Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 6

= October 6 =

Abraham Lincoln and African American colonization policy
There is debate when Abraham Lincoln actually gave up his colonization plan of the Freedmen. The common assumption is that Lincoln gave up this policy in 1863. Did President Lincoln ever give up on his colonization program for African American Freedmen? Here is a source: Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that Lincoln toyed with the idea at various times in his life from the 1840s on, without ever really having any great confidence or high hopes that it would turn out to be feasible on the massive scale which would be needed to have a real impact... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern was President Lincoln's actual policy. He did have an colonization policy effective in his administration.  The question is how extensive was this "emigration" policy during and after 1863. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln was certainly influenced by the fact that his political hero Henry Clay was a strong advocate of colonization, and he tended to think that it would be be a good idea if practically workable -- but he also tended to have significant doubts about whether it was in fact practically workable. What Wikipedia has is at American_Colonization_Society and Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery.  There were some general favorable public statements, and certain small-scale experiments (mostly unsuccessful, it seems), but a truly serious colonization plan would have tied up significant elements of the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. merchant shipping for years, so that large areas of Africa or Central America could have been made somewhat safe for the immigration of U.S. blacks, who would then be transported in their hundreds of thousands along with necessary farming implements, etc.  What evidence is there that Lincoln was preparing the U.S. public for this, or that anyone in the U.S. government was seriously planning for it? AnonMoos (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That depends how "serious" is defined in terms of governmental colonization. Obviously President Lincoln was serious concerning colonization, since African Americans were colonized by President Lincoln.  The real question behind colonization whether Lincoln had views that blacks and whites could not live together.  This was Thomas Jefferson's, the arch southern conservative's point of view.  Lincoln was from the South. Remember Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. Colonization is controversial because the Great Emancipator wanted to get blacks out of the country that he may have believed was just for whites.  Lincoln's colonization policy was based on humanitarianism towards African Americans and his views in limited suffrage for African Americans.  Lincoln, as far as I know never advocated that all blacks be given citizenship and voting rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As has been discussed here before, saying "Lincoln was from the South" as a simple blanket statement could have rather misleading implications. Lincoln left Kentucky (an "upper south" or "border" state) as a small child, and had  extended family ties in the 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 daily lives.  Lincoln hated slavery, and was willing to say so very publicly on a number of occasions from 1837 on, which strongly differentiates him from Thomas Jefferson.  Lincoln thought that blacks had natural rights, and that their interests needed to be considered and slavery slowly phased out, but he was far from enthusiastic about granting full political and social equality to them, or opening the door to the dreaded "amalgamation" -- which placed him into the moderate progressive (NOT "conservative") camp in the context of the United States in the 1840s-1850s.  It's useless to blame Lincoln for not being a thoroughly-consistent 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.  Meanwhile, a truly serious colonization policy (as opposed to rhetoric which was not backed up by anything except tentative small-scale experiments) would have involved using the U.S. military to clear a huge empire in the tropics, and elaborate logistical preparations for transporting about 4 million U.S. Blacks to this empire... AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln was a civil rights President in the 19th Century. Lincoln married into a slave holding family and received profit from the sale of his father-in-laws slaves after his father-in-law died. He had ties to Kentucky, even while he was President. I am not here to argue concerning Lincoln's general view of slavery. My question is whether Lincoln gave up on his emigration policy, minor or major by 1865.  I can't find any evidence that he did and if he had remained President would he have launched a full scale emigration policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, what would be considered basic justice today was a radical position in the 1840s-1850s, and though Lincoln was publicly hostile to slavery, he wasn't a radical (until he was eventually led to it by the logic of what was needed to win the war). Meanwhile, I don't know that anybody in the U.S. government was seriously planning to create a mega-Liberia, and not having any intention to create a mega-Liberia meant that there was not much realistic possibility of colonization being carried out on the scale that would be needed to significantly diminish the black population in the U.S. AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * President Johnson, Lincoln's predecesor, as far as I know never attempted to start a colonization plan, and he was much more conservative then President Lincoln. That would mean Lincoln believed in colonization, but just did not find the application of the program practical. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal action for using a name?
No, not a request for legal advice. Read the final section of the "Production" section of "The Principal and the Pauper", an episode of The Simpsons — one of the show's writers gave a character the name of an obscure insurance adjuster, and when the adjuster learned that his name had been used and contacted the writer, the writer feared legal action, although none ended up happening. How could anyone possibly have grounds for legal action just because his/her name was used in a TV show and not in reference to him/her? Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Defamation. That's why fictional presentations often include the disclaimer that any resemblance to real people is purely coincidental. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also the second group of responses at Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 July 10, as well as The Girl in a Swing. Deor (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never heard that story, but in a later Simpsons episode, Homer changes his name to Max Power after seeing a Homer Simpson on a tv show (the episode is Homer to the Max). Our article doesn't say if the two incidents are related though. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Likely, the suit would be for invasion of privacy: misappropriation of name or likeness and violation of right to publicity. Defamation would not likely occur unless the plaintiff could show the utterance of an untrue statement that tended to have the effect of deameaning that person's reputation or character.  To see how this works, see Johnny Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983).  Most law school tort classes do not get to privacy and defamation torts, but they could appear on most states' bar exams.  Tom Waits successfully sued Fritos for using a singer with a similar voice as his and Crispin Glover sued Universal for putting make-up on Jeffrey Weissman to make him look exactly like him. Gx872op (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's probably a personality rights issue lurking here too. Neutralitytalk 09:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs great mistakes???
Recently, reading the German press (welt.de) I obviously came across an article about Steve Jobs, but about his great mistakes (!). What is the point of focusing on his mistakes when he has recently died? Is Steve Job not specially liked there or something? Wikiweek (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you certain the article was written AFTER he died? Even if it was, Steve Jobs is considered by many people to be a religious leader. As with any religious leader, there is a strong interest in making him human by showing his mistakes. -- k a i n a w &trade; 13:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it looks like the article was written before (it requires some research), but published at the home page after his death, and due to his death. Wikiweek (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Normally, many news are written anticipating some event like a death, and normally published after it, but not always. There are a good number of cases when famous people were declared dead too soon. Quest09 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I read the article (or maybe a similar one) which was a front-page link on a high traffic website like CNN. I did not at all see the article as disrespectful, but as inspirational:  "Look, Steve Jobs made this list of mistakes, but he kept driving onward on his goals and dreams and in the end he triumphed."  Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's been compared to Thomas Edison, and Edison made plenty of mistakes. Nobody's perfect. Apple made just one mistake - dumping Steve Jobs. They eventually fixed that one. And it remains to be seen whether Apple finds another visionary, or if it falls into the hands of beancounters and eventually gets swallowed up by another company. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Apple has made many mistakes over time. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Their more fundamental mistake is their whole "closed" approach to OS and hardware. Of course here by "mistake" I mean more "something I don't like" rather than "something not good for their stock price"; it's quite possible that it has been good for their stock price.
 * While we're at it, I don't like their user interface either. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit that Bash is an acquired taste, but all the tcsh goodness is only one chsh away... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Things did get somewhat better with OS X. Now when I have to help my mom with her mac, at least I can get a terminal and use command-line tools.  But I just don't like the graphical part of the interface.  Sure, it's pretty, but I can never find the app I'm looking for, and when I do find it, I have to first bring it into focus on one part of the screen, and then use the menu commands in a completely different part. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The Mac OS UI is far superior to the Windows UI.  Not a matter of opinion, one of fact. --Viennese Waltz 19:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with making a dogmatic statement such as your ""Not a matter of opinion, one of fact", VW, is that anyone with any sense reading it will grok that you just do not have a clue. It's simply self-defeating tosh. The "superiority" of a UI is always going to have reference to the context and circumstances of use and will for that reason always be a value judgement. So. Sorry about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about Windows? --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. All right, I'll rephrase for your benefit.  You are still wrong; it is not hard to find an app in the Mac OS GUI. I don't know what you mean about different parts of the screen. --Viennese Waltz 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is easy for you. That does not mean it is easy for anyone else. For me, if I want to surf the web, I type lynx, press enter. There it is. If I want to open my text editor, I type nan, press enter. There it is. If I want to check my email, I type pin, press tab, press enter. There it is. That is very easy to me. All that wiggling around with the mouse is hard and confusing and I don't like it one bit. Because of my work, I have to sit in front of a computer about 10 hours a day. I probably use a mouse about 5 minutes of the day. So, I really despise the Mac UI. If you can make it easy to press a single key and give me a command prompt, I'd be happy with it. -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not comparing like with like. You can't compare a GUI with a command line interface, nor can you denounce the Mac GUI for not being command line without simultaneously denouncing the Windows GUI.  As hinted at above, what I'm interested in is comparing the Mac GUI with the Windows GUI.  --Viennese Waltz 19:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But, nobody mentioned Windows. A person who obviously uses the command prompt stated that he didn't like using the Mac GUI. You jumped in to denounce Windows with no apparent provocation. Now, you state that your sole reason to complain is to denounce Windows. In my opinion, that is no different than suddenly jumping in here and complaining that lima beans taste terrible so they should be removed from school lunches! It is off topic and unwarranted - even if it is entirely true. -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Trovatore's point was to compare Mac OS with command prompt, though. I hope he comes back to clarify his position, but the words "I don't like their user interface" (italics mine) sound pretty much like a criticism of the Mac's version of GUI, not of GUIs in general.  As for "off topic", I like going off topic. --Viennese Waltz 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * VW, when someone says they don't like something because they find it hard to use, telling them they're wrong is the worst possible response. No matter how easy you may find it, the fact is they find it hard, or did at the time of writing.  Saying they're wrong is just like telling them they're lying, or that the experience that are actually having is the wrong experience, and a whole part of their life is the wrong life.  Explain to to your heart's content; definitely show them a better way of approaching it or of thinking about it - but please never deny another person's experience.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed while this behaviour isn't in anyway unique to those who prefer Macs, it does seem to be a common experience whenever anyone criticises Macs (or anything Apple) and is one of the things which gives Mac (and Apple product) users a bad reputation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's too bad the Apple products, with all their push-button and mouse stuff, don't include an insurance policy to cover the arthritic fingers that stuff is going to eventually cause. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (Because of the context, maybe I should clarify: I'm not remotely a fan of Macintosh. I am, however, a fan of Steve Jobs.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We learn from our mistakes, especially our own. Sleigh (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to thank my parents, especially my mother and my father. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kainaw that lima beans taste horrible and should be removed from school lunches. μηδείς (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that school lunches should taste better, but also, be healthier. Comments? Public awareness (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was Steve Jobs responsible for apples at school lunches? -- Jayron  32  04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Shuddup and eat your veggies!--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethics regarding publicly traded corporations
Has anything serious (i.e. not activist ramblings) been written on the concept of a conflict of interest in publicly traded companies on the prioritization of shareholders and consumers? They're both "customers" in a broad sense. The impression I've gotten over the years is that shareholder interests are always placed above consumer interests, but is this an intentional choice taught in business schools? Again, I'm looking for what are, in essence WP:RS type documents - I'm not writing an article, but I don't want a debate, just useful resources. SDY (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Shareholders must be prioritized over consumers because every corporate board of directors (who appoints the CEO and thus controls the company) has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. This is a matter of law.  They owe no such duty to consumers at all; so this isn't just an arbitrary choice to teach in business school.  That said, I remember a quote which I haven't found yet from, I think, an IBM executive, summarizing:  "Shareholder satisfaction and customer satisfaction are the twin goals of any manager."  (While searching for the quote, I did find this paper that contrasted the two philosophies.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that paper is exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for. I'm not sure I agree with it 100%, but it raises the right kinds of questions and brings up the right kinds of ideas.  SDY (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that while there may be no fiduciary duty to their consumers, many companies do have legal obligations to existing consumers (i.e. people who have purchased their products or services). Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Shareholders are not "customers" in any sense. Shareholders are the owners of the company. Wikiant (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the consumers aren't happy, then they won't buy from the company, and ultimately that will make the shareholders unhappy too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If your dog's not happy, it will chew up your furniture, and ultimately that will make you unhappy too. That doesn't make you a dog. Wikiant (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your comment was indented under mine, so I assumed you were making a counterargument. Wikiant (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confused, is the dog supposed to be customers, the furniture the company and the human the shareholders? Googlemeister (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Corporate social responsibility Public awareness (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also useful might be business ethics and stakeholder; both have references you could follow up. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Image identification
Can anybody make out the numbers of this image? It's not always from left to right since a similiar image has number 1 in the center. Also can anybody identified who the No. 2 figure.
 * With 20/20 vision, I cannot make out anything but three smugges in the first photo, and for the second photo it appears to me to go 1,1,3. Perhaps someone out there has a good photo englarging program? Public awareness (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the source image (linked to from the image page) and zoomed in, and the leftmost one sort of looks like a "1", but I cannot make out the other two. The source image is a pretty crappily compressed JPEG image; unfortunately they didn't choose to scan it at a higher resolution or use better JPEG compression or use a format like PNG that doesn't use lossy compression.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Going to the original source image, the numbers are unreadable. Has the OP looked for this image elsewhere on the internet? Maybe someone would have scanned it larger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a version of your picture which appears to have the actual names, and not simply numbers, below them. Maybe your eyes are good enough to see which of those names looks like Keohoua femme du chef Kairoua. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This slightly sharper version of the above makes it look like the one in the center is Keohoua, to me (the first letter of that one looks the same as the first letter of the one on the right, who I assume we're both assuming is Kamahamarou because of the word length/frequency). Also available from that website is the same image in an Ichabod Crane variation. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Country Where Speeding Ticket Fine Amount Depends on How Much You Make
I heard on NPR one time about a very rich business owner getting a speeding ticket somewhere in Europe where the law was such that the fine for speeding tickets was proportional to one's income, and that this guy's ticket was the monetary equivalent of almost $200,000 US. Who can find a source where I can read more about this? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Finland. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You would think that would make the cops more susceptible to instances where they might take a bribe. I mean in the US, you can often talk your way out for free, let alone if you offered $10,000 (not that anyone would since I can't imagine a pure speeding fine to exceed $1,000).  Googlemeister (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Finland is also frequently found at the top of least-corrupted country lists, so that's not usually a problem either. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Even in the United States, offering a bribe to a cop is a very risky business. If your cop happens to be honest (and many if not most cops in the United States are), you could find yourself facing prosecution for the attempt at bribery.  Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is not worth the risk for a couple hundred bucks, but if you were looking at $200,000 it would probably be a much higher return to risk ratio. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Though if that's the scaled fine for speeding, I wonder what the scaled charge for bribery would be? ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably you talk in euphemisms, like asking the cop, "Can we take care of it here?" If he says Yes, then he's willing to take a bribe. If he says No, then you have to do it the normal way. Note that I'm talking hypothetically here. I still say the safer way is to have your driver do your driving for you, just in case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oddly, the one time I got pulled over in Indiana, the cop showed me his credit card accepting machine in the cop car and wanted to know if I wanted to take care of it there. I probably looked at him funny for the use of this time honored phrase that Bugs quoted, and declined to take care of it there.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Switzerland too I was actually going to ask a question about these progressive fines myself today, funny, though my question was different so I will make my own section in a bit. Public awareness (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe they would get around it by having their chauffers do their speeding for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't work on a Harley... Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the income related fine and suspended sentence of the man convicted for the killing of Kirsty MacColl in a boat accident. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the fines for traffic violations in Germany depend on your income as well... the idea is to make the penalty for breaking the traffic laws hurt, so you don't do it again. If you earn a million Euros a year, a 200 Euro fine won't really hurt.  A 100,000 Euro fine might.  More than one, and you will definitely feel the pinch. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In Germany, it depends. If you commit a crime when driving (like drunk driving, and surpassing some speed threshold) you get maybe 90 days jail or 90 days salary (whatever you want). Obviously, most people will choose the monetary fine. Wikiweek (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm so late, but of course, we have an article on this. And it's not just for traffic violations, it's the basic system of determining the size of a fine in Finnish law.--Rallette (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a minimum fine? I mean if you are currently unemployed, you have no income, but you could be living off of savings for a while.  I wouldn't expect they let you off for free.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you replying to Wikiweek or Rallette? Your indenting is confusing. Anyway if it's the later, um did you read the article? It says "The minimum amount of a day-fine is 6 euros" and a bunch of other things like "For speeding in traffic, however, the fine is at least as high as the petty fine, i.e. €115" Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In nations without proportional fines, it's just another way of saying the rich are beyond the law. That is, they don't ever receive a significant fine, so can do as they like on the roads, without fear of consequences.  On the other end, a poor person might not be able to pay the fine and increase in insurance, may lose their car as a result, and thus the job they can no longer get to, their home, and perhaps custody of their kids, as well.  StuRat (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure you can imagine the holes in that argument for yourself, StuRat. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, let's see:


 * 1) Passing a progressive fine would be difficult, due to opposition from the rich, which wield disproportionate political power. Direct democracy might be needed to fix this, as it removes representatives who can be bought.  Perhaps a "Proposition" might be the way to do an end-run around them, in the US.


 * 2) This would encourage police to target the rich to get their money. The cure for this is to remove the longstanding conflict of interest whereby the police benefit (indirectly) from fines they collect.  The fines could be donated to an out-of-state charity, instead.  Since the police are sure to object to this loss of revenue, another "Proposition" is needed.


 * 3) Establishing people's incomes would be difficult. Income tax forms could be used for most people, so they could send in a copy with their fine. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

S. N. Haleole
S. N. Hale'ole was a Hawaiian historian that lived from 1819 to 1865. Does anybody know what his two initials stand for?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A very thorough internet search has failed to turn up anything. Every reference to him only uses the S N initials. The only biography that I could read online is in the introduction to the 1918 translation of his "Laieikawai" which bluntly calls him plain "Haleole". I can only suggest that you try to get sight of a copy of "Na Kukui Pio 'Ole: The Inextinguishable Torches: Biographies of Three Early Native Hawaiian Scholars, Davida Malo, S.N. Hale'ole and S.M. Kamakau" by Malcolm Naca Chun. Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Business dealings-Ancient Rome
So, writing a book, and part of it is set in a company that runs trade ships in and out of Ostia, near Rome. Now, this business is mostly normal, typical, however, they are up to something else as well, something perhaps slightly illegal. One of my major characters happens to be an accountant there, and he comes across something whilst checking the accounts, something that seems very wrong. When he takes it to his boss, though, he is told it is none of his business, and just to leave it alone. And the plot follows on from there.

However, trouble is, I do not know precisely all the details of how such a company would function, what they would or would not be allowed to do, and so have no ideas at all what it is they could be doing that so upsets this accountant. So, I wondered if anyone here had any suggestions of illicit business activities this company could be operating. (If it makes any difference, the story is set in 250AD, in the time of Decius Augustus).

148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Modern companies form slowly as a new kind of institution between 1600 and 1850. Our page Roman commerce and this page and its bibliography ought to help. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's a shipping company, the obvious crime they could be committing is smuggling. I imagine a number of things were contraband, but one I know of is weapons. The Romans had superior weapons and depended on other armies not having them. If you could somehow skim off the top of some shipments of military equipment, you could make good money smuggling them to outside armies. APL (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What you need to do is research, read a few books and articles on the subject. You might start here, and the most promising looking I found Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History (American Academy in Rome: Memoirs). As a visual artist myself who sometimes does historical illustrations, it helps to immerse yourself in the subject a little, helps you to add little details that can bring life to a scene.  He  iro  23:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A few others Merchant vessels and maritime commerce in Roman times, The Maritime World of Ancient Rome  He  iro 23:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The article on Decius should generate a few ideas -- smuggling Christians or Christian stuff is an obvious possibility. Looie496 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that you need to do a fair bit of research. I think you will find that "companies" as such did not exist.  There were certainly shipping enterprises, but they tended to be proprietorships, perhaps with a small number of wealthy investors participating at arm's length.  Your accountant's boss would likely be the proprietor, the wealthy merchant who owned several ships, financed their construction or purchase and their voyages, and claimed the profits (though his investors might be entitled to a share of the profits).  Marco polo (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Forced abortion
If you beat up a pregnant woman (<3 months), and she loses her baby, what is that legally? Murder? Or is it like any injure? Quest09 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the jurisdiction. See feticide for a partial summary. --Trovatore (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unborn Victims of Violence Act, though this law is also putting pregnant women themselves in jail for murder if they do drugs, attempt suicide, or anything else which might affect the outcome of a pregnancy. Also, Born alive rule. Public awareness (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Article 153, section 1 of the Penal Code (Dz.U.97.88.553) says that "who, by using violence against a pregnant woman and/or in another way without her consent terminates her pregnancy, or through violence, unlawful threat and/or deception leads a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy, is subject to a penalty of deprivation of freedom from 6 months to 8 years" (my translation). The prison term for an unqualified murder ranges from 8 years to life. — Kpalion(talk) 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)