Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 19

= August 19 =

The Euro
Have there been any serious proposals about abandoning the Euro as a currency what with the financial problems going on in Europe? Googlemeister (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There has not yet been an official proposal for a euro breakup. However, the possibility of such a breakup is certainly under discussion.  A number of commentators (such as this one) have argued that without a fiscal union, a breakup of the euro is inevitable.  Germany, the main paymaster of Europe and an essential member of any fiscal union, is at present opposed to such a union.  Serious German sources (such as this one) have analyzed the possible effects of a euro breakup, which would be very costly.  However, no actual proposal has been put forward for a euro breakup as yet by any responsible party.  At this point, the most likely such proposal would not involve a complete abandonment of the euro.  Instead, there would more likely be a decision to end German support for the heavily indebted and deficit-ridden euro members, such as Greece, Portugal, and Ireland, and possibly Spain and Italy.  That would force those countries to leave the euro and redenominate bank balances and debt in a devalued national currency.  In the short term at least, the euro would remain as the currency of Germany and several of its neighbors, as well as Finland. On the other hand, Germany might decide to support a fiscal union, which might allow all euro members to retain the currency.  Marco polo (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean renominate bank balances, I think. That's BTW, not a necessary measure. In the same way you can now keep your money in a foreign currency, you'll be able to keep your savings in Euro. One thing is however sure: if a country gets expelled from the Euro, its new currency will plummet like lead. Quest09 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's actually re-denominate, see denomination_(currency). Renominate would be changing the name, which indeed is also possible (it has already happened once for the euro), but financially not a big deal. I ask myself however how the new currencies would be named: with the old names? Or with the old names preceded by the prefix new? Or something completely different?88.9.108.128 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this is seen as a possible method from the current problem, which is a daily one. As the introduction of the Euro proved, replacing as currency takes time; everything from designing and printing the banknotes to the "grace period" for the switchover. Another point is that if you are a saver in Greece, with your account in Euros, and a new currency about to be installed which will devalue, it would be easier to move it to, say, Germany. (That was, after all, an advantage of the single currency.) This creates additional liquidity problems for Greek banks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One might think that Greek savers would be able to keep their euro accounts or withdraw euro cash from those accounts. However, as soon as Germany and other northern European countries ended their support for Greece's government, Greek banks would become insolvent because so much of their depositors' money is invested in Greek government debt.  There would have to be a bank holiday to prevent a run on Greek banks while a new currency regime and bank-rescue plan was imposed.  Part of that rescue plan would have to involve a forced devaluation of savers' balances, most likely by redenominating them in a new national currency, trading at some fraction of the euro.  A similar process would have to take place in Portugal and probably Ireland.  Incidentally, in an emergency, after the bank holiday, banks could resort to limiting the size of withdrawals and stamping euro notes to indicate that they were no longer euros while waiting for the government to print a new currency.  It's not unlikely that a partial barter economy would develop during the transition period.  The Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002), when Argentina was forced to abandon its peg to the US dollar and to devalue its currency, is a kind of precedent. Ultimately, the debt has to be written off somehow, and ultimately bank depositors are holders of debt.  Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my point. People would want to move out before it was devalued. With the whole "single currency" thing, they could do this very easily (more than, say, British savers). The moving out of money would worsen the banks' problems. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the wealthiest Greeks have moved much of their money out of Greece already, and they could no doubt leave Greece too if they chose. However, the vast majority of Greeks don't have the means to open bank accounts outside of Greece.  Also, they need to work for a living and don't have the language skills or inclination to take jobs outside of Greece, quite apart from the ability of the rest of Europe to absorb several million new migrant workers. As for bank runs in the future, if things deteriorate, the government will just be forced to declare a bank holiday before banks' cash reserves are depleted.  Most likely, the Greek government could get the Germans to wait to announce the end of their support until a bank holiday had been declared. Marco polo (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that most Greeks cannot afford a foreign bank account. A bank account at another European country is normally at reach to most Europeans, even without leaving the home country, even if you only have a couple of thousand Euros. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One might think that the history of the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian krone might be a cautionary example of what happens when a multinational currency is split. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Abraham Lincoln have ties with the South and slavery?
I am interested to know if Abraham Lincoln had ties with the South and slavery. One source, Ingersol, Abraham Lincoln on page 17 stated "The sympathies of Abraham Lincoln, his ties of kindred, were with the South." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, Abraham Lincoln's southern background is in Appalachia, which was never politically aligned with the Plantation south; most of Appalachia didn't own slaves and never supported secession.  That's why West Virginia itself seceded from Virginia, and why you find lots of union sympathies in places like Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee.  I believe that Abraham Lincoln's mother was possibly from a Melungeon family, which weren't at ALL part of the Southern secession or slavery movement, even if they were in what was technically "the south".  Abraham Lincoln claimed some descent, through his maternal grandfather, to landed southern interests, but it is unclear if this was actually the case, or merely a political move.  From his early life, his family was anti-slavery, being attenders of the Separate Baptists church.  His father was a leader in said church.  -- Jayron  32  16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit on Lincoln being from Appalachia. His birthplace, like most of Kentucky, is west of Appalachia, per Wikipedia maps. He was a flatlander, not a hillbilly. Edison (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * His wife's family were from Kentucky, a slave-owning region. And some of his brother-in-laws fought on the side of the South.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that Kentucky, despite being a slave state, did not support secession. And besides, he spent much of his youth in Spencer County, Indiana.67.169.177.176 (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * N.B.: Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were born less than 150 miles apart (LaRue County, Kentucky and Christian County, Kentucky, respectively). A seemingly good argument for the "nurture side" of Nature versus Nurture. Schyler  ( exquirere bonum ipsum ) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, unless you are implying that being racist could somehow a) genetic or b) has terroir and somehow people can absorb racism from the soil, I don't see how evidence of where the two were born leads any credence to any part of the argument. -- Jayron  32  18:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Racism is a separate issue then Southern ties to slavery. However, Lincoln did make a speech claiming whites were superior to blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like there is some division in terms of whether Lincoln had ties with the South and slavery. Kentucky initially was neutral, however, there was a Southern invasion of the state.  Union troops were called into the state to remove the Southern troops.  I would say there is debate if Kentucky was officially part of the Union.  That is a separate question. Lincoln's parental extended family owned slaves in Pennsylvania.  His immediate parental family did oppose slavery, that is true.  However, Lincoln married into the family of a wealthy slave owner. In my opinion that is a tie with slavery. His friend, Joshua Speed, was a prominent Kentucky slave owner and Lincoln spent much time with this person.  Speed had told President Lincoln to hold off on emancipating the slaves.  Lincoln, as President, also permitted the Southern cotton trade.  Why did Lincoln allow the Southern cotton trade during the Civil War?  Did not this fund the Confederate army? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most likely this was because at the beginning of the war the Union navy simply did not have the ability to blockade the Southern ports. Besides, it is also possible that he didn't want to risk political trouble with England, which was the primary buyer of Southern cotton.  Remember, England at the time had the most powerful navy in the world, so if they decided to enter the war on the Southern side to protect the cotton trade, then the North would have been really fucked (pardon my French).  67.169.177.176 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just England - Scotland, Ireland and Wales owned a bit of the Royal Navy too! ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right, but England was the one in charge. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * England at that time did not have a high demand for cotton, since the southerners had attempted to market cotton war bonds in Europe, unsuccessfully. Funding the Confederate Army by allowing the sale of cotton, in my opinion, could mean Lincoln had ties with the South and slavery. Remember the cotton was an intensive labor job that was worked by black slaves. Lincoln to the very end demanded that the slaves be paid for to the slave holders. The Radicals in Congress would have nothing to do with paying for the slaves.  Also, Lincoln's "Let em up easy" at the end of the War would also point to ties with the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln had a lot of childhood and extended family ties to the so-called "border states" or "upper south", and saw the workings of slavery up close on a number of occasions, but neither he nor any members of his immediate family were ever slave-owners, and the large-scale Lower South type of cotton plantation which is often associated with the image of the antebellum U.S. South would have been quite remote from their lives. As a politician, Lincoln consistently hated slavery (as an Illinois state legislator in 1837, he issued a public statement against an Illinois legislature anti-abolitionist resolution, even though this would have been of no conceivable benefit to his political career at that point) -- but it's now often forgotten that many who hated slavery were not mainly motivated by a concern for black rights as such. It's useless to blame Lincoln for not being a thoroughly-consistent ideological immediatist abolitionist or racial-equality advocate, because he never claimed to be any of those things, and someone who held such views would have had no realistic chance to be elected president of the U.S. in 1860. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Stephen A. Douglas came out as a full-on demagogic race-baiter of "the Republican party wants niggers to marry your white daughters" type, and Lincoln in his replies revealed that he hated slavery and insisted that blacks had natural rights, but did not directly oppose claims that blacks were inherently inferior to whites in some respects, and specifically disclaimed any intention of "amalgamating" the black and white races, or giving all blacks full political and social equality with whites. Lincoln expressed pretty much the minimum amount of racism necessary to be a serious candidate for Senator from Illinois in 1858 (some might say that he expressed less than the necessary minimum, since he lost that election). AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Now, you've heard the Judge [Douglas] make allusion to those who advocate voting, and eating, and marrying, and sleeping with negroes. Whether he meant me specifically I do not know. If he did, I can only say that just because I do not want a colored woman for a slave I do not necessarily want her for a wife. I do not need to have her for either.  I can just leave her alone.  In some respects, she is certainly not my equal, any more than I am the Judge's equal in some respects. But in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of somebody else, she is my equal and the equal of all others."


 * Although Lincoln may have "hated" slavery, that does not negate that he had ties with slavery. He married a prominent slave holder's daughter, Mary Todd, who had slaves.  He did pay the slaves money for their work, however, his wife had slaves.  He spent much time at his friend, Joshua Speed's slave plantation.  Speed convinced Lincoln to hold off on freeing the slaves in the early part of the Civil War.  As has been mentioned before, Lincoln allowed the sale of southern cotton that funded the Confederate Army and his Attorney General lightly enforced the Confiscation Acts.  He always wanted to give the slave owners money for the emancipated slaves under the Emancipation Proclamation.  I would say those things are worth considering that Lincoln had ties to the South and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- Lincoln was not a New Englander moral purist theoretical absolutist abolitionist, and he never claimed to be, and no one with the slightest knowledge of history has ever suggested he was. But some of what you're saying seems to be nonsense -- there were no non-transient slaves in Illinois, Mary Todd did not own slaves, and Lincoln did not have slaves around him in Illinois.  As for Joshua Speed, there's a well-known letter to Joshua Speed which you can read here and elsewhere (just Google the phrase "continually exercises the power of making me miserable").  As for his general attitude and conception of his duty as president early in the war, if you have any interest in the matter at all, then you should be well-aware of the famous closing of the letter to Horace Greeley -- "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * From what I have read the Lincoln's had servants. I believe these servants came from Mary Todd's family and that Lincoln paid them.  Technically in Illinois they were not slaves. This link states that Mary Todd Lincoln's family had a household of slaves. Mary Todd Lincoln House.  What is interesting is that Lincoln did not marry someone from Illinois, but rather a woman from a prominent Kentucky gentry slave holding family.Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude, every single middle-class family household in the mid-19th century had servants -- if they didn't have servants (or at an absolute minimum, girls or women who came in several times a week), then ipso facto by definition they were NOT middle class.  During those times, there were very few labor-saving gadgets as we would understand them today, and just doing the laundry alone in a middle-class household was an extremely strenuous and fatiguing chore which generally had to be done every week using technology which was not too far advanced from pounding clothes with rocks by the side of the village stream.  If we look at actual facts (as opposed to your apparent fantasizing), then according to the 1850 census, the Lincoln family had one (1) servant, born in Ireland... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any historical inaccuracies in this discussion. The Todd family had many household slaves.  Lincoln, by marriage, was a member of a slave-holding family.  An Irish servant does not negate this historical fact. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It could possibly be said that Lincoln married into a slave-holding extended family (though at the time the expression "marry into" was in fact applied to women much more often than to men), but he did NOT marry into slaveholding itself (as George Washington did), and you seem to be rather confused on that point and several others -- such as the difference between Illinois and Kentucky, and the necessity of servants to the mid-19th century middle-class lifestyle... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." ——— Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley


 * The above quote by Lincoln, in my opinion, gives a neutral statement on slavery. There is nothing anti-slavery in this statement. In other words the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with Lincoln being anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- you echoed back the quotation I previously gave, but chose to leave out the final sentence "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." Were you being disingenuous or dishonest?  In any case, you still haven't bothered to explain why Lincoln issued a public anti-slavery statement in 1837, when this would have had no possible advantage to him in terms of the central Illinois politics of the time (and could have been a definite disadvantage if political opponents had tried to make a big issue out of it). AnonMoos (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not being disingenuous nor dishonest. Expressing the "wish" that all men were free, is not necessarily an anti-slavery statement. Lincoln's view that slavery could be abolished in Washington D.C. was made at a time when he was single and had less ties to the South and slavery. In 1841 Lincoln married into a prominent wealthy slave holding family. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it was in fact an anti-slavery statement -- just not an official governmental anti-slavery policy (or not yet publicly at that point). And Lincoln voiced his anti-slavery protest in 1837, voted repeatedly for the Wilmot proviso during his one Congressional term in the 1840s, and joined the "anti-Nebraska" movement or Republican party in 1854, so that his basic alignment -- anti-slavery but not strict abolitionist -- remained pretty consistent before and after his marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * From Lincoln's letter written to Joshua Speed, Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery and was abhorred by the oppression of Negroes, i.e. them being shackled. Lincoln and Speed were friends, not political opponents.  Speed was a prominent slave holder in Virginia.  Lincoln married into a wealthy slave holding Todd family. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- he hated slavery, but was much more of a pragmatist than an ideological absolutist, and didn't have a personal "boycott" policy against people connected with slavery (except actual long-distance slave-traders, whom he seems to have regarded as the scum of the earth). The thing to remember is that the ideological absolutists such as William Lloyd Garrison had no concrete achievements in practical politics -- and no ideological absolutist could have been elected president in 1860 (Gerrit Smith apparently ran as an ideologically-pure abolitionist in 1860, and got a truly negligeable number of votes).  The election in 1860 was not a choice between Lincoln and Garrison -- it was a choice between Lincoln, Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge.  If you don't like Lincoln, then you're sure to loathe and despise Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I admire Abraham Lincoln. This discussion or evaluation was to find out how much Lincoln had ties to slavery in personal and public life.  President Lincoln continued the cotton trade in the South, desired compensation to Southerners for freed slaves, and wanted to export the freed slaves from the country.  Since I seem to have little support from other editors on this subject, then anymore discussion would prove fruitless.  Thanks for all who joined the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- if you really admire him, then you'll admire him for what he actually was, and not try to judge him based on not being something which he never claimed to be (and which if he had been, he never would have become president, and you never would have heard of him)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is true. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note: Abraham Lincoln did visit his wife's slave holding family's home in Kentucky many times. Experiences with Slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Modern French colonies
Is there any movements for independence in any of the present day French colonies such as French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, French Guyana, and ect.? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from any discussion of independence, it should be noted that French Guiana is an overseas department (along with Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion and Mayotte) and is, as such, considered an integral part of France. A similar relationship is that of Hawaii to the United States. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And it should also be noted that France doesn't have colonies anymore. It overseas departments and territories (known colloquially in France as "DOM/TOM" for "départements d'outre-mer/territoires d'outre-mer).  Overseas departments have the same rights and privileges as any department in Metropolitan France and are legally no different.  The other major classification (since 2003) for a populated area is known as an "Overseas collectivity", and these have somewhat more autonomy from France itself (and thus consequently, less connection to the rest of France), however they do have fully proportional voting representation in the French legislature (quite unlike, say, territories of the U.S.).  -- Jayron  32  17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The short answer to your question is yes, though of the dependencies or overseas departments that you mention, I can find evidence of a substantial pro-independence movement only in French Polynesia, whose president, Oscar Temaru, is a supporter of independence at some undetermined future date. However, there is a much stronger independence movement in New Caledonia. In general, France's overseas dependencies and departments benefit quite substantially from French government spending, which typically far exceeds French tax collections in those territories, so their inhabitants tend to support an affiliation with France.  Marco polo (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, New Caledonia. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On French Guiana, see []. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are Australians proud of their criminal ancestors?
Why? Quest09 (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To the extent they are, I suspect it is because the sentence of transportation was manifestly unjust for the petty crimes committed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not the OP obviously but could it have something to do with the idea that they have a well respected country that was borne out of this rough and tumble past? Dismas |(talk) 23:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Define "criminal". There's people who rape and strangle 75 grandmothers with extension cords, and there's people who pass bad checks, and there's people who steal bread for their kids.  I suspect that much of the criminals who settled Australia were of the "petty crime" type than of the "mass murderer" type.  Everyone sitting on the Group W bench isn't necessarily a mother-raper or a father-killer.  Most of those sorts of criminals are criminals because of their economic situation; if given ample opportunity they will live an honest life.  Honestly, taking people who only commit crimes because they can't find honest work, and giving them honest work, sounds like something to be proud of.  -- Jayron  32  00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Litterers though, those are the real nasty kind. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Twas not always thus. It's an attitude that's undergone a big reversal in my 60 or so years. Asking why it has changed is just as interesting a question. And I'm not sure of the answer. Similarly, 40 years ago many Australians hid any Australian Aboriginal ancestry they may have possessed. That too has reversed for many. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How can you hide that? You could always say your ancestors were Africans, but why would it be better? 88.9.108.128 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That question seems to involve the assumption that a person with Aboriginal background would inevitably look different, perhaps having conspicuously darker skin, thus making Aboriginalilty obvious. Sorry, but that's a false assumption. There's a lot more to being Aboriginal than skin colour There are many reasons why one Australian may have darker skin than another. Many immigrant groups have rapidly mixed by marriage, etc. with paler (and darker) Australians. And Australians, in general, aren't obsessed with skin colour as a cultural divider. HiLo48 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True. There are 2 people very closely connected to me who are partly of aboriginal descent, and in both cases I had no idea until I was told.  Remember that only a very small proportion of urban aboriginals have unmixed ethnicity.  Most are like the rest of us, with contributions from other bloodlines, sometimes many others.  A random rural aboriginal would have a better chance of being "full-blood", but the numbers of such people are vanishing rapidly.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I may have told this anedcote here before. My parents got into researching their genealogies about 30 years ago.  My mother soon discovered she was descended from a convict, and only as far back as her great-great-grandfather.  Even though a monument to his post-release achievements had been erected virtually in her backyard a few years earlier, and even though he is now regularly described as a "pioneer of the Mittagong district", none of that mattered against the fact of his having been a convict.  When she told me of our joint heritage, there was nobody within earshot and we were inside her house with all the doors and windows closed, but she still felt it necessary to whisper, and then adjure me not to reveal this to anyone outside the family. This would have been around the early 1990s, I guess, because the monument I mentioned was a Bicentennial project (1988). She's somewhat more relaxed about it now, but it still isn't quite the badge of honour with her as it with me.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I might add that there is a similar phenomenon in the fame of Ned Kelly and other bushrangers. These people may have done much wrong, but they were caught and tried, and of course in Ned Kelly's case, executed, so there is still a fitting end to an exciting story. The thought that our convicts were (obviously) caught and punished renders them somewhat harmless, while retaining the sense of adventure. I must admit I am really surprised by HiLo48 and Jack's answers - I had never imagined it. I'm a little bit younger, but a convict ancestor would have probably always excited me. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no link with Australia, but my gut feeling is that the Ned Kelly story illustrates the strongest root of such pride - because the "outlaws" were often defined by national, racial, and religious differences within the British Empire. Resistance along such divisions would appear to be fairly comparable to the American rebellion, except that it didn't fully succeed.  Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Ned Kelly story was deeply connected with the poor Irish Catholic immigrant group being and/or feeling persecuted by the wealthier English, self appointed aristocracy, "rulers" of the day. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * non-Aussie: "Is it true that Aussies are descendents of criminals ?"


 * Aussie: "I take offense at that comment ! I'll have you know we're descendents of criminals AND whores !" StuRat (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of an exchange I had with an Australian friend of Scottish extraction:
 * Me: "Australians are all descended from criminals."
 * Friend (indignantly): "We're not all descended from criminals."
 * Me: "That's true. Only white Australians are." (duck to avoid getting hit). Pais (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

When The Ashes Test Cricket is on, English fans like to chide Australians for being convicts. It's a strategy that has definitely lost impact over the years. As for why we're proud of it, I guess the response is "Why not?" They ARE our ancestors. It's the truth. They faced huge hurdles, overcame them, and baby, just look at us now! Like members of any other "national" group, we have egos, and like to think that all the things that went before have contributed to where we are now. Well, that's my completely humble, OR perspective ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true the Australians have perhaps the worst of all English language accents. Maybe that can be attributed to the convict status of their ancestors, among other things.  But given that, if just one of one's ancestors hadn't procreated when they did, one wouldn't exist, why shouldn't one be proud, to a certain extent, of all one's ancestors?  Or should the Anglo inhabitants of Great Britain consider themselves superior to those of the colonies, as, childless, they, all but the Chavs, cede their sceptered isle to the Dar al Harb? μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Better chavs than Pakis, by all means. And I don't see any reason why most Aussie ancestors (mostly petty thieves and fraudsters, from what I've heard) were any worse than the chavs in today's England, or the "white trash" here in the USA... 67.169.177.176 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel compelled to bite. How does one decide that a particular English accent is "the worst", Medeis?  Who sets the yardstick?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I am compelled to ask, "Which Australian accent?" Even a non-Australian of very limited exposure to our speech would detect some obvious difference between the accents of our current and most recent former Prime Ministers, being two examples that have appeared on the international stage. I could also throw in Dame Edna, Rolf Harris and Geoffrey Robinson as examples, even though all have had their accents corrupted by British influences. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Geoffrey Robertson, HiLo. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So true. Thanks. And here he is. Still recognisably Australian, but..... HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard an interview in which he was asked about his very unusual accent for an Aussie. He said that as a child he would spend his days playing indoors, with ABC Radio playing in the background.  Back in the late 1940s, early 1950s, ABC announcers were required to sound "upper-class", preferably British.  He said he was an extremely late talker, and claims he was influenced by these announcers far more than by his parents or his peer group.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, guys. Ask me again when we Yanks with GenAm vowels start affecting Aussie accents to get jobs. Rachel Griffiths, Heath Ledger, Mel Gibson, Chris Egan (actor), Russel Crowe.  So far as your speech is distinctive it is marked and at best you mock RP.  Only those americans who mistake Jesse Spencer for Irish think he talks sexy.  No offense.


 * Indeed, I find a good RP pronunciation more prestigious than my own American East Midland dialect, joost. But even my six-year-old nephew with a Boston accent was watching Farscape with me and wanted to know, "Are the ones that talk funny special?"  Your vowels are much worse, so much more painful to listen to than Palin's, that I'd vote for Obama again before I'd ever consider your Howard, believe me.  I'd rather listen to Geordies, Cockneys, Zummerzeters, Ozarkians and, yes, even Bostoners.  Even the untutored Rosie Perez.  And Pakis?  They sound like angels to you in comparison.  No offense. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How well received was our Russell Crowe doing his West Virginian accent in A Beautiful Mind? (If you didn't like him, he's really a New Zealander.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I disliked the movie, while my boyfriend loved it. I don't remember commenting on the accent, it was probably mild.  I will find a clip and get back.  In the meantime, this is Rosie Perez before she took voice lessons.  μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just remember to qualify "much worse", "so much more painful" and similar expressions as personal subjective opinions, Medeis. They come across here as absolute truths, which of course they're not.  I'm actually very surprised that a person with your obvious smarts with linguistics would use such vague and non-professional language as "worst" when comparing accents.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Jack, but I expect better of my audience than to think that they cannot distinguish between physical measurements and aesthetic judgments. I am glad we have you to coddle such misfits.  As it stands, painful is a most adequate word to express my personal opinion.  If necessary, feel free to explain to our readers that my personal opinion is...my personal opinion.  I grant it is possible they may be confused on that point, yet I doubt it.


 * Quote: "... it is true the Australians have perhaps the worst of all English language accents". That doesn't sound much like an opinion to me, but an assertion of objective truth or at least something about which there's general agreement, neither of which is actually the case.  My request to label opinions as such stands. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I just listened, HiLo48, to a few minutes of Crowe in A Beautiful Mind. His accent is sufficiently "southern" (primarily changing the diphtong /ai/ to /a:/) to allow suspension of disbelief.  But his accent is too broad to be identified as West Virginian, and his consonants too precise to sound other than like stage pronunciation.  If you want to hear a passable and distinctively West Virginian actor's accent listen to Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs (film).  Unfortunately I cannot find non-pirated links to either film.


 * μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Why are Australians proud of their criminal ancestors?" Pride is natural. It is the default mental condition. One's ancestors are oneself. One need not have a comprehensive understanding of genetics to understand that there is a connection, generationally, between oneself and one's ancestors. Our language embodies this understanding: "Kith and kin", "Blood thicker than water", "My own flesh and blood". One can only be ashamed of one's ancestors if actions taken in this life lead one to feel ashamed. Thus if other people fault us for our ancestor's supposed misdeeds, and marginalize us based on this, and perhaps discriminate against us because of this—we are likely to internalize this negative assessment. It should be noted that in most cases the the only past that can be referred to is a mythic one because in most cases family history is not all that intact or clear. The traits implied are even less clear. But if somehow the society around us is powerful enough to impose that mental-shaping on us, we would no longer have pride in either our ancestors or ourselves. Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Australian nationalism reconfigured itself between 1940 and 1988. This reconfiguration overwrote long standing cultural tendencies, like ruling class shame regarding convict ancestry.  This can be associated with the shift from British to US imperial alliance, and to the increased power of manufacturing capital over mining and agricultural capital in the period 1940–1988.  Irving and Connell on Australian class might be useful here.  Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a member of the US Congress and a state officer or representative at the same time?
From what I can tell based on Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution, a Congressman isn't allowed to accept an executive position that was created or whose compensation was increased during his term. He also must resign from Congress if he holds "another office under the United States". Now, my question is whether it's possible for someone to be both a member of the United States Congress and a member of a state legislature or hold a state office (such as governor) at the same time. I can't easily find anything in the constitution that prohibits it. So, is it allowed? Has it happened? sebmol (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is matter of state law, see Minnesota as an example: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/comptoff.pdf. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This practice is called dual office-holding. It is, as Medeis mentioned, a matter of state law (either constitutional, as is the case of Texas an Pennsylvania, or statutory). The National Conference of State Legislatures has a handy chart with a summary and an extensive list of each state's laws on holding two state offices at the same time, or a state office and a municipal office, or a state office and a federal office. No sensible person would really want to be governor or a member of the state legislature and a member of Congress at the same time, because the legislative sessions will overlap and a person can only be in one capital at a time. As to whether it has ever happened before: Many states make a variety of exceptions to their dual office-holding review for non-elected "state officers" such as notaries, attorneys-at-law (they are often considered officers of the court), justices of the peace, members of state constitution conventions, and officers of the state militia. Some members of Congress have simultaneously served in those state offices, although they aren't elected. Dual office-holding was much more prevalent in the early republic than it is today; members of state legislatures were sent as delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, for example, in 1819, Roger Skinner was simultaneously a federal judge, state senator, and member of the Council of Appointment; New York passed a law prohibiting holding multiple offices shortly afterward. Neutralitytalk 05:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your thorough answers. sebmol (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevant article seems to be Dual mandate. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that federal laws could also prevent holding national office while holding a state office, but don't. Also, related to this is the problem of people holding state office while running for a federal office, which often makes them unable to perform their full duties in the state office.  Some people resign to run, but others do not. StuRat (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * People have said the same thing about holding federal office while running for president. Googlemeister (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Largest economy with no loans
What is the largest economy that doesn't owe any other government/state any money in loans, bonds, etc.? (BTW, I'm not a financial guy really, so if I've oversimplified or used the wrong terms, take it easy on me) Dismas |(talk) 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are not many countries with 0 debt. See here for a list of countries by external debt. I'll say it's Norway. Quest09 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is, people confuse having debt to being in debt. Having debt is common and normal way to do business.  As long as your assets exceed your liabilities, however, you are not in trouble.  Take China for example; I believe they are in the black in terms of sovereign debt; that is they are a creditor nation; they own more of other countries sovereign debt than they have debt of their own.  But that doesn't mean that they don't ever have their own debt.  People, after all, can have a credit card and still have a net positive income every month.  As long as your debt is used to purchase things of more earning potential than the interest on the debt; that is called investing.  -- Jayron  32  23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are Chinese and Norwegian bonds. Vatican City doesn't appear to issue them, maybe a few other tiny states(?), but those are probably about the only exceptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The zero-entry there was almost certainly vandalism; in fact, that list is edited so much that I would be reluctant to trust any given number on it. Norwegian external debt is 3.5 billion NOK; 600m NOK is government debt and the remainder is corporate/private. Shimgray | talk | 22:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I found one glaring error, compounded by an error in the source article. The table lists Hong Kong as tied for 16th place for the largest public debt in 2010. The source article has nothing about debt at all, although Economy of Hong Kong does. In the sidebar, gross external debt is listed at $78.84 billion as an end-2008 data point. The text, however, quite correctly points out that Hong Kong has “virtually no public debt.”

Government debt HK$11,227.5 million (US$1.44 billion; June 30, 2011) [] That works out to 0.001% of 2010 nominal GDP. And, for an economy of US$225 billion, that certainly qualifies for consideration. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but if 1.44 billion was .001%, wouldn't that mean the total was 14.4 trillion? Or is this comparing HK debt to US debt?  Googlemeister (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)