Humanities desk
< July 19	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 21 >

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.

July 20

fidel

why is fidel castro considered a dictator.

can email to <e-mail removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.141.179 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 20 July 2007

This sounds like homework. Have you read our article on Fidel Castro and dictator? And please do not post e-mails, they are spam fodder. Splintercellguy 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not homework

I'm sure it's not; but you have been given the windows through which to look for your answer. You can, however have this from George Orwell, which might help to focus your thoughts; Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. Clio the Muse 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely using seemingly arbitrary quotes to try and add substance to a point your trying to make can be quite a contentious thing to do seeing as out of the social and political context it was said within it is left relatively meaningless (particularly as that point was made very much from one side of the Iron Curtain, in fear of what lay on the other). As there are various situations at which the converse of that statement would have to be the case, a benevolent dictatorship, or martial law, for two examples. Philc 15:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what point would that be, Philc? By their very nature quotations from an author's work are arbitrary but not irrelevant; it would be impossible to use them in any other way. Orwell's words were written, not said; and therefore not abstracted from any 'social and political context.' I would be using them out of their literary context if this passage was followed by a statement to the effect that Fidel was a wonderful guy, and by no means a dictator; and I assure you they are not! The quotation was really intended to help the questioner reflect on the relationship between revolution, power and dictatorship, and to feed these back to Cuba and the structure of the Castro regime. No conclusion is outlined, or offered; and I make no suggestions myself about the nature of a particular dictatorship, or dictatorship in general, benevolent or malign. Clio the Muse 23:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I have to admit, my post was made with a certain voyeurism to see how you'd respond. It's nice to see someone who's not dismissive of obviously, possibly even deliberately contentious points, but simply tackles the point for what its worth. You have a certain eloquence about your posts, but here is neither the time nor the place for that. Though I would have to contest that Orwell's point implies nothing of a dictatorship. As I would argue that it is possible for a dictatorship to be established to safeguard a revolution, and that therefore the statement does eliminate certain possibilities, and thus does have implications. Also that Orwell's work, as conducted at the height of the Cold War, must be considered as the fruit of such times, not of times like these. Philc 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds! Clio the Muse 00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

making money

how can i make money without doin wrk. the only thing i know of is for women and im not one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.141.179 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 July 2007

The answer is, you can't. If everyone could make money without working, all of society would collapse. Splintercellguy 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could beg, but I hear that's hard work. Or you could magically win the lottery, but you have a better chance of being struck by lightening twice in a row, I think. - MSTCrow 03:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be born a Rentier. One cannot be too careful in the choice of one's parents. Alternatively, you could try to be a kept man, though I understand that that's hard work too. Ah, for the good old days of ancient Rome, when being a do-nothing Client was an honorable calling! Rhinoracer 10:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "only thing i know" you allude to is not "for women". There are plenty of men in the business as well. You just need to lower your standards. However, I'm reminded of a story I heard from an actor (I can't remember who at the moment) who worked for a short time as a bodyguard. A hooker went in to "visit" the guy he was guarding. She came out an hour or so later and, as she passed him, said, "At least you can read the newspaper while you work." -- Kainaw^(what?) 12:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a wizard investor or business-person. You borrow money from other people, make clever investments and/or pay other people to work for you, and due to your business skills you make a profit which exceeds the cost of borrowing the money, leaving you with spending money. Its called capitalism. The difficult thing is getting started - after that it gets easier and easier as you have more equity to invest. A common example is investing in property or what our American pals would call real-estate. You may have to do a little work, and take risks, but the amount of work may be miniscule in comparison to the amount of $$$$ you make. People have also made fortunes in the internet bubble this way. If you are considering this as a future career then paying attention in maths class is a good starting point. [User:80.0.105.59|80.0.105.59]] 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend paying close attention in English class as you will be required to sign a lot of documents under 80.0.105.59's proposal, and most documents require a strong understanding of formal language and its constructs. Of course, if your cradle tongue is not English, and you don't live in an English speaking country, then substitute your national language for "English" in the prior sentence. Bielle 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although all the answers here are decent, I think Bielle hit the nail on the head. In fact, your ability to speak English (or whatever language you choose) can be considered an "asset" in and of itself. More generally, your cognitive, motor, and interpersonal abilities are all "assets" for you to hone and develop to whatever extent you can. Therefore, to the extent that other people without these basic skills (nor the ability to develop them further) would be willing to pay a fortune to have what you have, you are already wealthy beyond measure.

If you want to maximize the return on those assets without "working" ... that depends on how you define "work".

If you define it as "doing something when I'd rather be doing something else" ... then avoiding work is a simple matter of adjusting your perspective towards (or changing) whatever it is you happen to be doing.

If you define it as "not expending any stored energy" ... then avoiding work is not going to be easy, since even a dead and decomposing body violates this definition. dr.ef.tymac 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join a band. --Dweller 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song title and artist?

I know I don't have a lot of info here, but also know a lot of well-read people read this page, I am trying to find the name and artist of a particular song.

It was a pop song, receiving some mild airplay in the early 1980's in the USA, and sounded noticably like Chris de Burgh, a singer at about the same time, but I am pretty sure was not. The song was in a major key, with male tenor vocals with a good deal of harmonizing in the choruses. Two parts I can still hear: 1) Its chorus started with the line "And we'll all come down", with the "and we'll" eighth notes on the previous measure's 4 beat, and the next three words half notes. For sake of discussion assuming it was in E major, "all", "come", "down" were in D major, A major, and E major respectively. 2) At one point either before a chorus or a solo (can't remember which), the lyrics want "...to the United States of America", with all syllables but the last of "United States of America" each the same duration, probably tripled half notes (2/3 beat each), in D major.

Any ideas who/what this was? Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only lyrics I could find with "we'll all come down" didn't include anything related to the U.S. We Rigged Our Ship. 152.16.59.190 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, "The Walls Came Down," by The Call, a San Fransisco group that received some airplay and had Garth Hudson on keyboards. The singer's son is now in Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. Geogre 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Thanks for posting. I know The Walls Came Down, and it is definitely not that. And it doesn't seem to be Ship either. What a tough nut... thanks again. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to stick to The Call, but "Let the Day Begin" has been heard a lot without being on the radio much, and it does have "this is for the ___ of the Western World! And here's to the...." Anyway, if it doesn't sound like that singer, then it's not The Call at all. I assume we're in the right group of years, though? Geogre 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although Day is one of my favorite songs! Yes, if I recall it too was in the early 1980s. The vocalist I am looking for had a more falsettoey (sp?) sound to it, not unlike the vocalist in The Outfield, yet another artist of the period. The Call's vocalist sounds more masculine, even in the higher ranges (e.g., "and there ain't no Yanks!"). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps, or only muddies the water, but I can say I thought the overall feel, timbre and production of the song were not unlike that of many Styx songs of a slightly earlier (pre-Kilroy) time. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely sure that this won't help, but Styx did have a song called "America" on The Grand Illusion, and it was a "suite." (One wag once pointed out the problem with Yngwe Malmstrom was that even dumb kids in Iowa could figure out that a song called "Fugue Part #5" should have parts 1-4 somewhere. The same was true of the mania for "suites" in the early 70's.) I'm kind of stumped, unless it's in the Presidents of the United States canon. Geogre 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you may be mind-melding "Miss America" and "Suite Madame Blue" (the latter having the word "America" anthemically repeated in its climax). "Miss America" is far more rocking than what I'm looking for. And I like Suite even better than Let the Day Begin! Let me check out Presidents, but I too am starting to lose hope. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep. Presidents were formed in 1993 :-( Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROOF USA FOUNDED ON JUDEO CHRISTIAN PRINCIPALS

I was taught that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists. Perhaps there were other framers of the Constitution who were also Deists that are unknown to me.

I hear over and over again that this country was founded on Judeo Christion principals. Can you please give me specific references to confirm this statement? I am aware of recent insertions of the word "God" that have been placed into the pledge to the flag and our currency, but was it really what was intended in the beginning?

I am also aware that the very first settlement, Jamestown, was based on greed. They were here for the gold and jewels they hoped to find.

If I am wrong in any of what I believe to be facts, please do not hesitate to correct me.

Thank you very much.

Limbicseizure 03:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Limbicseizure[reply]

If you read the constitution, you will find that the USA was founded on the principles of John Locke's liberal and empiricist thought, rather than dogmatic Christianity. Indeed,

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."

The Rhymesmith 04:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the colonies that eventually became the USA were founded with strong Christian roots. Colonial New England comes to mind as an example. And speaking of Jamestown, in colonial Virginia is was illegal to not be a member of the Church of England for some time, although pockets of nonconformists such as Quakers and Methodists took root early on. Still, the "state religion" of colonial Virginia being Anglican meant that many of the early Virginian politicians claimed (sincerely or not) to be Anglican (or, after the Revolutionary War), Episcopal.

Nevertheless, the creation of the United States itself made explicit the seperation of Church and State -- something the colonies did not in every case do themselves. Part of the reason was Enlightenment Era thinkers such as Locke, but another reason was the need to unify a diverse collection of colonies adhering to different religious sects (although largely Protestant Christian). Regardless of the political philosophy of the era, the fragile union of American colonies would not have remained long in union were a national religion to be set into law. What would it have been? Puritan style Congregationalism? Church of England style Episcopalianism? Nonconformist Quaker, Methodist, or Baptist? The new nation needed its government to be seperated from religion, and had the Enlightenment philosophies of the time to back up such a move.

Still, even if the government was set up to be seperate from religion, I think it is fair to say that most of the people of the time were of a Christian, probably Protestant sect. As the US evolved, a number of new, strongly devout Christian sects emerged, perhaps most famously in the case of the Mormons -- an American Christianity if ever there was one.

So I think it is not wrong to say that the United States was founded in Christian principles -- with the strong caveat that the government was set up to be separated from religion. Regardless, Christianity played a major role in the develop of the country. Pfly 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak as a strong atheist, but to deny the influence of Christianity, just because we don't believe in God is wrong (not morally, factually!). The vast majority of people were Christian, even the 'deists' who may not have believed in the exact Christian god, would have been brought up in a largely Christian country, gone to church and had Christian moral influences. While it would be crazy to suggest that a countries founding principals defined it once and for all, there is no need to deny those principles were there. On the other hand we must remember that the Church also adapts to the views of society to some extent, rather than exclusively dictating societies principals. Whatever we like to think about god, religion and the like, the majority of people in the west in Christian countries follow values that are roughly reflective of, and reflected in Christian teachings. I heard a good quote from Rod Liddle on Richard Dawkins' secular humanism. 'it's just the Church of England without God' (not word for word sorry). That even the 'more logical than thou' humanists are preaching the same values the Church does, because of the culture they come from. But of course, both groups claim the moral high ground! Cyta 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof." Evidence that it was not founded on such principles, perhaps?martianlostinspace 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember the difference between being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and being founded under a Judeo-Christian religion. It seems that the USA countinues to operate under Judeo-Christian principles, more or less; golden rule, all men are brothers, etc.; but also Mankind has dominion over all the creatures of the earth, etc. Gzuckier 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gzuckier makes an excellent distinction. Cyta correctly points out that Judeo-Christian principles, particularly in the area of ethics, have always informed the political and legal institutions of the United States and other Western countries. However, that is very different from claiming that the United States as a political or legal entity was founded on a Judeo-Christian faith or religion. It very explicitly was not and is not. Marco polo 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that when people say things like "the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles", they are saying that because some principles believed by Jews and Christians (and really they just mean Christians, but they want to sound more inclusive) are accepted in the legal system, everyone should accept all principles believed by members of those religions. Their logic might be caricatured as follows:

Christians say "thou shalt not murder"
The law says "thou shalt not murder"
Therefore the law says the same as Christianity
Christians also say "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy"
Therefore the law should prohibit unholy activities on the Sabbath.
Oh yeah, Jews believe in those things too. Okay, change the wording to say "Judeo-Christian principles".

Obviously step 3 here is fallacious. Christians (and Jews) are not the only people to observe a religious prohibition against murder. And I admitted that this was a caricature. But when Marco writes "Judeo-Christian principles have always informed the political and legal institutions", the issue is, did that happen because they were "Judeo-Christian principles"? Or on the other hand, is it more the case that they are principles that most practicioners of other religions, or no religion, would accept equally well; that they are simply good ethical principles that any well-run country's laws would follow?

As an atheist myself, I'd like to believe it's the latter. (And for the US in particular, the prohibition of an established religion certainly argues for that.) But in fact I imagine there's some of each. So the question is, how much of each, and how do we tell? --Anonymous, July 21, 2007, 17:12 (UTC).

John Toland

I would like to know something more of the ideas of John Toland, the Irish philosopher. Pacific231 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See John Toland (Irish Philosopher). Wareh 17:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Toland was a man not of his time; one who advocated principles of virtue in duty, principles that had little place in the England of Robert Walpole, governed by cynicism and self-interest. His intellectaul reputation, moreover, was subsequently eclipsed by the likes of John Locke and David Hume, and still more by Montesquieu and the French radical thinkers. Edmund Burke in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France" wrote dismissively of Toland and his fellows- "Who, born within the last 40 years, has read one word of Colllins, and Toland, and Tindal, and Chubb, and Morgan, and that whole race who called themselves Freethinkers?"

In Christianity not Mysterious, the book for which he is best know, he laid down a challenge not just to the authority of the established church, but to all inherited and unquestioned authority. It was thus as radical politically and philosophically, as it was theologically. This, and his political views, have given him an afterlife that could never have been dreamed of by Burke. It has even been argued that he was the 'first Marxist' because of his views on the relationship between matter and motion.

Bit by bit Toland's views grew more radical. His opposition to hierarchy in the church also led to opposition to hierarchy in the state; bishops and kings, in other words, were as bad as each other, and monarchy had no God-given sanction as a form of government. In his 1704 Letters to Serena-in which he coins the expression 'pantheism'-he carefully analyses the manner in which truth is arrived at, and why people are prone, as the Marxists might express it, to forms of 'false consciousness.' In politics his most radical proposition was that liberty was a defining characteristic of what it means to be human. Political institutions should be designed to guarantee freedom, not simply to establish order. For Toland, reason and tolerance were the twin pillars of the good society. This was Whigism at it's most intellectually refined, the very antithesis of the Tory belief in sacred authority in both church and state. Toland's belief in the need for perfect equality among free-born citizens was extended to the Jewish community, tolerated, but still outsiders in early eighteenth century England. In his 1714 Reasons for Naturalising the Jews he was the first to advocate full citizenship and equal rights for Jewish people.

Toland's world was not all detached intellectual speculation, though. There was also an incendiary element to his political pamphleteering, and he was not beyond whipping up some of the baser anti-Catholic sentiments of the day in his attacks on the Jacobites. He also produced some highly controversial polemics, including the Treatise of Three Imposters, in which Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all condemed as the three great political frauds.

His republican sympathies were also evidenced by his editing of the writings of some of the great radicals of the 1650s, including James Harrington, Algernon Sydney, Edmund Ludlow and John Milton. In his support for the Hanoverian monarchy he somewhat moderated his republican sentiments; though his ideal kingship was one that would work towards achieving civic virtue and social harmony, a 'just liberty' and the 'preservation and improvement of our reason.' But George I and the greedy oligarchy behind Walpole were about as far from Toland's ideal as it is possible to get. In many ways he was indeed a man born both too late and too early. Clio the Muse 00:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of integrating your reply, Clio, into John Toland (Irish Philosopher). If you would happen to have a source citation or two at hand, I'd be glad to integrate these also. Thanks! Sandstein 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All is liberty here, Sandstein, and you are welcome to take what you wish! As for sources I would suggest, apart from the work of Toland himself, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650-1750 by J. I. Israel and The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republicans by M. C. Jacob. Clio the Muse 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sandstein 05:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Brava, Doctor Clio! Corvus cornix 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, amigo! Clio the Muse 23:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putney Army Debates

And also a little more, please, on the Putney Debates of the New Model Army in 1647. Thank you. Pacific231 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Putney Debates. In the future, simply type the name of the topic that interests you into Wikipedia's search box (in the column at the left edge of your screen). Wareh 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific231 ( do I detect an admiration for Honegger?), if you wish you will find the full text of the Putney Debates in in Puritanism and Liberty by A.S.P. Woodhouse, published in 1938. This book was reissued in 1992 in an Everyman edition, though I think it is presently out of print. A decent library should have a copy, though. You may also be interested in The Putney Debates of 1647: The Army, the Levellers and the English State by Michael Mendel, published by Cambridge University Press in 2001. This is the best and by far the most exhaustive exploration of the issues behind the debates, and their lasting political impact. It's available on Amazon, but is still fairly pricey. So, off to the library! Anyway, here is a flavour of what you can expect. In responding to Henry Ireton's contention that covenants freely made and entered into must be kept, John Wildman responded You take away our sense, which was that an unjust covenant is rather to be broken than kept...it would be unjust to covenant with the King in such a way as he may again be able to destroy the people. Clio the Muse 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China catching up with USA as world top-dog

Are there any estimates available of when China will catch up with and exceed the USA as the world top-dog? Which reminds me that you could argue that the US has now lost top-dog status to the EU. 80.2.202.130 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify what makes a dog top. Is it size of standing army, GDP, balance of trade, standard of living, worker productivity, life span, environmental health, level of education, per capita income? In some of those, the USA hasn't been tops in a very, very long time, and in others it still has no near rivals. Geogre 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but 2038 is a reputable guess. [[1]].82.152.205.214 22:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by GDP Algebraist 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danke.82.152.205.214 22:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total GDP is not the same as becoming "top-dog". Also, anybody trying to predict 30 years into the future is smoking something. It wasn't too long ago when it was Japan that was going to take over. That didn't quite pan out. Clarityfiend 00:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"By the year 2000, leisure time will be the #1 problem for most people, as robots will be doing all their chores for them." The Wilson Quarterly this month ran a small note on its back page on "paleofuturology": people going back to dig up all the old predictions about life now. Projections into the future on national rising and falling always assume present trends continuing without interruption, and they always assume that states are stupid. Furthermore, they almost always carry significant footnotes that need to be read. For example, the panic over Japan had been "worker productivity" because "the gap between worker productivity in the US and Japan is decreasing at a faster rate than ever before." I.e. "US workers are way more productive, but Japan's workers are getting more productive faster than others are." Well, one needed to ask, "What is worker productivity?" E.g. the US achieve a big jump by firing workers and using temporary and consultant workers, which kept the same number of workers doing the same amount but shuffled the labor off the books, so now it appeared that very few full time employees were producing a vast amount. Was that good for "productivity?" Yes. Was it good for the national economy? No, probably. Then we have questions of GDP and debt, GDP and per capita, GDP and military spending, etc. Geogre 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can also ask, when did britain stop being top-dog? Or going back further, the Roman Empire, or the Spanish Empire? Thanks. 80.0.133.53 10:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

britain somewhere around WW1, AFAIK.martianlostinspace 14:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briatin ceased to be top nation at the end of the First World War, when "America became Top Nation, and history came to a ." DuncanHill 15:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See List of regions by past GDP (PPP). Unfortunatley for our American friends, in an economic and political sense, largest GDP=top dog. It would be beneficial if U.S politicians realised the inevitable and focussed on managing their (relative) decline, like the U.K has done so succesfully Willy turner 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting set of tables. If you added together all the PPP GDP of the British Commonwealth, in other words more or less all the countries formerly known as the British Empire, what position would it have in the later lists? And I expect if the there was a more recent final table, the EU may be at the top.

I also see that even at the height of the Roman Empire, it was not the top-dog. Its odd that the more wealthy empires are less well-known. 80.2.214.69 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Commonwealth of Nations. It has officially not been "the British" for decades. Hu 10:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the question about empires in decline, or ceasing to be 'top dog', this tends to be a process, rather than an event, though the cycles of time got tighter and tighter in the three cases mentioned.

The Roman Empire reached its apogee during the reign of the Five Good Emperors, but by the time of Marcus Aurelius the signs of future trouble were already evident, achieving full expression in the Crisis of the Third Century. Thereafter, the history of the empire was one of periodic recovery, punctuated by periodic decline. It never quite recovered from the effects of the Battle of Adrianople in 378, after which the Goths were a permanent presence within the imperial borders. The Eastern Roman, or Byzantine Empire began its own terminal decline after the death of the emperor Basil II in 1025.

The decay of the Spanish Empire can also be dated to the death of a king, that of Philip II in 1598. The seventeenth century was one of almost continuous decay, climaxing in the reign of Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, whose death in 1700 was followed by the War of the Spanish Succession.

Of all the great empires the decline of the British was arguably the most dramatic, because it was both rapid and unexpected, dating to the period from the end of the Second Boer War in 1902, to the end of the Second World War in 1945. In a sense it might be said to have been battered to death in two great wars, the second of which left the British not that much better off in economic terms than the defeated powers. Clio the Muse 23:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't forget, for most of human history China has been top dog, punctuated by slow periods. Gzuckier 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]