Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 22

< September 21	<< Aug | Sep | Oct >>	September 23 >

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< August September October >

African immigrants

I live in Brisbane, Australia. It seems to me that over the past four years or so I've been seeing increasing numbers of black African people in the city. (I think they're from Africa because they appear darker than African-Americans or Australian Aboriginals.) I don't have a problem with this, I'm just curious about why they are here, and why now? Has the Australian government recently opened the doors to immigrants from a particular country for some reason? Are they refugees from a particular conflict?

Secondly, I'm puzzled by the way many of these people seem to dress in a way that seems "black American" to me. Many of the young men wear basketball shirts and baseball caps, and so on. I know next to nothing about popular culture in Africa - do they admire or identify with African-American culture? For some reason it surprises me that this would be so - any thoughts? (For one thing, how do they afford nice sneakers and stuff if they're refugees?) --Grace 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you approach them and ask them? Don't say "Hello? Where are you from?". Instead say some thing like "Hello, I'm always interested in different cuisine. Do you know where I can try out new types of cuisine?" Then play stupid and tell them you assumed that they are from Africa.202.168.50.40 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia is a country accepting quota-refugees, and for the past 15 - 20 years, refugees from sub-saharan Africa (for want of a better word) have been arriving in Australia from countries such as Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and, most recently, Sudan. The articles on the various countries as well as those on the Darfur Conflict and on Refugees might give you some answers as to why they are there. As for your second question, I'm not sure this fashion preference is specifically limited to Africans. Youths all over the world identify with modern hip hop fashion and dress accordingly. Perhaps young Africans living in the western world have an additional motivation to identify with (African American) hip hop culture, as they might see no other acceptable model culture of similar global presence, but this is just speculation on my part. ---Sluzzelin 12:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

According to a young Tanzanian with whom I spent a week in Tanzania last year, young Africans do indeed identify with and idolize African Americans, and by extension hip hop. These are about the only people who look something like them who are also major celebrities in global culture (Internet, video, etc.). Moreover, a home-grown hip hop culture has emerged in South Africa, Tanzania, and probably other African countries. Marco polo 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

South African Hip Hop (or at least, a related musical style) is called Kwaito. 惑乱 分からん 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, everyone! - Grace (not logged in)

United Kingdom Royalty

Who was the last UK Monarch to have any true power?

What do you mean by "true power?" --AstoVidatu 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's hard to say, because there has been a gradual reduction in the power of the king/queen, since, say, the signing of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 or the Magna Carta in 1215. If you give us some standard, like "who was the last monarch who could have people executed at will", then we might be able to come up with an answer. StuRat 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

who was the last Monarch that was able to order war? is really what i meant

George II was the last king to declare war unilaterally in 1739 (the strangely named War of Jenkins' Ear against Spain). He did so against the advice of his ministers. Declaring war these days requires two things (as does any Act of Parliament): the consent of Parliament and the consent of the Queen. The Queen is only allowed to withhold consent to an act if it's a threat to Britain's democracy. --Charlene.fic 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Charles II in the third english civil war.--Light current 03:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That superpower has not realy gone away but it would develop a bit of a crisis if ER decided she wanted to attack Latvia. Two other important events in the reduction of the British monarch's power are The Glorious Revolution when a king was effectively elected, who then went of to start a war in Ireland, and the illness of George III which meant parliament took even greater control. MeltBanana 04:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Queen Anne was the last one to veto a parliamentary bill, ca. 300 years ago... AnonMoos 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

...and she did it at the urging of the Cabinet, for arcane procedural reasons. Who was the last to withhold the Royal Assent in defiance of the Ministers? —Tamfang 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Royal assent suggests it was Charles II but history is full of "and the king ordered..." which when looked into are much more complicated and required the tacit consent of others. On the subject of royal powers Edward VII was quite involved in politics and is credited with delaying lords reform whilst George V was involved in the creation of governments rather then simply rubber-stamping the people choice. MeltBanana 14:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II and her George have, in the past, influenced which of the leaders of specific party would be appointed to the prime ministers office. In fact in the 1960's Elizabeth was influential in the appointment of lord Douglas-Holmes.

Specifically, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Role in government says she has three times had to take a constitutional role regarding the formation of governments. One of them was in respect of Alec Douglas-Home (not 'Holmes', and not 'Lord Douglas-Home' either). ColinFine 11:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; 1974 was another example where Royal discretion may have been involved: the Queen could have refused Harold Wilson a dissolution, for instance. Other notable and relatively modern examples of monarchs involved in politics include King George V taking an active part in forming the National Government in 1931, King Edward VII negotiating his own foreign policy (the 'Triple Entente') without Ministers, and Queen Victoria's veto on many possible Liberal Prime Ministers in 1894 after Gladstone resigned. It is not really a case of when the monarch lost powers, more a case of progressively losing a role as it becomes inappropriate: the UK constitution is like that, and those of us who admire it think it one of its best aspects. David | Talk 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for being pedantic David, but I love you people who keep going on about the UK Constitution. Please will you accept that there is NO UK CONSTITUTION? What we DO have is a collection of Common Law, Statute Law, Judges' Rules, and Parliamentary Procedures, Local Bye-Laws, Parish Councils, Unitary Authorities, District and Regional Councils, Devolved Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, Acts of Adjournal and Acts of Sederunt, and The Official Secrets Act, to name but a very few of the written and unwritten rules, codes and laws that I as a British SUBJECT (not Citizen please note), am governed by. The nearest protection I can enjoy in written terms is The European Convention on Human Rights - but and hopefully for the last time here, please know that when the British Government can overturn an ages old Magna Carta law that prohibited a person being tried twice for the same crime (after being found innocent the first time round ie the double jeopardy rule) as happened only very recently and without a vote in the Houses of Parliament or a Bill going through Parliament or a referendum on the issue, I remain very very much a British Subject -AT THE PLEASURE OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 - SUPREME GOVERNOR OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (But not those of Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales). Yours very humbly etc. etc..........

We don't have a document with "Constitution" at the top. We do have a constitution, however. The first is not necessary for the latter; this is a common misconception, and the British constutition is compiled of a number of different documents and (in a charmingly British way) some binding constitutional conventions.

Incidentally, double jeopardy is a common-law thing, it doesn't stem from Magna Carta... and as all but three sections of MC have been repealed, most of its provisions are fairly moot by now anyway. The current residue stipulates that the Church shall remain free; that cities shall retain their ancient liberties; that noone shall be imprisoned or fined without a trial by jury "or by the Law of the Land" and that justice is not for sale. Other than that, it's long since gone - the joys of the Statute Law Revision Acts. Shimgray | talk | 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much the whole of post (Norman) Conquest English history can be read as an ongoing struggle to reduce the power of the monarch of the day. Magna Carta is probably more famous than its real due (and certainly more famous than its impact!), but over time, the power of the monarchs ebbed away, with occasional fluctuations in their favour (like Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries. Picking out a few watershed reigns from the top of my head, where royal power seemed to come under new strains or diminution, I'd go for King John, Edward II, George III, James I, Charles I, Charles II, William III, Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. I'm certain I've missed some crackers, but I suppose the longer that list is, the less useful it becomes! --Dweller 12:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As a fellow subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, let me make it as abundantly clear as is humanly possible. The United Kingdom most definitely HAS a constitution. In fact, Canada's constitution began as an 1867 Act of the Parliament at Westminster. Its preamble clearly states that Canada shall have: "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom". Were the legislators at Westminster in 1867 also a bunch of misguided people who rather ignorantly "kept going on about a UK Constition"? Of course the United Kingdom has a constitution. Loomis 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One small point of clarification-the UK has no written constitution. The constitution is made up of a combination of statute law and legal precedent, ongoing and evolving. White Guard 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the UK constitution is unwritten. However I think it would be quite wrong to characterize it as a combination of statute law and legal precedent. On the contrary, the constitution of the United Kingdom is that overarching set of principles of fundamental justice, parliamentary democracy and constitutional convention that actually govern what is and is not acceptable statute and common law. I wouldn't characterize legal precedent itself as UK constitutional law either. Rather, I would say that the very concept of stare decesis, or in other words, the concept of the authority of legal precedent that is what constitutes part of UK "constitutional law". Put another way, constitutional law is a level of law above regular statute or common law; it is that law that defines the rules as to what "regular" law properly consists of and how it's properly constituted. Loomis 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only does it exist, we even have a detailed article on the subject. — Haeleth Talk 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, my above explanation was rather dense. Since writing it though, I think I've come up with a far simpler and easier to understand example of the distinction between what I call "ordinary" or "regular" law, and "constitutional law". Statute law and the common law as it has developed over the centuries in the UK is what I'd call "ordinary" law. However, what "law" gives Parliament the authority to create statute law? For example, unlike Article I of the US Constitution, granting Congress the authority to pass legislation, nowhere is it written that the Parliament at Westminster has any authority whatsoever to pass legislation. Yet it has that authority, and that authority is granted by the UK's unwritten constitution. Loomis 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How am i supposed to find Takao Aoki's adress?

I thank you for answering my question before,and the letter writing suggestion was great wakuran,but how am i supposed to find his address? Like is there a website that will give me his mailing address? If so can you tell me one or atleast any site that has his e-mail address?

I don't know if he would respond to e-mail, anyway. Try writing to "Takao Aoki C/O Shogakukan Inc. 2-3-1, Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8001, Japan". 惑乱 分からん 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1984 (Orwell book)

{{spoiler}} I just finished reading it and I was mildly surprised that the protagonist ended up brainwashed and alive at the end of the book. Is it possible to torture someone to the point where they truly believe that 2 + 2 = 5 that the past is non existent? I remember that O'Brien said something about how reality is only as real as you perceive it to be. --The Dark Side 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean brainwashing? Also, I always thought that the end of the novel describes Smith being killed, albeit in a very subtle way. It's been 20 years since I read it, though. --Charlene.fic 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are psychotic individuals who live in a fantasy world where they perceive a completely different reality from the rest of us. So, the question becomes whether this degree of psychosis can be caused intentionally by others. StuRat 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are people who believe that if they engage in a Jihad, they do not actually kill anyone (and that it's Allah who kills the victims) then there are people who believe that 2 + 2 = 5 and that the past is non existent. 202.168.50.40 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

O'Brien said something about how reality is only as real as you perceive it to be. This is 100% true. If you do not have your 5 senses, how else can you perceive reality? Reality is what you perceive with your senses or what you experience. If you experience pain then pain is real. If you experience fear then fear is real. 202.168.50.40 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If there is a chair in the room, then it really does exist, regardless of whether you perceive it to be or not. StuRat 04:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That only works if you already define the chair as being in the room. A better way to approach to the question is to say, "if there is a room and nobody can see into it, how would one know if there was a chair in there or not?" Here perception becomes crucial. --Fastfission 19:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My definition of whether a chair is in the room does not depend on whether anybody knows it's there, or indeed, if any people or other conscious beings exist in the universe. It seems to me to be the ultimate human conceit to assume that anything we don't know about must not exist. StuRat 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, too. If someone riddles me with a machine gun, then I will die and cease to exist as a living human regardless of whether I was blind, deaf, or temporarily unconscious.--Patchouli 06:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

O'Brian was talking about [one's sense of] reality, not absolute reality. Unfortunately, I don't remember the details of the book to expound on it further.--Patchouli 06:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's to be seen in wider contexts - first doublethink - convincing oneself of the truth of something which one knows to be false (how many people have convinced themselves they've seen religious statues weeping?) and second of Winston's overall capitulation to Big Brother. Rentwa 10:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't tried it out yet, I expect that torture is not a really effective instrument for achieving mind control. --Lambiam^Talk 10:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Orwell meant this to be taken literally. There were people in the Soviet Union who believed the fantastical claims about increases in their standards of living though one could see plainly that they were false. Similarly there are people in all places and ages who will maintain very bizarre fictions about the present (and the past) for an entire host of reasons. --Fastfission 19:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Simple answer. Unfortunately, the truth is that physical pain can drive a man's mind to believe anything. Russian F 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Niemoller quote

“ Then they came after the Roman Catholics, and I was not a Roman Catholic, so, I did not protest. ”

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/maryfisheraids.html

Here she means that the Nazis went after Catholics.

I am confused by this sentence.

1. Wasn't Adolf Hitler himself a Roman Catholic?
2. Is it not true that Roman Catholics who didn't interfere with Hitler's actions were not persecuted?
3. Is she factually wrong? --Patchouli 06:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis objected to pretty much any organized group which did not allow itself to be subject to Gleichschaltung, and Hitler didn't exhibit any particular strong loyalty or tender concern with Christianity (outside of a little loose rhetoric he dropped from time to time for political effect in his speeches). See also Kulturkampf for some background. AnonMoos 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was that while Jews, homosexuals, gypsies were targeted solely for being what they were, this wasn't the case with Catholics.--Patchouli 06:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link from the Niemoller article: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm AnonMoos 08:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the original source of the quote as Martin Niemöller.--Patchouli 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Trees falling in the forest

There's this well known philosophical conundrum, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no-one no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" But I've never understood what the argument is here. Common sense (and yes, I know philosophy might not have an awful lot to do with common sense) would surely say, yes of course it makes a sound. Just because no-one is there to hear it doesn't stop the sound from being created. A sound is a concrete physical phenomenon, not a matter of perception. So what am I missing here? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The conundrum is both philosophical and semantic. First of all, it depends on how you define 'sound'. For instance: WP's article on sound starts out with: "Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave." It's also possible to define it the way wiktionary does: "A sensation perceived by the ear caused by the vibration of air or some other medium." Note, however, that even in the last definition the ear is not specified as a human ear. Thus, even if 'no one' in the human sense is there to hear it, what about forest creatures capable of auditory perception? In addition, you could expand the definition of perception further to mechanical 'ears' (such as microphones and recording devices). The article on philosophy of perception and philosophical realism might be good starting points to explore this further.---Sluzzelin 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I guess the answer to the question would be, yes it does make a sound if you go by the first definition (which would be my preferred definition), and no it doesn't if you go by the second definition, since there is no ear present (animal or human, let's say) . But the sound is not created by the perception, it's created by the vibration of air, which takes place whether anyone/anything capable of auditory perception is in the forest or not. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A seismic wave is also a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave. But is it sound? Of the various kinds of disturbance of mechanical energy that propagate through matter as a wave, sound is distinguished as being perceived as an auditory sensation. Whether it is "really" there really depends on what you mean by "really". I may equally validly maintain that the stunning beauty of some natural scene is there even when there is no-one there to appreciate it. If all sentience comes to an end, does reality continue to exist? As far as I'm concerned, the answer is "mu". --Lambiam^Talk 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a realist. What argument can possibly there be about the meaning of "really"? It refers to what exists. If we were all unsentient blobs, with no sight, sound, smell, touch or taste, all the things around us would still exist. The answer to your question is not "mu". It's "yes". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly know that? Do you have observations supporting your theory of continued reality, or is this just part of a metaphysical belief system? Given the diversity of views on reality and truth, it is somewhat surprising you haven't noticed yet that there is some room for argument. --Lambiam^Talk 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not part of any metaphysical belief system to say that this chair I'm sitting on would still exist if I couldn't see/feel it. It's just commonsense. Anything else is just obfuscation. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that a seismic wave is a sound, you certainly hear it when it arrives. It is just a very damaging sound wave. HighInBC 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked in your original question, Richardrj, What am I missing? I think you know, now... you're missing the willingness to see beyond the limits of your Realism. It is not obfuscation to ponder what, really, constitutes a sound. Because while yes, the falling of the tree causes the air to be displaced in regular, energy-carrying waves, for those waves to actually become a noise requires some thing to perceive those waves as a noise.

Here's a slightly different example for you: I have a flashlight that emits only ultraviolet light. I point it at you and turn it on. Does it emit any light? You, not being able to see ultraviolet, and with no proof that the light actually works (maybe I took a regular flashlight, and just removed the batteries, and telling you it emits ultraviolet is a lie...) will say the flashlight does not emit any light. But that's just your perception... since ultraviolet light is still defined as light, albeit light humans can't see, I can say that the flashlight does, indeed, emit light. --192.168.1.1 8:40 22 September 2006 (PST)

The thing is that, if the laws of physics actually work in such a way that a sound only gets created if the sound is capable of being detected by some being or object, but not otherwise, then there's no way we would ever prove that this was the case. Nor could we ever disprove it, because a receiver that detects sound without the sound being detected seems like an impossibility to me. It's beyond science's capacity to determine with 100% confidence whether this is the way things work, or not. Which means that it's down to individual belief. JackofOz 03:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would find it incredible if this question has not been asked before sometime. But it will be asked again Im sure.--Light current 05:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The question seems to me to be prompting one to ask oneself 'What part of a thing I consider real can be regarded as existing independently of my perceptions of it?' And the answer is 'nothing' - no thing exists, except as mental perception. The sound of the tree falling, when you think about it, is a thing in your mind, not anything else.

Likewise the green of the leaves, you would agree, is not part of the leaf because the atoms aren't green, and nor is the green light green. Only the sensation in your mind has 'greeness'. So green is something made by your mind, just like the sound. Grasshopper. Rentwa 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but a grasshoppers green! I seen em! 8-)--Light current 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A David Eddings character (Ce'Nedra) punctures this conundrum neatly, by pointing out that just because there are no people in the forest, there are plenty of animals that can hear the noise. (She then goes on to observe that the trees themselves would hear the noise, but then, she is sort-of part-tree herself!) --Dweller 13:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

British Union of 1707 and British North American colonies revolting

Did the federalism of the British government and its powers imposed on the colonies vs the earlier confederated association of English, Scottish, Irish and maybe "France" have an impact upon the colonists to assert independence for their own government? Before the union of both parliaments, did not the monarchical union of the kingdoms merely provide "benign neglect" in regards to the colonies? Did not then, the revolitionaries want some comparable colonial union (Albany Plan of Union) of their own to counterpart the imperial government in London? Isn't Canada a state that was founded upon a sort of "giving into the colonials", that the government failed to do earlier and which is why the revolution happened? Éponyme 08:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

By the early 1770's, a growing number of politically active people in the British North American colonies wanted either direct representatiion in the British parliament, or some kind of entrenched "constitutional" guarantees on issue of dispute (local autonomy, customs, taxes, governors, etc.) which would ensure that rights which were given to colonial governments at one time couldn't be unilaterally taken away again by a simple majority vote of parliament after the fickle political climate in Britain shifted.

The British authorities refused to consider making either concession, and didn't do so for other British colonies later on in the 19th century either. AnonMoos 08:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the the turning point in relations between the British government and the 13 colonies came after the French and Indian War, which was in fact part of the larger Seven Years' War. Prior to this war, Great Britain had observed what is sometimes called "benign neglect" toward the colonies. The attitude of "benign neglect" had not been affected by the Union of 1707. This war had been expensive for Great Britain, and the British government decided that the colonies should bear part of the cost of what Great Britain saw as the colonies' defense. Toward this end, Parliament passed the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act of 1765. Many colonists objected to these taxes, and to subsequent taxes, such as the Tea Act, ostensibly because they had no representation in the Parliament that passed them, but probably also because of the financial burden they imposed. The dispute over these taxes ultimately led to the American Revolution. I don't think that there is much evidence that effort to create a confederation among the colonies was particularly modeled after the Union of 1707. Confederation was mainly a mechanism, at first, for negotiating jointly with Britain and, later, for coordinating the war against Britain. I think that one could argue that Canada gradually gained independence because Britain had learned the cost and, ultimately, the futility of opposing moves for independence by subjects who enjoyed the traditional rights and freedoms of Englishmen and who had considerable financial resources. (However, Britain did not give in to desires for independence by Indians and Africans until the mid-20th century, when violence in those regions began to rise, and the leftover costs of World War II made it difficult for Britain to keep those colonies.) Marco polo 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Marco polo says about the aftermath of the French and Indian war. Discontent did not spread throughout the colonies evenly. Massachusetts and Boston were the most radical, and to some degree other colonists came to agree that British measures to put down discontent there constituted a threat to their own rights. Durova 17:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, it is worth remembering that Loyalists to the British crown were a large minority in most colonies. Marco polo 18:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

More so in places like Virginia that had profitable cash crops than in New England, where the colonial economy had relied mostly on growing supplies for new settlement and as a resupply point for ships that went to the southern and Caribbean colonies. Durova 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Poet Robert Frost

To which school (movement) of poetrey did Robert Frost belong to? Also, did he have a specific audience for his poems? Numbercattle

Please do your own homework. Durova 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask." No need to be rude, gosh I've been looking around I can't find any proper references to it, and with him being such an apperantly famous and much loved US poet I thought someone out there would be able to help. It's not like I asked for a 1,500 word essay. Numbercattle 19:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes fair comment. Ive just looked at the page and it doesnt mention which 'school' he belonged to. So further clues must be given to this questioner.--Light current 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not an unreasonable question, and in my view Durova's response was uncalled for. I don't know much about Frost, but I think it would be hard to place him in any particular school or movement. (The same could be said for many C20 poets.) Although he was a contemporary of TS Eliot, he certainly wasn't a modernist like Eliot. Have a look at Literary movements and Category:Literary movements, they might help. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Literary scholars seem to have difficulties agreeing on a name for his style. I found references, some of them admittedly questionable, labeling him a 'New England Transcendentalist', a 'gnomist', a 'romantic naturalist', a 'symbolist', and he himself once defined himself as an 'emblemist'. Here's one link discussing his style. As for your second question, perhaps he had no specific target audience, since he wanted his poems to reflect the "common experience of all". Hope that helps a bit.---Sluzzelin 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if it is homework, its probably a trick question! 8-)--Light current 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I apologize for my comment. At the risk of adding flippancy to my earlier faux pas, you might reply that everyone who watched the 1960 presidential inauguration was Robert Frost's audience since he read a rather long and ponderous poem for the occasion. During his lifetime many Americans esteemed him as the country's greatest living poet. His reputation has declined somewhat since then. In formal terms he was rather conservative and his imagery was accessible to a broad audience. Frost's stuff looked like poetry to non-poets, unlike William Carlos Williams or Gertrude Stein or Marianne Moore. Unlike Allen Ginsberg, Frost wasn't overtly political or counterculture. This doesn't mean Frost's work is less intrinsically valid, but some artistic and academic circles regard it as rather passé to admire him. Durova 21:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is their loss, imo. JackofOz 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help =) Numbercattle 08:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

He was a Modern Romantic poet...or something along those lines. We just went over it in my Experience of Literature class. I'll withold my opinion on poetry in general though (COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME). Whoops, my ID hard at work again... --69.138.61.168 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean it's a complete waste of time to debate the merits of poetry, or that poetry itself is a complete waste of time? JackofOz 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jewels by Charles Baudelaire

I would like to ask for an analysis and/or study guide re: The Jewels by Charles Baudelaire.

Hope you could help me.

TheddalasorTheddalasor 15:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read it about 6 different ways, and it doesn't seem to be a type of work that requires a study guide. At http://fleursdumal.org/poem/119, there is the original, and several translations. At a mere 8 stanzas, an analysis could be easily derived from the poem itself.Hyenaste ^(tell) 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

US Expatriate Statistics

In descending order, which 10 countries host the largest number of US Expatriates?

Dave Carlson

According to this site, and confirmed by this government site, the numbers are as follows:

Top 10 Countries Worldwide by U.S. Expatriate Citizen Population

 Rank	Country         U.S. Citizens
 ====  ==============  =============
  1    Mexico            1,036,300
  2    Canada              687,700
  3    United Kingdom      224,000
  4    Germany             210,880
  5    Italy               168,967
  6    Philippines         105,000
  7    Australia           102,800
  8    France              101,750
  9    Spain                94,513
 10    Israel               94,195

Marco polo 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For a country of 300 million, that's a rather low ex-pat population. StuRat 03:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what attracts them to Mexico over Canada?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The cost of living is much lower, and the temp is much higher. :-) StuRat 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you're on the run from the US authorities, Mexico is a much easier place to hide than Canada. While the RCMP will cooperate 100% with the FBI, I can't see the Mexican counterpart as being anywhere near as effective or cooperative. Loomis 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I note that those figures are for July 1999. According to the April 2001 UK census there were 155,030 people born in the US resident in the UK. -- Arwel (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not all US citizens are born in the US? Skittle 14:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one other comment I'd like to make. A good portion of the US ex-pat population in Canada consists of what were originally Vietnam War draft-dodgers. As a result, you Americans have effectively shipped off part of the most left-wing bleeding-heart liberal contingent of American society. No wonder the Canadian position on world affairs is so embarrassingly leftist. Thanks alot! :) Loomis 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of comments, if anyone is still reading this thread. First, I doubt that the ex-pat population in Canada is largely Vietnam-era draft dodgers. Those people would have lots of incentive to renounce their US citizenship and many would no longer be considered expatriate citizens. I think more of them are likely to be the spouses of Canadians, people assigned by their company to a Canadian worksite, or Canadians who lived in the US and acquired US citizenship before returning home. As for other countries, I suspect that a lot of those people are retirees returning to their country of origin. I suspect that more of the US citizens in Mexico were born in Mexico than were born in the United States. This probably accounts for the high numbers in Italy and the Philippines, as well. I am at a bit of a loss about the high numbers in Germany. There has not been a lot of emigration from Germany to the US since the very early 1900s, except for German women who married US soldiers during the Cold War. So I would not think that returning migrants account for Germany's numbers, unless they are those women returning, perhaps after their husbands died or they were divorced. Given the language difference, I don't think that US businesspeople working in Germany would amount to more than a few thousand. As for the UK numbers, Arwell's UK Census numbers are enlightening. If there were roughly 150,000 people born in the US resident in the UK, and roughly 225,000 US citizens resident in the UK, then roughly 75,000 were US citizens not born in the US. My guess is that many of those are US citizens born in the UK who returned to the UK after retirement, either for the public health care and social welfare system or to be closer to family. Marco polo 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A comment on the UK census figures. Children of US citizens born in the UK can have US citizenship (they can have dual citizenship upto 18 years of age, so I am not sure how this would show in the census). Another factor is that US citizens can apply for UK citizenship and effectively hold dual citizenship even though this is not officially allowed by the US. I know a couple of US citizens who have done this out of the six long-term US residents I know show this could be a statistically significant number. Obviously after doing this they will fill in UK documentation as UK citizens as one of the reasons for doing this is to be able to vote (the other reasons are being waved through customs when travelling within Europe, and gaining the right to reside anywhere else in Europe) Also I believe that US military personnel living on US air bases do not have to fill in a UK census form, so would presumably not show up on the statistics. I don't know whether they would count as ex pats as far as US statistics are concerned either, so they may not appear in either figure. -- Chris Q 14:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The draft-dodgers thing was said half-jokingly, I'm sure they don't make up all that much of a significant a part of US-expats, though I do know of several US born Canadians who came over for just that reason, and they do tend to be rather extremely left-leaning. Still, I'll admit that the numbers just aren't there to actually have any significant effect on Canadian society. About the dual citizenship thing though, I do know that according to US law it once was forbidden for a US citizen to have citizenship in any other country. Now, however, I'm quite certain that having American/Canadian dual citizenship is perfectly ok by the US government. In fact, my two half-brothers (whose dad is American) were granted US citizenship with the US government knowing full well that they would retain their Canadian citizenship. But perhaps this is just a Canada/US thing, and doesn't apply to the UK. Still, I'm reasonably sure that US/UK dual citizenship is ok by the Americans. Loomis 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the US "turns a blind eye" to dual UK/US Citizenship, but it is still officially not permitted. The UK does allow dual citizenship so it is no problem here. -- Chris Q 06:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

From [1]: A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship. NOTE from American Expats In The UK: This means that unless you denounce your U.S. citizenship..you will keep it while having dual citizenship U.S. and U.K. - Chris Q 06:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Best short novels of all time?

While there are many lists of the best novels of all time, I prefer shorter novels. What are the best shorter novels of all time?

With nearly books I read, I wish they were shorter. They become boring after the first 2/3 rds. I only recall reading one book that I wished was longer. Also I'm busy - I don't have time for long novels. And to me reading two short novels is more enjoyable than reading one novel of twice the length. And since I prefer non-fiction, then I'm only willing to allow myself a short excursion into the dream-land of fiction. Hmmmn - perhaps the success of science fiction is due to most of the books being short compared with other fiction.

I would define a short novel as being no more than about the length of A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy by Laurence Sterne, or One day in the life of Ivan Denisovitsch (sp?). 80.1.88.127 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

List of novellas is a start. MeltBanana 23:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Of Mice and Men would fancy you? Viva La Vie Boheme!

With every famous novel (The Count of Monte Cristo, A Tale of Two Cities) there is a shortened version. You just have to look hard enough. Russian F 03:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I can really relate to the questioner. I wish I had the patience to read all the classics, but I just don't. However, there are quite a few great short stories. Kafka's Metamorphosis is only a few pages long, yet contains incredible depth. Swift's A Modest Proposal is a short, yet great piece of satire. A lot of Poe's works are rather concise, (and rather disturbing!) yet at the same time they'll leave quite the impression. And if you have the patience for something only slightly longer, my overall best recommendation would be Orwell's Animal Farm (about 100 pages I think). It's one of the easiest reads imaginable, (even a child would enjoy it at his or her level,) yet at the same time it so masterfully conveys a clear point on a certain political topic in a way that no other author has ever been able to do. Loomis 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already read all of the novels and other literature mentioned, except for the two long ones. I was hoping to find a list that would suggest some more. Perhaps one way to generate such a list would be to go through existing lists of '100 best novels' and filter them by page length. Does anyone know the easiest and quickest way to find out how many pages a book has?

I had to plug this wonderful book I just read which is definitely a novella, and I am positive slated to become a classic. Ella Minnow Pea. Butterflyvertigo 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazon has the number of pages listed for all their books so you can correlate them slowly that way. Unfortunately 100 greatest books are usually long impressive tomes that are often easier to laud then to read. My advice to you is to wean yourself onto long books (you'll thank me later). Many old books were designed for serial publication and therefore split very easily into episodic chunks which you could read 50-100 pages of and then put aside to continue later. if Russian F was suggesting reading condensed books then frankly I think he is evil. The scope and breadth a long book gives an idea to develop is often very important (although it also allows waffle room for the author). If you have to buy a cheap second-hand paperback and take a sharp knife to it, no to excise portions but to give you a collection of instalments. MeltBanana 14:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should look into short story anthologies. Is there any particular genre you fancy? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Surprised no-one has yet mentioned Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, which is short and a real classic. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Or Animal Farm. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Loomis has already mentioned that one :) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard! Loomis 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald would be my recommendation.

A Christmas Carol and Hard Times, both by Charles Dickens. Chuck 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was forced to read Dickens' Hard Times in school, and no pun intended, I had quite the hard time reading it. The novel may be short, but I still wouldn't consider it either the easiest read possible, nor the most rewarding. I believe in those days writers were actually paid by the word, which might explain my complete lack of interest in that book. Loomis 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Flight of the Earls?

What actually caused the Flight of the Earls?

After the Battle of Kinsale the English grip on all of Ireland became ever tighter. The Dublin authorities had singled out the northern earls as their particular enemies. It was to escape possible prosecution that they fled. White Guard 01:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)