Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 5

= May 5 =

ATOS work capability assessment
I think that means Atos rather than the all caps version. Apparently Prince Philip announced his retirement yesterday at age 95, but then was pronounced fit to work by this agency. What's this supposed to mean and why did they check him? I doubt that he applied to go on the dole (some take the view that he's already on it), or that anyone that age would be turned down. Is this something normally only done on regular working stiffs who are trying to get benefits, or what? Thanks! 173.228.123.121 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh heh, nm. Apparently that article was something the Brits call "hiuma".  I didn't figure it out at first.  173.228.123.121 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the bit about him volunteering to run a checkout at Greggs :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Rochdale Herald is a satirical website - and quite a funny one. Wymspen (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiuma? A province of Poland Estonia? Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, the penny has dropped - "hiuma" equals "hoo-moor" for those who can't be bothered with yods. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From the Latin, Humira. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, Alansplodge, Hiuma, or Hiiumaa, is not a part of Poland (it's three countries away); it might have been part of Poland centuries ago, but judging by File:Rzeczpospolita2nar.png, I'm guessing not. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake, my Polish is rather shaky. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, the article you linked to does basically cover why the Atos joke came up, it also links to Work Capability Assessment which has more details. Note in particular that it says Atos only deals with Personal Independence Payment now, the normal WCA is carried out by Maximus Inc. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw about WCA and Atos. Philip stepped down from his longtime ribbon-cutting duties at an advanced age, so I imagined that people might infer that he was gravely ill, and his going to get a physical exam from Atos in order to assure people he wasn't about to collapse. "Hiuma" is from a French movie whose name I'd forgotten (I thought it was called "Wit" but apparently not).  173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of Patrice Leconte's Ridicule, much concerned with the difference between wit and "hiuma". --Antiquary (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ridicule is a great film, thanks for mentioning it. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the one, thanks!  I remember that it was based on a play, but the article doesn't mention that.  If you have any info it would be nice to add it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Susanovo-Mythen Circle
Does anybody know what this is? It is related to Japanese history and culture. This man here: Alexander Slawik, was writing a book on it. The German version (translation may not be accurate) is: Susanowo-Mythenkreis und zur kulturhistori-schen Stellung des Izumo-Gebietes im alten Japan. What is it> I can't locate a Wikipedia article, or German article, or google books, web. The man who was collecting material on it, was an absolute expert on it, with over 60+ year of study (he died at age 97 and was still working), so I suspect it is probably extremly byzantine. Hope it is not too hard. I would like to known, so I can get an article on it. Any help is appreciated. scope_creep (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Susanowo" is Susanoo-no-Mikoto. "Mythenkreis" would be something like "myth cycle". DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, the sentence in German you quoted is "Susanovo myth-cycle and the cultural-historical position of the Izumo area in ancient Japan" DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks DuncanHill. I just found it, this second, after searching for about an hour. I'm glad there is an article on it. scope_creep (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Price stipulation before capitalism
Were prices in the pre capitalist era also subject to markt forces? What has changed when societies became capitalist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.98.121 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some form of free market forces have existed for all of history. What we think of as the "capitalist era" represents a change in thinking of macroeconomics from wealth-as-control-of-resources (so-called mercantalism) to wealth-as-control-of-means-of-production (capitalism).  That doesn't mean that markets didn't happen or that concepts like supply and demand determining prices didn't happen.  What happened is that people started studying how such markets operate.  They didn't invent those market forces, they just codified them.  On the small scale, the price of goods has always been determined by "What you are willing to sell it for, and what I am willing to pay"  Some industries have been protected by state monopoly and heavy regulation, but even in so-called capitalist societies, there are some of those too (i.e. health insurance and utilities in the U.S>).  It isn't like Adam Smith woke up one day and invented the idea that people should sell goods in markets, and that prices fluctuate with supply and demand.  -- Jayron 32 14:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: 'On the small scale, the price of goods has always been determined by "What you are willing to sell it for, and what I am willing to pay" ' ... not always. As far back as the Code of Hammurabi there were attempts at price controls, even on a small scale, such as the fare to cross a river by ferry boat: (section 275:). StuRat (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 31.177.98.121 -- Even in the most decentralized possible form of pre-modern trade — "silent barter", where the two parties don't recognize any common authority, don't talk to each other, and stay at a physical distance from each other — there's negotiation over prices... AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See also: black market, which could be seen as proto-capitalism, and exists in virtually all economic systems. 107.15.152.93 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And, for an example of "What has changed when societies became capitalist?", see: Sprouts of capitalism perhaps. Although that article isn't particularly helpful, China's experimental endeavors in capitalism could provide insight into societal changes. 107.15.152.93 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Airplane Egg" got burned by cargo cult?
I refer to this story: "PS I like the story about the cargo cult folks who saw airplanes during WWII for the first time. One crashed with a bomb on board. They tried to hatch the "airplane egg" by warming it in a fire. Another case of a group who didn't have a clue of the "real" physics of what they saw, and used a flawed analogy to interpret the data." אילן שמעוני (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This sounds like apocryphal mambo jumbo. Fake news. Aspro (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The earliest version of this I can find to this story on line is from Niven & Barnes 1981 sci-fi adventure, Dream Park. It's then mentioned again verbatim in a 1994 google discussion group. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by medeis (talk • contribs)
 * Does Niven cites any source? אילן שמעוני (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No. You can read what they wrote by searching the google result I linked to above, then search (ctrl-f) from the bottom up. (Otherwise you will hit "thatch" 11 times first.  Personally, I think it's apocryphal.  I don't see them getting a fire hot enough, or thinking it wouldn't kill the egg. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First, let's be clear that cargo cults were real and were in fact a manifestation of people not understanding the events they had experienced. And second, that Dream Park is a work of fiction, so we don't expect the author to provide references: it's not evidence that what people talked about is true, but it's also not evidence that it's false. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I was searching for a ref on this and ran into this comment to a blog post: "I first heard of Cargo Cults back in 1981 when Larry Niven and Steven Barnes used them in their book Dream Park. I thought they were made up, but I believe there was an afterword explaining that they were real and that one of them once tried to hatch the egg of a plane (a bomb) with disastrous results." totally unreliable source, but if someone has that book could they please check the back for some sort of notes? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right! I'd forgotten that the book has an afterword, and this does cite sources. The afterword begins:


 * The authors had a wonderful time researching Dream Park. As we hope you will agree, Melanesian myth patterns are as bizarre, convoluted and imaginative as any in the world.
 * All of the various monsters and most of the magics are taken from the literature available concerning New Guinea and its sibling isles. Road Belong Cargo by Peter Lawrence was the single most informative work; Albert and Sylvia Frerich's Anutu Conquers in New Guinea; Benjamin T. Butcher's My Friends the New Guinea Headhunters; Roy Wagner's Habu; and Ian Hogben's  [sic] The Island of Menstruating Men (honest!) are also worth reading.


 * And about a page later, it says:


 * One tribe did indeed try to hatch an "airplane's egg" in a fire, with results better imagined than witnessed.


 * These passages are on pages 431–432 of the 1982 paperback from Ace. So presumably the bomb-as-egg story comes from one of the books cited. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So it may be true. I wish I could get to the bottom of this. אילן שמעוני (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The books listed in Dream Park are a bibliography. When asked for a source I said there was none because none was cited or quoted directly in the WP sense.  Of course I have known of the cargo cults since the 70's, but  have not heard of this story elsewhere.  Searching Google Books, I found only these two results, mentioning that the inhabitants of Rabaul (a township of East New Guinea) believe the planes dropped eggs that would "hatch":


 * Road belong cargo: a study of the cargo movement in the Southern ...
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=9ioHAQAAIAAJ
 * Peter Lawrence - 1967 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions
 * a study of the cargo movement in the Southern Madang District, New Guinea Peter Lawrence. failed to retain ... dead in the area. I told him how natives around Rabaul believed that a giant egg, filled with cargo, would descend from Heaven.


 * Matupit: Land, Politics, and Change Among the Tolai of New Britain
 * https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0520015568
 * Arnold Leonard Epstein - 1969 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
 * Yali14 had taught that the dead would travel to the land of the whites, and they would then send the cargo to the native peoples. ... A number of elders followed, all speaking in similar terms, and threatening to deny access to their own egg ... As in the present instance, the councillor opened the meeting by reporting various matters decided on by the Rabaul Council or by an administrative officer. This was ...


 * μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The links to the relevant books are in the third post on this thread. Road Belong Cargo makes no mention of such an event. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

American citizens with official titles of nobility or peerages
Are there any American citizens living with official titles of nobility or peerages (not titles used by royals or nobles of abolished monarchies)? And theoritically, can peers from current European monarchies settled in the US, gain US citizenship, pass down their titles to their children born in the US with US citizenships and effectively form an American branch of that noble family. Also how many of the European monarchies still have an extensive peerage besides the UK and Spain and do they allow those holders to leave the country and take up foreign citizenships while still allowing them to be held by these people and pass to children without their native country's citizenship? Most peers I believe are irrelevant in modern European constitutional monarchies, so their prolong absence from their native country would not be much of a problem; it's just a question if they can keep those titles for ceremonial purpose outside their native countries under these circumstances.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's the 5th Baron Haden-Guest. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From our Hereditary peer article: "Nothing prevents a British peerage from being held by a foreign citizen (although such peers cannot sit in the House of Lords, while the term foreign does not include Irish or Commonwealth citizens). Several descendants of George III were British peers and German subjects; the Lords Fairfax of Cameron were American citizens for several generations." - Nunh-huh 21:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, a foreign citizen can certainly hold their UK titles. But whether their country of citizenship recognises such a title or even allows them to use it is a different matter.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the States, no one "holding any office of profit or trust" under the federal gov't may accept a foreign title without the consent of Congress. See Title of Nobility Clause.  I am not aware of any such restriction on private citizens, nor of any requirement that they relinquish the titles before beginning an office of profit or trust. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, the first sentence of that section is "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States." So titles of nobility, regardless of source, are essentially legally irrelevant in America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean Burger King isn't actual royalty? :(   -Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Only within the fast food empire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Granting titles is a different thing from recognising titles granted by other countries. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, as can be read from things already cited above, the U.S. grants no official credence in any sense to titles granted by other countries, nor does it grant titles of nobility itself. It does not prevent citizens from having them, but it does prevent officials of the government from having them.  This is merely one itemized example from the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. constitution, which holds that such titles represent a form of remuneration on behalf of a foreign government, and the U.S. Constitution does not allow U.S. office holders to do so because of the conflict of interest it would create.  While in 2017, being the Baron of Whatever doesn't mean much of anything, in 1787 it did, and the U.S. Constitution was very careful about preventing entanglements of non-Americans in the U.S. government (the same source of the natural-born citizen clause) which was, at the time, having a rather destructive effect on the country of Poland, an example the U.S. saw no need to repeat (see Federalist No. 14, Federalist No. 19, Federalist No. 39, etc.).  Specific to the issue of titles of nobility, Federalist No. 84: "Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."  It is worth noting that the clause against titles of nobility is actually older than the constitution.  As noted in Federalist No. 44: "The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment."  Articles of Confederation, Article VI, to wit: " nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.".  -- Jayron 32 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, someone above noted the Lords Fairfax of Cameron; starting with Bryan Fairfax, they were American-born for several generations, Bryan's great-grandson Charles S. Fairfax was a nominal holder of said peerage, and DID serve as an elected official, but by that point it seems the peerage was forgotten about; there's no evidence that Charles ever recognized it, indeed it wasn't until a few generations later that Albert Fairfax, 12th Lord Fairfax of Cameron "rediscovered" the peerage and exercised it, taking his seat in lords. -- Jayron 32 18:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On its face, the text does not appear to prevent anyone from serving in government while holding a title of nobility, but only from accepting a new one once in office. So I would think Charles Fairfax shouldn't have had any problem even if people did know about it.  Is there scholarly commentary suggesting the opposite? --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We talk of people "inheriting" peerages, but there's a bit more to it than that. The person must still make a formal "claim" to the title, and have that claim recognised.  There's no time limit for making a claim, but in the interim the person is not considered a peer.  They can still use the title, but this seems to be an unofficial usage in the sense that anyone can call themselves "Baron", "Duke", "Count" or whatever, without it meaning anything.  See .  So, a US government official should always have the choice of remaining in their job without a title, or accepting the title and relinquishing their position. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fairfax appears to have inherited his title before taking office, and never to have claimed it at all. But if he had claimed it before taking office, I don't see that there would have been any problem from the Nobility Clause.  I would be interested to learn otherwise.
 * Another point here is that his office was under the State of California. The constitutional language says "office of trust or profit under the United States".  My understanding is that this usage of "United States" usually refers to the federal government only.  If they had wanted it to apply to states as well, they could have written "office of trust or profit under the United States, or any of them".
 * A similar question arises when talking about the US president's pardon authority &mdash; Article II Section 2 says he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States. This is almost universally understood to mean federal offenses only, though I doubt there has ever been a test case. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)