Humanities desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 17

Survivor (TV series) theme song

The U.S. tv series has a theme song in some possibly Polynesian language. What is the source, what are the lyrics, and what is an English translation, if they mean anything. ? Thanks. Edison 00:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The theme song is called "Ancient Voices". I think it is probably an original composition; don't know anything about the lyrics. - Eron ^Talk 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who invented the hand pump for basketballs?

A young friend of mine has been assigned this question by his teacher, and he came to me for help...after a couple hours of searching the web, we couldn't find the answer. Anyone have any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.40.109 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe try "Bicycle pump"? AnonMoos 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel from Another World

My mother and I have always been big fans of Victoria Wyndham, who played Rachel on Another World. I've tried to edit the "where are they now?" part of it to explain what she's been doing, but after her exit from the David Hare play Skylight on Broadway last year, it seems as if she's gone off the radar. Does anyone know what happened to her, or at least a part of the internet where I can search for a response? My searches have turned up nothing. Thank you! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, she'll be appearing on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit in January. This biography shows a lot of other things she's been doing, but it doesn't have any dates on it, so I'm not sure if those things happened since she left Another World. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's great, I'm going to have to tell my mother about that! I used the other page to add information to her Wikipedia article. Great find, Zoe! :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Government

What type of government does Jamaica have?

You'll find out in the Politics of Jamaica. It has a parliamentary democracy, organized on the British model. Clio the Muse 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional monarchy. Rugbyball 11:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frilly, Late '60s, British Psychedelic Rock Garb

You guys all know what I'm talking about. Many British Psychedelic Rock bands of the late '60s used to dress in a certain "retro" fashion, from a certain place at certain period several centuries back. I think a great example of it woud be the way Mike Myers dresses in all those "Austin Powers" movies. I'm just curious as to the time and place people actally dressed that way (if indeed anyone that fashion ever existed and wasn't dreamt up by a bunch of guys on acid!). My best guess would be somewhere in 17th-18th century Europe, but I can't place it any better than that. Does anyone have a more precise explanation for exactly where and when and who originally dressed like that? Thanks! Loomis 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a curious period where the most refined gentlemen were expected to dress in a way we would associate with women today. Specifically, they wore frilly silk "blouses", wigs, high heeled shoes, perfume, etc. I believe the socioeconomic reason for this development was as a way to distinguish themselves from "working class" men, who did look quite masculine at the time. So, by looking feminine, they were clearly identifiable as not being part of the working class. I believe this period was primarily seen in the 1700s, both in Europe and America, but ended sooner in America, extending well into the 1800s in Europe. There was one odd remnant of this period, certain British judges wearing powdered wigs. See fop and dandy. StuRat 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stu, but I was referring to a more specific fashion than that. I'm talking about how the early Rolling Stones or The Who or Pink Floyd dressed. No powdered wigs, just very frilly cuffs and neckwear, along with really loud, clashing colours. Less Elton John, more Roger Daltry. I suspect that though it may have been based on some specific period in the past, at least the loud clashing colours may have been a late 60's psychedelic innovation. But I'm not sure. It would be greatly appreciated if you or anyone else has any more info. Thanks again. Loomis 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That repeat of the trend in rock music during the late 60's (England) and 70's (England and US) was called glam rock. StuRat 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to reply before, but it got lost in seeming Wikipedia software failure -- see Carnaby Street ... AnonMoos 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you might be thinking of the Teddy Boys, or their offshoots, the rival Mods and Rockers (or Mockers as Ringo famously characterized the Beatles). This isn't the frilly shirt thing, (yeah I know what you mean), but their styles were specifically drawn from the Edwardian period (I think "Teddy" is short for Edwardian here) of the early 20th century. Of course, it wasn't pure retro, and things like the pompadour 'do got in there, which was adapted from 18 century France: After the Marquise de Pompadour, the title of Jeanne Antoinette Poisson (1721-1764), mistress of Louis XV of France, who popularized the style. (from a link in the Pompadour article). I think the frilly thing was just part of the whole British fashion/youth culture thing, when Mick Jagger and those types let London's fashion world have their way with them (I mean clothing styles, of course). It probably has something to do with the gay liberation movement asserting itself at the time and providing the context for Bowie, T-Rex, Syd Barrett and the occasional frilly shirt, which was not just an historical allusion, but a gendered one with class implications. I might be missing something more specific, but I think StuRat is right, and that the broader context is where the explanation lies. Also, think early Queen (band), who had a very 18th century France style, suggesting that the band's name is not just another word for gay, but evoked an historical period as well. Bobanny 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are Parish records? Rugbyball 11:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What are Parish records? Rugbyball 11:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parish registers. The equivalent of the civil registry before governments started collecting information were register books that recorded baptisms, marriages, and deaths, kept by the local priest/minister/vicar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painter

I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT INFORMATION ABOUT A PAINTER NAMED W.TOOK. I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS FROM THE U.K. MANY THANKS JEAN BRACE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeanbrace (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As you'll have discovered, search on Google or Yahoo! for Took is pretty hopeless as it is such a common word. It seems that the man you're interested in is called William Took. He was born in 1857, died in 1892, and was indeed British or English. Artnet shows a couple of his works sold in recent times [ http://www.artnet.com/artist/668799/william-took.html here]. I've tried various searches, and haven't found anything interesting. I suspect that finding out very much more about Took would mean searching art history books in a major library. If you do find out anything, Wikipedia could do with a William Took article. Best of luck! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the life of Sculpture P H Mourey 1840 - 1910

I have very little information on the Sculpture Phillipe H Mourey (1840-1910), I know he worked for Japy Freres & Cie the clockmakers Beaucourt France in around 1870. I'm most interested to find out about his life story and if any photographs exist of him. I own three clock designed by PH Mourey my oldest is 133 yrs old and still works like new. How many other clocks did he design and what other work did he do apart from the clock designs. Many thanks Michael Fitzpatrick

capital punishment court cases

Can you tell me some court cases in which the death penalty was upheld, but after the prisoner was killed, he/she was found to be innocent?

--Chris123456 17:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Chris123456[reply]

There are few, if any, clear-cut cases in modern U.S. justice system but see Executed But Possibly Innocent. Rmhermen 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli Six. For the third time http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/libya_vs_evolut.html Paul Silverman 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't going to be too many, because the will of the state to shame itself isn't there, and it's very difficult to get guilty verdicts overturned even in the face of overwhelming evidence and a living person to protest their innocence. Regrettably. Anchoress 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four cases from the United Kingdom, all executed between 1950 and 1953, are mentioned in the rather short article on Wrongful execution. Three of them received posthumous exonerations, one received a pardon.---Sluzzelin 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in appealate cases the courts do not examine factual evidence whether the person did or did not do something but whether the process was conducted in a way so as to not violate the accused rights.

Muslims

What country was almost completely taken over by Muslim conquerors in the early Middle Ages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.97.27.89 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Just about everything from Spain to Pakistan was conquered between 630 A.D. and 750 A.D. AnonMoos 17:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Muslim history. Anchoress 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great many countries were taken over by Muslim armies, either in whole or in part. But I suspect that you may be thinking specifically of Spain? In which case, have a look at Muslim Spain. Beginning in 711, virtually the whole of what had been Visigoth Spain was taken over, except for the Kingdom of Asturias in the far north. Clio the Muse 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Should we just assume the class he is doing this for is European History? JChap2006 04:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article III District Courts of the United States

I noticed the artricle under heading of Article III courts that such courts include the United States Supreme Court and such other inferiror courts of congress creation. Then under the sub article which lists all the Article III courts it listed United States District courts as such inferior Article III trial courts - as well as appeals courts.

However, when one clicks on these U.S. District courts to get a list of each, the article says that such U.S. District courts are NOT Art III "District courts of the United States", but are Art I "United States District courts".

Therefor, there is NO list of any article III lower trial courts or District courts of the United States, leaving only the appeals and Supreme court left as Article III courts listed.

Question: Are there any federal Article III lower trial court - i.e.: District courts of the United States; and, if there are none, why and were there ever any; and,if there are any, where are they - i.e.: Where is an Article III District court of the United States trial court under Article III?

Phil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.57.8 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't exactly say that. It says that District Courts are Article Three courts - except those District courts in the U.S. territories of the Virgin Island and Guam. Rmhermen 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The United States District Courts are Article III courts, as discussed in that article. See also Article I and Article III tribunals. The Article III District Courts include the district courts in each of the 50 states (some states have more than one), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and since 1966, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, for a total of 91 districts. By contrast, the "district courts" in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and also the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are "Article I" courts because they were established under Congress's right to establish laws for the territories rather than under the Article III Judicial power.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to follow up on my talk page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Time Should Kids Open Presents?

When I was a kid, I couldn't open Christmas presents until after the Queen's speech (maybe one or two small ones to keep me occupied until then). Traditionally, what time would well mannered people open their presents? While it probably seems pretentious to some to even watch (and listen to!) the Queen's speech, it seems tacky to me, to get up at 6 am and sit in a pile of torn wrapping paper for the rest of the day (the mental image I used to console myself). --Username132 (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to wait. The Queen's speech has little to do with opening presents, so I don't understand that reasoning. All I can say is that when I was a kid I would wake up and my presents would be beside the bed, plus those that were crammed into my stocking, and I got straight down to business. These days, we wait until all the family are assembled so that we can give our presents to each other personally.--Shantavira 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the presents in the kids' rooms might be a good idea. That way, no adults need get injured in the ensuing carnage. :-) StuRat 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My family and I never used to want to open our presents all at the same time. We would spread it out throughout the whole day, opening a present every hour or so. That way, we were still opening presents in the evening, and the whole thing was nicely prolonged. This always seemed like a good way of doing things to me, but I've never come across anyone else who did it! --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my parents also like for the family to hear the Queen's speech before any unwrapping is done. They are British, of course, but we do not live in Britain.

<forged vandalism excised -- who put it there?>

I am a bit suspicious of large-scale celebrations, and will be pleased if society shifts away from giving gifts on certain days, and gives gifts on a whim (Happy March 5th Day!) Vranak 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The time you choose is entirely up to you - the supposed birth of Jesus, which Christmas is supposed to mark, is actually unknown - the 25th of December was just chosen as a data to unify the many different celebrations occurring near New Year. You could open them at 12:01am and not be early. RevenDS 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what did the aristocracy do in the 19th centuary? --Username132 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the queen is your barometer of manners (it must be frightful not being british) The royal family open gifts on Christmas Eve rather than Christmas Day following a German tradition. meltBanana 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if you're posh and not of German desent? --Username132 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stockings are for opening at 6am, but at a family Christmas, presents should be handed over personally so the adults have the pleasure of watching their carefully chosen gifts being opened and the children know who the presents have come from. It's a fun time for children, but respect shouldn't go completely out of the window. I've never known anyone wait until after the speech, though. --Auximines 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you do, don't do what my silly family does. Now that all the original kids are adults and some have their own kids, we've somehow evolved this particularly absurd tradition. The observant ones go off to church in the morning, then they come back and the next order of the day is Xmas lunch. That takes all morning to prepare. Then we have lunch, which takes the best part of 2 hours. Then we all wash up the dishes and clean up the kitchen. Then we make afternoon tea. By now, it's about 3:30, and the little ones are understandably tearing their hair out. So the grandparents finally relent and reluctantly agree that we should now open the presents. This is all based on the notion that Xmas is not supposed to be about the presents (which doesn't stop anyone from actually buying them; but having bought them, we're somehow supposed to pretend for as long as possible that we didn't). Now the fun starts. The oldest person ritually opens all their presents while the rest of us look on, saying appropriate things like "How lovely". Then the next oldest gets their turn. And so on. Finally the youngest grandchild gets their turn - assuming they could still give a damn, now that all the spontaneous fun has been surgically removed from the process. This is tantamount to child abuse IMO. Now that you know about my crazy, crazy family, you can perhaps understand the heavy burden life has given me, and cut me some slack. JackofOz 05:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not English, so I am going to give an American perspective. When I was younger, I would wake my parents as soon as the sun rose (usually between 6 and 7 in the morning), and we would open presents right then. Now that I'm 21, I usually rise sometime between 9 and 10 (maybe even as late as 11), allowing everyone to sleep in. All the presents are opened and exchanged by 12 or 1, allowing everyone to clean up, enjoy presents, and cook dinner (usually to be served between 3 and 4). We don't really have an equivalent of the Queen's speech in the US. It's usually college football, NFL, or the Walt Disney World Christmas Day Parade, which can all be hit or miss. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest spreading the gift opening out through the day, and try to go from least impressive gift (that sweater from grandma) to the most impressive (the ZBOX-10000, which celebrates the seasons by splattering your enemies' brains on the wall). This forestalls the letdown of "nothing left to open" and "nothing good left", for as long as possible. StuRat 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having experienced both the early morning rush and the post dinner present hand-out i personally prefer the latter. I think a few in the morning and then the majority in the afternoon is nice. We hand presents out 1 by 1 and watch before the next is opened, it's fun and makes smaller number of presents last longer. We often get a 'game' for the family, some sort of party board-game like thing to play and that too is fun. I don't think there is any right/proper way to do it, the ocassion is a family thing and you should do what the family enjoy most. Remember to enjoy the ocassion and not worry about formality/organisation. In the end it should be a fun day and a chance for everyone to show their affection for each other with a few small acts of kindness. ny156uk 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew a Queen's speech existed. Interesting --Proficient 04:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Gospel of Mary Magdalene

I'm looking for some evidence on its authenticity! any ideas? ksood 19:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Gospel of Mary article. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action To Take To Avert Cake-spill Catastophe?

So you're baking a cake and you notice, 10 minutes in, that if things carry on as they are, the mixture is going to spill out of the container and onto the oven floor. What is the appropriate response? --Username132 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

remove some and put it in a separate little tin?83.100.132.121 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's already begun to set, man! --Username132 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares - take it out anyway - you can still eat it.83.100.132.121 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spread aluminum foil on the shelf below the cake pan, to catch any spill. StuRat 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is turning down the temperature not an acceptable solution? --Username132 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect it would help. The cake rising is a result of a chemical reaction that produces carbon dioxide. I expect that turning down the temperature and cooking longer will simply slow the rate of production, but not the total volume of gas produced. --Carnildo 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put a pizza pan (larger diameter than the cake pan) on the oven shelf below the cake pan to catch the overflow. If it falls on the bottom of the oven the sugar etc will make a lot of smoke. Do not touch the cake. Do not change the oven temp. Edison 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Snow who was he?

Anderson Snow who was he? Bill from Spring Hill --70.126.28.202 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to know unless you tell us where you heard the name. The top link on google Anderson-Snow is a company and the hyphen suggests it was named after two different people. meltBanana 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews

Does anybody know for certain where the first jew came from, i.e. what is the Jewish homeland. And will the answer be mainly speculation, or are there proven statistics that backup the answer?

Sorry about the crappy phrasing of the question 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried Jewish history? --ColinFine 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Jew is defined by their faith, not by their nationality. BenC7 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Ben. Jews consider themselves to be both a religion and a nation. For example, I consider myself, nationally speaking, to be a Jew. In fact many of the original Zionists were Atheists, and set out simply to create a homeland for the Jewish Nation.

Nevertheless I'm sure you agree that the first Jew came from a country? Therefore, that would be the Jewish homeland Ahadland 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The Jewish people, while not a race, is also an ethnic, or cultural group that includes those who don't practice the religion. See the page on Jews. -- Deborahjay 01:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the biblical Book of Genesis, the patriarch Abraham becomes the first Jew. Later, in the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy, the Jewish leader Moses is shown the Promised Land of Caanan and enters into a Covenant with the Almighty. Further biblical accounts detail the historical sequence of conquests and sovereignty in that land. These are among the sources connecting the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. -- Deborahjay 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham came from Ur, in mosern eastern Iraq but you could date his becoming the first Jew to the time when God entered a covenant with him giving him a homeland in Canaan. Rmhermen 03:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the next logical question would be, what happened to Canaan and how come there is a Jewish diaspora?

I asked a related question not long ago - you could try Israelite which gives a lot of relevent background - and Ten Lost Tribes which may in part explain some of the diaspora.., also the Cananites seecanaan according to the bible the canaanites were driven out by the israelites - a lot may have been killed.

The ten lost tribes is of some relevance to the Jewish diaspora but mostly it arises from later conquest of the Jewish Kingdom Judea and expulsion. Many Jews may have also becomes slaves at this point and would have been traded around the ancient world for that reason. 83.100.250.252 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm right in thinking none of this has been proven and thus far is all speculation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, consider what sense of "[being] right" includes disregarding the significance (regardless of belief) accorded the Bible as a historical document, by an overwhelming percentage of the Earth's population (past and present) raised in cultures informed by the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions? -- Deborahjay 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of what has been said above is right - there is often confusion as to what constitutes a 'Jew' - as it general parlance it can be either the religon and also a race (since many jews will have family relationships to on another - it's not as far as I know a religion that gets members by conversion)83.100.250.252 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews generally consider themselves to be both a religion and a nation. For example, I consider myself, nationally speaking, to be a Jew. In fact many if not most of the original Zionists were Socialist Atheists, and set out simply to create a homeland for the Jewish Nation. Clearly they were not Jews by faith, but rather Jews by Nationality. Loomis 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the excellent answers (above) regarding Abraham, while he is considered the first Jew, the term is anachronism. Abraham is referred to Biblically not as a "Jew", but as a "Hebrew" ("Ivri", in classical Hebrew.) The name "Jew" is supposed to descend from Judah. Most modern day Jews are descendants of the tribe of Judah, although a sizable minority (wittingly or otherwise) are descendants of Levi or Shimon. So while Abraham is probably the "right" answer (and he came from Ur) Judah would be the first Jew, if one wants to be pedantic. Judah lived in Canaan, until Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to join Joseph, thereby avoiding the effects of the remaining years of the seven year famine Joseph had foretold. --Dweller 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to hypothesize on the origin of the 'Jewish race' (though such notions are specious to begin with), it would be of a group of individuals who wandered off from various home groups, met up, and started their own group. This would, in my estimation, mesh quite well with the fabric of Judaic faith and customs. Vranak 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for using 'race' - I know such terms never stand up very well to close scrutiny - 'nation' is of course a better description I should have used had I thought of it.83.100.250.252 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Dweller. That misnomer has always puzzled me. More accurate terms for "Jews" would be either "Hebrews" or the more cumbersome "Children of Israel" as Jacob, who was later renamed Israel is believed by Jews to be their last common ancestor. The term "Israelites" would be ideal, were it not for the fact that it would likely cause much confusion as it's so similar to the term "Israeli". It should be noted, though, that not all languages use a term derived from the tribe of Judah to refer to "Jews". In Italian, for example, the term is Ebreio, and in Russian it's Eврей (pronounced yevrey). Both of these seem to be derivatives of the term Hebrew term "Ivri" you referred to above, and not "Judah".

This is confusing - have I got this right - A jew is a descendent or member of the tribe of Judah, an israelite is one of any of the twelve tribes (from the 12 sons of jacob), the hebrews were an ethnic group - not members of the 12 tribes though the hebrew(s) share a common ancestor with the israelites. And to confuse things hebrew is also a language spoken by israelis. And there is a difference between israeli and israelite..An israeli lives in israel but does not neccessarily have to be an israelite or jewish? (caps. not working)

87.102.11.137 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very confusing! But no. The term "Jew" is a bit of a misnomer. Since the tribe of Judah was one of the very few to remain (i.e. not get "lost") as well as the fact that the land apportioned to Judah became known as the Kingdom of Judah wherein lies the Holy City of Jerusalem. The last "Israelite" kingdom to fall was the Kingdom of Judah, and, I suppose, and I'm only making an educated guess at this point, when this last kingdom finally fell, it was ultimately named "Judea" by the Romans, and whatever "Israelites" remained, even if they weren't, strictly speaking, of the tribe of Judah, were all lumped together and referred to as "Jews". And so the name stuck. These things actually happen quite often. It's been 500 years, and people still refer to American aboriginals as "Indians". Most of these "Indians" themselves refer to themselves as "Indians". It may be a ridiculous misnomer, but apparently it's not nearly as derogatory as many non-"Indians" believe. The term "Jew" is similar. Though it's something of a misnomer, we really don't care. I personally don't care one bit about it, and in fact I refer to myself as a "Jew". The term "Hebrews" is pretty much synonymous with "Israelites", and even "Jews", a term for what we're refered to as today, somewhat innacurately, but absolutely inoffensively. Lastly, an "Israeli" is merely a citizen of the modern state of Israel, and though Israel is a "Jewish State", some 20% of "Israelis" aren't "Jewish". I hope I've helped, but sorry if I've just further confused you! :) Loomis 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vranak, I've never heard of Jews or (others for that matter) referring to themselves as a "race" (the above anonymous post is honestly the first time I've heard that reference being used). A nation, yes, but certainly not a "race".

Re 'race' - See above - my pre-emptive apology - but how about 'tribe' - clearly much of early Jewish/Israeli/etc early history revolves around the idea of tribes - is tribe or clan still an acceptable term?83.100.250.252 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Tribe doesn't seem to apply, as Jews see themselves as the decendants of twelve tribes (though most of them have disappeared). But why the resistance to the term "nation"? Here in Canada, our aboriginal peoples divide themselves by tribe, and at a larger level, several related tribes constitute a "nation". Collectively, the various aboriginal "nations" are referred to as Canada's "First Nations". Loomis 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No real reason - just getting confused between nation:a country and nation:a group of peoples.87.102.11.137 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that. The term "nation" seems to have several differing definitions. The word "nation" is indeed very often used to refer to a country. On the other hand, there are quite a few countries that consist of more than one nation. Canada, for example, is definitely a multinational country. The difference between a nation and a country is nicely illustrated in my home province of Quebec. If a Quebecer refers to him/herself as a Quebec "seperatist" that means that s/he would like to see Quebec separate from Canada and become an independant country. On the other hand, if a Quebecer describes him/herself as a Quebec "nationalist", all that means is that s/he sees Quebec as a nation, but doesn't necessarily favour leaving Canada. I'm pretty sure the same holds true in the UK. A Scottish or Welsh "nationalist" isn't necessarily one who believes Scotland or Wales should leave the UK (although sometimes it is the case). Loomis 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that I don't see the sense in assertion above that the Jewish homeland can only be defined by where the first "Jew" came from. If that were the case, given that Abraham was born in modern day Iraq, that would make Iraq the Jewish homeland. What a mess that notion would create! Loomis 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that the currently popular theory with archeologists nowadays is that the Israelites were actually indigineous to Palestine/Eretz Israel. Which, of course, throws its own monkey wrench into modern-day politics. -- Mwalcoff 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tribe element is preserved and relevant today in (Orthodox) Jewish religious practice, where descendants of the tribe of Levi (through patrilineal descent, unlike the usual Jewish matrilineal method) are either "Levites", with a smattering of vestigial honours and duties remaining from those of Temple times, or "Cohanim", priests (plural of Cohen) who retain a fair amount of honours and duties and whose lives are governed by certain additional restrictions above and beyond those of "ordinary" Jews. --Dweller 13:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even viewing the Bible literally, Moses may be a better candidate than Abraham for the first Jew. Modern Biblical scholarship tends to emphasize the Babylonian captivity as the time when modern Judaism began to take shape and when the Jews began to see themselves as one people rather than separate tribes. JChap2006 04:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JChap, though apparently for entirely different reasons. The Jewish religion, at least its origins, was only "complete", to a significant extent, and for lack of a better term, when, according to scripture, Moses received the Torah from God on Mount Sinai. As the Torah is the most central component of Judaism, (well, aside from God of course), before it was received by Moses, Judaism was certainly far from a "complete" religion, at least in the eyes of Jews. Loomis 02:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loomis51 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]