Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 6

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 6

Is there a resource that shows what types of human faces correlate with certain nationalities?

Hi all. I was wondering if there is a resource, somewhere on the internet (possibly an anthropology site?), that shows what traits in a human face go with certain countries. Body builds are also appreciated, but optional to the research I'm doing.

Much help appreciated ! Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but Physical anthropology, apparently also called Biological anthropology, might be the place to start. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Different physical traits (and therefore appearances) are better for different environments, so one might conclude from someone's appearance where their ancestors evolved. But these days people move all over the world and for centuries (even millennia) people have mixed with people from other localities, so the link between looks and locality is getting ever weaker. And nationality is a different matter all together. DirkvdM 08:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

cephalic index is one option people from different countries have (on average) different cephalic indexes - giving their faces different looks - it's not the only factor, and I assume when you say nationality you mean 'race' since such things don't totally follow political borders.

Epicanthal fold also springs to mind as one example.

more generally the article Anthropometry may be a start for what you are thinking of.

Or perhaps you were thinking of for example a picture of an average frenchman next to the caption 'French' for all nationalities? If so please say and I will try to find if no one else provides.87.102.34.140 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) For instance http://amorsite.sitesled.com/ has different europeans.87.102.34.140 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, maybe with 'nationality' you're referring to US terminology like 'Indian nation'? There's even a Wikipedian who claims his nationality is Jewish. :) DirkvdM 18:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately most of the things you'll find relating to this are going to be either bad science or pseudoscience, since the study of "national traits" in this sort of clunky, subjective way has not practiced in anthropology for many decades now. Nowadays you will find such studies to be based in genetics and other less visually-dependent, culturally-dependent, and contextually-dependent modes of looking at people. --24.147.86.187 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting question. I think there are a lot of people who might think it would be offending, but a website providing nothing more than pictures of Japanese, Korean, Somali, Swedish, Russian, ... people would be interesting. (I can't see the difference between a Korean and a Japanese or a Chinese, but I now that it is possible). Or a website where you can take a quiz : you have to guess the nationalities. That would be interesting too.

Yes me too, but I've looked an looked - can't find anything - anything involving race or nationality is most unfashiobale following racial policies of nazis - I notice that people nowadays have no problem with analysing faces for potential wealth/earning potential..

All I thought i could suggest is that you do it by hand - and go through nation related websites one by one, however this website http://racialreality.110mb.com/gallery.html had the excellent idea and an lamost perfect solution to your problem - the answer is national soccer teams - should be easy to find photos of these and you will have 11? healthy examples of you chosen nations! Good hunting87.102.34.140 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine it would give you a quite confusing representation of typical Frenchmen :) -Elmer Clark 08:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Argentina land act of 1867 and the conquest of the desert

In what way did the land act of 1867 impact on Argentina's conquest of the desert? Are there paralells between Argentina and the united states over the frontier issue? What unique problems did argentina face? Why did the war on the indians develop into a campaign of extermination?TheLostPrince 12:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My, that's a lot! I suppose there are some valid parallels between the 'frontier experience' of the United States and that of Argentina. For both countries the issue became of growing concern during and after a major war; in the case of the United States the Civil War, and in the case of Argentina the War of the Triple Alliance. Also in both cases the growing conflict with the indigenous peoples began with measures concerning the distribution of the 'virgin' lands; America introduced the Homestead Act in 1862 and Argentina the Land Act of 1867, the effects of which were to be similar in both cases. Moreover, relations between central government and the the natives was marked by bad-fath and broken promises, and the usual weary pattern of reprisals and counter reprisals. And in Julio Roca Argentia was blessed with its own version of Philip Sheridan. Roca, who led the successful campaign against the Indians in the Conquest of the Desert, declared in 1879 that "In the struggle for existence...the weaker race must perish in the face of the one favoured by nature."

However, for Argentina the 'problem of the frontiers' was, if anything even more acute. In the 1870s the Indians controlled a far greater proportion of the country. From the core of settlement around Buenos Aires, there were effectively two frontiers, one to the north and the other to the south. Argentina's European population was considerably smaller than that of the United States. During the 1850s, a time of internal political strife, the provinces of Buenos Aires, Sant Fe and Cordoba were particularly badly hit by Indian raids. What was worse, the Ranqueles and the Araucanians, and other tribes, were ignoring the lines of territorial demarcation, previously agreed in a treaty with Juan Manuel Rosas in 1833. The outbreak of the war with Paraguay in 1865 forced the government to temporise by a process of appeasement. Encouraged by concessions on the frontier the tribes became that much bolder. In one particularly serious raid in Cordoba province in 1868 the Indians made off with 200 captives and 20,000 head of cattle.

At the end of the Paraguay war in 1870 Argentina was able to turn its large army towards a resolution of the internal problem. The 1867 Land Act, passed by the government of Bartolome Mitre, in allowing public land to pass into private hands, was more than enough motivation for 'rolling back the frontier.' The huge cattle industry, demanding every greater amounts of pasture, also required an immediate solution to the Indian problem. Added to this, growing immigration from Europe was creating new pressures. The final spur to action, if any such were needed, came in 1876, when Chief Mariano Rosas of the Ranqueles penetrated the frontier defences at three points, before raiding and devastating a huge area of the settled countryside. The hardliners now had all the excuse they needed for the final conquest of the vast lands of Patagonia. Clio the Muse 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

religious freedom in israel

hello, its an oft quoted fact that israel is the only "liberal democracy" in the middle east, but i've been reading wikipedia's article on it (to follow up a conversation i had with a friend),and it does seem that to be an out and proud atheist in israel is nigh on impossible (you have to study the bible to go to university and secular marriages are, apparently, not allowed). so my questions are these, can we say that freedom of religion exists if freedom from religion doesn't and if not, is the term "liberal democracy" approppriate for israel? now i'm aware that assuming good faith is something which a few wikipedians are less good at, so let me say now that i'm not some mean, scary anti-semite. I'm just curious about politics generally and would be interested to hear people's thoughts, expressed in a non-vitriolic way...195.195.248.251 12:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. why has wikipedia done the whole yellow-box thing? 195.195.248.251 12:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The yellow box thing happens when you start a paragraph with a blank space. I removed it so that your question is more readable. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this true 'secular marriages are not allowed'?http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1663_285/ai_n6172491 if so I would do this "Israel is a liberal democracy" or maybe add some disclaimer... It seems to suggest that an orthodox wedding is required - but what about non-jews - how do they get married? It does seem a restriction on freedom - I'm guessing just a minor one - you cross the border into jordan and get married there?87.102.34.140 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about this I think that a multi party system (which Israel has) would satisfy most people to think that the country is a democracy. However with 'archaic' or religiously biased laws I think the term 'liberal' in 'liberal democracy' is debateable..

Marriages/divorces are handled by the various religions, rather than by the state, but it's far from being a state run on religious lines. --Dweller 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any issue at all with secular marriage in Israel? My quick reading of the above reference and a web search seemed to suggest it was 'an issue' - but now I'm having trouble finding what the issue is (on a second reading)? Are there any restrictive laws at all (for jews or non-jews) in that state? (regarding marriage or anything else?)87.102.34.140 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeees... it's fine for people who don't mind being married under religious auspices, but for atheists/agnostics (or the irreligious believer - a commonplace stance in Israel), it's awkward. It's arguably worse for people who may be refused a wedding under religious auspices for one reason or another. IIRC, it was popular to make the trip to Cyprus for such weddings. However, this is a rare example of religion crossing into the realm of law in that country, and, as described, it's not exclusively the Jewish religion that is prescribed. --Dweller 18:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The odd part about Israel, is that it simultaneously contains a majority of jews who are less religions than the average in probably any other country, while having as their official religious representatives in the government, the most strict orthodox side of the religion, unlike any other country where that wing is pretty much a minority. Thus, a country where you need to satisfy a pretty strict rabbi regarding your intentions in order to be married within the jewish faith, but you can get a nice ham sandwich all over the place.Gzuckier 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning democracy, do the Palestinians who live in Israel have voting rights (active or passive)? They're a pretty large group, even the majority, I once heard. DirkvdM 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Arabs who live in Israel have full citizenship with voting rights, form political parties, serve in the Knesset (parliament) etc. with the main exception of not being eligible for the universal draft. That said, there is no doubt they are a de facto second-class population, vaguely similar to the situation of African-Americans pre the civil rights days. There are also some quasi-legal restrictions such as the JNF's policy of not selling land to Arab Israelis; on the more hopeful front, the courts seem not to share in these biases and routinely strike them down. Also, not being draftable isn't the boon you might think it would be in a country where everybody has some relatives killed while in the military; as with the US WWII generation, contacts, experience, etc. formed in the military are real steppingstones to success in life. Many Arabs do volunteer and serve in the military; ironically, some of the publicized military "atrocities" are committed by Arabic Israelis. Gzuckier 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I'm no expert, but all Israelis are entitled to vote, regardless of ethnicity or religion. However, many Palestinians are not Israelis. Then again, many Jews living in Israel are also not Israelis. Like with most country's general elections, it's down to your nationality. Oh, and while I'm at it (over there, this pedantic hair-splitting is very, very important) many Muslim Israelis are not Palestinians and many Palestinian Israelis are Christians, so it's probably easier to refer to "Arabs" than "Palestinians" to answer your question fully. You can find a summary of "Arab" political parties in Israeli politics at Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Political_Parties Arab citizens of Israel. Israel works on proportional representation - those parties won 10 of the 120 Knesset seats in the last election (see Israeli_legislative_election,_2006#Results), but as the first article I linked made clear, not all Arabs vote for "Arab parties", just like not all religious Jews vote for religious parties. --Dweller 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're correct about the bible/university thing. What makes you think that? --Dweller 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that struck me too. Having to study the bible to enter university would be pretty strong religious oppression anywhere, but in Israel that would be the ultimate irony because the main reason for founding the state was that the Jews themselves had been oppressed for their religious beliefs.

I also doubt that Bible-university link. Hebrew University, for one, not only graduates many Arabs and/or Muslims (and Christians); but is one of the few institutions in the world where a Muslim woman can accept her diploma while wearing a traditional veil. They even have a very large program of education and granting degrees to non-citizen Palestinian Arabs in Israeli prisons, which (according to the documentary on Sundance channel last month) in fact forms a major piece of the Palestinian educational/social/revolutionary structure. Gzuckier 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see anything about any biblical requirement[1]. maybe the OP confused requirement for speaking and reading hebrew? or else, meandered into the admissions page for a yeshiva. Gzuckier 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, however, in Iran, "University applicants are required to pass an examination in Islamic theology, which limits the access of most religious minorities to higher education, although all public school students, including non-Muslims, must study Islam." [2] Gzuckier 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I got the bible -university thing from wikipedia! to pass the end-of-school exam, you have to have studied the bible or the sacred book of your religion if you're not jewish.195.195.248.252 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I got it. The Israeli high school matriculation system is called Bagrut. One of the many compulsory elements is "Scripture", meaning Old Testament, New Testament or Koran studies for the different parts of the community. So, studying religion in one form or another is compulsory at high school. It's a thin argument to say that the universities insist on it, as the universities have no real say in the matriculation system that preceeds them. Furthermore, Israeli universities are stuffed to the gills with students from around the world who've not come through the Israeli system, most of whom therefore have no formal qualifications in scripture/religious studies. --Dweller 11:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The real religious restriction in Israel is that, due to an inheritance of the old Ottoman Turkish millet system, you pretty much have to belong to some recognized religious community in order to get legally married in Israel, and your marriage will be primarily governed by the legal-religious ordinances of that community. However, the government doesn't enforce any belief test -- it's mainly the individual religious leaders or clergy of each religious community who decide if you sufficiently belong to a religion to be married in it... AnonMoos

Gzuckier, Do I understand correctly that Palestinians/Arabs have active but not passive voting rights (passive suffrage - no article on that?) ? If so, that would render the active voting right moot. What use is a right to vote if the ones you want to vote for aren't eligible? DirkvdM 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion are eligible to stand as candidates, which I think (from your explanation at your talk pages) is what you're asking about. There are a number of Arab MKs. --Dweller 11:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the part where I said "serve in the Knesset (parliament) etc. " Gzuckier 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misread 'not eligible for universal draft'. Btw, for the sake of (possibly) improving Wikipedia, what is the right word for this? Googling "passive voting right" and "passive suffrage" gives some results, but not too many. Should I be looking for a different term? DirkvdM 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure i meant that universities insist on bibles studies as an entrance criterion, rather, that bible studies is insisted upon (by the education ministry). Either way, does it not seem a little excessive that bible studies is up there with maths and english as an essential subject (what would richard dawkins say!) It does seem a little bit like ramming religion down people's throats is all...195.195.248.252 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess they feel that in that part of the world, an understanding of at least one Scripture is essential. In many countries, religious education of one type or another is compulsory, although it's not often part of matriculation. Of late, the religious parties in Israel have held a lot of political power, but I suspect this insistence on Scripture is long-standing. It probably harks back to the early years of the State, when a lot of the statesmen (e.g. David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan - even, more recently, Menachem Begin) were resolutely irreligious, yet steeped in Biblical knowledge and firm believers in its importance to the new country. --Dweller 09:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's also a matter of how it's presented. Are all religions covered or is there a stress on one specific religion? And (not necessarily the same) is that then presented as the one true religion? If there were compulsory religious education at universities in the Netherlands, the students would riot. If the latter happened, their parents would. :) DirkvdM 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's Scriptual studies, not religious. There's a choice of Old or New Testament or Koran. And among those teaching Old Testament, most schools teaching the subject will be irreligious schools, with irreligious teachers, so it'd be taught as an academic subject. More chance of the students snoozing than rioting. --Dweller 09:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a bit of a nitpick, but isn't a scriptual study by definition a religious study? DirkvdM 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shivaji film- Tamil song

have anyone heard 'sahara' song in tamil film shivaji? The song will be when shreya will be in temple and rajini will see her. In the background, there will be a song from a ancient tamil literature. what is the literature? is it a Vishnu song or Shiva song? Where can I find the meaning.

Out of their element means?

What is the meaning of 'out of their element' and if you were to put it into the urban dictionary, would be the most appropriate form (e.g his, her, my, their, its). --Seans Potato Business 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It means like a fish out of water. Usage would depend on whether you're referring to a man, woman, football team or dog. More detail would probably be forthcoming at the Language desk. --Dweller 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

An example made up by me: "The great Australian cricket teams of the 1990s were all-conquering, except perhaps when out of their element, playing on turning wickets on the Indian sub-continent." How is that? --Dweller 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely the best form for a dictionary would be out of one's element. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you all and sorry for posting on the wrong desk. --Seans Potato Business 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mothers' Movement

In my reading I came across a reference to the Mothers' Movement, a right-wing lobby group active in the United States before entry to the Second World War. I was looking for more detail here but can find nothing. Any ideas? Thanks for your assistance. S. J. Blair 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems likely that it was properly called the National Legion of Mothers of America; see here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'Mothers' Movement' was the name for a confederation of anti-war, pro-Nazi, anti-Communist, and anti-semitic groups: National Legion of Mothers of America formed by Father Charles Coughlin in 1939; National Blue Star Mothers; Crusading Mothers of America; We, the Mothers; and We, the Mothers, Mobilize for America. They were five or six million members strong at their peak. Agnes Waters, Elizabeth Dilling, Cathrine Curtis, Kathleen Norris, and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning were among their leaders.—eric 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is one 'anti' you forgot to mention, eric; the movement was also anti-Roosevelt, viciously so. Agnes Waters argued that FDR wanted to rule the world as a communist dictator in league with the Jews! Her whole world view is so bizarre that it is difficult that any woman, let alone six million, could have been attracted to this movement. Her range of conspiracy theories were even more outlandish than those of the Nazis. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, had, so she said, invited Hitler to attack Britain to allow him to raise taxes. When Hitler invaided the Soviet Union in 1941 this came by Stalin's invitation, because he needed an extenal threat. Her political logic gets even worse, and it's difficult to believe that any person could entertain such conflicting views without actually being clinically insane. Roosevelt and the Jews were conspiring to end American independence by returning the country to the rule of the British Empire. This would then be merged with the Soviet Union; Christianity would be outlawed, and a world government would be created, ruled over by Roosevelt and Hitler!!! Hitler, you ask? He hated the Jews, how could he possibly unite with Roosevelt, the Jew lover and Communist. Well, you see, the Nazi leader was secretly a Bolshevik, and would declare himself to be so at the end of the war. Where, one has to ask, were the men in white coats?

The ever resourceful Mrs Waters had a 'cunning plan' to thwart this dastardly scheme. First, impeach Roosevelt, before making Henry Ford commander-in-chief. Second, abolish conscription in favour of drafting all of the convicts, and let them do the fighting. And what if there were not enough convicts? Why, that's easy: take Mexico, Central and South America and force all those Latins do the fighting for you. How one was to achieve this with an under-strength convict army is not quite clear. The indomitable Mrs Waters was ready for the Jews though; "Just let the Jews come in and the pistol-packing mamas will take care of them. There will be nothing left of them." So, no need for the convicts then!

Compared with Waters Elizabeth Dilling appears almost sane, though her malevolence was much more purposeful and to the point. When the Senate debated the Lend-Lease legislation in February 1941 she led a delegation of 500 women from Chicago to Washington, where they picketed the Capitol and harranged senators who were in favour of the measure. For all this she won over only one senator-Dennis Chavez from New Mexico. Catherine Curtis, a fellow anti-semite, founded the 'Women's National Committee to Keep the U.S Out of the War' shortly after Hitler invaded Poland. Growing in influence, she later took over the leadership of the larger National League of the Mothers of America. In this capacity she went on a speaking tour, blaming British imperialism for the war. Her friend, the aviator Laura Ingalls, flew over the White House, dropping Curtis' anti-war leaflets on the way. Ingalls was later discovered to be a German agent and a traitor.

Yet another of these 'wild women' of the right was Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, who set up 'We the Mothers Mobilize for America' in February 1941. By the early summer of that year the group was claiming a membership of 150,000 women nationwide. For Hyning Jesus and his disciples were all gentiles, except, of course, for Judas. The Jews had inspired the the American Civil War, the assassination of Lincoln, the First World War and the Second, as well as the election of Roosevelt.

This alliance of right-wing groups did not disperse, unlike other non-interventionist groups, after the United States entered the war. If anything, some became even more viciously perverse. One member of the Philadelphia branch of the National Legion of the Mothers of America said that that the attack on Pearl Harbor had really been the work of the English, flying the Japanese flag; another that she would willingly be shot for treason, rather than fight on the same side as the Soviet Union. But in the end they counted for little, hardly surprising when one considers the delusions and fantasies which filled the minds of those who took on the national leadership. What puzzles me, and the question I would have to ask, is why a national movement of pacifism and non-intervention, reasonable enough positions, whether one agrees with them or not, came to be controlled by the kinds of people normally to be found on the more outrageous fringes of politics and society? Clio the Muse 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the 1940 rightist counterpart to ANSWER... AnonMoos 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say, Chamberlain asking Hitler to invade in order to raise taxes doesn't sound far off some og the September 11th conspiracy theories. Cyta 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

What did the Duke of Wellington tell his men not to take into battle?

<Flippant answer> Spare change. "Never take spare change into battle," according to Sterling Hayden in Dr. Strangelove. </flippant answer> Geogre 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to get a purchase on this. There is nothing within the usual range of Wellington quotes. Can you please be a little more specific? It might help if you supplied some detail on context and circumstances. Clio the Muse 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no other info - this is a pub quiz question (an on going quiz question and no one can find the answer) and it is driving us crazy! I'm wondering now that it might be the Bible but can't find any reasoning to back this up. P.S. I like your answer - better than my first - their wellies but .........

I can't find any hits on this on google or google books, using all sorts of variations of "duke of wellington take into battle", "never take into battle authur wellesley" etc. SGGH ^speak! 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah HA! wikianswers! *scrolls down* damn it hasnt been answered yet! SGGH ^speak! 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I also can't trace anything, so I'll offer an educated guess. If Wellington was being serious (as he often was), it's more likely to be something to do with men's state of mind than to do with their equipment... "Take no good manners into battle! Take no anger into battle! Take no love letters into battle!" Something on those lines, perhaps. Xn4 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The book Homer and His Age by Andrew Lang contains the phrase: "the Duke of Wellington forbade the arming of all our men with rifles in place of muskets". This is perhaps the intended answer. If so, it is based on a misunderstanding of the text. All our men does not preclude that some of "our" men were thus armed, as appears to have been the case with the King's Royal Rifle Corps in the Peninsular War and the 95th of Foot in the Battle of Waterloo.  --Lambiam 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to every one - I'll pass on the info. Margaret 7 August 2007

Arthur Wellesley Wellington Aslo known as the Duke of Wellington forbade his men on several issues when during war or when in battle. The Duke of Wellington gives personal detailed accounts in this book 'Selections and the Dispatches and General Orders of Field Marshall" [3] Sept 10,2007 N.Y. Need Information? Ask A Librarian

Density of historical timelines

Timelines of world history seem to increase in density as they move forward, and historical periods (such as those in List of time periods) seem to become shorter. Is this because notable events are occurring more often than before, or are more recent events just better documented? NeonMerlin 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See Accelerating change, but note the "criticisms" section. The article is mostly about the last century, but the concepts are generally applicable. The thesis is that the rate really is increasing. The article is about technological progress, but technological progress, broadly defined, drives much of history. Critics counter that much of the perceived change in timelines is due to selection bias. -Arch dude 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I would argue that it's a chimera. Time lines get more dense as they get nearer to living memory, and this is partially due to selection bias ("you can't leave out X, because it's vital to me") and partially due to the confusion of the present (we don't know what we are, and so we see any number of divisions in our near history) and partially due to the teleological bias ("You Are Here" is always at the center of a map, and so "This is Us" is always the determination of history). The innocent explanation is that archiving has preserved more records from the nearer history than the distant history, so we can discern more "stuff" going on as we get close. However, I personally think that there is a thymic history and an active history, and the former is unchanged. The living person probably knows the same quantity as she used to, but it's composed of a different inventory, and so also the practical history (active forces shaping identity and potential actions) is the same quantity but different inventory. Geogre 02:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot more people than there were in the past, so there are more, wealthier, better educated and more powerful people to make history. Also, improvements in transportation and communication mean there is a faster pace of interaction between them. Clarityfiend 03:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A fascinating question. From a historiographic perspective, it's partly to do with sources. Since the invention of printing there has been an explosion in the survival of varied sources on a near exponential basis. Simplistically speaking (Clio, please feel free to expound!), the Annales School of History took a view therefore that modern history could not be properly studied, as even an expert devoted to a niche issue could not familiarise themselves with all the contemporary material available (diaries, newspapers, govt documents, private letters, advertisements, and more recently, radio and TV broadcasts, websites, email etc etc etc). Unsurprisingly, English-speaking history students have found an obvious nickname for Annale historians. --Dweller 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true in terms of the history of technology consider the period 0 to 1000AD - not a lot changes.

In terms of wars it looks to me like there was just as much conflict hundreds or thousands of years ago as there is today (though more people die in modern wars - there are more people around though).

As for the history of society or art I can't really say - societal organisation doesn't seem to have progressed much - change in that area will be probably about as fast as human evolution.87.102.75.182 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there has been "much more" technological change, once the increased population is taken into account, but we tend to ignore some of the technological innovation of previous centuries. Most of the innovation/technology would have been agricultural. More people know Jethro Tull (band) than Jethro Tull, but the agricultural revolution of the 13th century meant a huge change in culture in the 14th century. Other than that, there was a great pace of technological change with sailing ships. We may be accustomed to seeing tall ships with their hundreds of riggings, but each part of that represented invention. We take for granted building techniques that were each revolutionary. Two things made technology more progressive than sporadic, though. One was the print revolution. The other was the establishment of libraries. With those two, it became possible for a nobody in the provinces to read up on mercury vapors and postulate a theory of volumes. It became possible for Mr. Volta's odd discovery to become a science. Of course, our population change is drastic, and if you assume that one in a thousand persons may innovate, that means a lot more innovation (good, bad, and useless) now than in times past. Geogre 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand what Jethro Tull (1674-1741) has to do with "the agricultural revolution of the 13th century". 64.236.80.62 10:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I! Clio the Muse 15:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On 'the establishment of libraries', no doubt the explosion in literacy in the European world in about the middle of the 19th century led to a great increase in the number of public (which I think is the point) libraries. In the UK the surge in public libraries got under way in the 1850s. But it wasn't a modern development. The Romans had public libraries (usually connected to public baths), and learned libraries of the Arab Empire under the Abbasids were open to all comers in the Islamic Golden Age. Xn4 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)