Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 17

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

December 17

how would you draw a gondolier

I hope this is the right place to ask this -- I'm trying to draw a gondolier (in the act of rowing a gondola, naturally) and I've just realised I am not terribly good at drawing figures while they're inside a boat. I'm not so much asking for a step-by-step thing as perhaps some tips on what to do. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They basically just stand up - so draw a standing man, with a big oar, and then draw the boat under him. (I would warn you that my drawing abilities are pretty rotten!). DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The gondolier stands at the stern of his boat just above the point at which the stern leaves the water. When rowing, he has his feet apart and both hands (not too far apart) are on the oar, which is very long and straight, and he leans a little into the oar which is anchored to a post slightly in front of him on the starboard side. However, an easier way to draw him is to have him not rowing, in which case he stands quite upright to rest his back, leaving the oar in the water but angled (this is invisible) so that it doesn't hold the boat up. By angling the boat you can avoid drawing the oar-post, if you’re not sure about it! If you want to draw it, it has a strange shape, rather like a bent leg, with the knee sticking out over the water. Don’t forget, gondolas are almost invariably painted black. Xn4 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When I was in Venice, all the gondoliers stood on a red platform on top of the canoe-like boat. They did not stand "in" the boat. This may help since you just draw the boat under the guy standing there. -- kainaw™ 03:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he stands on the deck of the boat, not in it. The decks are normally either plain wood or else are painted black or red. Xn4 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a photo [1] of one at work, showing everything mentioned above, plus the fact of the uniform: black pants, black-and-white striped jersey (stripes are horizontal, there are no fat gondoliers!) and flat straw hat. Bielle (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And many more. Oda Mari (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rise of Western and European Civilization

For hundreds of years up to now, Western and European civilization has dominated the world. The richest and most developed countries in the world are all mostly and mainly Western or European countries. Europe and European countries have controlled and ruled most of the world through colonialism and colonization. Europeans colonized and settled in overseas lands such as the Americas and Australia. Europeans and European countries have become the masters of most non-Western countries and peoples through colonialism. In the West, in Europe, in Britain, there first developed in Industrial Revolution, where people lived mostly in cities and worked mostly in factories. In the West, in America, Britain, Rome, and Greece, democracy first rose, grew, spread, and developed, and it was the West where the world's democracy came from. Most of the world's scientific research, advancement, and knowledge and technological invention, development, and application came from and occurred in the West and Europe. Most of the world's science and technology, scientists and inventors, are in the West or from the West. The West has led much in humanity and the world's development and progress. From Europe came the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Agricultural Revolution. The most powerful country in the world, the United States, is a Western country.

I have three questions to ask you about this:

1. Why has Western and European civilization been so great and powerful currently in the past few hundred years? Why has it dominated the world? Why had it contributed so much to humanity and the world's development and progress? Why?

2. Is there any evidence, for example, historical, political, social, cultural, anthropological, or geographical, that it is not inevitable that Western and European civilization dominated the world? Is there any evidence that other civilizations can also or are also able to or capable of being so great and powerful or contributing so much to humanity and the world's development and progress?

3. Will Western and European civilization be so great and the greatest civilization in the world for ever? Will there be other civlizations that will be or become as great or greater than Western and European civilization?

Bowei Huang (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like this has something to do with Guns, Germs, and Steel. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside (1),

• 2) Why should European dominance be inevitable? Since a great many non-European civilizations have had their time as "greatest in the world" or what have you, the question seems quite flawed.
• 3) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but given world history, it's likely that a new body will rise to dominance.

And what's up with the recent ref desk fixation with GG&S lately, anyway? — Lomn 04:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a popular book, probably being used by high schools and maybe undergrad classes, which has satisfying answers to impossible questions, based on questionably methodology. Assuming it is correct is much easier than having students do any real work. Hooray! (Although I don't know why it's suddenly popular now, since it is a decade or so old.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question touches on what has been perhaps the single most important aspect of my own personal lifelong study of history, namely: the transition of non-"Western" societies that encounter and are ultimately absorbed into the spreading society of Western Civilization. I have yet to find a society on earth that has been able to successfully sustain itself independent once it comes into contact with Western Civilization. I would say, from what I have been able to understand from having studied this so extensively, that your premise that Western Civilization's spread throughout the world was indeed "inevitable". Or rather, after a certain point it was. However, when discussing this, I really don't like to use the term "Western" or "European" or "Civilization", since from my perspective, it is neither exclusively Western or European, and to call it a Civilization is to mislabel it, I think. But for purposes of clarity, let's call it this here for now... This is explained a little better in the Wiki article Sociocultural evolution. However, I do have to say that even in this I find that the term "evolution" is unsatisfactory, since it implies that there has been a progression from early "bad" societies to "better" ones. Instead, the term Social change is probably better to use, but it is rather general and vague...

Western Civilization actually did not begin in the West, nor even in Europe. Instead, it probably began in the Fertile Crescent and adjacent areas. During a very pivotal time in ancient history, from about 2000 BCE to 600 AD (but most especially from around 1800 to 1200 BCE), a series of migrations and invasions took place among a group of nomadic warriors known as the Indo-Europeans from their probable homeland north of the Black Sea into areas stretching from the Indian sub-continent to Ireland. Some of the early invasions of the Indo-Europeans took them over the mountainous region of Turkey, Iraq and Iran and down into the lands of the Fertile Crescent where more sedentary and agricultural societies fluorished. The nomadic Indo-Europeans had a couple of technological advantages at first that greatly helped them in their warfare: they had developed the knowledge of how to smelt and work iron, and they had domesticated the horse. Along with this they also were nomadic, and nomads are typically very good warriors. Unable to fend off these highly proficient warriors, many of the communities in this area were rubbed out. One such example of this is the ruined city of Ebla, which was destroyed in 1750 BCE by the Hittites, an Indo-European tribe. Although there had been much competition between societies in the Fertile Crescent before the arrival of the Indo-European invasion, the level of devastation and social upheaval brought about by these nomadic warrior barbarians coming from the north was unprecedented for this region.

If a society wished to stand up against these invaders in an attempt to keep from being completely wiped out, they had to change how their society functioned in order to do so. In other words, they had to adopt the very techniques that made the invading armies so powerful, and try to improve on them. In the end this basically destroyed their old culture, and supplanted it with that of the invaders' even though they had not been conquered. By becoming the same kind of society as that of their enemies, they stopped being the society that they once were. To stand up against these nomadic warriors, the societies in this region had to become "machine-like". Before this, the typical person in this area had a life that was quite diversified. People would perform many different activities throughout their day, and their lives were not very regimented. In order to withstand the constant threat of invasion, though, these societies had to reshape themselves so that they created specialists. The ruler (typically a King), would establish a well-trained standing army of soldiers who could respond at a moment's notice to any threat, and who did not produce anything other than safety from outside invasion. Instead, these soldiers consumed - and it was very expensive for these societies' economies to equip, train, and maintain armies large enough to prevent invaders from destroying them. This meant that the average person no longer was occupied with various and sundry activities, but would be regulated to a particular livelihood such as farming, metal crafts, etc. Taxes became even more critical, so a larger bureaucracy had to be established to keep track of this. In short, "Western Civilization" was created. Unfortunately for these people in the Fertile Crescent, the invading Indo-European tribes began settling down and started the process of turning their societies into machines as well.

Eventually what ended up happening was that another Indo-European society invaded the Fertile Crescent - the Greeks under Alexander the Great. The Greeks' society was even MORE "machine-like" than other people - and because of this they were more successful. But then another Indo-European society came along that, for a variety of reasons, was the most efficient machine-like society to yet - namely the Romans. It would not be for centuries later that another society could match the great advantage that the Romans had over their competeting rivals in terms of being efficiently organized. After the collapse of the Roman Empire under the hands of yet more Indo-Europeans (the Germanic Tribes), "Western Civilization" continued to spread, but more subtely - mostly through the Christianity (which carried with it Roman culture) and Commerce. Even though other societies embraced the techniques of "Western Civilization", such as the Medieval Muslims, the societies of Northern and Western Europe managed to take the lead in developing these techniques, and by the Age of Exploration, were poised to spread its influence all over the entire globe.

It so happens that a couple of other phenomena occurred that have had a huge impact on the course of world events over the past couple of hundred years - the rise of the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution - both of which occurred mainly in Northern and Western Europe. The conditions that created both of these things were optimized by Western Civilization, and then both the Middle Class and the Industrial Revolution (with their emphasis on mercantilism and exploitation) went on to make Western Civilization even more powerful than it had been before by making the societies in which these things occurred become even more "machine-like". Today, the most machine-like society that has ever existed is that of the United States. The U.S. embodies the epitome of a society that has incorporated both of these forces. It may well be that some other forces might come along that will supplant the Middle Class's powerful position, or to supplant the Industrial Revolution - but whatever force this is, it will certainly still be an integral part of Western Civilization. Communism, after all, is just another form of Western Civilization, for example... So perhaps a better question would be: "What, if anything, will supplant the Middle Class?"

As different societies initially encountered Western Civilization, there were mixed reactions. Some societies embraced it fervently (such as the Romans), while others opposed it violently (such as the Gauls). Still other peoples had a mixture of embracing and opposing its cancerous spread (such as the Britons). However, nobody has been able to ultimately resist embracing it. All a society can realistically hope for is that it can hang on to many vestiges of its earlier unique character, while trying to incorporate the aspects of Western Civilization in as seamless a way as possible. Always this process of transformation from earlier society to Western Civilization is filled with huge social upheaval and violence. This cannot be changed, as it is in the very nature of why societies must adopt Western Civilization in the first place: to prevent themselves from being annhilated. Today we can see this same process as it works its way through societies that are in various stages of embracing Western Civilization (notably in places such as Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia). All are fraught with violence and upheaval. This process usually lasts a couple of hundred years, and then relative stability ensues. Perhaps the day will come when some future generation will no longer be faced with headlines from around the world that speak of societies' violent encounters with Western Civilization, as it will be a done deal. I just do not see how any social or historical interference can possibly stop the spread of Western Civilization until it has been embraced by every last society on the planet. It is a cancer that cannot be stopped without becoming part of the cancer itself.

You asked if it is possible whether something else could come along that could be as strong or stronger in terms of social influence as Western Civilization, and my answer would be no. At least not for the next thousand years or so. The reason is that Western Civilization turns societies into machines. By doing so, the machine-like society becomes so efficient and so powerful that it cannot be successfully opposed. The other reason is that in doing this, the society also achieves a level of security that allows for the flow of commerce and the development of culture, which are very powerful enticements for the average human being. Having a steady income and being able to enjoy entertainments regularly are highly valued things. In order for another system to be able to be as strong as this, it would basically have to replicate what Western Civilization does - and in so doing, it would actually become part of Western Civilization, too. (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...). Forever, though, is a long time. I am sure that some time in the distant future there will emerge some social force that will supplant Western Civilization, but I cannot envision it happening for centuries, if not for millenia.

This is written from my own opinion, but I am not writing this as "original research" by any means! There have been many books and articles that have stated the same thing I just did. Indeed, this is such a pervasive theme that unless someone requests, I shall forego citing any specific works, alhtough the aforementioned "Guns, Germs and Steel" is probably just as good a work as any.Saukkomies 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that while so-called "Western Civilization" had a huge and transformational effect on the rest of the world over the last 500 years, so to has the "West" been transformed by this process. What would Ireland's history be like had the potato not been introduced from the New World, for example? What would popular music be like in "the West" (and thus the world now) had not African slaves been brought to the United States in such large numbers? I'm just pointing out that even if every society on the planet has been transformed to one degree or another by Western Civilization, so too has Western Civilization been transformed "to one degree or another". Pfly (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes! And to further elaborate, the "West" (namely, western Europe) originally wasn't even a part of "Western Civilization" to begin with! As this thing that has come to be known as "Western Civilization" spread from the Middle East into Europe and eventually into Western Europe, people fought against it kicking and screaming until one by one they all succumbed to its influence. The fact that they then went on to spread this "thing" even further around the globe does not mean they're the ones who are originally responsible for it. -- Saukkomies 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beware always, Bowei Huang, of the illusion that history always moves in one direction. For that which rises also falls and the owl of Minerva only ever flys at dusk. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, Clio. And, in addition, it is always good to remind ourselves that any given theory about history or historical events is most probably not going to be absolutely correct. The best we can do is to look at things from as many angles as possible, and then draw tentative conclusions from there. Trying to be a good historian (and by that I mean one that attempts to be honest) is a very humbling experience, or at least it ought to be. -- Saukkomies 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You said that Western countries and societies rose and flourished because they were more machine-like. I don't understand. Weren't many other countries and civilizations such as China also very machine-like or just as machine-like as Western countries and civilization? I mean, the Chinese had a large empire and ancient civilization that was as complex, sophisticated, and advanced as the Romans were and had. So how and why were Western countries and societies more machine-like than other countries and societies, like China?Bowei Huang (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A book I've been reading, Pathfinders: A Global History of Exploration, points out that nearly all of Europe's Atlantic-side peoples have founded virtually all of the maritime world empires of modern history, even the relatively tiny "peripheral communities" like Portugal and the Netherlands. And further, that the "European miracle" seems odd in that for most of history there was no miracle. In the authors words, "Westerners are the dregs of Eurasian history, and the salient they inhabit is the sump into which Eurasian history has drained." A "renaissance or three", the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, and industrialization play a role in the West's spread. But in the long-term picture, "Europe's west has been at the receiving end of great transmissions of culture." And that for most of history the Atlantic end of Europe was rather inhospitable and unpromising, populated by waves of refugees. For hundreds and even thousands of years these people lived on the Atlantic coast "without exercising much in the way of seaward initiative." Living near the sea such people were naturally drawn to maritime work, like fishing and coastal trading. But when it came to the Atlantic Ocean itself, "most of these people were stuck... as if pinioned by the prevailing westerlies which blow onto all their shores." Further, when Europeans "discovered" the larger Atlantic, it was not the coastal people who pioneered the effort, but people from deep in the Mediterranean -- the Genoese, Majorcans, and so on. These were the people who began to work down the coast of Africa, discovering the Canary Islands in the process. Ships of the time could sail from Europe to the Canaries on the trade winds, but had difficulty returning. One had to sail north vaguely searching for a westerly wind, which is probably how the Azores were discovered. In other words, via relatively short explorations of the Atlantic Europeans were able to find an island group perfectly suited for an outward bound trip (the Canaries) and one suited for the return trip (the Azores). Once these islands were found, secured, and fitted with ports, what was once a foolhardy thing to try -- sailing the ocean open for long distances -- became increasingly routine. This system of using easterly trade winds to the Canaries, working north to the Azores and using westerly winds to return home became relatively routine by about 1430. Once this was established the essential secret about the wind patterns of the Atlantic were unlocked. The Portuguese rather daringly guessed that the pattern was the same in the South Atlantic and pioneered a route around Africa that was essentially a southern reflection of the search for westerly winds near the Azores. In this case, however, they didn't discover an island group like the Azores, but Brazil. Another possible use of the wind system and the Canary and Azore bases, also daring, was to sail west on the trade winds much farther into the Atlantic than anyone had tried before, and then working north to the zone of westerly winds in order to return to Europe. This is precisely what Columbus did. He may not have been the first to realize such a voyage could be done, but he was the first daring enough to try. All four of his voyages went via the Canary Islands and returned via the Azores. Once the theory of the Atlantic winds was proven there was a great rush to search for ways to exploit it. The rush lasted centuries, with new lands and new wind systems worked out piece by piece. Before long western Europe, once the "dregs" of Eurasia, had mastered transoceanic sailing and global circumnavigation, and soon were masters of global maritime empires. Compare the wind patterns, islands, the ocean sizes of the Indian and Pacific Oceans to get a sense of why this kind of thing did not arise in those places. In short, the Pacific Ocean is too big -- the polynesians mastered its winds and colonized its islands but were unable to establish global empires for various reasons, not least of which is the size and winds of the Pacific. The Indian Ocean's monsoon wind system was well known from very early on, and was used to establish a vast trading network and some large empires. But the Indian Ocean winds served to contain such things to the Indian Ocean and peripheral regions (all the way to China). Plus, there was so much profit to be made within the Indian Ocean there was little incentive to go try foolhardy explorations to unknown lands. Anyway, it is an interesting book, perhaps a useful addition to Guns, Germs, and Steel. Pfly (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your second query, Bowei Huang, I would say that each civilization that has sprung up on earth has its own unique characteristics. It is probably not wise to generalize by talking about civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, or the Indus Valley, or the Incan as the same thing, even though they do have certain similiarities. The reason that China did not become the same kind of civilization as "Western Civilization" is not because it did not have a "machine-like" society, nor that it had access to technology and raw resources, or that they explored the world to some degree - all of which they did have. The most likely reason that the Chinese didn't follow the same course that Western Civilization did was that Chinese society was very self-absorbed. They did not have a lot of motivation to go out and find new lands, but repeatedly chose a path of isolating themselves from the outside world. The only real exception to this was when outsiders, the Mongolians under Genghis and Kublai Khan, conquered China and then went on to conquer a huge amount of real estate elsewhere. However, they could not maintain their hold on their conquered lands due to the fact that they assimilated and fought amongst themselves. We could examine each of the various histoical civilizations that have come and gone, and each has the seeds of its own destruction.

However, Western Civilization is not like that. Why? What makes it different from, say the Chinese civilization, or the Aztec civilization? It is due to the fact that it is actually NOT a "civilization" in the first place. At the beginning of my previous response above in this subject I mentioned the fact that I did not like the term "Western Civilization" because it is neither Western nor is it a Civilization. So what is it? I won't talk about the various definitions of the term that go into other subjects. What a civilization is defined to be in this regard is a distinct society that shares the same culture, and often the same language, as well as having a degree of sophistication (to differentiate it from tribal societies). We can say that there was a Roman Civilization, or a French Civilization, or a Portuguese Civilization, etc. But they ALL belonged to what we call "Western Civilization", right? How can such diverse societies as Catholic Portuguese-speaking Brazilians and Lutheran Finns be included in the same society or culture? And yet they are part of "Western Civilization". See what I'm saying?

The big mistake that people often make when they talk about "Western Civilization" is that they think of it as a civilization, instead of something else. Western Civilization is much bigger than just the various societies and nations that are part of it. It represents a shift in the way that human society works - much the same way as the Industrial Revolution was a shift. This shift that took place back in the Fertile Crescent in ancient times where the whole thing started was a transformation of society into a machine, making the people who live in the society all cogs of the machine - each with his or her own specialization. But the difference between why "Western Civilization" fluorished and spread all over the planet is not just due to that - it is also due to the nature of reaching out to new lands that was imbued in it from the very start.

If you examine history, you'll find that there were times when societies that were part of Western Civilization reached out and conquered new lands (or tried to conquer them). One such example was when the Persians tried to conquer all of the Middle East and then the lands of the Greeks. The Persians were indeed part of Western Civilization - they were the inheritors of centuries of struggle on the plains of the Fertile Crescent and surrounding mountains and deserts. There had been others before them - the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, etc - all trying to establish control over these lands. Eventually the Persians came out on top for a while. Then they reached out to the West. And when they did they ran smack into the Greeks. And then the Greeks realized that they, too, had to transform their society in order to survive - adopting the methods of Western Civilization - almost deliberately so. And then of course Alexander came along, and "good-bye Persians".

Another "reaching out" came when the Europeans Christians began their Crusades into the Holy Land. This set in motion events that would ultimately result in the Conquistadors of Spain reaching out even further to conquer the civilizations of the New World. I won't go into the details about all that here, though.

Then another "reaching out" took place when first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and English, sailed off to distant lands to set up colonies where they could raise precious spices and other commodoties that could be traded for a high profit back home.

This, then is the real difference why Western Civilization has spread all over the globe when such things as the Chinese civilization did not. The Europeans had the technology to sail around the world, and they had the motivation to do so, and they had societies that were organized such that they could carry with them a system of governance that could stand up against threats from other peoples they encountered. All three of these things were necessary for what happened. Having just the technology and motivation alone was not enough to accomplish what Western Civilization has done. The systems in place within Western Civilization make it so that it is an unstoppable force - as I outlined above, in order to stop it, you have to become like it, and once you become like it, you've lost - you are assimiliated - like the Borg! -- Saukkomies 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why were Western countries and civilization so good at assimilating other countries and people? Why is it that the only way to stop it is to be like it?

Another thing is, I've heard the European Union will probably become the next superpower in the world. This means that America might not be the world's superpower any more, but this doesn't say or mean if another civilization will probably become the world's most powerful civilization.Bowei Huang (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you are asking good questions, and I'm the kind of guy that takes very little encouragement to keep talking. Hopefully this won't become the longest refdesk article that's ever been... At any rate, to respond to the first part of your question, the reason Western countries were good at assimilating other countries was outlined in my responses above, but I'll briefly reiterate them here again. The reason for this is because Western Civilization is so well organized - so "machine-like", if you will - that countries that become part of Western Civilization become very efficient - they can produce a lot of resources. There are two basic reasons for this: 1) people are turned into specialists, which makes the work that they do more efficient, and 2) a well-established Western Civilization nation is relatively stable. This stability further promotes efficiency because commerce and trade fluorish in a stable environment. If there is upheaval, commerce suffers.

So when another society encounters Western Civilization, it will at first be introduced to new and cheaper goods that are being produced by the more efficient societies that are part of Western Civilization. This introduces chaos and the beginnings of social upheaval as the society begins to have its economy changed. People in the society can see that the nations that are part of Western Civilization are much stronger than they, and this too is destabilizing. Their society is threatened by this new exposure to such an efficient and powerful force, and the result is that eventually it does become absorbed by the spreading Western Civilization. This has happened over and over and over again with such predictable repetition, and there has not yet to date been a society that has withstood its encounter against Western Civilization, that it seems pretty safe to assume that it is at least at present impossible for a society to do so successfully.

Part of the reason that Western European countries were so successful was due to the fact that they had those three elements I mentioned above: 1) an efficient society and government based on Western Civilization's model, 2) advanced technology that helped them to travel and defeat other nations, and 3) their societies were motivated to reach out around the world, and this outward expansion was encouraged by their people. Without all three of these elements the Western European countries would not have been successful at doing what they did. Why did they venture forth? To bring in more resources - to expand commerce and trade - to hearken to the call of exploration - to convert the "heathen" to Christianity. There were many reasons, not just one. They sought to go out to the world, and they had the technology to do it, and they had a system of governance that provided the blueprint to accomplish this. That is what makes Western Civilization so successful.

As far as the EEU being the next superpower, I do not pretend to predict such things. China seems like it's doing a good job of entering this race, too. But the U.S. is far from being a dying giant. The U.S. has so much infrastructure and such a tremendous amount of inertia, that it is like a very huge ship - it takes a LOT of effort to get it to change its course significantly. At the present the EEU also faces some pretty difficult problems as well. And then there's NAFTA, which if it's ever strengthened to the point that it begins to resemble the EEU will outdistance Europe, maybe. Who knows these things? Nations rise and fall, but one thing I can safely promise: Western Civilization is here to stay for many centuries to come. Unless of course it doesn't. -- Saukkomies 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's equivalent of one pound sterling in 1978 in Britain

Can any user please tell me that based on the increase in the Cost of Living Index, what is the equivalent today of one pound sterling in 1978 in Britain. Thank you.

Simonschaim (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's rather a lot of information on the Retail Price Index, from 1800 to 2007, at www.statistics.gov.uk. According to one of the tables I requested, the RPI stood at 197.1 in 1978, and in October this year was 824.1. Which suggests that one pound sterling in 1978 would have felt, in purchasing power, like 4.20 does today.

Obviously that only works as a generalisation - property prices have increased more like tenfold, while video cameras have gone the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[2] is a UK House of Common Research paper giving the value of the pound sterling from 1750-1998. If the 1974 index is taken as 100, then the 1970 is 68.2 and 1978 is 181.7 [3] is a paper from the Office of National Statistics on inflation from 1947 to 2004 in the UK. It gives the 1970 index as 18.5 and 2004 as 186.7.
Thus if I calculate right, referring both back to 1970, (186.7/18.5)/(181.7/68.2) = 3.80 approx. A pound in 1978 would have been worth nearly £3.80 in 2004, which is not much less than today's value in these times of relatively low inflation. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The answers above suggest different answers because (as 194.66.229.8 says) some prices go up more than others, while some go down. In what you call a Cost of Living Index, much depends on the weighting given to things. See Consumer price index. People play strange games in using different indices, depending on whether they want to arrive at a higher or a lower figure for what the man in the street calls inflation. Xn4 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a website somewhere which will calculate prices for different dates, giving a choice of methodologies - someone answered a question of mine here by linking it ages ago, Unfortunately I didn't bookmark the link! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And here it is [4]. My q was in June 2007, and answered by Clio. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It only calculates up to 2006, but here are the figures it gives for £1 from 1978 -

In 2006, £1.00 from 1978 was worth:

£3.96 using the retail price index

£4.02 using the GDP deflator

£6.44 using average earnings

£7.18 using per capita GDP

£7.74 using the GDP

Hope this is useful. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Doggy story

Who was the medieval city ruler who forced the population to look after his many dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.9.98 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you, perchance, referring to the canines of Venice, of Genoa or the ones in the window? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Were they shaggy dogs? DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Was it the Emperor of the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be a memory of the notorious Gian Maria Visconti (1388-1412), a Duke of Milan. He was certainly famous for keeping man-killing dogs, and they were so feared that many of their names have come down to us. Visconti was despot of Milan, so no doubt the cost of maintaining his dogs fell on the city. One supposes that few tears were wept for Gian Maria when he was assassinated at the tender age of twenty-three. Xn4 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have the right family, Xn4, but the wrong Visconti. It was Bernabo, who might be said to be the very definition of a tyrant and despot. Amongst other things, he forbade the citizens of Milan to keep dogs, although he had his own kennel of five thousand hounds. These he billited, as 217.43 has indicated, on the unwilling citizens, who were forced to feed and care for them at their own expense, and threatened with punishment if any harm should come to the brutes. His kennel masters made periodic tours of inspection. If the dog was found to be too thin the carer was fined; if it died all of his property was confiscated.

Bernabo also announced that, for everyone apart from himself, the killing of boars and rabbits was absolutely prohibited. Offenders were hanged or maimed. But, merciful as he was, Bernabo was occasionally moved by Christian charity to spare those who were caught, always provided that they ate the whole beast, rabbit or boar, raw and in its entirety. Bon appétit! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kinship terminology

What is the term used in the English speaking world to the relationship that exists after a marriage between the bride's parents and the groom's parents - i.e between the two respective sets of in-laws?Peterjames wilson (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is none. That's the plain and simple truth. The bride's parents would refer to the groom's parents as "our daughter's parents-in-law" or "our son-in-law's parents". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a term for that, as they would not be considered to be related by affinity. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In Spanish, we add the prefix con- to state such relations. The one you are seeking is thus consuegro/consuegra. Online Spanish-English dictionaries translate that as "father/mother in law of one's child", so I guess there is no specific word, in line with has been said above. Pallida  Mors 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kith" is used in our family for kin of kin, as in "Are you related?" "Kith not kin", but the OED says kith are just local "compatriots". My North Welsh grandparents were first cousins: in some country districts all the neighbors of the same class were kin of kin. --Wetman (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In the movie The In-Laws, one of two characters related in this way simply refers to the other as "my in-law". (And hence the title.) The dialogue goes something like "He's going to be my in-law; his son is marrying my daughter." However, as noted above, this is not standard English usage.

In Yiddish the word you want would be "machatunim". (I don't speak the language; that's one transcription into the English alphabet, but there may be others.)

--Anonymous, 06:12 UTC, December 18, 2007.

The transliteration is open. There are, besides the plural you cited, also male and female singular forms "machutin" and "machatennista". The relationship is/was very important among the Jews of Eastern Europe, where aranged marriages were common, and a wedding united two families. The go-between who served as a match-maker recieved the gratitude of both families. Too Old (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First Naval Victory?

I'm researching the history of naval operations during the World War One and am trying to discover what and where the very first British naval victory over the Germans was. The obvious biggie was the battle of Heligoland Bight in late August 1914, but is there anything before this, no matter how small? (even the sinking of a single U Boat or gunship.)81.156.3.207 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The most notable early engagement was the pursuit of Goeben and Breslau on 3–4 August (a victory for Germany).

The excellent web site uboat.net has a list of World War I U-boat losses. The first of these was U-15 on 9 August 1914, rammed by the cruiser HMS Birmingham. Gdr 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On 4 August the auxiliary minelayer Königin Luise was ordered to: "Make for sea in Thames direction at top speed. Lay mines as near as possible English coast, not near neutral coasts, and not farther north than Lat. 53°." On the morning of the 5th she was spotted by a trawler in the North Sea and her position reported to the light cruiser HMS Amphion. Königin Luise was spotted at 11 A.M., Amphion and several destroyers gave chase and sank her with gunfire.

Königin Luise

At 6:30 A.M. the following day, Aphion, returning to Harwich, struck two of the mines earlier dropped by Königin Luise, sinking her almost immediately, with the loss of one officer and 150 men. Frothingham, Thomas G. (1924) The Naval History of the World War: Offensive Operations, 1914-1915. p. 71.—eric 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the exchange of a cruiser for a minelayer probably counts as a German victory. Gdr 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can give you, I think, an unambigious British victory, 81.156, from a theatre of operations that you might not even have considered. The facts themselves, fantastic as they are, read like something that might have arisen from the fiction of William Somerset Maugham.

Anyway, the theatre in question is German East Africa, which did not learn of the outbreak of the European war until several weeks after the event. On Lake Nyasa there was a British gun-boat by the name of Guendolen, commanded by the red-headed Captain Rhoades, known throughout the area for his Rabelasian wit and his filthy songs. On 19 August Captain Rhoades took the Guendolen into Sphinxhaven Bay, at the German end of the lake, there disabling the Hermann von Wissmann with a single shot from a range of 2000 yards. Captain Berndt, the commander of the German vessel, an erstwhile drinking partner of Rhoades, rowed out to the Guendolen to remonstrate, shouting as he pulled alongside "Gott for damm, Rhoades, vos you drunk?" Rhoades, full of apologies, explained that he was not. He had, rather, received orders to take control of Lake Nyasa. Berndt and his crew were duly taken prisoner, with even more apologies. This small encounter was hailed by The Times as the British Empire's first naval victory of the war. The details can be found in Edward Paice's superb Tip and Run: the Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa, London, 2007, p. 20. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Added some of this information to the article on Lake Malawi where the skirmish had already been mentioned. But it probably deserves its own article, including the spicier details I boringly omitted. One question, could you double-check the date? Another website said it happened on August 13 (not 19). Once again, thanks to the Muse! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Paice, Sluzzelin, it was 16 August, not the 19th, which was my typo! I've corrected the error on the page. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, i was just reading of another action in German East Africa. On 8 August two old light cruisers, Atraea and Pegasus began shelling the wireless station at Dar es Salaam and on the 9th, the governor and commander-in-chief of the military forces in the colony Dr. Heinrich Schnee effectively surrendered the port, signing a truce in which the Germans agreed to take no offensive action for the duration of the war. Seems like a successful bit of gunboat diplomacy, but might have, as in the case of the Goeben and Breslau, had more important unforeseen consequences. Either the top-ranking military officer had Schnee's doctors declare him mentally unfit, or Schnee (after the British repudiated the truce) agreed to allow that officer—Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck—to conduct the war in East Africa as he saw fit.—eric 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Schnee indulged in a little bit of double-dealing over the open port issue, eric. Also, from the outset, there was tension between the governor and Lettow-Vorbeck. Nominally Schnee had supreme authority in the colony but Berlin had given considerable latitude in matters of defence and mobilisation to Lettow-Vorbeck as commander of the Schutztruppe. As a result he made his own plans to defend the coast, regardless of Schnee's arrangements, and with brilliant effect. You will find all of the details in the work I have already mentioned above, which I cannot recommend highly enough. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

German Names

I am purchasing a German Shepard Puppy,female. She is about 6 weeks old and I will get her at 8 weeks. I need a german name, a strong name, a loving name Thanks!Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrosvit! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a snow white Alsatian, and wanted to call it Sphinx, however other members of my family called her Sarah, and soon she only responded to Sarah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Ingrid? Or Sabine (pronounced Sa-been-eh)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Helga? Heidi? or the loveliest of all (cough ,mine) Hannah? 86.53.57.148 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, name her Achtung or Weinershnitzel. Beekone (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This question was recently asked on one of the Reference Desks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, though the gender wasn't specified in that question. Here's the link: "Need a German type name for a German shepard puppy". ---Sluzzelin talk 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(re-indent) Hertha, a Germanic fertility goddess. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kriemhild, Brunhilda, Fredegunde. Steewi (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hirtin, German for "shepherdess", pronounced "HEER-t'n", will ensure that she come when she is called. --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In my role as Adam, giver of names for all creatures, I called - many years ago - my stepdaugher´s doggy "Woofelwurst". In German, "Wurst" means sausage, which most people may know and "Woofel" means absolutly nothing. For nonspeakers it neverless sounds sufficiently German and, if queried upon its meaning, you can always mutter darkly about Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Woofelwurst, the noted philosophers :) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Woofel" fits though. "Wuffi" (pronounced voofy), is a slightly derogatory generic metonym for a dog. "Wuff wuff" (voof voof) is German onomatopoeia for "ruff ruff" or "arf arf" ("bow wow" is "wau wau", pronounced "vow vow", in German). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tale of Two Cities - question about sequel(s)?

I'm pretty sure Charles Dickens never wrote a sequel to "Tale of Two Cities"; but I heard from somewhere that another author did (and I think it was fairly recent). I cant seem to find any info though - how many sequels to "Tale of Two Cities" have been published, and what are the names of the authors/title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is A Sale of Two Titties by Edmund Wells (who also wrote David Coperfield with *one* p)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.149.81 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This question was recently asked on one of the Reference Desks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of one by Dickens, but there's a modern attempt at a sequel by Diana Mayer called Evrémonde (published 2005), which follows the later adventures of Charles and Lucie Darnay, who escape to Austria. As foreseen by the expiring Sydney Carton, he has a son, another Sydney. Xn4 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(Very) Christian names

Could somebody please point me in the direction of information on the (17th century-ish? English?) practice of naming children things like Praise-The-Lord Smith and God's-Judgement-Is-Mighty Jackson? (I've made those examples up, but hopefully someone knows what I'm on about.) I don't think there's anything about it on Wikipedia (I have looked), and it's the sort of thing I imagine would be swiftly struck down as non-notable if anyone did try to write about it, but maybe the brains of the Reference Desk can tell me where else to look for this kind of thing. It's a pain to try to find this sort of thing on search engines because all the phrases I try bring up religious tracts rather than references to people. -88.109.63.214 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Example: Praise-God Barebone. Skomorokh ^incite 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here [5] are a few for you, on a baby naming forum. [6] and a few more. I googled "Puritan names". [7] here is an article with more examples linked to it. Not exhaustive, but a start for you to follow! (see also [8]SaundersW (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC) By the way, see also Ankh-Morpork City Watch#Constable Visit-the-Infidel-with-Explanatory-PamphletsSaundersW (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is similar to many Biblical English names, if we translated them from Hebrew or Greek. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Praise-God Barebone, or Barbon, is thought to be the father of the economist and physician, Nicholas Barbon, whose full name was Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned-Barbon. Indeed it was! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And here I was thinking William Makepeace Thackeray had a ridiculous middle name... Aecis^Brievenbus 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlam and Christian Socialism

Your article on Stewart Headlam says next to nothing about his particular contribution to Christian socialism. Can someone please tell me some more about his teachings? Lady Electric (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlam takes as his point of departure, Lady Electric, the ideas of Frederick Denison Maurice, in particular the notion of the immanence of the divine in the material world, giving it a specifically political meaning. His task in the Guild of St. Matthew, as he saw it, was to 'restore' Jesus as he really was: a man of the people, the supreme "social and political Emancipator, the greatest of all secular workers, the founder of the great Socialistic society for the promotion of Righteousness, the preacher of a Revolution." Jesus, he insisted, said much more about this world than the world to come. It was his emphasis on justice and righteous dealings between people that the conventionally minded, and the religious establishment, had ignored. For Headlam "the sayings of Jesus tell of a Kingdom of Heaven to be set up upon earth, of a righteous Communistic society." Amongst other Victorian Christian Socialists he was the one who understood the need for political action to bring about social change. He also supported collective bargaining, trade union rights and advocated the redistribution of wealth by means of state action. In his Fabian tract of 1892 he argued that it was the duty of all good men "to seize the state and use it for the well-being of the masses instead of the classes." The masses instead of the classes. I suppose he deserves to be remembered for that phrase alone. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Law

Question .... If a foreign born person is in the postion of the vice-president and something happens to the president, can a foreign born person them assume the presidency as an interim president not elected to the office but there by circumstance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.49.106 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not "foreign-born" that's a problem. One can be born abroad and still be a "natural-born citizen" (as constitutionally required) by virtue of having American parents (some people dispute this, but they're probably wrong - and I guess it's actually tangential to your posed question). If your question is, can someone not a "natural-born citizen" become vice-president and succeed to the presidency, the answer is no; a person who is not eligible to become president cannot be vice president as per the 12th amendment to the constitution. - Nunh-huh 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Article Two of the United States Constitution. Xn4 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's the question of what constitutes "natural born". Does John McCain qualify? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Did Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, qualify? He was born in Mexico to parents who were US citizens. Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

USA Presidential Candidates

What are the known beliefs about human evolution of each candidate? - Joseph Edwards

Why should you care? I understood that the idea was to select the best candidate based on the needs of the nation as a whole. However as a UK citizen, I also understand that you are allowed to pick and choose the constitutional items you want to follow or not. Like separation of chirch and state - most citizens appear to select candidates who are main line christians - even if they are buffoons.83.148.88.37 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the question has been posed only to Republican candidates; of those, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback indicated they did not believe in evolution. Others were quick to say they believed in theistic evolution. - Nunh-huh 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It was also apparently posed to John Edwards as well, who said he believed in evolution and said he didn't think that interfered with his faith. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just heard a rumour that Barack Obama believes in hinduisim, and he beleives in a giant eight armed elephant god called ganesha. (Superawesomgoat (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

I think he would be the first Christian to believe in that. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So... is it a must for US presidential candidates to believe in at least one non-existing entity? --Taraborn (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if capability of public expenditure to solve all problems counts as one of such entities, I guess most Democratic candidates pass the test. :p Pallida  Mors 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Democrats like Mike Huckabee. On a completely unrelated matter, where do Republicans get the money to pay for their wars? Not counting all those wars that have paid for themselves. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, man. I don't pay for them. At least, I don't in a monetary sense. Pallida  Mors 18:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

According to our article, Ganesha only has four arms, and our article on the United Church of Christ, which Obama belongs to, doesn't include any mention of their worshipping Hindu gods. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Henrik Ibsen

Why Henrik Ibsen is considered as "father of modern drama"? If you going to refer ma to the article of him, then I would suggest you where it says or which paragraph does it say. Another question: How does Ibsen develop his characters in A Doll's House? What steps does he take? and Can A Doll's House be seen as a tragedy? Yes, I have read it but don't know how he developed his characters and steps does he take. What kinds of human beings does Ibsen satirize, mock or make of fun of his plays? What are some issues and themes that are addressed in Ibsen's works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC) These are not homework questions and please answer them, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.26 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I may very well have given you answers to a previous set of questions on A Doll's House, which went quite unacknowledged. I am not inclined to answer any more. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the assertion that these are not homework questions, but, apparently, that they arise from a personal thirst for deeper understanding of Ibsen, seems disingenuous. --Wetman (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)