Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 25

= September 25 =

Thucydides on religion
According to Thucydides, Peter Green claimed "Religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too." Did Thucydides ever claim this in his history of the Peloponnesian War, or is this Green making up feminist bullshit? I know that Thucydides was an atheistic and objective historian, at least compared to Herodotus, but is there any evidence that Thucydides (or any other Athenian) considered religion to be women's business, or that he discarded it for that reason? Was it even true that Athenian women were more religious than men? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what such a statement would be referring to. There were certain private women-only celebrations such as the Thesmophoria, but the public ceremonial rituals seem to have been dominated by men... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Religion" and "women" aren't in the index of my library's copy of The History of the Peloponnesian War, nor are they mentioned on Thucydides's Wikiquote page. Green's source for this claim is unclear, so I'd take it with a grain of salt. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Feminist bullshit"? sounds like the opposite of feminist to me. Green is clearly editorialising a little here but he adding up some of the significant facts about the work to depict a plausible view of Thucydides' opinions. In the hundreds of pages of the War and the many years depicted, he hardly mentions either women or religion. As you say this comes across as atheistic compared to Herodotus. He tends to avoid superstitions about things like fate, seen in similar works, and finds practical reasons for events. One of the very few women mentioned more than a name is Chrysis (priestess) who ran away after being a klutz. This is an odd little gossipy diversion from his usual rigorous style and it is speculated it had some extra meaning, perhaps an attack on a fellow historian or a general laugh at foolish women and religion. This is probably what Green is basing his characterisation of Thucydides on as there is very little other detail of his life and views other than his book.
 * As to women's actual role in Athens and religion, we don't know very clearly and indeed Pericles' Funeral Oration at least partly edited if not wholly written by Thucydides says "the greatest glory of a woman is to be least talked about by men". It is know they were mostly confined to their houses and one of the few outlets they had in the public sphere was in religious ceremonies so they probably did have a greater involvement than men. That is not to say men did not involve themselves in religion and records of purchased priesthood ranks show buying a male priest's job was always more. Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion by Matthew Dillion is the work to read on this subject.  meltBanana  00:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * From The World of Athens by JACT, p.86: "Since there were female and male gods, there were also male and female priests." Obviously they are implying the genders were paired to those of the gods for worship. I don't know if it was universal throughout Greek religion, however. Just thought I'd share the quote, and maybe someone can add to it. IBE (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's commonly observed that women are more religious than men across religions, nationalities and times (the reasons for this are disputed, and the link is chosen merely as an illustration of the observation) - although the hierarchy of organised religions are usually male or male-dominated, the rank-and-file believers and worshippers skew female. Perhaps Green is simply assuming that's true of Greece at the time of the Peloponnesian War. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Question on history of aviation
In the history of aviation, when was enclosed cockpits begin to be implemented for heavier-than-air airplanes? K61824 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to cockpit, it was the Avro Type F in 1912, though open cockpit aircraft were used alongside closed cockpit models for some time. -- Jayron  32  02:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Sikorsky Ilya Muromets of 1913 was another early aircraft with an enclosed cockpit and the first to have an on-board toilet. Military aircraft kept the open cockpit much longer; the Fairey Swordfish outlived its closed cockpit successor, the Fairey Albacore, and was still in combat service in 1944. Alansplodge (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A new or an old social class?
If you look at people with a huge negative net worth, who are tied to their house (+mortgage) but are formally free to go where they wanted (but just can't go anywhere); do they resemble a past social class, some medieval peasants, who were in the same situation? Is there a name for that? (that = free but tied to some place). Is any sociologist already studying them? OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does wage slavery work for you: people who are legally free to move about, but whose financial situation prevents them from doing so? Also related is company town, whereby people who live in an ostensibly free society have their lives so dominated by their employers that they are functionally tied to the company.  The agricultural equivalent of that is the sharecropper.  There are many situations where people's freedom is restricted as though they were legally slaves, excepting that slavery is completely illegal, as the economics of their lives is so totally dictated by their employment as to prevent any social or physical mobility at all.  I think I've given some examples.  In some ways, the medeival system of serfdom is related, but I think in those situations there were real legal restrictions placed on serfs by the state.  Is this sort of stuff what you are looking for?  Fifelfoo will be along shortly to explain this using obscure Marxist jargon.  -- Jayron  32  16:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a debt and not being able to do anything else until you are free of that debt? Indentured servant and Corvée might have something to do with this.  Astronaut (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How are you tied to your house by a mortgage? If you want to go somewhere else and live there, that's fine.  If you no longer want the house, that can usually be negotiated if you agree to pay a penalty.  If you really can't pay the mortgage under any circumstances, bankruptcy is an option.  Even if you outright refuse to pay the mortgage and ignore the lawsuit, the most that will happen is that your assets or earnings will be seized to pay the debt, which is nothing like serfdom.  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, people are also tied to a social standing, and may be unwilling to accept the consequences for a course of action, and so may remain in a situation which they don't want to because they want the alternatives less. If your only two choices are "I can kick you in the teeth, or I can poke you in the eyes.  One of these two will happen: choose now!", many people would not consider that choice a form of freedom: You're going to get hurt pretty bad either way, and the choice is a non-choice in that regard.  With people like the OP is refering to, they are often faced with being stuck in a house which they don't want to leave becuase they are "underwater" and cannot possibly sell the house to cover the outstanding bill on the mortgage (the kick to the teeth), but the only way out is to declare bankruptcy and completely ruin their credit to the point that they can't buy a similarly sized house again, thus would lose the lifestyle they have become dependent on (the poke in the eye).  For many people, there is no real freedom here, because there is no availible choice which allows a way "out" of a bad situation in a satisfactory manner.  Legally, they have the right to sell or declare bankruptcy or move anywhere they want; but they are restricted by their economics and their social situation.  I think that is what the OP is talking about here.  -- Jayron  32  18:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Negative equity "traps" many people (listen). However, perhaps "trap" is too strong a word.  You can still move if you want, but must be prepared to take a loss and possibly remain in debt to the mortgage company even though you no longer own the house.  Without an asset to back up your remaining loan, the mortgage lender could then call in the loan.  For this reason, many people in negative equity prefer to keep the house in the hope that the housing market will improve, but then have to turn down work if it is too far away.  Astronaut (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * the OP said :huge negative net worth.
 * Yes, very much so. Since ancient Egyptian times,  economic  cycles have been recorded when the very wealthy have become  the Nouveau poor. This cycle have been repeated into modern times. Within living memory, many Gentile families in the 1930's found them selves 'financially embarrassed'   when their investments went Pear-shaped. Please Note: they did not become 'poor'  but simply 'financially embarrassed'  because poor people (as everybody knows) only have themselves to blame for their plight but the [Nouveau poor] also have  somebody else to blame – as always. Fortunately, in this  present and more enlightened age,  the Government is now  willing to step -in and divert taxes from the poor (who are too stupid to know   what to do with their money) and bail out the more worthy who have fallen on bad times due to no fault  of their own, other than a having a health appetite for greed during the good times. After all, if these oligarchs are not helped through these difficult times -that we all find ourself in-  how are the going to lead us to the promised land, where their wealth (in the next economic boom)  will drizzle  down to us  like Niagara Falls in a flood ? Or like dew on the morning grass if-it-don't-rain -like in the last 4,500 years or more. --Aspro (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the sentiment, but that probably could have been said with less snark. We're supposed to be presenting links to references, either within Wikipedia or outside of it, and not necessarily presenting a political argument one way or another for the benefits or liabilities of any one particular economic system. And doubly so in the tone we take when presenting what we have to say.  -- Jayron  32  20:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * People have been telling me that Debt: The First 5000 Years is a very good book related to this topic. I haven't looked at it yet but I plan to do so sometime. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To pre-empt Fifelfoo on the Marxist analysis, people in negative equity don't constitute a class in their own right but are part of the working class aka proletariat. In fact they are not the most exploited fraction of that class but are what are (sloppily) called the "squeezed middle". As already pointed out, they do have some choices, probably more than those who have never got on the "housing ladder" in the first place. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They might have better choices than the 'always poor', but, if everything else is equal, it's still better to have $0 than to have -$500.000, which is the case here. And I'm not sure there is a "squeezed middle" in Marxist theory. I don't believe most sociologists/philosophers/economists thought at a society with so many social classes, with so many aspects as modern societies. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Being $50 million in debt might not be that bad a deal. It means you have some characteristic that got your hands onto $50 million so you could lose it in the first place, so maybe you can do the same thing again.  That approach seems to work for any number of Wall Street guys and the like.  By comparison, if you have $0, you are just a sad sack. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When is Fifelfoo with his Marxist explanation coming? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right about now, though I will note the value of Itsmejudith's contribution from a Marxist perspective. Negative net worth is a phenomena that only exists in capitalism.  In prior societies people in debt could merely kill the people they owed money to.  Sovereign defaults have been rife, where the monarch was capable of threatening or executing those who they were in debt to.  In later years merely threatening a partial default was sufficient, rather than murdering them.  Lesser nobles also conducted this—debt payments were as regular as the threat of witholding of future credit made them.  So negative net worth should only be discussed in relation to "advanced" societies of the last 400 years or so.  (Societies prior to feudalism also had concepts of a similar nature, especially Roman commercial law, see attempts to enslave citizens for which the sharecropper metaphor is relevant.)  Let us consider the classes in capitalism, and who could be in negative net worth (hint: all of them.)
 * When the bourgeoisie is in negative net worth it is in a relationship with other capitalists as finance capital they become bankrupt and any capital goods or commodities they possess are seized and distributed amongst their creditors. This is relatively standard and you see it all the time, including for corporate persons.  (the unpaid wages come way down the list of creditors whose debts get paid)
 * When the petits-bourgeois is in negative net worth, often it is in a power relationship with capital proper. Often it is more in the interests of capitalists to allow small business to operate, see share cropping or Brecht's Three penny novel.  Often chain store franchisees feel this, and it reminds me strongly of patronage and the patron systems.  Again, ancient Rome's commercial law is relevant, as is the dispossession of free peasants in feudalism.  One bad year.
 * We can consider the modern peasantry as simply the petit-bourgeois or the lumpen proletariat, Emile Zola's Earth is a useful discussion of this pain.
 * The proletariat regularly goes through debt cycles. Some are basic and related to day to day expenses—the lumpenproletariat often experiences this kind of negative net worth, got any money for Heroin?.  Often the proles can skip the rent, stuff the small store creditors, and shift town.  However, as Itsmejudith points out, some workers have sunk costs in immobile commodities, like housing mortgages, "skills" that are only in demand in particular locations, a culture or society they don't wish to leave.  The bondage here in relation to net worth seems new to me.  Unlike sharecroppers, the house isn't productive capital (never mind the Autonomists who think of the wage labouring household as a producer of labour power).  In some ways the fixity is similar to the problem of medieval free peasants.  The other kinds of bondage seem to be preferences or bonded labour.  I prefer to live within 30 minutes bicycle commute of where I work.  The number and variety of jobs open to me in 2012 is far fewer than the number of jobs and variety that would be open to me (anachronistic as hell) in 1950s Australia.
 * Finally some people see a Professional-managerial class existing in capitalism. These people are liable to negative net worth and seem to behave more like the richer proletarians.
 * So the answer is: negative net worth is a common feature across all classes in capitalism, there are some useful metaphors relating to previous classes—in particular enslavement of citizens in slave societies and the patronage system in agricultural societies such as feudalism. But, as Itsmejudith notes, the largest class in capitalism is the proletariat, so the proletarian experience here can often become definitive of people's understandings of what happens when negative net worth situations arise  (stuff the dominant ideology hypothesis).  I hope this gives you enough things to inquire into in relation to Marxist views of negative net worth and class? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Osman, it seems to me that you've made a basic oversight: why are you tied to living in a certain place just because you own a residence there and have a big mortgage on it? I've known plenty of people who resolved this kind of situation by renting the property to someone else while they were gone.  Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What if rent doesn't cover the mortgage? You still lose money all the time, and if you're already deep in debt, you will simply go deeper in debt... -- Jayron  32  02:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was talking about one of those properties of the bubble, which lost maybe 50% and still no one wants them. Moving out is not possible, since you'll still have to pay the mortgage. Declaring bankrupcy is sometimes not possible. Just imagine you have a small business which reports $1000/months, you'll lose it and be in a even worse situation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where I live, rent is twice mortgage, but a mortgage should be paid off in 30 years. So compare starting at 20, living to 80, saving for ten years for a mortgage, then paying it off, then not having housing costs for access to housing at: 10x + 30*2x + 20*0x = 70x versus renting for life as 60x but having to move every 2 years because landlords (where I live) are nasty arseholes.  Many people say, that at the end of their live they will possess about 30x worth of assets whereas a renter for life will possess 0x worth of assets.  YMMV, realestate agents, landlords and mortgage banks are all evil bastards. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speculators and bubble properties that can't be sold for the purchase price didn't occur to me; I thought you were asking about people who buy bigger-than-necessary houses that they can't really afford, but that aren't so massive that renting is abnormally hard. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In some places, like Spain, you cannot just give the appartment back to the bank, you'll still owe the mortgage after it is sold at a public auction after a foreclosure. And you cannot file for bankrupcy, since that doesn't cover mortgage debt. Indeed, there's no way of getting rid of a mortgage without paying it, or finding another person that buys the appartment from you and pays the whole mortgage (which is increasingly difficult with prices falling and all). That's the more dramatic scenario of debt slavery, you are stuck with your appartment, cannot move to another city even if you find a job. 80.31.74.108 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Embassy premises sharing
Canada recently announced that it will share some embassies with the United Kingdom; what other countries do that? I'm pretty sure the diplomatic mission of the U.S in Cuba is housed in the Swiss embassy. Eisenikov (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Cuba example is something slightly different; the Swiss embassy acting for the US because the US has no relations with Cuba. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Diplomatic mission gives an overview of some situations like that. Current Google searches for "embassy sharing" are clogged with news stories about Canada, but I also found this news item from 2009 about Central European countries sharing embassies. Again, it seems to be about cost-cutting. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to, NZ colocates with the UK in Kabul. Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful with terminology. The embassy is the people, rather than the building. So, the situation with the US in Cuba is actually the Swiss embassy providing consular services for Americans. That is different to, for example, the Embassy of Ecuador, London (where Assange is), which shares a building with another embassy (I can't remember which country and Google is letting me down...), but the two embassies (ie. the people) are completely separate. --Tango (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So what happens when two countries that share an embassy, then one of them falls out of favour with the host country (or fall out of favour with each other)? Astronaut (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The embassy (people) go home. The embassy (building) is (partially) empty and/or gets a new tenant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You need a lot more than "falling out of favour" before you break off diplomatic relations. Even if you withdraw your ambassador, there will still be more junior members of the mission there. To completely withdraw an embassy you need to be practically on the verge of war (eg. the US has formal relations with pretty much everywhere except Iran, Cuba and North Korea, I think, and those are all countries it has been at war (or had proxy wars) with in the last few decades - it can take a long time for relations to fully recover). --Tango (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The other embassy in 3 Hans Crescent is the Colombian one. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an example from Warsaw: the embassies of Cuba, Ecuador, India, Mongolia, Uruguay, and Venezuela occupy various floors of this drab office tower at Rejtana 15, which they share with private businesses on other floors.
 * For cases like the one mentioned above of Switzerland representing U.S. interests in Cuba, see protecting power. It's a somewhat amusing name, as it's often smaller countries that act as "protecting powers" of powerful empires. My country, Poland, for example, used to act as the protecting power for the United States in Iraq and, more recently, in Syria. — Kpalion(talk) 07:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments. the common name for an embassy building is a chancery. There is a difference between various Embassies renting out premises in a single office building (a common thing, as in the Warsaw example above, which does not imply any particular cooperation between the various tenants), and two countries operating out of a shared chancery (much more rare). It is relatively common for one country to host a diplomat from another country in its chancery, but this is more akin to the first case (the Bordurian diplomat is "renting" an office in the Syldavian Embassy to Absurdistan, for example). A shared Embassy would be more along the line of two distinct embassies using a single chancery; you would have two Ambassadors and discrete diplomatic staff, but some shared services (such as drivers, administrative assistants, etc). I know that Germany and the UK used to share an Embassy along those lines in Kazakhstan when that country first became independent, but they may well have moved to separate premises in the last two decades. By the way, it's not clear that the Canadian/UK proposal is for anything that drastic; it looks to be more along the line of a British diplomat operating out of the Canadian chancery in some country where the UK does not have an Embassy, and vice-versa. --Xuxl (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is something you are interested in, but under the Maastricht treaty, EU members' embassies are required to give consular assistance to citizens of other EU members if their own government has no diplomatic presence in the country (see European citizenship). The Commonwealth of Nations has a similar agreement - there are probably other examples of this. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To link to the previous comment, I have heard that people from the UK can seek help at both Australian and Canadian embasses (e.g. if they lose their passports), if, for whatever reason they can't get to the UK embassy. Similarly, Canadians and Australians can go to the UK embassy. I guess this has to do with the mentioned agreement amongst the Commonwealth states.
 * As for embassies sharing buildings, I immediately thought of the Nordic Embassies in Berlin. V85 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the Embassy of Iceland in London is located in the same building as the Danish Embassy. In the picture, you can see the main entrance on the front of the building being that of the Danish Embassy, while the Icelandic embassy is on the side nearest the photographer.
 * However, as Xuxl points out, the similar location of these embassies, might not imply any great cooperation between the states sharing a location. Given that a lot of what embassies deal with is classified information, embassies might not be too keen on foreign diplomats snooping around the office and 'accidentally' coming across state secrets. I don't know exactly how the UK and Canada are planning to 'share' embassies, but from what I have read just now, it seems to be a case of either country 'hosting' the other country's diplmats in their embassies in Haiti and Burma. If there is further integration, I would guess it would be something akin to a co-location, i.e. the embassies are in the same place, but operate independently of each other. V85 (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the prevalence of full embassies (missions to the host country's capital) sharing a single building or space, the following example seems instructive here: List of diplomatic missions in Boston. Sorting by address will make clear that various nations' consulates often occupy the same building (though obviously not the same particular office space).  To whatever extent a city has many diplomatic missions, it may make sense to house many of them in a diplomatic quarter or neighborhood. Sharing some buildings is simply the next logical step. It was a wise decision to separate Greece and Turkey by several blocks and the entire Public Garden, with Cyprus across the river entirely.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  18:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

When Iraq and Syria didn't have diplomatic relations, there was a period when there was a Iraqi representation office inside the Algerian embassy in Damascus. --Soman (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)