Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 1

= August 1 =

Map of 50 new states for the USA
In the eighties there was a map of fifty newly designed states for America based on a rationalization of state boundaries according to geography. I assume it was in Scientific American, Discover or Omni magazine. Can anyone give a citation, or better yet, link to such a map? μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been digging, and I kinda remember the map you are talking about. I haven't found it yet, but I did find this fun map blog: .  Here's one giving all 50 states nearly identical populations: .  (after more searching) My best guess is This map by George Etzel Pearcy that I was actually looking for; perhaps this is the one you remember as well?  It dates from 1973.  -- Jayron  32  04:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting, fanciful idea that conveniently ignores what a "state" is, in the context of the USA. Not to say that would never change. But not likely soon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a very occasional visitor, I've sometimes wondered if California could be two states. It's big enough, both in space and population. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be, if both the state and Congress agreed to it. And don't forget Texas, the largest of the lower 48, with its vast expanses of nothingness between its major cities. The likelihood of Texans agreeing to name their state something besides Texas, never mind the idea of reshaping it, is roughly that of Texas issuing an official pardon to Santa Anna. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can see that with Texas. I noted the Texas shaped waffles I was served for breakfast and the map of the state being part of its self image. There's a real ownership of "the great State of...". I didn't get the same feeling with California, and a north/south division with the obvious North/South names would not seem so impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It can't happen unless the party that controls both houses of Congress is also the party that stands to benefit. At the moment I think that's the Republicans.  For the foreseeable future both California senators will be Democrats; a split along the lines of a proposal recently in the news (creating a "South California" that was really more like Southeast California, excluding LA) could easily mean two new Republican senators.  --Trovatore (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * California and Texas both joined the union under, lets say, unusual circumstances which is the major reason why they were so large. California, unlike almost every other state, didn't have to go through the standard "be a territory first and then apply for statehood" procedure; the timing of its statehood is tied up in the complicated politics of the Compromise of 1850.  Basically, since Californians had no desire to legalize slavery, the Southern U.S. States would only allow California to be admitted as a single state; if it had been split into multiple smaller states it would have upset the balance of power between free and slave states in a way that Southerners wouldn't have allowed.  Additionally, the only real population center was San Francisco; what we think of as Southern California was lightly populated desert; there would have been no one there to make a seperate state out of.  Texas was supposed to be split up into 5 seperate states, but it sorta never got happened.  See List_of_U.S._state_partition_proposals and Texas divisionism. Part of the issue was that Texas was a pro-slavery state, and for the same reasons California never got split up also applies to Texas from the other direction; Northerners didn't exactly want 5 new pro-slavery states where 1 would do.  -- Jayron  32  05:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was George Etzel Pearcy's map, most definitely! I liked it because it used totally new names. Jayron's second link was also interesting-but I didn't find the relevant map at your first link, the overlong blog page. Is a direct link available?

And thanks to Bugs for pointing out the very relevant and overlooked political fact that the states are sovereign, not geographical conveniences. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even changing a state's name is a big deal. Every so often, a governor of North Dakota will propose renaming the state to simply "Dakota". The proposal will typically die in a hail of laughter, with the South Dakota governor saying that instead it should be renamed simply "North", given its "Frozen North" reputation. I think the last name change to a state or a portion thereof was when West Virginia split off Virginia and stayed in the Union during teh Civil War. States are very defensive about their borders. Along the Mississippi River, there are various places where pieces of a state are on the opposite side of the river, due to the changes in the rivers meandering. Rather than re-drawing the map, they keep the borders the way they were in the 1830s or whenever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been a few minor adjustements since then; jurisdiction over the Delaware wedge wasn't resolved until the 1920's, and a large part of Ellis Island was officially ruled to be in New Jersey (and not New York) in 1998. So there have been some border changes.  -- Jayron  32  15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen that Pearcy map here and there. Always thought the state names were...curious. Funny how his state of "Erie" doesn't border Lake Erie. And I'm not sure about Memphis being the main "Ozark" city! Still, I enjoy maps like that, despite being fanciful. Pfly (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A more modest name change proposal was one I saw used as an example in a discussion about states. It had southern California separating and merging with Arizona, resulting in a new stated called "Calizona". Those fanciful maps are fun. I can't find it on the internet, but in the early 1970s someone had a map of the world's oil reserves, with each nation or region's size proportional to its supply. Hence the US was fairly small at 8 percent while the middle least was huge, like 53 percent. And then National Lampoon ran the same map, relabeling it "stupidity reserves". It's a good thing that things have changed since then, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pfly, I've never thought of you as being fanciful. Just a little idiosyncratic, perhaps.  :) --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * List_of_United_States_territories_that_failed_to_become_states has links to other plans for splitting and combining US states. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

China vs United States economic management
It seems that because China embraced capitalism under it's "one government, two systems" policy China has been able as a nation to manage its resources in a far superior manner than the United States and out-prospering the United States, without resorting to the stimulus of war. Chine seems in far better control of its economy and by lending the United States money vying for a position from which it can dictate terms and even absorb the United States without resorting to war (of course unless the United States does not follow China's dictates like no public meetings between the Dali lama and members of Congress or the President. Does China have the advantage by ruling over capitalist enterprises as if it were a giant department store and it was the administration as opposed to the United States which appears to have nothing near the control of China over its industries and businesses? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the question? Stimulus of war? Dictate terms? Absorb? What? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Does China have the advantage by ruling over capitalist enterprises as if it were a giant department store and it was the administration; as opposed to the United States which appears to have nothing near the control of China over its industries and businesses?" Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. 2.101.8.165 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Does China have the economic management advantage? --DeeperQA (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your question is still vague to the point of being difficult to answer. You have to be more precise in what you mean by "advantage" here. Are you asking whether China's economic management will lead to higher annual growth (as a percentage of GDP) than the US, or to a lower Gini coefficient, or to a smaller percentage of the population with a wage lower than one USD per day, or to a smaller ecological footprint, or to a higher GDP per capita, or what? Are we taking long-term or short-term views? What do you mean, exactly, by a "superior" management of resources? Gabbe (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "more precise", "asking" ? The question was clear. 2.101.8.165 (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put it another way... are the people of the People's Republic of China the sole stock holders and do they garner all of the profits versus collecting taxes and is this the reason why China will be able to crush the US economically in the rapidly approaching and not too distant future. --DeeperQA (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The government of the PRC is not the country's sole stockholder. Companies and individuals own and trade stocks on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, for example. And they do have taxes in China too, see "Taxation in the People's Republic of China". I'm not sure what you mean by "crush the US economically", but if you look at "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" you'll see that the Gross Domestic Product of the US is at present approximately three times larger than that of China. The growth rate of the US has averaged about 3% per year in recent times, whereas that of China has been in the vicinity of 10% per year. If (and this is a pretty big if) these rates were to hold for the following decades the GDP of China would equal that of the US in about 16 years or so. Gabbe (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you use the price of gold as a standard or the currency exchange rates to figure the rate of growth? --DeeperQA (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Gabbe. An economy does not crush another. That would be stupid to crush a customer and / or provider. The Chinese economy will out grow the American economy, very likely, but that will not necessarily harm it. The American economy is likely to continue to grow, at its own pace. This will be like when the US economy became larger than the British economy. The British economy was not crushed by the American economy, it simply became the second economy in the world instead of the first. --Lgriot (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My application of the word "crush" is in regard to the American ego for not having an economic and government system that allows it to be superior to a Communist State run by a bunch of "chinks," even though it may retain its transition size. --DeeperQA (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * However, you only have to look on the shelves of every store in the US, not fail to find a Chinese eatery somewhere, find a university engineering department not filled with Chinese students already receiving offers from NASA and other agencies including the Pentagon.
 * When you couple all of this with owning China over a trillion dollars then it makes one begin to ask, who will have the real economic management advantage in a short order of time, China or the US? --DeeperQA (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditions in the United States today are very different from those in China. The United States has a "mature" economy.  It has already made full use of the technologies currently available for improving productivity and uses its work force at something approaching its full potential (though in recent years, high unemployment certainly leaves some room for improvement in human resource utilization).  By contrast, China has had and continues to have much more opportunity for improving productivity and moving its work force up the skill ladder.  As a result, it has much more potential for growth, and it has been realizing that potential.  Its position is similar to that of the United States in the first 3 decades of the 20th century, when the U.S. economy grew at rates similar to those of the Chinese economy today.  This is not a matter of economic management.  It is a matter of different economic circumstances and levels of development.  In fact, I don't think that there is a lot of difference in economic management techniques between China and the United States.


 * The main difference is in the countries' political systems, not their economic management. In the United States, an outwardly democratic but actually plutocratic system means that control of government and the economy is diffuse, but generally oriented toward the perceived interests of the very rich.  The democratic trappings act as a pressure valve allowing the masses the sense of having a say and arguably giving the very rich freer rein than they have in China to loot the economy.  In China, an autocratic system allows more central control of the economy and creates a different set of political constraints.  Because of a lack of democratic forms, the ruling Communist Party has to be more concerned about legitimacy than the U.S. officials elected by the voting public but demonstrably serving wealthy campaign contributors.  Consequently, the Communist Party may use its power to manage the economy in such a way as to ensure that the benefits of growth are distributed just widely enough to limit the potential for unrest.  It is impossible to say which political system offers the greater "advantage," especially since different groups within each country are differently advantaged (or not) by its political system. Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The OP points out that "China [has] embraced capitalism." Now that the government uses two systems, it inherits the follies of each, rather than one canceling out the other. This story talks about bubbles: the capitalistic folly; this story talks about dissidents and online censorship: a traditional communistic folly. The Chinese seem to not be able to see their own wisdom; take a look at this article. Schyler  ( exquirere bonum ipsum ) 15:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the OP's opening question; " It seems that because China embraced capitalism under it's "one government, two systems" policy China has been able as a nation to manage its resources in a far superior manner than the United States ". In fact the term is One country, two systems and this policy was introduced purely for enabling China to unite with the independent capitalist territories of Hong Kong (British) and  Macau (Portuguese). Outwith these territories, China was supposed to remain socialist. But now in fact China is one country, one system-- deeply authoritarian in its power and control structures, very liberal and capitalistic in its economic policies--but no longer communist, except in name only. Chinese citizens can be as entrepreneurial as they like and can make as much money as they like with little or no state interference.

 "Chine seems in far better control of its economy and by lending the United States money vying for a position from which it can dictate terms and even absorb the United States without resorting to war" . China manipulates its economy by keeping its currency weak so as to boost its exports. Yes, it has bought about a quarter of all foreign holdings of US securities but that doesn't take into account where the rest of these securities are held. The total foreign holdings are less than half of the total amount of treasury securities issued (47%). So China's total holding is about 11% of the total. Sorry can't see them absorbing the US any time soon.

'' "Does China have the advantage by ruling over capitalist enterprises as if it were a giant department store and it was the administration as opposed to the United States which appears to have nothing near the control of China over its industries and businesses?" ''.  You have a point here. State monoliths in China are starting to buy into foreign companies but even then these state companies aren't the 'dead hand' of the former eastern bloc of the soviet empire--they know exactly what they are doing and everything is geared to increasing wealth. The OP's statement that the US doesn't have the control over its industries and businesses as does China. Well that's true and it isn't true both at the same time. Which governments are not involved in their countries' economies--none I would suggest. But the US is one of the major economies that promote a smaller state footprint and stands for no state control, no state ownership--the land of the free (sorry got carried away there).

So, an authoritarian capitalist economy such as China (with no looking over the shoulder at the next election) will always be in a better shape than democratic economies, as President Obama is finding out. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have 41 minutes there's a lengthy interview with historian Niall Ferguson at http://bigthink.com/niallferguson where he shares some interesting insights on the issue, including his identification of the six "killer apps" of Western civilization and their adoption by China. Gabbe (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * [ec] I don't think it's possible to make a sweeping statement that authoritarian political economies "always" outperform. It happens to be true of these two countries at the moment due to circumstances at this juncture that are mostly independent of the countries' different political systems.  During the period from 1870 to 1913, Germany had an authoritarian capitalist economy, while the United States had a pluralist capitalist economy.  According to the first table on this page, Germany's GDP grew during this period from $72,149 million to $237,332 million in constant US dollars, representing a respectable average annual growth rate of 2.8%.  During the same period, the GDP of the United States grew from $93,374 million to $517,383 million, representing average annual growth of 4.1%.  So, in this case, the authoritarian capitalist economy underperformed the pluralist capitalist economy.  The advantage of a freer capitalist economy is that it can respond more nimbly to market forces.  Other things being equal, less profitable units and activities are more easily eliminated and capital is shifted more readily to more productive uses in a free economy than in an autocratic setting, in which less productive or profitable activities may be protected for political reasons.  So I don't think that we can look to China's authoritarianism as an explanation for its relative growth advantage.  Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fallacious to say that China is outperforming the U.S. simply because its economy is growing. Yeah, maybe it looks that way if you own stock or yuan.  But in terms of what it provides for the people - no one denies that China is still poorer overall.  Whether it can peak at a point where it produces more goods and services per work hour than the U.S. still has to be determined. Wnt (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "One government, two systems" my ass. That the dictatorial central committee of the Chinese communist party has been employing free market reforms says nothing about their totalitarian, unjust rule. Hans Rosling explains why the developing world is growing so much faster than industrialized countries. The investment gamble offer to those willing to tolerate moderate risk: Bet against war and famine to outperform local index funds. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comparing the pre-1914 economies of Germany and the US and then using that to make comparisons of present day economies isn't particularly helpful. For example, in those days although Germany was authoritarian and its growth by European standards was impressive, yet it went in for socialist style large scale nationalisation programmes -- not a feature of the US economy of the time (nor now).   Germany started to introduce large scale costly welfare programmes to counter the growing socialist movement--the US didn't need to do these things.  In the present day, the democratic  political systems of the west are checked by what these governments think their electorates will tolerate and the present economic crisis in the US is no different -- if I understand the situation the US government will now make an additional $2 trillion of treasury securities available and China will be in there snapping them up -- Obama wants to be re-elected.  Ireland and Britain have sacked their governments that were perceived to be responsible for their present circumstances. Greece, Portugal and Spain will most likely do the same.  China alone doesn't give a damn about its electorate--it doesn't have one. So I disagree, the political system of China is the main driver of its economic growth. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Global economic crises are typically preceded by oil price peaks, regardless of individual national management. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 22:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, because I cannot see through closed doors, imagine this: China became concerned long ago about America's ability to pay back principle and interest on US bonds China acquired. This is because China got its vast surplus by wise management albeit dictatorial management. The whole budget deficit crises which the US prolonged today by increasing how much it borrow today merely to show China that even depriving its own people would not stand in the way of the US repaying principle and interest to cover its bonds. We agreed today to deprive our own people through spending cuts to pay the interest on the bonds we have sold to China and others by selling even more bonds to then instead of raising taxes. China is the better manager of money than we are.

China told the US not to show support for the Dali Lama in public although freedom of religion is one of the hallmarks of American ideals.

In effect the US is still following the foreign policy it had of selling scrap steel to Japan before WWII. Either that or the US is providing foreign aid to a Communist country by depriving its own citizens of aid which might be okay if tax cuts, tax breaks and tax loopholes for the rich were what was being deprived instead of cost of living increases necessary to offset increasing prices. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a reference desk, not a soapbox. Do you have any more questions, or are you looking to hold a discussion? Gabbe (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...then get off yours. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Many people have become aware of China's economy because of its ability to export (it now ranks #1, and #2 in imports, worldwide). However, more than half (about 55%) of both exports and imports are by foreign-invested companies. So, perhaps what China has become is a good place to do a certain kind of business. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder
Was the Cyrus Cylinder known about before its discovery in 1879? If so, for how long before?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Discovery section it says it was found in a foundation deposit during excavations of the temple Esagila. That leads me to believe that it had been largely forgotten since it's placement there, which would be before the temple's destruction in 482 BC. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K., thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Source of Terence McKenna quotes?
I'm looking for the source of some Terence McKenna quotes: 1. "Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable." 2. "There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream." 3. "We are so much the victims of abstraction that with the Earth in flames we can barely rouse ourselves to wander across the room and look at the thermostat." I can find these quotes littered around the web, but there is no indication as to where they're from (at least that I can find). Ericoides (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He used to give lots of talks, many of which were recorded and passed around on cassette tapes. I had a good box full of them once upon a time. I would guess a lot of quotes come from those. He said an awful lot more during talks than he wrote in books. Some years back I came across a large collection of audiofiles of talks he gave. Perhaps such archives are still online. Might be hard to find a specific quote though. 12:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredulity
This is logic, and so part of philosophy. That's why I am asking in this topic.

'' If one sees 100 coins on a table, all heads up, it is a good indication that someone deliberately placed them there with all heads up. If, on the other hand, about 50 were heads up and the others were tails up, in random order, then it could be a result of chance. Mathematicians who work with probability speak of certain very small such probabilities as being equivalent to impossible. ''

Isn't it an argument from incredulity to say that it can only be a product of an intelligent person, not chance? Or is the argument from incredulity not always a fallacy?

See also:

Aquitania (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in your paragraph about the 100 coins, you wrote that it's a "good indication" that the outcome was deliberate, and that in the second case it "could" be a result of chance. In your next paragraph, you jump ahead to ask about what logic is used if it could "only" be deliberate, which is different.  I would say that yes, it's an argument from incredulity to claim that the all-heads flip was 100% certain to have been deliberately placed; but it would not be if, as you wrote in the earlier paragraph, you were to claim that the all-heads flip was "likely" or even "nearly certain" to have been deliberately placed.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Arguments from incredulity are always fallacies; fallacies are developed (and nurtured) by logicians who maintain that fallacies exist. The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is an example of this fallacy. Although technically fallacious, it tends to spark thought and is genuinely applicable to many situations. Regardless of the fallacious nature of the phrase, it may very well be true. The quotation above is mathematical. I like the story of a man walking through a field who stumbles upon a rock and a pocket watch; indeed a glacier or something most likely moved the rock there AND natural forces may have assembled a perfectly working pocket watch; probably not though: it's very beautiful and serves a purpose. Another example is the Infinite monkey theorem. Schyler  ( exquirere bonum ipsum ) 21:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is such a thing as an "argument from incredulity" because incredulity is a conclusion, not an argument. Wikipedia has an article section about Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence. The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is true because no counterexample can be shown. Sometimes something that looks like a lump of rock actually is a clock. The useful link for "true" is Truth, not the disambiguation page, Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * no, not at all. 100 coins all heads up have very low entropy, it's not disordered enough to be by chance (except in an unlikely case!).  This is easy to verify.  Flip a coin a hundred times and write down the results, then come back and tell me the series.  I bet your briefest description is going to be longer than my briefest description of the series "100 heads".  This is related to Kolmogorov complexity. 89.132.119.207 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, really do it! The very briefest I can make my description of 100 heads is "e2H", which may or may not be understood, though if we were really, really trying to look hard at what series the description of 100 flips refers to, I guess (at the risk o some disagreement), even "Ch" would get us "100 heads".  But "100 heads" or "100 H" or "100H" are each very small (just a few letters)...    By comparison, here is a relatively brief description, in English, of a genuine random string of 100 heads and tails... can you reconstruct it? 2HTH7T4HT8H3THTHHT4H5THHT4HTTHHTTTHTTHTT4TTHHT4HTHTTTHTTHT4HTTHHTHTHHTTHT the original is here: http://codepad.org/4MF2hkTO 89.135.188.193 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Incredulity per se is not proof of anything, because you might be missing imagination. For example, maybe the coins are all heads up because they spilled off of a conveyor belt in the mint building you happen to be standing in; or maybe they have a sticky adhesive on one side from a coin album they were once stored in; or maybe a monkey in the house has acquired the habit of turning them heads up, etc. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It could also result from a natural mechanical process, like coins being washed by a river, given enough time and stability. This is like the clay theory of abiogenesis. (No, I don't know what the table is doing in the river.) Card Zero  (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gluing coins into an album is a great way to ruin any value a coin might have to a numismatist. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the head sides are dull, and the tail sides are shiny. A magpie (let's not get into how intelligent such birds are) tosses the shiny objects with its beak, but is much less interested in the dull objects, especially when there are still shiny objects to manipulate. Thus, the magpie tends to toss coins that are tails up, and leave heads up coins alone. The coin tosses are still random, but the coins wouldn't take terribly long to all be heads up without any intelligence placng them so. Imagination is important, as is distinguishing between 'unlikely' and 'impossible', which is the main mistake made in the argument from incredulity. 212.183.128.102 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The OP's throwaway "see also" reference indicates they are less interested in statistic calculation than interested in resurrecting the tired old teleological argument for existence of God and/or intelligent design. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Worth mentioning that "certainty" is a fallacy embedded in our language - or at least, it's a subjective and context-dependent shorthand, which only becomes meaningful when expanded into a reasoned explanation of probabilities. "Very likely" also depends on the context of the range of the possible events we are considering, and able to imagine. Card Zero  (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Who initially flipped the 100 coins or even so much as merely placed them all on the table, if not either an intelligent human or a robot designed by humankind? ~ AH1 (discuss!) 22:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Using abductive logic (considered valid by most logicians), one may reasonably conclude that an organized pattern of coins on a table was placed there by a human.Greg Bard (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WW2 protests against segregation
When large numbers of US troops during WW2 entered the UK and fraternised with the UK troops and population, the US forces were racially segregated. However the UK had no such segregation in living memory. The agreed common enemy was the intensely racist Nazi regime. Are there sources about protests from the British about the restrictions placed on black US soldiers? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the UK had no tradition of Jim Crow laws, they certainly had a strong tradition of everyone knowing his "station" so the cobbler's son did not try to date the Lord's daughter. I read a novel, perhaps consistent with history, about black US soldiers visiting Northern Ireland. They liked being able to go to a dance and dance with white women without being lynched. Men urged them to desert and travel across the border to the Irish Republic and be done with the war. I've read of general resentment of white US soldiers' success with UK women: "They're overpaid, they're oversexed, and worst of all, they're OVER HERE." says that because the American blacks and whites fought when they went offbase to bars, the authorities  alternated "white nights" and "black nights," and parents only authorized their daughters to go to bars on selected nights (without specifying that it was always white nights.) Many American black jazz musicians loved living in Paris in the 1920's-1930's, because they were not subjected to the constant insults and discrimination they encountered in the US. I haven't read of such an exodus of American black musicians to the UK in the 20's and 30's. When Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington toured Britain in the early 1930's the reception was disappointing. Listeners would sometimes walk out, or throw pennies on the stage as an insult. Armstrong's concert promoters sought to find a band of English black jazz musicians, but could not, so they brought in a band from Paris.  Perhaps it is the history of slavery in the US, and antimiscegenation laws, and Jim Crow policies that fostered racism in the US in the 1940's, but did the average UK citizen see no difference between their daughter dating a white or black American soldier? Were they inclined to run around like 1960's Civil Rights activists and protest racial inequality in the policies of the US military? What was the percentage of African descent in the UK population 1941, before the US influx? Edison (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked through several pages of that book you linked to: where does it say coins were thrown on the stage? In fact it says that Duke Ellington was very well recieved in Britain, with crowds turning out, as he had a well organised publicity campain beforehand. Louis Armstrong had a more mixed reception because he didnt have so much publicity. I think it more likely that people booked seats at the London Palladium, the top nightspot at the time, regardless of what was offered and then some people left when the music was not to their taste, or perhaps they wanted dinner. According to the book jazz was rare in Britain at that time, with records difficult to get, so jazz was only familiar to a monority. A jazz session may have been very different to the entertainment they were expecting. In my experience some people walk out in cinemas, even though the film was not objectionable in any way. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right the account of unhappy listeners throwing pennies on the stage referred to Ellington's tour in the 1930's, not Armstrong's. The book did say "20 to 30" unhappy listeners walked out of an Armstrong performance. 20 years earlier, when Armstrong as a lad was singing with a few friends in the streets of New Orleans, he had been happy for people to toss pennies at his feet. Edison (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about what happened in the US, but page 234 of that book appears to be what you are greatly misrepresenting about Ellingtons performance in Britain in the 1930s. It says most of the audience were "ecstatic", the rest baffled, and "a few" people threw coins and left during one particular piece. Far less than 1% of the audience I expect, as the Palladium probably seats thousands of people. Charlie Sheen had a very much worse time here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzKq3CUgXUE 2.97.215.11 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevil Shute's novel, The Chequer Board is interesting... even if, one may say, a bit "didactic". -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time, the English societies were recovering from their abuse of the Indian caste systems resulting from company rule in India, so racial segregation was probably a taboo subject of conversation. The unspoken understandings of the analogous situations, however, likely often spoke louder than words. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's at best just guessing, and not true. I've never heard of anything like that. Do you have any sources to back it up at all? British people were grateful and respectful of any foriegn person who volunteered to fight for Britain, irrespective of colour. Indian people formed an essential part of British administration in India. See the writings of Rudyard Kipling for example. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I read a comment from a British person during WWII (don't remember where, unfortunately) remarking on how Southern white U.S. soldiers would raise a ruckus when they saw a black guy in a restaurant they were dining in, even when it was a British black guy. The writer in jest recommended black Britons wear a pin or armband or something to indicate their Britishness. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple of links I've found: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/67/a2337167.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/96/a1921196.shtml I think most or nearly all British people did not approve of the discrimination shown by white American soldiers, in the same way that I'm shocked by the active discrimination in the US as late as the 1960s. 2.97.215.11 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't true to say that there was no racism in Britain in the 1940s, but much of it was a jokey, derogatory sort of racism that white people thought was harmless fun. This continued into the 1970s and 80s before it was generally thought to be harmful. There were very few people of colour in the UK before WWII; my father's photos from an ordinary state school in 1920s east London show only rows of white faces. During wartime there was much propaganda about the "Imperial Family" and how we were all in it together; I think this was generally accepted. When mass immigration began in the late 1940s, race became a more pertinent issue; there were famously signs saying "NO IRISH OR BLACKS" in adverts for rented accomodation. Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is funny to depict Britain as a society devoid of racism in the early 20th century. Consider Agatha Christie's popular book "Ten Little Niggers." Consider the black dog named "Nigger" featured in the WW2 story of a bombing program popularized in The Dam Busters about No. 617 Squadron RAF. Consider the common usage of  Wog i the early/mid 20th century as a derogatory word for "dark skinned" people, particularly from the Middle East, the Caribbean, and the Indian subcontinent. When did Packy become a British slang word for a Pakistani? Edison (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nigger" simply meant "black" and wasn't usually used in a derogatory way in the UK, as it was in the USA. Perhaps, in future, "black" will become a racist label?    D b f i r s   00:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we listed all the instances of racism in the US during the same time periods, then we'd need several large volumes, and the racism would be very much more serious and institutionalised. The words you list were slang terms at the time, and did not have the same intention of offense as they do currently in the US, although the "w" word was intended to be offensive. In Britain we have plenty of slang terms for even European people, such as "frogs". 2.97.219.104 (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mentioned above, but worth a bit more detail, in Nevil Shute's 1947 novel The Chequer Board. From our article: "The novel deals fairly with the question of racism within the US forces during World War II and portrays black characters with great sympathy and support." It is set in rural England, among villagers who have never previously met black people. They like them a lot better than the arrogant white soldiers from the American South. Presumably Shute was drawing on a wartime trope. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)