Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 11

= November 11 =

Burial at Church of the Holy Apostles
What happen to all the bodies of the Byzantine emperors and empresses after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453? Were they descecrated or destroyed? Also does the body of Constantine the Great still exist?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting question. The relationship between the Muslim states and Christians under their rule has been a complex one.  Consider the fate of three major churches, the one you mentioned was demolished to make way for a mosque.  However, the Hagia Sofia was spared, but converted into a Mosque, as were some other christian churches.  Still others were left intact as Christian sites, c.f. the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which has remained a Christian church throughout its long history.  The custodians of said church have been a Muslim family, the Nusseibeh, for over 1300 years.  All of which does not directly answer your question regarding the fate of the Emperors interred at Holy Apostles, but it just bears thinking that there would not have been a "standard" attitude of the Muslim states towards Christians and Christian sites.  It varied considerably, and still does today.  -- Jayron  32  04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by the "mad caliph" in 1009... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and rebuilt a few decades later under his son. As I said, it is a complex relationship.  Relations between Muslim states and their Christian subjects has, historically, varied from cooperation to tolerance to animosity.  It depends on when and where one is discussing.  -- Jayron  32  05:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the tombs were desecrated by the Venetians during the Fourth Crusade. A lot of other relics were destroyed by the Turks. I'm working from memory, so watch this space. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Me again. This result from Google Books Byzantium and the Crusades by Jonathan Harris says "Another group (of crusaders) was reported to have burst into the Church of the Holy Apostles... They opened the tomb of the Emperor Justinian. Finding that his corpse was uncorrupted after over six hundred years, they left it alone but stripped off everything of value...(p 168). This impassioned but rather-less-than objective page says "The Latins plundered the imperial tombs and robbed them of gold and gems. The glorious tombs were completely destroyed in the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (29th May 1453) by fanatical dervishes of Sultan Mehmet II. According to the historian Kritoboulos, the dervishes smashed for 14 hours with clubs and steel rods the relics. After smashing them, they threw what was left in a lime furnace. In 1461 sultan Mehmet II demolished the church and built a mosque over its foundations, the Fatih (Conqueror) Mosque." Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to be objective about that, 1204 was pretty terrible. Lots of contemporary sources verify it anyway. Nicetas Choniates wrote about the destruction, and even the Pope was shocked. Booty and relics show up all over the rest of Europe, obviously being sent back home by the crusaders. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip Glass
I've recently taken a liking to Philip Glass. Can anyone recommend other composers of a similar style? Thanks a lot. 76.68.247.201 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try some of the composers listed at Category:Minimalist composers. Steve Reich is frequently compared with Glass, though the two have some significant differences. I haven't kept up with Reich's more recent music, but of his older stuff I like Music for 18 Musicians, Tehillim (Reich), Electric Counterpoint, and Different Trains. I'd also suggest Michael Nyman and John Adams (composer). Adams isn't listed in the minimalist category, but some of this music certainly is. I'd suggest Shaker Loops and The Chairman Dances. Terry Riley is another possibility. I don't know as much about him. His piece In C is particularly famous and groundbreaking. Hmm, perhaps also Arvo Pärt. I quite like his work Fratres.Pfly (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever tried exploring http://www.allmusic.com ? They can be very helpful in this regard.  -- Jayron  32  06:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second Michael Nyman. He had a "greatest hits" album a few years ago that would be a good taster. Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second John Adams, and suggest Nixon in China, which worked well for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Prez/PM
In countries with both a president and a prime minister - which has more power? Are there counterexamples? Is there a list of either case? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It varies from country to country. Look in Semi-presidential system, Parliamentary republic and List of countries by system of government. Let me point out that you could have found the answers for yourself in 5 minutes. Flamarande (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if they knew what to look for, which they clearly didn't or they wouldn't have asked. This is why the desk exists. Thank you for helping this person (your first two sentences are a very good answer), but please don't be rude to people for not having the knowledge or skills you have. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't rude, Sir/Madam. I just pointed out that the answer was/is extremely easy to find. So please do not defend those who are more than able to defend themselves (and more than able to find their own answers). Flamarande (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Rude or not rude: it all depends on what cultural background you are from. Flamarande's answer would be construed as rude in the US/West Europe, but not in Germany/Eastern Europe. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? What do you mean by that? Are you saying that because Germany and a lot of Eastern Europe has a parliamentary system where the president is mainly a figurehead or did you mean something else? In fact, I'm not sure if I understand what you meant even if my first assumption is true. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is the possibility that User:TheFutureAwaits is a very young child; see this archived question. If so, those of us who are at the RDs regularly should try to keep that in mind.  (And being snappish with children is, I think, considered "rude" in most cultures, but that's a good point 80.58.205.34:).  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about rudeness or not goes on on Flamarande's talk page:. If TheFutureAwaits is a child, then Flamarande is wrong, and he doesn't have the abilities of defending himself. There is no point is supposing that everyone here is an adult (equally, there is no point of supposing everyone here is a male from the US, although some users fall into this mistake sometimes). @TomorrowTime: I suppose 80.58.205.34 was talking only about social norms of people with different cultural background, independent of the political background. Quest09 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You suppose that, or do you know it, "Quest09"...? Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mhm. Different social norms. Cultural background. I'd still like the IP to explain what he meant by his grandiose assumption spreading over two continents. You see, I don't believe the world is just easily explained away with sweeping statements like that, so I'd like to know what the IP is basing his statement on. "Cultural background" is not really a good answer, because there is ridiculously more than just two cultures (even broadly speaking) in the equation USA/Western Europe vs. Germany/Eastern Europe. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Flamarande, for taking the trouble to answer questions at the Reference desk. Plain speaking is always best.--Wetman (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I said above could. I didn't make any generalizations.  Just based on my OR, having met more than one Central-East European that were rude when he actually meant to be honest.  Things that are considered rude in one country count as honesty on others. People (besides me) are just speculating that that is the reason of our misunderstading. Flamarande could feel treated unfairly now, and his critics could be completely sure that he was rude. Citing from Flamarande's TalkPage: 86.164.144.120" I am saying that the words you used, in the way you phrased them, read as rude to people (as the other user has pointed out) who come from the US and the UK, and probably other western European countries (but I am unsure of that)."  User:Marco Polo"I agree that Flamarande's wording reads as rude and/or arrogant to people in English-speaking countries. (Having lived in Germany, I can also vouch that many behaviors that would be considered rude in English-speaking countries are normal in Germany.) Apart from variable cultural definitions of rudeness, I would point out that Flamarande cannot know that the person who posted the question could have found the information in 5 minutes."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Secret Ballot of Hobbyist Society in UK
Im trying to establish if any "laws" exist in the UK that govern the conduct and rules of secret postal ballots in a non-political society of a group of hobbyists in a society. The ballots are held every two years. I am particularly interested in the scrutineer part of any LAWS (not custom and practise but LAWS)86.133.71.157 (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it a registered charity? If so, you would need to look at the role and requirements of the Charity Commission - here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe most societies that are not registered charities are governed by a written constitution approved by the membership which can be amended at general meeting by a majority vote of members. You would expect any rules about ballots to be in that constitution. I dont think it is covered by law as the society is not normally a legal entity. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a legal entity, at least in UK law, if it is a limited company or similar. I think other organisations could be legal entities even if not companies, but I'm just guessing. 92.29.112.73 (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any society has to follow its own rules, laid down in its constitution, Articles of Association or similar. If you aren't sure whether the rules have been followed, or a situation has arisen that isn't covered in the rules, then you need to get qualified legal advice. You might be able to get advice from a federation of associations in the hobby. As already said, if it is a registered charity, go to the Charity Commission. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Electoral_Reform_Society, but they conduct ballots for larger organisations, not usually for hobbyists. I think it would be overkill to go to those lengths, but the society could follow the methods.  As far as I know, no laws exist to cover ballots in small organisations, just their own constitution, as mentioned above.    D b f i r s   21:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, organizations hold elections according to their bylaws which are the rules by which an organization agrees to operate itself. Such bylaws are laid out in accordance to their Constitution (or differently named document serving a similar purpose).  While bylaws are not strictly "laws" per se (as in they do not derive from the government), there may be, depending on the jurisdiction, legal ramifications for organizations that do not follow their own bylaws (for example, in violations of implied contracts, or something like that).  Before any intelligent answer can be given, you'd need know what your local laws are, and what the bylaws of your organization are.  There may be a civil violation, without there being a criminal one, as well.  -- Jayron  32  21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, these would be called rules or regulations, not "bylaws". See Byelaws in the United Kingdom.    D b f i r s   09:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. The rules of The Scout Association of the United Kingdom are certainly bylaws, but that may be because it is incorporated by Royal Charter - this page says "Once incorporated by Royal Charter, amendments to the Charter and by-laws require government approval". Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does say that in the general article on Royal Charter, but I wonder what "by-laws" were meant? I don't think it means the rules of the organisation.    D b f i r s   18:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to amend my previous answer. In the Scouts, the rule book which regulates commitees, elections etc (Policy, Organisation and Rules) states "The Scout Association exists by authority of a Royal Charter, granted by King George V in 1912 and supplemented by further Charters granted by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II. These Charters give authority to the Bye Laws of the Association, which are approved by Her Majesty's Privy Council. The Bye Laws, in turn, authorise the making of rules for the regulation of the Association's affairs, and thereby give authority for the Rules printed in Policy, Organisation and Rules." We may be drifting off the point here, as a local club for enthusiasts of a hobby is unlikely to have a Royal Charter. Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Millions paid for art
Why are tens of millions paid for art? See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11732551 It seems senseless for several reasons such as 1) the same amount of money would pay for the production of thousands of art works; 2) the people or institutions wealthy enough to afford it ought to therefore be clever enough to have more sense; 3) if just an investment then the value could decline with changes in taste or fashion, and so on. What is so odd is the combination of having lots or money but seemingly little sense.

Is there any evidence for a "Rich Widow" theory of top-end art prices - that the partner of a wealthy person just sees money as numbers and recklessly buys things? Has this happened more than once? Thanks 92.29.125.32 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can speculate with any thing - useful or not - as long as you suppose that others will buy it from you at a higher price. That might be a reason for those inflated prices. However, there are other explanations for those prices: some works of art are also Veblen goods and the more expensive they get, the greater is the motivation to buy them. Buying a Picasso will definitely bring you more status than buying work from a starving artist. And a last reason to buy important works of art at amazing prices is the possibility to monetize them through museum entry fees, which seems as a reasonable economical decision for me. Quest09 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair market value, though the Wikipedia article takes no view beyond real estate, is based on a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is part of what free market means. "Value", driven by culture, is not necessarily directly linked to basic practicalities--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The combination of money and little sense is not so unusual. They just don't stick together for long. An artwork whose provenance and significance within a particular genre are well established, as is its uniqueness (especially if the artist is both well known and dead) and which with reasonable preservation is expected to appreciate rather than depreciate, can serve its owner as a strong hedge against inflation plus being a trophy that signals both their refined taste in art and financial clout. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Typically the works that command those kinds of prices are not just works of art, they're historical artifacts. Historical documents and such are not much to look at (unless you like calligraphy and long 's's) but they often command very high prices. APL (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Medal?
What is Iain Duncan Smith wearing below the poppy? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what it is, but he was an officer in the Scots Guards and served in Northern Ireland which would entitle him to wear the General Service Medal with the Northern Ireland Clasp. It may be the lapel pin of his regimental association, but that's just a guess. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be this one but turned upside-down? Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Royal British Legion badge. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - this one . Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious conversions in Northern Ireland
Are Protestant-turned-Catholics and Catholic-turned-Protestants a factor in the Troubles? Imagine Reason (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the conflict is between communities, not religions. When someone from the mostly-Protestant community converts to Catholicism, or vice versa, there will almost certainly be repercussions, but they would still be a member of the mostly-Protestant community. As the (possibly apocryphal) quote goes from an atheist being asked his religion in Northern Ireland, "I'm atheist." "Ah, but are you a Protestant atheist, or a Catholic atheist?" 86.164.144.120 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See the Wikipedia article The Troubles for an account of the factors involved. There were long-standing religious and political issues that cannot be represented simply as a Christian schism. The Troubles are usually referred to in the past tense since they were considered ended by the Belfast Agreement in 1998. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel able to refer to it in the past tense, since it hasn't really ended and has been reviving more recently. But I don't expect other people to do the same. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Religious conversions were not a serious issue during the Troubles, if that's what you were asking. No doubt, a few conversions happened, probably mostly as a result of marriages, but they were relatively rare, as inter-communal marriage and conversion were generally frowned upon (to put it mildly) by both communities. The first commenter is basically correct that the conflict was not about religion but about the distribution of power between the group identified as Protestant (not all of whose members were at all religious) and the group identified as Catholic (again including many individuals with no interest in religion).  At its root, this was really an ethnic division, with the so-called Catholics seeing themselves mainly as descendants of the indigenous Irish population and the so-called Protestants largely seeing themselves as British people whose ancestors arrived during the Plantations of Ireland.  Marco polo (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of a Belfast Protestant woman who converted to Catholicism on account of her marriage to a Catholic: Jean McConville. Remember the Pope (I forget off-hand which one) back in the early 20th century did a lot of damage to Protestant-Catholic relations by issuing the Ne Temere decree which stated that in all mixed-marriages the Protestant partner had to promise to bring the children up Catholic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to confuse things further, there have been significant, though hardly huge, numbers of both Catholic Unionists and Protestant Irish nationalists. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And to add to the chaos, there's Kevin McGrady, an IRA man who turned informer after becoming a Born-Again Christian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Armistice Day
I heard an interview on CBC radio today from a Canadian legion veteran stating that the 2 minutes of silence was actually to be observed at 10:58 a.m. The reason being is at 11:00 a.m. the armistice was signed and the celebrations began ending the war. Has anyone ever heard that view before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.55.30.100 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not heard that view before, and it sounds like it's describing a more triumphalist view than I generally associate with Remembrance Day, Remembrance Sunday, or the two minutes silence (in that it suggests 11:00am is a time for celebration?). But I'm sure these things vary from country to country, as different cultures have different associations. Here in the UK, the moment of the end of the war is a moment for (sad) remembrance, not celebration. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The 11:00 AM time was actually agreed upon as the official armistice time because of the nice pattern it made (11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month), see Armistice Day. Reasons for choosing that day and time are explained in the article.  -- Jayron  32  21:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite poignant that 10:58 a.m. is mentioned in the question when the last man said to have been killed in action, George Lawrence Price (a Canadian), died at that exact time. Any connection? It's also a pity that not all commanding officers sat it out till 11:00 a.m. Jack forbes (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The armistice was actually signed at 5am on the 11th November - see our article on Armistice with Germany. I heard in a recent television program that the German delegation wanted it to come into effect immediately, but Marshall Foch insisted it should not come into effect until 11am because he wanted the Allies to capture some final strategic objectives. As a result, several thousand more lives were needlessly lost. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the same programme I saw recently. There were many officers who did sit it out till 11:00 a.m. though the programme did concentrate on one particular American officer (who's name I forget) who ordered his men to take a town, fighting till the very last moments. Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be Stenay, taken by the troops of General William M. Wright. I saw the programme too.  This is a fascinating and depressing roundup of those last-minute deaths before Armistice Day, and the various reasons why attacks continued right up to the end.  Ka renjc 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, (1) the armistice was signed some time after 5 am British/French time (which was 6 am German time), but they rounded it off to 5:00 officially so that the end of the 6-hour delay would fall at a time of day that was easy to remember and communicate. And (2) the 6-hour delay was to give time for communications, so that everyone on both sides knew there was an armistice before it took effect.  It was feared that if troops on one side knew about it and those facing them across the front line did not, a difficult situation would arise with the ones who knew perhaps compelled to violate the ceasefire in self-defense.  When they heard that an armistice was about to be effective, different units reacted differently.  Some took it as a last chance to attack with all the firepower they had, others stopped firing unless fired upon, some stopped firing until the last minute and then give a final blast with all guns.
 * My source for this is probably November 1918: The Last Act of the Great War by Gordon Brook-Shepherd (1981, Collins, ISBN 0-00-216558-9; Little, Brown, ISBN 0-316-10960-6); but I had A Stillness Heard Round the World: The End of the Great War: November 1918 by Stanley Weintraub (1985, Oxford University Press, paperback 1987, ISBN 0-19-505208-0) out of the library at the same time, and I can't be positive as to which facts I read in which book.


 * Before the advent of accurate personal timekeeping it would be difficult to halt before the hour. The tolling of a bell to mark the eleventh hour would have been a more universal signal for people to stop and reflect. Nanonic (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Two minutes silence on Armistice Day
Do people in public places or elsewhere actually observe the two minutes silence? Do people stand still or does the traffic stop? I was indoors at that time today so could not see. 92.15.3.20 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was in the terminal at London Gatwick Airport today and everything in the terminal stopped and went silent for the two minutes - which was amazing for such a busy place. We will remember them. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never known any traffic to stop. Most drivers would not realize it was that time, and they would soon get irritated with anyone who stopped. Also it is not usually practical to stop activities at a railway station for example. However, shopping malls in the UK are likely to stop their muzak for two minutes and perhaps make an announcement. Now if only they would permanently cut the muzak....--Shantavira|feed me 09:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stopping on Armistice Day in the UK is a fairly recent revival. Post WWII, Remembrance Sunday was created to avoid disruption on a working day and Armistice Day itself wasn't observed. From memory it was revived in the 1990s after a campaign by the Royal British Legion. Before WWII, observance was nearly universal. My father remembers newspaper reports of people being beaten-up (after the 2 minutes silence of course) for carrying-on walking. They were usually trying to make a political point, like yesterday's poppy burners. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire war was a series of needless deaths and bloodshed, and few heroics; it should never have happened-a debaclé from start to finish. And the outcome of all the corpses in the trenches, the pain, the slaughter: Adolf Hitler! What a mess. Sorry for the melodramatic vitriol, I just had to get this off my chest--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a common view of the conflict. However, what course would you have had France follow when they were invaded? Should the UK have stood aside and allowed Belgium to be violated? Where would it all have ended? It's easy to be wise after the event. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All buses in my local town stopped for 2 minutes at 1100 on Thursday and will again on Sunday. Nanonic (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Racial homogeneity and liberality?
A similar question above somewhat reminded me of this. I am half-Swedish and half-Norwegian (2nd generation), so I know that there is very little racial diversity in many Scandinavian countries. However, when my friends and relatives visit, even though they have probably never seen a black person, or any kind of person other than a white person, they seem perfectly at ease around my American friends, most of whom are not white. Not only that, they are surprisingly (in my opinion) tolerant of things that America (with hundreds of years of diversity) still considers controversial, such as homosexuality, and also of other religions and even controversial political groups (for example, as long as a party did not engage in violence they were willing to listen to its views (although not necessarily agree). This did not suddenly disappear even when the Communist part was brough up. My school (~60% nonwhite) also hosted German exchange students, and they also did not seem disturbed by these things, although predictably they expressed some discomfort at political groups reminescent of the Nazi Party. Why would this be? I don't think racial homogeneity is the key to promoting tolerance, but my experiences show otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Having grown up in New Hampshire (which, especially 25 years ago, has a racial profile similar to Scandanavia) my experience matches yours regarding racial tolerance, at least among my own generation. However, I think a big part of it is the specific relationship between blacks and whites in America (vis-a-vis Slavery in the United States that makes a part of the situation.  Its not just racial homogeneity, its the historical context that led to the racial diversity in America, and the completely different history in Scandanavia.  And Scandanavia isn't entirely clean regarding this issue, see Vidkun Quisling.  -- Jayron  32  00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the original question is more along the lines: "why are the citizens of Scandinavian countries more liberal in issues like race, homosexuality, religion and politics than the citizens of the USA?"
 * The answer has probably something to do with wealth, security, hope for the future versus fear-mongering and religious self-rightousness and condemnation. Flamarande (talk)
 * There is certainly a connection between the perceived homogeneity of a place and its views on certain political topics. In America, the poor are often as seen as a "them" by middle-income whites rather than an "us" because of the racial dynamic (whites may identify poverty with racial minorities, even though most blacks aren't poor and most poor Americans aren't black). This was discussed in the famous study of the so-called Reagan Democrats of Macomb County, Michigan, next to Detroit, where middle-income whites voted overwhelmingly for the right-wing candidate Ronald Reagan. These voters had far more racial consciousness than class consciousness -- even though they were part of what Europeans call the working class, they saw social welfare programs as helping blacks, a "them," rather than "us." In a homogenous country, presumably that ethnic animosity is absent, and the middle-income are more likely to identify with the poor. However, this cannot be the only explanation. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have tiny black populations, so it's unlikely that people in those states are hung up about race like those who live in the edge of Detroit may be. Yet those are among the most-conservative states in the union. Also, the racial factor wouldn't explain the social conservatism of the U.S. compared to Scandinavia. Members of racial minorities in the U.S. are often very socially conservative. While whites were split on the 2008 California referendum that overturned a court decision legalizing gay marriage, blacks overwhelmingly voted yes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In the US, racial desegregation of public schools was based in part on the idea that children who grow up in racially diverse environments will learn to be less racially prejudiced. Surprisingly, according to a recent cover story in Newsweek, this turns out to be untrue. One study "found that the more diverse the school, the more the kids self-segregate by race and ethnicity within the school, and thus the likelihood that any two kids of different races have a friendship goes down." Few would advocate segregation to address this problem; rather, the authors argue that more frank education about race is needed. —Kevin Myers 04:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in Bandwagon effect, the idea that when people see other people doing something, they do it too. This would go both ways. Scandinavians see their fellow countrymen being tolerant, and they don't want to be the odd one out who hates homos or blacks, so they are accepting. Your stereotypical southern baptist sees his buddies making fun of the effeminate guy in gym class or steal the little black boys 2% milk, so he does it too. There is a veritable myriad of explanations. schyler (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. You may also be interested in Richard Wright's Big Black Good Man. A terrific short story that takes place in a Danish Hotel in Copenhagen. schyler (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure racial homogeneity is the only factor. Slovenia is almost 100% racially homogeneous, and while we may not be particularly intolerant of black people (although the writer of this blog, a black woman living in Slovenia might disagree), homosexuals or (god forbid) the Roma ethnic minority - we're talking an actual ethnic minority here, they've been here for generations - are still very hot issues here. I wish it weren't so, but it is... TomorrowTime (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The people you meet in the US (whether from Scandinavia or Germany) are people going abroad, often to study. These will be a selection of the more open-minded and higher-educated people from their country. After all, if you have a narrow-minded view of the world, what have you to learn from going abroad and seeing diversity? Compare, for example, Norwegian exchange students in the US ("liberal") to Norwegian-Americans in the Midwest ("conservative"). This doesn't explain it all, but I can tell you there are a lot of people in Norway being sceptical towards people with different skin color. Jørgen (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The U.S. has a prison system that distinguishes it from many other countries that might seem similar. This video shows a pretty brutalizing scene. I couldn't say that the prison system perpetuates racism and related ills but I don't think it contributes to alleviating them. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)