Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 17

= March 17 =

Idle poor and vagrants
Classifications of poor used in the Poor Law system gives four classifications of poor. The first two I understand well, but what's the difference between "of able body but were unwilling to work" and "those who could work but had refused to"? Is this basically a first-time offence (idle poor) versus recidivism (vagrants)? Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If the "Idle poor" were just static shirkers, then they were denied relief, and that was all. If they moved around causing trouble, then they were actively punished. AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Whipped out of town was the punishment for vagrants. But I understand also that the poor could be allotted a specific role as a servant to a specific person and then if they refused they would fall into the latter category. This is based on my reading of primary documents and the Poor Law went through many changes. I found Lynn Hollen Lees, The Solidarity of Strangers to be a readable and comprehensive history. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Vagrancy Act 1824 and its predecessors defines vagrancy as "...wandering abroad, or placing himself or herself in a public place, street or highway, court or passage to beg or gather alms...". In modern language, homelessness (outside of your home parish) or begging. If I recall correctly, because the unemployed and homeless were the responsibility of each parish, the idea of those people wandering off to try their luck somewhere else was seen as a threat to the order of society. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, in later centuries it was formalised that you could only live where you had a "settlement", which you could obtain by birth, apprenticeship or marriage. Without a settlement you might become an undesirable "charge on the parish", and to prevent that you could be removed. These rules applied during a period of rapid urbanisation. See Adam Smith for a critique of the system. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point directly to Smith's criticism? I'd like to read it, but not his entire opus. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He wrote two opuses but this is in The Wealth of Nations. The Oxford World Classics edition is a selection across all volumes and has a helpful introduction that is good on the social policy concerns of the text. The page number depends on the edition but it is not far into Book 1 when he is discussing "inequalities in wages and profits occasioned by the policy of Europe". It is a pleasure to read that far, as you also get his account of economic development in Britain, the labour theory of value (yes, really), the famous account of the division of labour in pin making, and some swipes at capitalists who ban labour unions while forming their own cartels. And egalitarian observations on education and training policy. Itsmejudith (talk)
 * User:Medeis, you can read it online at: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book I Chapter X, Part II Inequalities Occasioned by the Policy of Europe (pp. 143-148 in this edition). Here Smith rails against the obstruction of the "free circulation of labour" caused by the Poor Laws, chiefly on the grounds that it was bad for business. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Adventure of the Black Lady" by Aphra Behn is a kind of mini-soap-opera 17th-century short story which closes with a vicious dig at poor-law officials. (Long before the controversial 1834 "reform" which really started stirring things up.)  AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever the problems and failures of the Poor Laws, it must be remembered they were an early attempt to ensure that ordinary people were provided for in case of illness, unemployment or famine, and not just left to starve or die of exposure, and that those who had a comfortable income were made responsible for their less fortunate neighbours. Therein lies the foundations of the modern welfare state, however ineptly they were conceived or operated. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The laws were passed with basically good intentions (though there was always a certain social-control element involved, not just pure charity), and many of the local officials involved were trying to do the best they could with what they had. However, certain limitations and problems with the system revealed themselves fairly early, but were never really dealt with until the 20th century -- and for extended periods there was little or no real accountability for officials who abused their power within the system.  During the Napoleonic wars, people wondered if the poor-law taxes were being used in some areas to subsidize farmers from having to pay their laborers living wages (see Speenhamland system).  The 1834 "reforms" introduced a large element of narrow-minded sanctimonious Victorian priggishness into the system (even though Victoria herself didn't become queen until 1837), along with the worst kind of "dismal science" economic theories, leaving lower-class people worse off than before. AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't argue with that. Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Weather Underground
What was the long term effect of the Weather Underground?

Did it move the general population to the left, or right, or how did it affect the government's behavior?

The legacy section seems to talk about people calling it terrorism or not, and members regretting it or not, but not so much about the actual lasting effect of their actions.

Benjamin (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * They were bomb-throwers, and we still have occasional bomb-throwers. But they were so far out there that the public was repelled by them, and once we got out of Vietnam they fizzled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Did they have some lasting impact on public opinion? Benjamin (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Benjaminikuta -- If they wanted to overthrow the system, or seriously shake the stability of the system, or gain widespread public sympathy for their goals, or cause a major U.S. government crackdown which would create destabilizing resentment against the system, then they pretty much failed. The Symbionese Liberation Army was much more successful in gaining continuous widespread publicity for itself than the Weather Underground... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources saying their lasting effect was negligible? Benjamin (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * From personal experience, I can tell you that an ordinary person living in the U.S. in the mid-1970s could go many months without thinking of the Weather Underground (which was not the case for the Symbionese Liberation Army during its "glory" days, unless you were a cave-dwelling hermit)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There as a minor political dustup when an old member of the WU sat on a few panels with then-candidate Barack Obama. See Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy.  -- Jayron 32 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps their biggest impact was that there is now a weather forecasting site named after them: . StuRat (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources making that assertion? Benjamin (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Weather Underground (weather service) makes that assertion and has a reference for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Saying that was their biggest impact? Benjamin (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that the website was named for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * When doing a Google search, the top 4 hits I get are the weather forecasting site, and the 5th is the Wikipedia article on the bomb-planting org. Take from that what you will.  StuRat (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Judaism and Zorastrianism
Isn't Judaism a type of Zorastianism?144.35.45.84 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not usually considered so. Do our articles not enlighten you? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually Zoroastrianism. Out of the night / When the full moon is bright / Comes the oracle known as Zoroaster. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Among other things, Judaism is solidly monotheistic, teaching that G-d is in control of everything (an idea comparable to Christianity's teachings about the sovereignty of God and Islam's teachings that God determines everything that will occur), and all hold that God basically puts up with the devil because the devil's actions further God's plans, while Zoroastrianism teaches that there's a competitor; it's much closer to dualism. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 144.35.45.84 -- Historians of religion do in fact describe how during the Persian empire period some concepts from Persian religion as a whole (not necessarily only orthodox Zoroastrianism) were assimilated into Judaism, such as an afterlife heaven and hell, angels (as good-doers, not simple messengers) and demons, a single evil leader of demons, a future apocalyptic day of judgement when the dead would be resurrected, etc.  Before that time, Judaism basically only had a vague afterlife concept of "Sheol" (which was not necessarily greatly different for the virtuous and the wicked), Satan meant a kind of heavenly prosecutor, etc.  The word "paradise" actually comes from the Persian language (though in Biblical Hebrew it only occurs in the meaning "park" or "forest").
 * So while Judaism is by no means any kind of form of Zoroastrianism, it is true that Persian religion did influence Judaism during one particular historical period. A significant part of the controversy in Judaism between Sadducees and Pharisees (rabbis) during the Roman period was due to Sadducees rejecting certain Persian-influenced concepts, which Pharisees/Rabbis accepted... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

*The single-purpose OP geolocates to Salt Lake City; maybe that is not relevant to the bizarre and unsupportable claims. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)