Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 1

= November 1 =

Aftermath of the Great Society
Today it is often said that the United States are polticially divided in conservative and liberal. Thinking about this, the theory that the Great Society program of President Johnson (a program I admire) is one of the main reasons for this came to my mind. Did the Great Society and the especially the aftermath of it like the Vietnam War and economical difficulties led to an extreme conservative movement, particulary in the more rural regions of America? President Reagan often stated that the economical problems of the 70s and 80s were made by President Johnson's domestic policies. Those problems and divisions might also laid the foundation for the Tea-Party-Movement. Do historians and others share this idea? Or is it completely false? Cheers --Jerchel (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One's opinion of the idea depends a lot on which political party is funding one's reelection campaign, or which political party one considers oneself to be a member of. See talking point.  -- Jayron  32  11:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That type of "conservative" didn't start complaining in the LBJ years. It goes back to at least the Roosevelt administration - the Teddy Roosevelt administration. The best way to explain it is that they are social Darwinists who don't believe in the idea of a social safety net. If you understand that premise, it explains everything the right-wingers say about anything connected with money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Vietnam War was not after Great Society - they were at the same time. Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Vietnam War actually started before, under Kennedy, therefore it was not "the aftermath". StuRat (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Vietnam War, from the US perspective, was relatively minor until after LBJ won the 1964 election and began severely escalating troop deployments. He paid for that in 1968, but there was very little "conservative" opposition to the war until it became clear that it was unwinnable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The counterculture of the 1960s also coincided with that time, as one might guess the "Great Society" was much the stock of jokes at the expense of the warhawks of the day! 71.246.157.82 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I do agree that some of the results of The Great Society, like Affirmative Action and lifetime welfare payments ("the dole"), incensed conservatives as being fundamentally unfair. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As opposed to direct and indirect institutional racism that didn't allow some classes of people access to means to self-betterment, which incenses the liberals as being fundementally unfair. Again, we need to know which tribal elders one get's their holy scriptures handed down from; which would go along way to knowing why a particular opinion is held one way or the other.  -- Jayron  32  17:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When someone says something is "unfair", I've often heard Republicans say, "Well, life is unfair." The kicker is that it's the ongoing mission of the "conservatives" to keep it that way. Social Darwinism explains it all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Conservatives and Republicans aren't the same.
 * I thought both hated liberal darling Darwin, one day Republicans are Intelligent design folk and the next they are Darwinists?  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  10:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends on the definition of "conservative". Social Darwinists, yes. It's not necessarily a contradiction. Like "Christian" right-wingers lauding the ideas of the atheist Ayn Rand. Not a problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Big Tent' party.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  12:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends on the tent, although the GOP has been kind of a circus recently. They might not actually acknowledge the term "social Darwinism", but anytime their policies don't seem right to us average citizens, such as more tax breaks for the ultra-rich while cutting the food stamp program, just think "social Darwinism" and it explains everything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite so many ultra-rich Democrats that somehow vote against their own interests, or do they? Stop hiding your bourgeois nature, let it shine!  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  12:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think they're working against their own interests? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly!  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  02:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Philanthropists might conclude that it's in their own best interest to help improve people's quality of life at the bottom of the pyramid, rather than just crushing them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Philanthropy isn't a political party, it crosses them. It also doesn't imprison you if you don't contribute enough which gets back to the Exactly! "working" for their interests.  That and theres many millions of 'philanthropy' that has nothing to do with "improving people's quality of life at the bottom", it takes a lot of money to be a professional protester, and mob rental doesn't come cheap.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   04:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting back to what I said, when the GOP (or anyone, but more often it's the GOP) tries to enact policies which help the rich and powerful become more that way, and hurt the poor and weak more than they already are, any perplexity about why they are doing that can be explained by "social Darwinism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "help the rich and powerful become more that way" but "more often" Democrats have enacted policies that made themselves exactly that, "social Darwinists" stealing my health insurance, granting themselves 0 tax liablity, and making me pay for Solyndra or else a trip upstate.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  06:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I note the absence of complaints about funding foreign wars and bribing foreign countries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that effective application of the Libertarian philosophy, as espoused by most American conservatives, is that a crime isn't a crime if committed against the poor. For example, if a wealthy person inherits a billion dollars and you want part of the money to go to the government (or worse, the indigent) that is "initiating force" and blatant violence.  However, if you go to a restaurant and give a $1 tip to a waitress making less than minimum wage in salary, that is subject to an appropriate tax (whether income tax or "fair tax") as part of "minimal government".  If a homeless person camps on the land of someone who owns a million acres, they say the homeless person is committing violence by sleeping, not that he is the victim of violence by not having a legitimate place to sleep. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, what crap. It's just as much contrary to libertarian philosophy to initiate force against a poor person as against a rich person. --Trovatore (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They aren't libertarian and they aren't conservative, though they like those labels. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

sponge brain
Humanity is a real problem for me, I need help here, can it be we evolved or we got help, either theory makes me ponder, are we living only to get it right in the end or have we past the point. Epistemology is a curse to the inquiring brain to witch emotion rules. we can try and try to work it all out but it only ends up being WHY.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.86.13 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

assignment
examine critically the effect of the rebasing of the national accounts estimates from the year 1993 to 2006 on the relative performance of the ghanaian economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyere Godfred (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

184.147.119.205 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Legality of castration in the UK
The Independent on Sunday's article on Roberta Cowell says " Dillon performed the initial operation on Cowell to remove her testicles, in 1948, which was illegal at the time." Can anyone clarify what law would have been broken by this, and when it was repealed? --rossb (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The surgeon would probably have been charged with "wounding with intent" or GBH contrary to Section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which has not been repealed. The operation is no longer illegal as gender reassignment is now considered a legitimate medical procedure. The operation would have been an offence in 1948, despite the consent of Ms Cowell, because it would not have been considered as medical treatment, and (most importantly) because consent to an assault does not make that assault legal.  The leading case at the time was R v Donovan (1934) AER 207, on which we don't have an article, but see R v Brown, Consent (criminal law), and Consensual crime for more discussion of the issue. Tevildo (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the explanation, --rossb (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Assault is not the common law term for what you're talking about... it's battery. And laws passed in the 1860s typically aren't repealed as a whole... but they're slowly modified. It's hard enough for actual lawyers to keep up with the technical terminology in regards to how "law" is defined in the U.S., and I don't know the details about the U.K., but blanket statements like "which has not been repealed" leave me with a lot of trepidation. I would be a lot more satisfied with a reference to a law review article on this topic. Here is a related article on the general topic from the Guardian . I don't fault Tevildo for sharing his knowledge, but I would urge less certainty in his wording, because it seems quite clear to me that this is not an intimately informed opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This section of the Act has not been repealed (although other sections have been), and prosecutions under it are commenced on a daily basis. As the surgeon wasn't in fact charged with an offence, it's only speculation as to what offence he might have been charged with, but GBH with intent contrary to Section 18 is (IMO) the most likely charge. The Guardian article is about German law, on which I do not feel competent to comment.  A conviction under Section 18 does not require antecendent proof of either battery or assault - I apologise if my use of the word "assault" was confusing.   I accept that I do not have any legal qualifications, but, even if I did, I would not be in a position to offer a definitive answer - my only intention was to refer the OP to our relevant articles on the subject.  Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Might not a reason for outlawing castration in the past have been a desire to stop the practice of producing castrati for musical purposes or abuse by guardians who want to blunt a male child's sexuality, say that of a boy conceived in rape or with a guardian with extreme religious motives or odd psychological issues? μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Castration has never been a specific statutory offence under English law (unlike, say, abortion, prohibited by Section 58 of the 1861 act, or FGM, prohibited by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985). The exception for "legitimate" surgical procedures is mentioned in the House of Lords judgement in R v Brown, but without citing any cases which determine where the line between lawful and unlawful surgery is drawn.  I'm not sure which act was in force when castrati were fashionable - Lord Ellenborough's Act (1803) is rather too late, and that consolidated a large number of earlier acts on the subject.  There was also the common-law offence of maiming to consider. Tevildo (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nirvana
What does it really mean nirvana, I know is a Sanskrit term used in some religions, but can someone give some example so I can really understand. Thanks  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  13:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Our Nirvana article seems pretty clear. Looie496 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not being a native speaker, I find it very difficult to interpret the whole article. I guess I'll try to read it all over again. Thanks.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  15:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The important parts are probably the first paragraph of the lead and the first paragraph of the Buddhism section. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you access the article on Spanish wikipedia? 184.147.119.205 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lacking a better term, I would simply describe it as the dharmic equivalent for wisdom and peace of mind. Either term, in Western societies, requires a remoteness from the “trivial” aspects of existence.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Condensed Readers Digest
I am looking for a story that was in a Condensed Readers Digest here is all I remember about the story. The story was about a man in the forest or woods all alone and meets a wild wolf in a blizzard then at the end they become good pals and then he knows he must let him go back to his life once the blizzard is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.224.51 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like something Jack London would have written, along the lines of Call of the Wild. Then there's also the similarity with Dances with Wolves. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be London's To Build a Fire, but the non-human character is a dog, not a wolf, and the man dies at the end. Tevildo (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there any negative connotations to "respecting elders"?
I am just wondering if some people are offended by the term, "respecting parents" or "respecting elders", because I don't want sound weird or misleading. Although I would usually think of "respecting elders" as a good value to hold, I am beginning to suspect that this term has negative connotations of "being overly submissive to an authoritarian parent". Does it, or is it just my perception? 140.254.227.64 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it has connotations of wimpyness to some people. Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And, of course, you might offend some by calling them "elders".


 * Also, elders tend to be "stuck in the past", so aren't always the best choice for leadership. An example is Soviet premiers, who refused to reform until they finally replaced the geriatric generation with Gorbachev.  So, in that context, "respect your elders" could mean "shut up and accept things the way they are".  In the West, "elders" might have attitudes such as not encouraging women to work and imprisoning homosexuals.  StuRat (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not just in the west, and not just "elders" really.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  10:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Eastern cultures are known for respecting their elders, based not just on submission necessarily, but on the assumption that they have had more experience and hence should be wiser. Also, they raised their children, which is never easy, so they should be honored if they gave their best effort (hence one of the ten commandments). The young have a tendency to think they've got it all figured out, and that their parents are just impediments. Mark Twain (and perhaps others) are quoted as saying, "When I was 18, I thought my father was the stupidest man in the world. By the time I turned 21, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dwight D. Eisenhower and African Americans
What did Dwight D. Eisenhower do for African Americans? Did he help them gain more civil rights? --OutofDaił (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See Dwight_D._Eisenhower. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Euphemia of Pomerania and Christopher II of Denmark
Who is pictured lying between Euphemia of Pomerania and Christopher II of Denmark? and. It seems too small to be their son Eric or is it. What does sources say?


 * This book from 1866 says it is indeed their son Erik. 184.147.119.205 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the smaller size since he was grown man in his twenties at the time of his death?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Medieval art was more concerned with symbolism than accurate representation. I found Deceptive appearances: the presentation of children on medieval tombs by Dr Sophie Oosterwijk, FSA which says; "another confusing element in many medieval child memorials... is the evident discrepancy between the appearance of the effigy and the child’s actual age" (p. 53). It goes on to talk about children who died in infancy being represented as adolescents; although the Danish tomb is the other way about, it shows that realism wasn't the aim. It may have just been a visual indicator that this was their child, even if he was already grown-up. Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)According to this it is their "daughter Hedvig" (which must be sic for Helvig or Heilwig). However I don't know how reliable that particular site is. The Danish article on Sorø Klosterkirke just says (uncited) that it is a "small girl" (i.e. one of their daughters). This link which is a site run by the Danish Cultural Ministry says it is "one of their princesses". So it seems to me to be more likely that it is a young girl rather than their adult son, and that it possibly is Heilwig. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Volume 5 of the work Danmarks Kirker ("The Churches of Denmark", 1933-present), which is the official scholarly descriptive work of all of the churches in Denmark (only two thirds of the Danish churches have been covered in the presently 58 existing volumes), containing the description of Sorø Klosterkirke can be found online here. On page 82 it says it is "one of their small daughters" ("en af deres smaa Døtre"). Furthermore it says "the other royal children buried here has probably originally been depicted in the same way" ("de andre her begravne Kongebørn har formentlig op­rindelig været afbildede paa samme Maade"), but the previous description of the grave monuments underlines the fact that the monuments have been moved and altered since the time they were erected, possibly making further identification besides the fact that it is one of the princesses, impossible. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That was nice detective work! 184.147.119.205 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Great work! It is too bad it wasn't Eric since he remains the only Danish monarch without a picture on our article.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)