Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 29

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.

August 29

Exploited children

Does the United States have a moral obligation to assist the world's exploited children? --Longhornsg 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Morals change from person to person (and usually change with each person throughout his/her life). Therefore, it is not possible to give a factual "yes/no" answer to a question that is mere opinion. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, it depends on your moral standpoint, but that of the US remains essentially a Christian one ("I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God...") Charity, and especially the relief of poverty, is a traditional Christian duty, both of individuals and of communities. As the American theologian Jonathan Edwards puts it in his Christian Charity, or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732), "It is the absolute and indispensable duty of the people of God, to give bountifully and willingly for supplying the wants of the needy". Just how far from home Christians need to apply this has long been open to debate, but we live in a global village as never before. Xn4 01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the words "under God" were added relatively recently: Pledge of Allegiance#Addition of the words "under God" —Keenan Pepper 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And Christianity does not have a monopoly on God. -- JackofOz 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Moral obligation. Is there any specific reason to single out the United States as the possibly obligated agent? I mean, is there any reason to expect a different answer to the question: "does Australia have a moral obligation to assist the world's exploited children?"? And why, among the many disadvantaged groups, "exploited children"? What about exploited adults?  --Lambiam 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

America has long seen itself, in Christian and in other senses, as a chosen land with a responsibility to bring freedom and liberty to others. This is called American exceptionalism. See this article and related subjects. Wrad 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly corrected, as the US isn't formally a Christian country, but moral obligations need to be argued from some system of morality, and the Christian religion seems to me to be the one which is predominant in the US. If we look at others, is the result much different? Xn4 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, an agnostic/liberal morality would 'dictate' that one should leave others their own values. The liberal motto "everyone should be free to do (and think) as they please insofar as that does not interfere with the same freedom of others". Religions have a tendency to go against that and force their own values down the throats of others. Christianity is a good example of that (missionaries), so maybe the fact that the US is so strongly christian is a good explanation for its behaviour in world politics. Which answers the question if the US thinks it has a moral obligation. Whether it does is pure POV. DirkvdM 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is very much more of a libertarian "motto" than liberal one. -- Diletante 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow your own links. The definitions are blurry and libertarianism is more associated with anarchism. In the Netherlands (and I imagine the rest of Europe), the definition I gave is used for 'liberalism'. DirkvdM 06:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember a piece in The Economist (excerpt here) commenting on the oddity that "liberalism" is loudly condemned on both sides of the Pond, with two widely divergent meanings. —Tamfang 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, many (including myself) are proud to call themselves. The equivalent for 'libertarian' ('libertijns') sounds very old-fashioned. DirkvdM 10:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As a very hard liberal/socialist, I would say that the US is a "Christian nation," even if the numbers of Christians are up or down. Christianity's world view and morality (morality being religious/supernatural, while ethics are human) are dominant and determinant on American world views. Does any person have a moral obligation to help the exploited children? When Americans (and Brits) have faced this in the past, they have suggested that we are all obligated to look after the least. Additionally, Utilitarianism even argued that it is a moral necessity to look after exploited children because of the amplification of the moral act in helping/hurting children (if you repair a child, you will affect that child's mature life, spouse, children, voting, business, etc.). If one needed a specific Christian command (other than Jesus saying that the second commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself"), Matthew 25:34 ff should do it. Geogre 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We just need to convert the children to Christianity; then, if they die in an industrial accident while producing cheap consumer goods for us, they at least get to go to heaven. Thus, our moral obligation is discharged without upsetting any economic realities. Alternately, it could be argued that we are already rendering this assistance by having our celebrities adopt these children one by one. 38.112.225.84 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you exploit someone and that person is thereby harmed (this is not a tautology!) then you have a moral duty to make that person whole. Like every government, the United States as an institution exploits lots of people to their detriment, mostly its citizens, usually in the guise of helping them; restitution is impossible as it has no resources of its own. —Tamfang 00:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

IG Farben

Why was it that Henry Ford funded IG Farben, which made Zyklon B for the nazi death industry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.238.20 (talk) 04:30, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that this refers to the transfer of a substantial holding of the German Ford Motor Company A.G. to I.G. Farben, you can blame Ford for his support of German industry backing Hitler in his drive to power, but hardly for not foreseeing, in 1929, the future Nazi death industry and the role to be played in it by Zyklon B. While I don't know Ford's motives, the shares were not donated to I.G. Farben; 40% of the Ford Motor Company A.G. shares were floated on the Berlin market and for the larger part bought by I.G. Farben in an undisclosed deal. See here for some speculation on the underlying motives.  --Lambiam 05:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that IG Farben was a respectable large chemical company that would be prefectly natural for someone (Ford) to invest (or vice versa). Zyklon B was based on a pesticide which is a normal product for chemical companys - it was not developed with the intention of killing Jews etc. Had hitler not turned out to be the total fruitcase he was the investement (either way) would have been a normal and sensible financial transaction.

If you are asking why he (Ford) specifically invested in a chemical company and not an engineering firm etc that is another question.87.102.18.14 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And note that IG Farben was not just a "large" company, but among the largest chemical combines in the famed German chemical industry. --24.147.86.187 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You might as well ask why Fritz Haber invented Zyklon B, even though he was partially Jewish. He didn't know it was going to be used on his relatives. --24.147.86.187 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A TV docu-drama about the Holocaust several years showed German scientists demonstrating to Nazi officials how they had modified the widely used pesticide "Zyklon" by removing the warning odorant, to create Zyklon B, the only purpose for which was the killing of humans (why warn them death was coming?) The canisters were labelled ironically "Giftgas" the German term for poison gas[1]. The Wikipedia article offers no such distinction between Zyklon B and Zyklon, and applies the name "Zyklon B" to the earlier 1920's pesticide used on the clothing of Mexican immigrants entering the U.S. Holocaust sources probably provide references to determine whether the docu-drama or the Wikipedia article is correct. The German Wikipedia article cited above indicates that the odorless version was created for use around food, to avoid leaving an aftertaste, and to conserve the strategic chemicals used as odorants. The Wikipedia articles on Insecticide and Pesticide give very little coverage to the widespread use of extremely hazardous poisons in the 19th and early 20th century, do not mention Zyklon B or Paris green, and only briefly mention lead, arsenic and such quite generically. Edison 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

English Public Schools

I think some of you may have gone to English Public (ie private) Schools. I would really like to know what they are like? Are they as stuffy as depicted? Do they encourage social separation? Are they only for an elite? Thanx. Matt C Harper 05:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They are far more different from each other than you would think. Few are stuffy. Most try to discourage 'social separation', but it's hard to dispute that they are a factor in it. Some are more for an elite than others, but perhaps the word isn't always negative. Xn4 (Gresham's School, Holt) 06:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of "social separation" they effectively separate rich and poor. Since the 1997 abolition of the Assisted Places (another redlink in need of an RD article) scheme, the number of children from less wealthy backgrounds attending independent schools has dwindled to an insignificant number. Other indicators are less seperatist; in racially mixed parts of the country, you'll find a mix of ethnicities, but one that very much reflects the economic progress of that ethnicity. Many independent schools strive to enhance the diversity of their pupils, particularly those that are located in inner-City areas and feel a drive to open their doors to local families. This has led to a proliferation of bursary (a word usually meaning means-tested scholarships) fundraising by the schools, to support children from impoverished backgrounds through their school careers, often extending beyond fees to other expenses, such as uniforms and school trips. --Dweller 10:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it true that a lot are single sex - which goes a long way to giving a school a certain character - or am I hopelessly out of date?87.102.18.14 11:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not out of date. Many remain single sex. Single sex education has now been a hot topic in British education for some time, particularly over the issue of girls outperforming boys in exams. --Dweller 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be overstating the case to say "they effectively separate rich and poor". Some rich parents won't spend their money on schools. Some very hard-up parents would, if they had it, but don't, and grandparents or family educational trusts fill the gap. Many children have their school fees paid by companies, by the armed services, and so forth, because their parents are working out of reach of a good education. And most parents nowadays are neither rich nor poor and have to make hard choices: one of those might be to live in a smaller house, leaving money over for school fees. We could even say that there are people in the UK who impoverish themselves through paying for education. When it comes to 'the poor', then (ironically, perhaps) most of the older English public schools were originally founded to give local children (often, a specific number) a free education. Although a few of them still do so, most give foundation scholarships which cover only part of their fees.

Returning to Matt, the English schools you're asking about have quite a lot in common with prep schools in the US and Canada. That's at least a starting point for understanding them. Xn4 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not sure initially if I should respond here, as it is an issue over which I find it difficult to be neutral. I went to a very fine boarding school for girls, the finest in all England, as far as I am concerned, and I can assure you, Matt, that it was anything but 'stuffy'! Just the contrary. The environment-academic, sporting and social-was second to none, and it took a diffident eleven-year-old girl and turned her into a self-assured young woman, nurturing ever talent she knew she had, and discovering a few she did not know existed! Did it encourage 'social separation'? Insofar as I understand this expression I would have to say yes, I suppose it did. We all came from privileged or very privileged backgrounds; but we were never encouraged to take a condescending view of other people, quite the reverse, in fact. Was it elitist? Again yes, but I personally do not see anything wrong with this, because I take the view that excellence should be encouraged and nurtured. For me it is ironic in the extreme that the assisted places scheme was ended by a government headed by a man who himself went to a very fine public school in Scotland. Let me concluded on a personal note: if I ever have a daughter she will go to my old school! Yes, she will. Clio the Muse 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Drat. If I ever have a daughter, I want her to go to my old school. So that's that, I'd better not join the long line of users wanting to romance you after all, dear Clio! Xn4 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! My loss, I'm sure. What was your old school, if you do not mind me asking, Xn4? I'm just being nosey! Clio the Muse 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If I tell you Gresham's School, Holt, then you are not to say 'poor girl!' or argue with me at all. Xn4 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What a lucky girl-just think: all those lovely boys! No, I'm being facetious; Gresham's is a fine school, high among the very best in England. So you were a boarder, were you, Xn4? A quite unique breed; for Such, Such were the Joys! Clio the Muse 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As a former private school pupil, I didn't feel it was socially elite (as mentioned by an earlier poster, scholarships and family educational funds meant that there was a healthy mix of social backgrounds) but I do think it fostered an intellectual snobbery that's very hard to shake off. Coming out into the "real world" was a bit of a shock as I had expected the rest of the world to be the same as school was. I was rather naive.212.240.35.42 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't not post an answer to this question! the school clio went to does indeed sounds amazing- certainly nothing like mine! i went to a boarding school just outside Edinburgh (no, not THAT one and OK, its not "English") which placed little emphasis on anything meaningful (academics, sport etc) and a whole world of emphasis on conforming and, for us boys "being a man". Sadly the closeted queen that i was felt alienated and alone. I hated every moment of that place and hold it directly accountable for both keeping me in the closet for at least 5 years longer than i should have been and not fulfilling anything like my potential whilst i was there. I left after three long years and went to another school (this time as a day -pupil). it was far more academically driven so whilst i got good a-levels, it was still "socially separated"- at the age of 18, i'd met no more than 5 people from ethnic minorities throughout my school career and ,yes, no out gay people. This story does have a happy ending however, after leaving school i took 2 years off to explore the world and come to terms with who i am. i now have friends from across all kinds of spectra and i've done things most people my age can only dream of. Would this have been possible without the independence and drive that boarding school environments foster? i doubt it.195.195.248.252 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing Titles?

When did the Roman become the Byzantine empire?Essex teen 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks. Utgard Loki 11:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See Roman empire#Partition of the Empire the empire was split into two, the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire87.102.18.14 12:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, after Constantine I, originally the Western Emperor, had become the sole Emperor of the Empire after the earlier partitioning under Diocletian, he moved the seat of the Empire to the city of Byzantium and renamed it Nova Roma. Then he divided it again under his sons; it got re-united under one Emperor and split up again, until the Western part totally collapsed. It is important to understand that the divisions of the Empire were, at the time, not viewed as independent "states", but just that: independently administered parts of the one-and-only Roman Empire. Even though some part of it had collapsed, in the view of its rulers and subjects alike, the great Roman Empire, founded by Augustus, continued without interruption in the East. It is only much later, after the Empire had morphed into the Ottoman Empire, that Western authors started to use the attribute Byzantine for the Eastern continuation of the Roman Empire. See further Byzantine Empire#History of the name "Byzantine".  --Lambiam 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Lambiam here one hundred per cent, and would even go one tiny step further: the Roman Empire never, at any point, became the 'Byzantine Empire'. Yes, of course, it underwent a political, religious and cultural development that would have made it quite unrecognisable to Augustus and the early Caesars; but to the very end, 'Black Tuesday', 29 May 1453, the Greek-speaking peoples of the east still thought of themselves as Romans, as heirs of an ancient tradition. Byzantine is no more than a convenient descriptive label. Clio the Muse 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Even today, Turkish citizens who are ethnically Greek are called Rum in Turkish, i.e., Romans.  --Lambiam 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Names of the Greeks might also be of interest. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Algernon Sydney and the English Republicans

I'm writing a paper on the sources of the republican movement in England, and came here looking for further information on the career of Algernon Sydney. Please forgive me for saying so but your entry on this man is rather sketchy. Can anyone help me along? John Hampden 13:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia agrees with you, insofar as the article carries a "stub" tag. I can't imagine I can come up with much that would be very useful on my own, but if you haven't done a Google search for his name and/or consulted the "External links" at the bottom of his page, you might start there. (The References section also lists a number of books which would be useful.) I can't imagine there are online sources which would not be revealed by this process. Anyone else? — Scartol · Talk 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a useful biography in Sidney [Sydney], Algernon (1623–1683), political writer by Jonathan Scott in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It's online here - that's a subscription site, but your library may well have access to it. If not, many university and reference libraries will have the hard copy. Xn4 16:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The ODNB's sources include the following:

Sydney on Government: the Works of Algernon Sydney, ed. J. Robertson (1772)

A. Sidney's Court Maxims, ed. H. Blom, E. H. Mulier, and R. Janse (1996)

J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English republic, 1623–1677 (1988)

J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration crisis, 1677–1683 (1991)

T. Forster (ed.) Original letters of Locke, Algernon Sidney, and Anthony Lord Shaftesbury (1830)

A. Sidney, The character of Henry Vane jnr, in V. A. Rowe, Sir Henry Vane the younger: a study in political and administrative history (1970)

[A. Sidney and W. Jones], A just and modest vindication of the proceedings of the two last parliaments (1681)

B. Whitelocke, Memorials of English affairs, new edn, 4 vols. (1853)

Earl of Tankerville, The secret history of the Rye House plot (1754)

Xn4 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you want to know about Algernon Sydney, the republican aristocrat? Well, here is a little elegy that sums up his spirit, and his ideas, very well indeed;

But where's the wandering spirit gone,

Since here he suffered martyrdom?

To heaven? Oh!, it cannot be,

For heaven is a monarchy.

Where then I pray? To purgatory?

That's an idle Romish story.

Such saint as he can't go to hell?

Where is he gone, I prithee tell,

The learned say to Achipotel.

Sidney was executed in December 1683 because the seventeenth century English state allowed for only two things: loyalty and still more loyalty. He was among the first to challenge the contention that opposition to the crown was treason. More than this, it was he, and those who followed in his path, who gave shape to a new and radical truth; that there were circumstances in which the crown itself could behave in a 'treasonable' way towards greter notions of the public weal. This was the whole point of Discourses Concerning Government, the text for which Sydney lost his life.

For Sydney absolute monarchy, in the form practiced by Charles II, was a great political evil. His Discourses was written during the Exclusion Crisis, as a response to Robert Filmer's Patriarcia, a defence of divine right monarchy, first published in 1680. Sydney was appaled that a free-born Englishman could ever have compiled such a work, a defence of despotism. It was Filmer's business, he wrote, "to overthrow liberty and truth." Patriarchial government was not 'God's will', as Filmer and others contended, because the "Civil powers are purely human ordinances."

In countering the Hobbesian argument that the coercive power of the monarchy was necessary to prevent the return of the Civil Wars, Sydney invoked Tacitus, the Roman historian, saying that the pax Romana, the Imperial peace, was the 'peace of death.' Rebellion may have dangerous consequences but

They who are already fallen into all that is odious, and shameful and miserable, cannot justify fear...Let the dangers never be so great, there is the possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms and courage to use them but that people must surely perish who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed.

All of his life Sydney had been consistent in his support of liberty. He had served in the New Model Army, though he opposed the decision to execute Charles I. In the end Cromwell's absolutism was little better for Sydney than that previously practiced by the king. His dismissal of the Long Parliament in 1653 was the act of a Caeserian dictator, subverting the republic and the constitution. In retirement Sydney was bold enough to outrage the Lord Protector by puting on a performance of Julius Caesar, with himself in the role of Brutus; and Brutus he was to remain.

A republican by deep conviction, he was abroad when the monarchy was restored in 1660, choosing to remain in exile for some years. He was only to return in 1677, almost immediately becoming involved in the growing opposition to rising forms of Stuart absolutism. When Charles dismissed his final Parliament in 1681, saying he would have no more, Sydney united with Shaftesbury and others in plotting against the perceived royal tyranny, of a 'force without authority.' Sydney was later to be implicated in the Rye House Plot, a scheme to asassinate Charles and his brother, though on some very suspect evidence.

Unable to support the indictment against him by any normal legal process, Sydney's writings were produced in court, as a 'false, seditious and traitorous libel', an argument for the people, so said the Solicitor General, to rise up in arms. In response Sydney said that it was easy to condemn him by quoting his words out of context "If you take the scripture to pieces you will make all the penmen of the scripture blasphemous; you may accuse David of saying there is no God and of the Apostles that they were drunk." But for the crown 'to write was to act.'

Sydney maintained faith to the end, declaring on the scaffold "We live in an age that makes truth pass for treason." Clio the Muse 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is Achipotel or how do you get there?—eric 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See Absalom and Achitophel and Ahitophel. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Ok, I've had my coffee and got the pun now. How embarassing. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mythical World

http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bookt1.jpg

Can you possibly tell me what this place is? I thought it to be a Terry Pratchett creation at first, but I reaally have no idea. Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.228.74 (talk) 14:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Based on this unlabeled drawing, I will be very impressed if anyone here can identify it. Can you at least explain where the image comes from? — Scartol · Talk 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good God that is so familiar. It's not TP, discworld doesn't look like that I don't think, but it is so familiar. SGGH ^speak! 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kalimdor? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

YES I knew I recognised it. Actually, Geuiwogbil has gotten the answer before I could get back here and post it, but it is Azeroth from Warcraft, see here. *high fives everyon* such a nerdy catch :d SGGH ^speak! 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To be very precise it is a pre-Burning Crusade-map of World of Warcraft Azeroth, the greenly encircled continent is Kalimdor. C mon 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm impressed – in the "I'd be much more impressed if it were from LOTR or some other somewhat-classic piece of fantasy literature rather than a three-year-old video game" sense. (We may be stretching the definition of "humanities".) — Scartol · Talk 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the same map as for Warcraft III, which is five years old. That's practically traditional! Algebraist 00:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the Entertainment desk would be more appropriate. —Tamfang 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Central Business District...

Is there a definitive reason why there are more people in the middle of the CBD (the PLVI)?

--86.136.167.116 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean residents? There shouldn't be. If you mean why there are more businesses and workers working in the CBD then there are a number of reasons. Good accessability for the rest of the population, proximity of the local authorities and government, high land prices mean large, multi-employee companies and officers, center of the surrounding population dispersals i.e. center of the regions where you can draw customers from. Highly likely to have a good flow of traffic going through it. Prime locations for redevelopment.

There are also drawbacks, notable a lack of space to expand through, expensive land for initial purchase (hence skyscrapers) pollution, traffic noise and so on. SGGH ^speak! 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was more referring to numbers of pedestrians, but thanks for the info! --86.136.167.116 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more pedestrians because there are more people. By that I mean the population density of the CBD during business hours is considerably higher than that of any residential or industrial area; think of all those cubicles on all those floors of all those skyscrapers. At lunch hour there is pedestrian chaos in most large cities, as at the beginning and the end of the day. Even in the so-called "working hours" there are always people going to and fro: off-site meetings, deliveries. I feel like this is too obvious an answer, however; perhaps you could refine your question. Bielle 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone else confused by the original question - PLVI. --LarryMac | Talk 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tacitus and the end of freedom

How does Tacitus view the end of the Roman republic and the formation of the empire? Martinben 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

With trepidation I might suspect, it wasn't really a sudden thing if you read about the gradual erosion of the republics functionality during the lifetime of Caesar. SGGH ^speak! 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the principate founded by Augustus in the Roman Revolution and the lament of the republican tradition it replaced are so central to Tacitus that the obvious answer to your question would be: grab a copy of the Annals, read them, and you will have by far the best possible answer to your question. Then read the Histories, as really Tacitus scarcely lets a page go by without using his cynically pointed style to let you know how he views things. This is what has inspired Tacitean studies—join the fray. Wareh 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if people remember anything of Tacitus it will be for the words he put into the mouth of the Caledoanian leader Calgacus just before the battle of Mons Graupius;

Whenever I consider the origin of this war and the necessities of our position, I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace

It is perhaps the most devastating critique of Roman power, of the whole 'civilising' mission of Empire ever written, all the more forceful because they were put together by an insider, the son-in-law of Agricola, the man who won the battle. It is a case against aggression; it is also, at a deeper level, the voice of the dead Republic, speaking against the Emperors.

In the Annals Tacitus concedes that the peace of Augustus was a necessary corrective to the chaos of the Civil Wars, though he does not agree that his dictatorship should have been made permanent. But his criticism is even more trenchant; for it is not a call for a return to the Republic, dead and gone; it is a critique of the Roman people, who lacked the strength of will and purpose to stand by their ancient freedoms. By this measure the despotism of Augustus was based on abdication and consensus. The Emperor, he wrote, had "won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn and all men with the sweets of repose." Bread and peace, in other words, had a higher value than freedom. After all, for the hungry, and for the fearful, even slavery has attractions.

For Tacitus safety and submission came at a high price; an Empire established by a desire for peace was maintained by terror. He takes great pains in his writing to record the 'tools of despotism', making note even of the names of informers, whom he considers to be especially loathsome. Rome, the master of the world, was a city ruled by fear, a fear that created a space between people, forcing them into solitude and isolation.

Tacitus, in a sense, identifies with an ideal of freedom, not represented in the self-interested anti-imperail conspiracies of his day. He finds this ideal far beyond Rome in the barbarian tribes of the north, in the Caledonians and in the Germans; in men like Calgacus and Arminius, to whom he also gave a voice in defence of freedom. In the Germania he contrasts the virtues of the barbarians with the vices of the Romans. Their courage, their simplicity and their sense of honour are all admired because, at the deepest level, they recall a time when such values were held high by the Romans themselves.

In the end even the peace secured at the price of freedom was a false trade for Tacitus, a 'dreadful peace', diminishing by degrees through the reign of Tiberius, Nero, and, worst of all, Domitian, savage rulers who produced a savage people. Yet there was still sources of redemption, examples to be followed, none better the Consul Marius Lepidus, who lived through difficult times, always observing the highest standards of conduct. Even under the worst forms of tyranny, Tacitus concludes, moral choices can and should be made. Clio the Muse 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Germans then and now

This is more of a historical-biological question. Are the physical characteristics of today's German people any different than that of their 11th century ancestors? I know some Germans that have dark hair, brown eyes, and very tan scan. I realize that not all Germans are tall with light skin and blue eyes, but I'm sure some sort of change had to take place over the course of a millennia. I guess it also depends on what area of Germany you choose and what the staple diet of the people was at that time. If they were underfed for example, they would be shorter because of a lack of protein and vital nutrients required for healthy growth. However, this is just a generalized question. --Ghostexorcist 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you want History of Germanic peoples or something similar. The trick would be whether significantly different hapologroups were introduced in the intervening years. Most notably, these would be Norse invaders and Jewish immigrants. The short answer is "almost certainly," but the long answer would be "depends on where, depends on what trait you want," etc. The Germanic peoples moved and moved based on increasing pressures coming from migrants from the east. The farther east you are, the more likely you are to have had one of those waves settle down. Without a large mountain range or ocean to isolate the people, they tended to become European. Utgard Loki 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question contains part of its own answer. "Are the physical characteristics of today's German people any different than that of their 11th century ancestors?" Essentially, apart from mutations, their genetic composition can only be that of their ancestors. (Note that the ancestors of today's German people may not have been German in terms of speaking German or a German dialect. Some of them, especially in eastern Germany, would have spoken Slavic languages. There was also a considerable Netherlandic migration into northeastern Germany, though at the time their Old Dutch language was not set apart from other Low German dialects. As Utgard Loki points out, their were also movements of Jewish and Nordic people into what is now Germany during the Middle Ages. Some of their descendants must be Germans today.) Now, while today's Germans are largely genetically the same as their ancestors of one thousand years ago, they almost certainly have a different appearance. Standards of personal and particularly dental hygiene were less advanced in the Middle Ages, and people older than 30 might tend to be missing teeth. Most people engaged in heavy physical labor and would have a higher rate of injury and perhaps scarring than today. Most people were peasants who had austere diets without much fat or meat, they may have been malnourished during parts of their childhood, and they would probably have been shorter and thinner than Germans today. But things like skin and hair color would have been roughly the same. Marco polo 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thought on skin color: Since most people worked outdoors in the Middle Ages, the ancestors of Germans would have been tanner, on average, than present-day Germans during spring and summer. Marco polo 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing that struck me when I first went to Germany was just how few people had blond hair and blue eyes. These characteristics are far more common in England. Clio the Muse 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of fulfilling Godwin's Law, I note that a very prominent advocate of the Aryan race did not have blond hair or blue eyes either. -- JackofOz 06:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he had blue eyes, Jack, bright blue. It was the one feature that all those who met him almost invariably remark on. Clio the Muse 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No blue eyes? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For readers in Turkey, where the site is blocked by decision no. 2007/195 of T.C. Fatih 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, this is image of a teapot with Hitler face, having his eyes blue but also his hair! Hevesli 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, where in hell's name does that teapot come from? It is wonderfully kitsch. I simply must have one; really, I must! Clio the Muse 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's by Charles Krafft ('Hitler Teapot' – hand-painted underglaze on earthenware). Contact is Rhonda Saboff, Director, DiRT gallery, West Hollywood, Ca. - see here, contact details here Xn4 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction about his blue eyes, Clio & Sluzzelin. -- JackofOz 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends of the region. The southern and western regions of the german speaking area like Rhineland-Palatinate. Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Austria, parts of Switzerland have darker hair than the nort germans. I always thought a perfectly good explanation would be the Limes and the borders of Roman ocupation.--Tresckow 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this goes back far earlier than the Romans. Whenever they find scraps of genetic evidence in Europe from prehistoric times, they invariably find that the local gene pool has changed little since then. For example, the mitochondrial DNA of Ötzi was found to be most closely related to that of inhabitants of the Ötztal where he was found. (See this source.) It is true that traders and bands of warriors (such as the Roman troops) did move around Europe and leave genetic traces but large scale migrations transforming the gene pool seem to have been fairly rare in Europe, at least after a possible initial spread of farmers who intermarried with or in some cases displaced the earlier foraging population at the beginning of the Neolithic some 7 or 8 thousand years ago. The Neolithic farming peoples are believed to have spread northwestward from the Balkans, with the Balkan-derived portion of the gene pool decreasing gradually along their migration routes to the north and west. Meanwhile, according to this study, blond hair originated in northern Europe around 11,000 years ago in what would have been a pre-agricultural population. Very possibly, the Balkan-derived first farmers of Europe traveled along the Danube and Rhine rivers, which would have facilitated travel, and supplanted or mixed heavily with the earlier populations in those valleys. The uplands and boggy forests to the north and east may have been less attractive to the Balkan farmers, and farming may have spread to the existing (blonder) populations of those regions later through cultural diffusion rather than migration. Marco polo 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tresckow, most of my time in Germany has indeed been spent in the Rhineland and Bavaria; but I've also visited Dresden, Leipzig, Hanover and Berlin and did not find people in these places all that much blonder. My experience is limited, I admit, to urban Germany. Perhaps it is more of a rural phenomenon? Clio the Muse 23:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the rural/urban difference is important as the fluctuation with other regions is bigger there. i think i saw a map of hair colours in an old meyers encyclopedia. ill try to find it.--Tresckow 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Spandau Ballet

The article states that the name comes from a reference to the twitchin of bodies on the end of hangman ropes in Spandau prison, but I swear I remember reading that the term referred to the way soldiers fell when they were machine gunned by the Spandau machine gun during the war, have I made this up? Or do both origins have some truth in them? SGGH ^speak! 19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no citation. I added a citation needed template. So, there's no telling who is correct until some source is discovered. -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to an entry in this thread at Snopes, a book called Rock Names by Adam Dolgins states:

The band formed in London in 1979, after an earlier incarnation as the Makers. A spokesman at the band's management company relates this story: "Spandau were just about to go onstage, and they still didn't have a name. Then a journalist friend of theirs, who'd just been to Berlin--his name was Robert Elms--apparently, on a toilet wall in Berlin he'd seen the name Spandau Ballet written, so he suggested it and they all said, 'Yeah.'"

Which still doesn't entirely answer the question, though other similar possibilities to those you mentioned are brought up elsewhere in the thread.jeffjon 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PDEA

When will the U.S. Public Domain Enhancement Act be voted on? NeonMerlin 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been introduced in the current (110th) Congress, so I don't think any sort of vote is pending. — Lomn 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fletching arrows

What types of glue did early cultures use to keep the fletching on an arrow? The Arrow article suggests that Bluebell sap was used in England, but without attribution. I've heard something about glue made from fish, would that have been made from boiled fish bones, or something else? If I found myself dropped on a desert island and I had to make arrows in order to hunt to survive, what would be the best material to keep the fletching on? Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to answer the glue-related element of your question, but the Collins Gem SAS Survival Guide by John Wiseman does include a section on arrow making which suggest tying the flights to the shaft. You can use string (everyone should carry some useful string in their pockets), rawhide, or twisted plant fibres (eg from nettles) for the tying. I hope this is helpful, and that you can remember it when marooned. DuncanHill 21:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Try asking Roger Ascham Traditional Archery, a specialist club connected to the British Longbow Society. The contact is Dick de Bruin, and an address for him is on this page. Xn4 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this article [2], fish glue can be made from the heads, bones and skin of fish, but is not very sticky. The swim-bladders make a better glue. DuncanHill 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, everybody. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Gervase Markham's Art of Archerie (1634) and added it to our list of his works. Although, sadly, Markham has nothing on glue, there are four chapters (VIII - XI) on arrows. Chapter X is 'Of the feather, the nature, excellence and use'. He waxes lyrical on the subject of the choice of feathers, especially goose feathers and the best kinds and ages of geese. We should note that this book is handsomely dedicated to 'Mr. William Trumball, Esquire, Eldest Clarke to his Majesties most Honorable Privy Council, and Muster-master-General of all England' and to 'The Worshipful, the Masters, Wardens, and Assistants, and to all the rest of the Worshipful Companies and Societies of Bowers and Fletchers within the Honorable City of London, and elsewhere'. Xn4 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting website of traditional African arrows. It shows pictures of arrows where the fletchings are attached using a variety of methods, including simply sliding the fletchings (folded leaves) into a slit in the arrow shaft. Others appear to use glue and ties, probably a way to deal with glue that isn't very sticky: http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/grayson/africaarchery/africaarchery.shtml Crypticfirefly 04:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)