Humanities desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

magazine ownership

Who owns Rolling Stone magazine?

Wenner Publishing? See Rolling Stone. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great civilizations

I'm doing a project which relates to the years 793-1066. I need some general background info on the the major civilizations and players of the time - I'm quite well versed in European history in this period - I'm however lacking a bit regarding... the rest of the world :(

What major players existed in the world in this period? What was the major cities in which their powers were focused such as Rome, Samarkand or Constantinople. I'm looking for anything outside of Europe - Africa and Asia in particular. I'm aware that North and South American history is very sketchy for this period so it ok to come up with an educated (and substantiated) guess.

Gardar Rurak 05:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Americas, you'll want to look at the Maya civilization, Toltec and Zapotec in Mesoamerica (we have an article on Mesoamerican chronology with a timeline), and the Nazca and Moche amongst those in Peru. In North America, start with the Mississippian culture in the US and the Haida in Canada; there's not enough recorded history to establish "players", but these are a couple of the more advanced and interesting cultures.

In Asia, there's a lot to learn; check History of China, History of India, Persian Empire and Khmer Empire to begin. This map, although a little later than you want, gives a good overview of Asian cultures. Similarly, start with History of Africa; the Ghana Empire may be interesting. --ByeByeBaby 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This period saw the apogee of the Byzantine Empire, reaching across Europe and Asia Minor, under Basil II, after whose death began the long decline.. Have a look also at the Chola Empire in India. For the Chinese Empire the early part of this period was marked by political division, which ended with the rise of the Song Dynasty. Clio the Muse 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wonders about those years, 793-1066 is known as the Viking Age. DirkvdM 08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course; but can the Vikings really be defined as a 'major civilization'? Like the Goths and Huns of a previous age they were a 'people on the move', so to speak. They had little in the way of political unity, though they did, of course, establish a number of important power centres in Europe and beyond. Clio the Muse 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Vikings" didn't move. They travelled, but they didn't actually move anywhere, or colonize much. But there's no such thing as a "Viking civilization" to begin with. The Viking Age people of Scandinavia never considered themselves to be a single people. Some of the distinctions were even maintained for centuries after they'd lost any political or cultural meaning. --BluePlatypus 20:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They moved alright, and they colonized. To the north-west they settled in Iceland, Greenland and, for a time, North America (Vinland). To the south-west they established settlements (and kingdoms) in England, parts of Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland, where Dublin was established as a Viking base. Still further south they were granted lands on the northern coast of France, where Normandy (the land of the north men) was established in 911. Their descendants were later to settle in southern Italy. To the east they sailed down the great rivers, and are said to have established Kievan Rus, the first Russian state, in the ninth century. Still further south many settled in Constantinople, becoming the bodyguards of the Byzantine emperors. So, I think the contention that the Vikings moved, colonized and settled is reasonably accurate. Don't you? Clio the Muse 22:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that colonisation doesn't necesserily mean conquering. And quite often the Vikings lived peacefully alongside the original inhabitants, exchanging bits of culture. Possibly like the way the Dutch later colonised - first establish a trading post, then more and more, spread your power and eventually take over. Although they did plunder too. Just like the Dutch did (except that they raided Spanish gold transports). And what do you know, in the North of the Netherlands live Frisians, close relatives to the Vikings. DirkvdM 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literature and art dealing with the question, "What makes a man?"

I'm looking for stuff that thematically deals with that question. (Ex. plays or paintings.)

Could you perhaps narrow it down just a teeny-weeny bit? As far as literature goes, you could probably make a case for most of the world's best-known works as dealing with this topic. --Robert Merkel 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poem If— by Rudyard Kipling.
The painting The Creation of Adam by Michaelangelo. Anchoress 06:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with What are Little Boys Made of?. --Shantavira 08:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well Death of a Salesman concerns a man whose idea of "what makes a man" is horribly misguided and destroys him, if that helps. But yeah, I really don't anticipate you having much trouble finding material for this, gotta agree with Robert Merkel that a huge percentage of literature has been devoted to trying to answer this in one way or another. -Elmer Clark 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of finding a painting, the Web Gallery of Art, http://www.wga.hu/, is a good website. I plugged in Creation under a title search and found various renaissance bronzes depicting the creation of Adam. -midnight_coffee

Origin of the phrase 'violence begets violence'

Is it apocryphal, or did the phrase originate with someone? If so, who? Thank you. Adambrowne666 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody must have been the first person to utter such words, but I have no idea who. Epigrams can't be proven or disproven, they are true for those for whom they have meaning, and untrue for others. It's not a question of apocryphality (?). An apocryphal story is one that many people believe to be true, but isn't true. For example, the oft-repeated claim that Columbus discovered America is apocryphal. He was not only far from the first to find the Americas, he never got to the USA at all. JackofOz 12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Americas are not limited to the US, but also include the island Columbus managed to find. While he wasn't the first person to discover the Americas (that would be the original native Americans) or even the first European (that would be the Vikings), he was the first European from whom the information propagated to the rest of Europe. The Vikings didn't make maps, and, in any case, just thought they had found an inhospitable island, so this info never spread. The info did spread from Columbus, such that subsequent explorerers were able to discover the scale of the continent (and accompanying islands) that had been discovered. StuRat 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest reference I have found to the exact phrase is from The Sham Squire by William J. Fitz-patrick printed in 1866 but citing a letter from 1798. A slightly later reference but from a book printed earlier is Alvan Lamson's Sermons of 1857 which has the words right after a quote from Jesus about living by the sword (Matthew 26:52), probably explaining the popularity of the phrase. There have certainly been a lot of "something breeds/begets something" phrases used, but whether any are older then violence would be interesting but difficult to discover. If you just want someone clever and distinguished to have said something similar try "These violent delights have violent ends" Romeo & Juliet, Act II, Scene VI MeltBanana 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"...a warning that keeping swords on the wall will kill you when they fall ? :-) StuRat 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes - I took one definition of apocryphal - 'of doubtful authorship' - to mean just that, where it actually means 'of dobutful authenticity', as you say, JackofOz, so thanks for pointing that out. Thanks, too, MeltBanana, for your amazingly scholarly answer - how do you find these sources? Adambrowne666 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll be able to find an easy answer for that - it probably didn't originate in English, given how many other languages have the same expression. --BluePlatypus 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT KANTO EARTHQUAKE

In total how much damage, in Pound Sterling, in todays money, did the earthquake, fires, landslides etc do??? thanks--William dady 09:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1923 Great Kanto earthquake states "The damage is estimated to have exceeded one billion U.S. dollars at contemporary values." Convert to sterling on your own.

2. STOP YELLING!

B00P 10:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the damage exceeded $1 billion at the time. Let's be conservative and suppose that the damage totaled $1.2 billion in 1923 dollars. According to this site, that would be $13.7 billion in 2005 dollars. This works out to roughly $14 billion in 2006. That roughly equals £7.5 billion (sterling) today. Note that this is a very rough estimate. The article says that the damage exceeded $1 billion. The total could be $1.2 billion, as I have posited, or it could be twice that. Marco polo 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate method of working out the cost would be to take that $1 billion estimate, convert it to 1923 pounds at $4.03=£1, so roughly £250 million in 1923; then apply this site to convert to 2005 pounds, which gives around £9.5 billion. Of course, the damage could have been well over $1 billion.... -- Arwel (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ivan Scanlen (Captain) 1886-1941

Could you provide me army records of Captain Thomas Ivan Scanlen. He is my grand father. He fought for HIS majesty's Forces in East Africa in the 1900's. His parents are both from South Africa. thx bryan scanlen E-mail scanlen_bryan (at) yahoo·com.

I'm afraid we do not keep army records. Do you know which army this was? In that case, you might try inquiring with that army. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mona Lisa

Hypothetically, if the Louvre were to have the Mona Lisa valued, is there an estimate as to what the art guy's prediction might be?

If you go to Mona Lisa, it says that what it was insured for $100mil in 1962, which is equivalent to $645 million in 2005. However, it has probably since then rose in value, considering Picasso paintings did, and I would say over a billion wouldn't be too much of an estimate? But that's probably still too little due to it being the world's most famous painting. Thus, priceless is really the only real estimate. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "priceless" is a cop-out. If you tried to sell it for 1 trillion dollars, nobody would buy it, so it does have a finite value. The only thing I know of that's truly priceless are all the foods in the grocery store which they "forget" to mark. :-) StuRat 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have the nerve to say that it is just a piece of colored poplar? I wouldn't pay more than a hundred dollars for it. It's just a painting. StuRat you philistine! X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd pay everything I have for it, knowing I could turn around and sell it for millions, wouldn't you ? StuRat 04:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priceless simply means it has no price. In other words it is not for sale, and will never be for sale under any imaginable circumstances. It may have an insurance 'value'; but that is really quite arbitrary. If lost it could never be replaced. Clio the Muse 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it being sold. Say the museum is in bankruptcy and needs cash to survive. They could then sell it to another museum, which would care for it properly, and the first museum could have the money they needed to keep their doors open. StuRat 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually belongs to the state of France; and states do not go bankrupt. The painting was stolen once, in 1911, and caused great national concern. Anyway, add as many zeros as you like to a figure of one: La Gioconda will remain in the Louvre. Clio the Muse 07:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even if it belonged to the museum which as stated by clio it does not they still could not and would not sell it, however they could loan it out to another high-profile museum for money for a pre-set period of time. this should make them enough money to keep in buseniss, also the specific museum (le louvre) has enough other forms of art to loan and some they might even sell.Graendal 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we're talking France here. Nevermind the Mona Lisa, they pretty much sold Paris itself to Hitler. Say the US government offered the French Government Stu's hypothetical price, a trillion $US. The Mona Lisa would be on its way to the US faster than you can say: "on capitule" Loomis 23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another contention that will never be proved one way or the other! What I will say is that possession of this painting is so caught up in French notions of national pride that it would take a very bold-or very foolish-politician to agree to the sale. Images of 'falling heads', 'rampaging crowds' and ' bloody guillotines' all flit across my mind. Clio the Muse 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it more caught up in French notions of national pride than Paris itself? "Falling heads", "rampaging crouds", "bloody guillotines"...can you get any more French than that? Loomis 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the image that flits through my mind is that of Herr Adolph admiring from that particular viewpoint in Paris, (I don't know the name for it, but I remember being right there,) the latest trophy he bought from the French: The Eiffel Tower. Can anything, and I mean ANYTHING, be it the Mona Lisa or whatever, be more instilled in the notion of French pride than the Eiffel Tower? Loomis 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one piece of information about the Eiffel Tower that you might not be aware of, that could go some way to explaining the French national character. After the Germans occupied Paris in 1940 the key to operate the lift/elevator to the top was found to be missing. It remained so throughout the whole occupation, forcing the Herrenvölk to demonstrate their Aryan prowess by climbing all the way up to admire the view, no simple feat. It mysteriously reappeared in 1944, after they had been ejected. Oh, yes, I think Hitler's viewpoint was from the Champ de Mars. Needless to say, he made to attempt on the Tower.Clio the Muse 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Interesting indeed. But that only leads me to two further questions: 1) Are you saying that Nazi Germany, despite all of its achievements, including such technological feats as the development of the Enigma code, and the invention of the V-2 rockets, couldn't muster the brainpower necessary to pick a simple lock? And 2), even if they couldn't, are you saying that their buddy Phillippe didn't have a copy that they could borrow? (Quoi?! Vous n'en avez pas le clé pour l'ascenseur? Ne vous inquietez pas! Je m'en ai une copie dans mon tirroir! :) Ok, now I'm just being silly. Loomis 15:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why were typewriters invented for the blind?

In wikipedia's typewriter article, it states that many typewriter prototypes were invented to help the blind communicate. I see a couple of problems with this. First of all, they were blind, not mute, they should have been able to communicate via speech. Secondly, if it was in regards to written communication, aren't blind people capable of writing? And think about how much harder would it be to teach a blind person to type rather than write!

Much help appreciated !

Xhin 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to write if you can't see the lines of text on the page. However, it is rather easy to type a message without worrying about one line of text overlapping another one. As for them not being mute, being blind doesn't help a person talk to someone else in another country. Having a typewriter helps the blind communicate with people who are far away. Of course, communication by letter has died down a lot from the old times - first because of telephone, and now because of email. As for a blind person using a computer, I know a blind programmer who works at Microsoft. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the Little House on the Prairie books, Laura Ingalls-Wilder described how Mary Ingalls, who was blind, learned to write with a frame and stencil - she knew where the letters were by feel, and could line them up on the page. I imagine that learning to touch-type would be a great deal easier and much quicker in the end.sthomson 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be almost impossible for someone who had been blind since birth to learn to write, as they couldn't see how others write (and since seeing what they themselves write is important feedback needed for learning). If they already knew how to write when they went blind, then maybe they could keep the skill up, but it wouldn't be very readable. Just as an experiment, try writing a letter in the dark and see how bad it looks. StuRat 04:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle Paul, Sexual Orientation

When I was much younger (in the 1960's) I worked with a group of priests and brothers from an order where there were lot of members with advanced degrees in theology. Around the monestary, they used to refer to the Apostle Paul as the "Gay Apostle". I orignally thought this was some kind of "in house" joke (because some of the brothers had been gay before joining). But, when I inquired, I was told that there was some evidence that Paul/Saul had been homosexual before becoming a Christian. The evidence they talked about included the fact that Paul was raised in a Greek city, a Roman citizen, and from the upper class and that both Greek and Roman upper classes had a higher precentage of homosexual activity than society in general either at that time or today.

I recall the discussions indicating not only that there was some historical basis for this assertion, but that there was a small body of theological work discussing the implications of this assertion.

The issue has recently been raised by some gay friends.

My question is whether there is in fact some historical basis for this assertion and whether there are theological works discussing the implications?

--71.38.135.176 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an online extract of Bishop John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism discussing the possibility that Paul was gay. Marcus Borg may also have written on this issue, but I'm way out of my expertise here... Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to refer you to the same essay by Spong, but Sam beat me to it. Here are a couple of other observations. First of all, there probably wasn't such a thing as a gay identity or self-identity in ancient times. This seems to be a recent thing. There were actions, considered sinful in the Judeo-Christian tradition, that a person might feel drawn toward. The person might be tormented and consider himself (or herself) a sinner, but that person would not have considered himself or herself "gay." It is important to remember that, while Paul was raised in a Greek city and was a Roman citizen, he was also a devout Jew before his conversion experience. So he was raised with the Jewish scripture that labels homosexuality an "abomination". That could have caused some self-loathing if he felt drawn to such activity, even if the Gentiles around him accepted it, if only in the limited context of relations between adult men and adolescent boys. (See pederasty and homosexuality.) That self-loathing could explain Paul's (ascribed) authorship of some of the most homophobic passages in the New Testament, such as Romans 1:26-27. Marco polo 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some interesting implications... but the fact remains that there's no evidence to even suggest that he was homosexual --⁪froth^{T C} 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You both for the assistance. --71.38.135.176 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention that Bishop Spong's theology is considered by most to be heretical. Have a look at the numbered points under "New Reformation" on his article page. BenC7 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

politics

Is a vote for a republican a vote against the self interest of most Americans?

The answer to this question depends on whether people see the Republicans as the defenders of "traditional values" or of America against terror and whether they see these traits as more central to their self-interest than things like habeas corpus, health care, education, public services generally, future debt loads, the environment.... Marco polo 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction between what people perceive as their interests and what their actual interests are: I wonder which the questioner meant? Sam Clark 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See What's the Matter with Kansas?... AnonMoos 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, unquestionably, voting Republican is against your interest unless you think averting gay marriage is more important to you than keeping our economy healthy by reducing the deficit, stopping wealth transfer to corporations and rich folks, slowing the growing social divide between rich and poor, forcing corporations to reduce pollution and follow regulatory rules, sending the children of middle class and poor people to fight and die in horribly destructive wars for the benefit of Halliburton Corporation, continuing to generate fear and disgust in many of the other countries of the world, and getting the bastards who have been lying to you for the last 6 years out of office. I bet I could think of a few more reasons if those are not enough. alteripse 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why mommy is a democrat ;) Anyway, I don't like the Republicans, either, but you could read up on the articles and make up your own mind... 惑乱分からん 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An amazing book. I never saw it before. Unfortunately, the sample pages make me think it lives up to virtually every dishonest Republican caricature of Democrats. I would rather argue that Democrats sure aren't saints, but it is hard to imagine any other group of people causing as much general harm to most of the citizens of the US as the current administration has. This has to be a 120 year high tide for incompetence, greed, corruption, stupidity, dishonesty, and debasement of the Constitution and American political traditions. alteripse 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that book for real? It looks like a satire.

Anyway, I agree with Sam Clark that it's a matter of perception. I think a lot of white Americans, consciously or subconsciously, identify with the "haves" over the "have nots" because of the racial dynamic in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff 01:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not in a monarchy. The only monarchy in America I can think of is Canada. Any republican movements there? DirkvdM 07:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zat is right. Zee first ting ve fur trappeurs do apres ve put oop our igloos is 'ang oop a picture of zee Queen. Clarityfiend 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only Canada? You dissapoint me Dirk. What about the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba? Not to mention all those Carribean island-nation monarchies that have the Queen of England as their head of state. Loomis 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot about those. Silly me. Although there is some controversy over whether islands can be regarded as part of a continent - the reason some Brits don't consider themselves to be Europeans. DirkvdM 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course none of these countries is in "America", as Dirk would have us believe. They're in The Americas. The word America, where used without any qualifier such as North, South or Central, indicates the USA. There might be a confusion between this and the word "American", which these days is used by some people to refer to people from any part of the Americas, eg. Peru. While a Peruvian might be described in some context as "an American", that doesn't make it correct to say that Peru is part of "America". JackofOz 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See America. DirkvdM 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think voting for a Republican is for your interests. Laleena 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too Laleena. But shhhhh! Don't tell anyone. Loomis 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country to go out and vote for them, right? 惑乱分からん 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends.

It seems to me that the ability to vote against what others define as one's 'self-interest' must count high among the core definitions of democracy. Sadly, there are two many places in the world where the state is all too ready to define what the 'interests' of its citizens are. Clio the Muse 07:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]