem like I could be a traitor to my country or people, if I am not entranced by Central European issues, especially WWII. What are these people getting at? -- 07:19, 19 September 2009 70.171.239.21


 * I don't know where you got that idea. Most American-Germans I know are treated like second class citizens although in both direct and indirect ways. Same with Italians even though America is named after one. Main strean is considered those of British and Irish descent. French, odly enough are not while Hispanics are an up and coming class even though a lot of ranching can be traced back to the Spanish. Because America is a melting pot though Americans of mixed ancestry (White races only) are considered main-main stream America. In fact if you are Black, even if you are President of the US you are still not considered main stream America. Why? Who the heck knows? -- Taxa  (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did we just go through a time-warp and it's 1942 now? Americans of German ancestry are not victims of any discrimination I've seen in my lifetime. They're white, northern Europeans, just like Americans of English or Irish ancestry. While the Irish and the Germans both experienced discrimination long ago in the USA, they don't any more, that I'm aware of. Do you have any recent examples? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider that German's participated on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War and were not on the American side during WWI & WWII. Germans in Germany have always been, how should I put it, absolute? The British at least have to keep a stiff upper lip while the Germans got theirs in the womb. You must be talking about the Germans who were lucky enough to escape Germany while the absolute ones were passed out from drinking too much beer and were allowed to settle here on condition. -- Taxa  (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back to the original question, "Why is it considered mainstream American to be German, but not Irish?" My question is: WHO SAYS SO? What's the basis for that? There's no discrimination against either Irish-Americans or German-Americans that I'm aware of. If there is, I'd like to see some examples. And I don't mean World Wars I or II, or the Molly Maguires, I mean nowadays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's a time warp...these Germans conceive of themselves as America's lone "old guard" against the masses of other peoples, many of whom have more right to voice their opinions on how things are to be done. I witness loads of hybrids of neo-nazi/neo-hippie individuals who congregate or bestow upon themselves these strange ideals that, because nobody else follows or cares for, it means those disinterested are the doom of the White race and anti-Israeli, antisemitic religious conspiracy theories are entangled with neopaganism or anti-Christian atheism. It seems as though the Germans forget they were invited as immigrants to propagate English-style establishment in the nation and build the frontier, build in the factories, to industrialize and apply their Protestant work ethic, but only in the sense of mercenaries. It is an English tradition to hire German mercenaries from Vortigern against the Picts, to Richard II in his imperial marriage with the Bohemian House of Luxembourg, to the House of York's Burgundian ties in the Hundred Years' War and Wars of the Roses, to Henry VIII and the Lutheran princes, to the Stuart ties with the Wittelsbachs in Bohemia and onward. There is an obvious precedent to see the future Hessian relationship develop, as much as there was to invite the Georgians into Britain to keep the Jacobites out, but what essentially greater purpose does this massive German population in America have for Americans, other than this old tradition? Being simply American in the strictest sense, I have been expected to toe their lines of bigotry or be considered something of a race-traitor. These people don't know that despite some Puritanical elements, the English do have that Anglican ambivalence towards European affairs. For instance, England has never reneged on the Treaty with Catholic Portugal, established in the 1300s, whereas the Scots did away with their French alliance on account of religion. So, both the Scotch-Irish usually and the Germans have persistent vendettas against the English mainstream in which they are supposed to play a big part, although it seems not central. Braveheart fanaticism is all that is, it seems. It's like this: because I'm "American", I'm not "American" enough for those who'd rather have "America" be in their own image. Radicals call themselves conservative, even though they curse and spit on conservative values. I don't get it really, how they go on like this and make everybody their enemies.


 * I should mention that User:Malcolm XIV is continually disrupting this section because he doesn't like User:Taxa. I, originator of this topic, welcome Taxa's input to broaden my perspective on issues which are a bit hard for me to understand. Malcolm XIV is proving supremely offensive, calling my reversal of his vandalism to be vandalism itself. Pot. Kettle. Black.


 * I'm beginning to think that most any question that Taxa posts should be deleted on-sight, since it's not about information, it's about debating. And that also goes for whoever's posting the lengthy, unsigned rants in this section. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What question did Taxa ask here? He wrote some rhetorical retorts to my questions as to hubris on German American identity, vis a vis the Irish being seen as "the other", "the ethnics". This is even so current as the death of Ted Kennedy, where these Germans consider themselves and their ideas mainstream, but Ted Kennedy must be really out there or something? I am unsigned, but these are only rants in the sense that I don't know what to truly think about the issues, unless some people give me a greater perspective. I'm a bit naive, although I have some intuition. I'd just like some hard facts, for some conclusion.
 * You are User:Taxa, and I claim my five pounds. See Admin about it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't really raised anything resembling a valid question yet. Try stating in one sentence of 25 words or less an example or two of where there is any discrimination against either German-Americans or Irish-Americans in America? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my query actually stems from perusing some "Germanic heritage" forums, where the "people" seem locked in a "life or death" struggle about their pride in white "Indo-Germanic" culture and everybody else is a traitor to their cause, especially non-Nordics, whilst marginal Nordics are considered wannabes or not good enough, much like how the rest of Southern European peoples are considered worthless. This happens to be a strain of thought popular in the American Midwest and Mountain states. Many people in the media like to stereotype Southerners as being prejudiced, but what I am describing here takes the cake. For instance, Black Americans mostly have British surnames, the same with colonial Americans, immigrant English and Irish Americans. If they pooled their sense of common cultures together, they would outnumber the Germans and put them to shame for posturing with neo-nazi and neo-hippie, conan the barbarian attitudes. I live in a state that has a majority of Mexicans and Germans. I used to find the German rhetoric appealing, but then they went off on Winston Churchill and against the Allies of both World Wars. I'm now more friendly with the Mexicans and Hispanics and don't give a damn for the German arrogance. That's the crux of the matter. So, other than losing in a couple of wars, whereas they always felt "badass" to beat up the French, I don't understand what else they have to feel proud or defensive about. I'd like some German or other person to explain this to me.
 * Is it within the realm of possibility that you could ask an actual question instead of going on with these meaningless essays? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the content of my query, don't reply. I'm sure there are many more well informed individuals who would love to explain to me "where I'm wrong" on the issue and why. Although I've read a lot of ranting by German Americans as to why they and their ways are so special, I have yet to find some substance, that exceeds mere posturing...e.g. calling the English traitors to some mythical Aryan Teutonic race, all the while saying it is they, the Germans, who are more American or European than everybody else. Now, they seem to have adjusted this to include the Finns as the "supreme beings" on earth. Why do they do this? How are the Irish not good enough people, or the Italians for that matter? It may be an uncomfortable and personal issue for you, but if you find somebody else's questions more pleasant, feel free to bypass mine. You are not Anubis, so don't judge my soul.
 * Note that the above IP OP is now on a one-month block for trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Aryan race has some material on Nazi ideas of "racial purity". FWIW, being Irish is more "American" than being German.  Tempshill (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of any recent discrimination against either Irish-Americans or German-Americans, but if you have any examples, I'd like to see them. That's what I asked the OP, but since he was trolling, he didn't deign to answer. And since he's now blocked, he can't answer. But he wasn't going to anyway, so no big deal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Germans are considered to be mainstream and that the Irish are not? I guess I can only speak for myself. I consider anyone raised and born in America to be American. I think that one of the things that distinguishes America is diversity. In fact, we try to be as unique as possible from one another.

As for the British Isles, my ancestors came from Scotland. The Scottish have traditionally been Presbyterian and the English have been Anglican. The Irish have been Catholic. So, I don't think you can group them together. My ancestors moved here in the 1600s, so even though my ancestors stayed together without intermarrying with other ethnicities in America, I consider myself to be an American more than Scottish. I don't talk about it very much, but it seems a lot of Irish people approach me and ask "Are you Irish?" I just roll my eyes.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems as though the Germans forget they were invited as immigrants to propagate English-style establishment in the nation and build the frontier, build in the factories, to industrialize and apply their Protestant work ethic, but only in the sense of mercenaries. The early massive German migration to America, in the early-mid 1700s, was not on invitation and not particularly wanted by the existing colonists. The immigrants were largely forced out of settled areas and had to make due in places like the now-quintessentially American Shenandoah Valley. Consider that German's participated on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War The Hessian mercenary thing came later and in much smaller numbers. Many Germans of Appalachia fought on the American side. Pfly (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not now the case that there is any kind of consensus among inhabitants of the U.S.A. that Irish-Americans are somehow not "mainstream Americans", nor has any real consensus to this effect existed for at least the last 70 years or so. However, one significant historical difference between German immigrants to the U.S. and Irish-Catholic immigrants to the U.S. (leaving aside the Scots-Irish, who are a separate category) is that German immigrants tended to settle in rural areas as independent small farmers (which until the 1870's was the main path for families without money to get a start in the U.S.), and those who weren't small farmers tended to be diffused across a range of professions and occupations. By contrast, when Irish Catholic immigration greatly increased in the 1840's, they congregated in the big eastern seabord cities, where they tended to work for other people as laborers, domestic servants, etc., or in relatively low-level government jobs (stereotypically as policemen). They were a very visible presence in the cities, heavily involved in city "machine" politics (Tammany Hall etc.), and were considered menacingly culturally alien by some. The majority of Irish-Catholics supported the Democratic party during the second half of the 19th-century, while probably the majority of German-Americans supported the Republican party... AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Germanic derivative of Celtic, Celtic derivative of Italic, Italic derivative of Greek, etc.
In past times, it was accepted academic opinion, that this was the format of lingual and cultural diffusion in ancient Europe. Why is this no longer so? -- 07:42, 19 September 2009 70.171.239.21


 * Was it ever so? I have no idea where you got this concept from. What makes you think this was so in the past?83.100.251.196 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical theories postulated that, as everybody knew from national mythology, that the Roman world descended from Magna Graecia, according to the Aeneid. The Celts became a significant chunk of the Western Empire, through the Roman conquest of Gaul, Spain and Britain. The Germans developed their civilization via the Celts, whose culture, although unique, owed lots to the Romans in such a way that they could not divorce themselves from Romance heritage, whereas the Germanic type was much more removed. Remember the term: "Italo-Celtic"? Anyways, whilst the Celts are popularly thought of as being redheaded today, yesterday, that was the Germanic tribes, according to Tacitus. Germania itself was governed from Gaul, centrally placed as it was. Gaul's central partition was called Celtica. Although the Gauls dominated Germania because of Roman administration, the Franks turned this on their heads, thus entwining their cultures. You know how the eastward migrations of Christian Germans was meant to bring civilization to Eastern Europe, through the Teutohic Knights? This was because of the Gallic inheritance which sought to extend Roman civilization beyond the Rhine and then, the Elbe. Most archaeological books about the Roman Iron Age, depict the Germans as having advanced technologically by contacts with the Celts. These are all factors which were once considered marks of progress in the West, as a common history. Now, it seems, there are those who prefer this term: "Celto-Germanic, Kelto-Germanic, Germano-Keltic, Germano-Celtic, etc" and try to divide these parts of European culture from the Greco-Roman. It did not affect the early linguists of the Neoclassical era, who were purely interested in facts. Romantic nationalism certainly seems to have been an impetus to drop neutrality in favor of supremacism and separatism. I was wondering if there is indeed, any objective truth which suggests there are no links other than a general "Indo-European" framework which ties them together, in some vague and amorphous web of relations.


 * (Just to make it clear - are you comparing classical histories with modern? I instinctively thought you were comparing a modern view of history with a 1900's ie Victorian era view of history?)
 * Sorry I thought your original question appeared to say that the language and cultures mentioned derived (ie parent/child relationship) in historical succession, not that the celts became part of the roman empire - ie adopted or assimilated 'latin' cultural aspects. There's a difference there.
 * You ask about links - there are always links between neighboring cultures, the extent of the influence depends on various factors, one notable one being whether or not there is a dominant culture (such as the romans in parts of western europe - which affects language, architecure etc)
 * "The germans developed their civilisation via the celts"? I'm not sure what you mean here - you seem to be suggesting that the celts 'taught' the germans - obviously there are links between the two, but the way you write it suggests a one way relationship? Is this what you meant?
 * As for the effect of romantic nationalism on rewriting history - this is always an effect - there are always people who will view history through a lens to present a particular point of view that suits themselves. There is evidence of links between roman and non-roman europe - including peaceful trade as well as wars and battles.83.100.251.196 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)As an aside I'm not sure how useful the views of linguists in the near modern ie neoclassical age will be since they only have modern languages to compare, and not the languages as they were in the time of the romans or greeks or celts... In the intervening years the languages are expected to have changed quite a bit - this means that current liguistic relationships only reflect history up to the present day, but do not give a time capsule view from a thousand years ago83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm purely interested in ontological progression. There was a linear concept that appears to have been abandoned, at the lobbying interest of emotionalism rather than neutral scholastics on the matter. It appears that the further away from Rome, the less happy the people are about acknowledging any derivation whatsoever from the Eternal City. There are exceptions to the popular mindset which identify with traditional aggregate understanding of material facts, rather than be swept up in such bigotry as I described. For instance, the entire West owes its alphabet to Rome, the same as how Cyrillic is an obvious vulgarization of Greek. To admit this is a "no-no", because people can't accept the truth that they have a heritage which...is child to a parent, or something.


 * There is no worldwide denial of the importance of the latin (or greek) scripts to writing, or of the large influence of latin (and to a lesser extent greek) on european languages. What you are experiencing must be a purely local phenomena.
 * It's worth noting that though time is linear, the word is not a tunnel, influences come from directions, not just rome and greece, but also from other parts of the 'old world' - the middle east, north africa etc, as well as from the east.
 * The further away from rome a culture is the less influence rome has - this is the same for all cultures - outside the former boundaries of the roman empire the main (and possibly only) influence on the culture will be the adoption of the the latin script, and maybe christianity. Also note that some cultures claim descendence from the ruins of troy, and have no historical line back to rome.
 * Your observation about people further away from rome being less interested in it's glories and legacy is undoubtably true, but what is the issue with that? I don't expect people to hold egypt constantly in high regard because they invented paper...83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the unsigned IP OP is now on ice for a month. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that despite the useful things that europe (and by extension north america) as a whole inherits from rome, there are also downsides - such as the actually history of being unwelcome by the original rulers in some of the countries they conquered, the introduction (or continuation) of slavery, impossing taxes and tithes on the subjects of their subject states, and other factors general to local resentment of a conquering or ruling class. These amongst other reasons is probably why you detect an unwillingness to 'revel in the glory that was rome' amongst some parts of the european population. This is an effect common to human nature.


 * Consider the similar case of english imperialism in India - which has adopted english language, and some other customs including cricket, but I don't doubt that they are proud of their independence, and at a basic national level glad to see the english go.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

linguistics vs. cultural diffusion
From a strictly linguistic point of view, none of the major branches of Indo European (Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Indian, Hittite, Tocharian, etc.) are "derived" from any of the other branches. They are all derived equally from postulated Proto-Indo-European. So it's doubtful whether any of the major branches can be meaningfully said to be significantly "older" or "younger" than any of the other branches (though some specific languages in some branches are attested by means of surviving inscriptions, sacred scriptures etc. at a much earlier date than any languages in some of the other branches etc.).

Cultural diffusion is quite a different matter, and it's well-attested that agricultural, metalworking, and a number of other marks of "civilization" diffused from the middle east to the Greece/Balkans area to the rest of western/central Europe. AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, there was cultural diffusion from Celtic to Germanic culture, in particular on the continent. But the Germanic languages did not originate from the Celtic ones. Was that ever believed? Also, not all of Germanic culture was equally influenced; the Scandinavian peninsula is one of the few geographic areas of Europe that has no evidence of Celtic settlement (e.g. place-names). The Celtic influence on them was relatively small. --Pykk (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

quran tafsir comparison
Is there website where I can see the comparison of the quran tafsir like ibn kathir, syed qutb and maudidi?
 * It might be worth checking the links and references in the articles Ibn Kathir, Syed Qutb and Abul Ala Maududi (bottom of pages - there are many links to their works) - I haven't been able to find a site that allows a side by side comparison (it may still exist) - though you could easily open separate sites in side by side windows?83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)