Humanities desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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 22

Robbie and the 2nd Law of Robotics

Hi all. In Isaac Asimov's Robbie. Doesn't Robbie break the 2nd law by (initially) not letting Gloria ride him even though she asks him to? - Akamad 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't know the story.) If giving Gloria a ride was at all dangerous then no: the Second Law explicitly yields priority to the First. (Three Laws of Robotics) —Tamfang 06:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime costume circa 1290

I am in the process of doing a historical illustration and I'm trying to locate some credible source on which to base the depiction of the work-clothing of English sailors in the late 13th century. I'm at a disadvantage for accessing British hard-copy material on this as I'm in Western Australia! Can someone suggest an online source or an internationally-published book? User:Retarius | Talk 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1290? Yeesh. That's a tough one. First, there weren't really uniforms at that point -- those came later -- and so you really want just general clothing of the time, and the navy wasn't quite a navy yet. Hmm. Geogre 13:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to look for? Look for on-line illuminated manuscripts of saints whose hagiographies involve episodes at sea, and the "fishers of men" episode in the New Testament. All illustrations of events in Antiquity were shown in "modern dress" in the late C13. --Wetman 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice idea about the manuscripts, I'll try that. Thanks to Wetman & Geogre. User:Retarius | Talk 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the History of Western Fashion for some general ideas. Also, if you google 'Medieval Costume' you will get lots of useful links. You may also wish to consult Medieval Costume and Fashion by Herbert Norris, and Medieval Costume in England and France: the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries by M. G. Houston. In addition to this, the Penguin edition of Langland's Piers Ploughman has an illustration of peasant dress on the cover, taken from a fourteenth century Psalter. The essential point is that there was little or no difference between the 'working clothes' of sailors and any other land-based occupation of the day. Men would wear hose and doublet, often belted round the middle and usually hooded. Clio the Muse 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's powerful plenty! Many thanks, Clio. User:Retarius | Talk 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Tom's Cabin

I would be interested to know what the Southern slave states' reaction was to the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Irishbard 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read Uncle Tom's Cabin#Reactions to the novel and Anti-Tom literature. Short version: they did not like the book. Sandstein 12:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The true measure of how deeply Harriet Beecher Stowe reached into southern sensitivities lies the hack literary response generated by Uncle Tom's Cabin. I'm sure someone somewhere must have used the subject for a doctortal dissertion, considering the insight it gives to the culture, politics and psychology of the Old South. My favourite is J. W. Page's Uncle Robin in His Cabin in Virginia, and Tom without One in Boston, which contrasts the 'security' enjoyed by slave labour in the paternalist south as opposed to free labour in the capitalist north. Clio the Muse 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some southern writers mocked the notion fueled by the book that people in the south hated negroes and only treated them badly, while people in the north loved negroes and only treated them kindly and wanted to be around them, and that in the south all negroes were miserable and abused and starving, while in the north they were all happy, well fed and prosperous. Edison 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

examination of management

why is it immportant to examine management from different perspectives? what do we gain from this type of examination? think of other possibel perspectives we could use to describe managemnt (e.g. management is a profession; management means " being in charge"). What does our new perspective tell us about management that adds to our understanding? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.143.67 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 July 2007.

This looks very much like a homework question to me. We don't answer those here. You could try putting the word "management" into the search box in the left panel at the top of any Wikipedia page - that might be a good starting point. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Poor Law

I mean no offence but I find your article on the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 fragmented and perplexing. I would like to know something of the background to this measure and the impact the legislation had on Victorian society. Mr. Crook 13:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fragmented" is correct, but such is the way of the wiki. Look also at Reform Act of 1832, which is another coverage of essentially the same thing. Our Reform Bill articles in general are not up to par, and we could use all the help we can get. (The flippant answer would be sofixit.) I'm in a poor position to help with anything that late, but the articles can benefit from more eyes and hands. Geogre 13:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a poor piece on Poor Law! Amongst my favourite reading on this important subject is The English Poor Laws, 1700-1930 by Anthony Brundage, The Poor Law in Nineteenth Century England and Wales by Anne Digby and Poverty and Poor Law Reform in Nineteenth Century Britain, 1834-1914: From Chadwick to Booth by David Englander. Beyond that, Mr Crook (Bleak House?) you could do no better than read Charles Dickens, particularly Oliver Twist and Our Mutual Friend for a contemporary view.

The New Poor Law, guided into existence by Edwin Chadwick, was essentially intended to streamline and rationalise the whole system, along conceptual and organisational lines envisaged by the Utilitarian philosophy popular at the time. It also had the supplementary aim of making poverty 'undesirable', if it can be so expressed.

Chadwick and his commission set themselves the task of overhauling the Elizabethan Poor Law, that had been in operation for over two hundred years. By this each parish appointed overseers, local officials who collected a poor rate (a tax) from all householders. The money was then used as a form of 'income support' to enable the able-bodied poor to continue living in their own homes, a policy known as 'outdoor relief.' This was supplemented in 1782 by the Gilbert Act, which enabled parishes to group together and share the cost of building Union Workhouses, places where the sick, the elderly and the starving could be accommodated. According to Anne Digby, some parishes were effectively working in much the same fashion as the modern welfare state, providing housing, food, medical care, clothing allowances and fuel.

Though effective in a limited way, the old system broke down in the face of the huge social and economic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution. Rural poverty became every more acute, a consequence both of the enclosure movement and a rapid growth in the population. In response, some of the parishes modified the forms of outdoor relief allowed for under the existing Poor Law. In Speenhamland in Berkshire local wages were toped up in accordance with a sliding scale, determined by the price of food and the size of each labourer's family, a practice that came to be known as the Speenhamland System. As can be imagined, this had the effect of driving down wages still further. It also caused resentment among local rate payers, upon whom the burden got ever greater. By the early 1830s poor relief was accounting for as much as 80% of local rates expenditure, some £7 million pounds in all. Central government's total expenditure at this time, on all matters, amounted to £19 million, which gives some idea of the magnitude of poverty spending.

Unpopular with rate payers, and economically ruinous, the final blow to the old system came with the Swing Riots, which swept across southern England, as agricultural labourers protested against low wages and new machinery. The Poor Law had been conceived of as a guarantor of social stability. As such, it was no longer of any effect.

Discontent with the Poor Law among farmers and land owners of all sorts was reflected in economic theory-known at the time as political economy-in which it was argued that it was an artificial distortion of the free market. By the Utilitarian calculus the old Poor Law was outmoded and inefficient. Thomas Malthus maintained that outdoor relief actually created poverty by encouraging people to have large families. For him the only solution was outright abolition of the whole system. Few others took such a radical view; but there was a widespread acceptance that the system needed to be overhauled.

In theory the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, set up in 1832, was meant to gather evidence before making recommendations; but the leading members, including Chadwick and Nassau Senior give every indication of having made up their minds in advance. For both men local relief had to be replaced by a centrally directed system of poor law administration, which had the twin values of rationality and economy. In 1834 the Poor Law Amendment Act passed through Parliament with the support of both the Whigs and the Tories. Now the 'Workhouse Test' was the only way to obtain relief. Outdoor relief was a thing of the past.

The principle was simple enough: the regime in the Union Workhouses, the backbone of the New Poor Law, was made deliberately harsh, a disincentive to all but the destitute. On the concept of 'less eligibility', the relief offered would be worse than the living standards of the lowest paid workers in the general community. The new workhouses, referred to as 'Bastilles', created a culture of dread among the working class, reflected in the attitude of Dicken's Betty Higden, who preferred to die by the roadside than enter the 'House', and in monologues like Christmas Day in the Workhouse. There was opposition, and not just among those most affected. Tory paternalists were outraged by the new system, in much the same fashion as liberals less motivated by market and utilitarian values. There was a huge outcry in 1846 when it was discovered that the inmates of the Andover worrkhouse in Hampshire were driven by hunger to gnaw the bones that they were supposed to crush to make fertiliser. But Victorian attitudes towards poverty as a moral failing in the individual were to persist right into the twentieth century. Only gradually were they replaced with new concepts of welfare provision, urged forward by classic investigations like Henry Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor, and Charles Booth's Life and Labour of the People of London Clio the Muse 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

influnce of environment on industries

are there industries that will be immune to changes in the global environment and as a consequence will be influnced primarily by their domestic external environment? Name at least two and explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.67 (talk • contribs)

That looks very much like a homework question to me, and we don't answer those here. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we do assume good faith and try not to bite newcomers. DuncanHill 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Name at least two and explain why" makes it pretty clearly a homework question. We are not a one-stop homework shop, and students who use us as such should be reprimanded (though not mocked), I think. --24.147.86.187 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I don't need to say this, but I didn't intend to reprimand anyone, or mock them. People who ask questions here should read the instructions at the top before asking a question, but if they don't, or if they mis-understand, they should not be reprimanded, they should just be told, politely and in plain language, what they need to know. I hope that's how my post came across. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to ask, "Could you put your question in a form that less strongly resembles a homework assignment?" —Tamfang 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communism during WWII

Hello. For my year 12 Modern History, I am doing an essay on how events during WWII contributed to the rise of communism. Was this a good topic to write about or should I do something else? I am having trouble finding stuff to write about. I currently have:

Stalin's leadership- His good leadership in WWII allowed Russia to stop the German advance. He was a good negotiator. He was prepared for war with Germany before it broke out.

Allied Indecisiveness- Compared to Stalin, the allies were not interested in anything other than stopping Germany. Stalin was given plenty of room to grow and unite countries under the USSR.

I guess I could also talk about Russia helping out the communist party in China.

Does anyone know any other events in WWII that contributed towards the rise of communism? I'm kinda stuck and just a few more things for me to write about would be great. I'm not asking for you guys to do my homework, just to provide a few pointers, as I'm sure you guys had to do this too. Thanks. --Babij 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that Stalin "was prepared for war with Germany before it broke out". In fact, Russia was ill-prepared, thus leading to major Nazi advances early on. Only later was Stalin (or, more accurately, his generals) able to formulate a strategy to win. StuRat 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to think about your framing term, "rise." You can immediately split this into two wide areas. The first is the revolutions developed by nations in a post-colonial era and those that were imposed from outside. These are quite, quite different. The former might be aided by an existing "communist" power, but they are essentially homegrown. Secondly, you need to have a concrete and useful definition of "communism." Be aware that the term encompasses both a political and an economic system in a peculiar formation. If you have these distinctions in mind, you can see how you have "rise of Soviet sphere of influence post-war" and "rise of socialism as a form of economic and political system after the experience of late capitalism and colonialism." Geogre 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I can give you little detail on this, but I am suspicious that this might have something to do with China. Communists and Nationalists had been fighting for some time, and it may be possible that the War, and the Communist victory of Russia, gave an impetus to the Communist Chinese forces.

Other than that, I would like to point out the case of Yugoslavia. Josip "Tito" Broz was, AFAIK, an immensely popular anti-German resistance leader during the Nazi occupation. Without the war to establish a sense of popularity (is that correct Clio?) he may not have been able to establish a Communist government in Yugoslavia. It is an interesting point to note that the Yugoslav regime was the first non-Russian Communist country: the rest of Eastern Europe was behind the infamous Iron Curtain - which was not just communist, but effectively the USSR's Empire, if you wish to take that perspective on it.

You could, I suppose, argue that Stalin had a excellent reasons for making "colonies" of Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. The economy of Russia utterly obliterated, it provided a useful place to get reparations. Defence buffer against Germany? Quite possibly. Russia had been invaded twice by Germany. Or was it just sheer Russian imperialism - for example, you could question - why did Stalin have to spread Russian Communism, and not be happy with the independent Tito regime in Yugoslavia? But then that may be erring into the area of how did WW1 contribute to the establishment of the Iron Curtain, not quite the same as the spread of communism.

If your question concerns how much WW2 contributed, you could have a section on other causes of the spread of communism. For example, would Cuba ever have became communist without WW1? My first impression is yes, because its revolution took place many years after the end of WW1. An automatic consequence of the Cold War? If the USA was supported by capitalist Western Europe, it may have been natural for the USSR to acquire communist allies.

I would also like to point out a note of caution of using my terminology of Eastern Europe being Russian "colonies". That is open to debate, and people will argue, though preferably not here. This is how I see the Russian policy there, your teacher may see it differently. And thankyou for saying "Can you help me with..." and not simply posting an essay question here. A much appreciated and commendable attitude.martianlostinspace 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong.martianlostinspace 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad topic at all. I think you are right to think about both China and Eastern Europe as the two important bits here. WWII allowed Stalin to consolidate and expand his regime (you might look at Yalta Conference for thoughts as to why he was able to do that), and allowed enough destabilization in China for the Communists there to gain a footing and eventually (1949) overthrow the Nationalists. I would avoid counter-factual speculation ("What would have happened if X Y Z?") as it is impossible to prove, easy to go astray, and often useless even in the hands of very knowledgable people.

The one thing that comes to mind that you haven't noted is that there were a lot of people who basically saw the world as a spectrum between Communism and Fascism on account of Hitler's rise to power. As a consequence, many people believed that if you didn't have Communism, you essentially had Fascism, and as a consequence embraced Communism very strongly. This is true both in Europe and in the United States, though in the U.S. this sentiment dies down quite a bit after the war. But that's a much harder thing to gauge, so you might want to leave that aside.

Lastly, you might want to consider the effects of the atomic bomb. It often gets the credit for creating a Cold War rather than a hot one; there is also an argument that it allowed Stalin et al to consolidate and cement their power, since it set a very high threshold for war and thus allowed the Soviets to act with impugnity with covert activity (the US wasn't going to start a nuclear war over a little issue like trying to get Communists elected in Greece, were they?). Instead of being a useful bargaining chip, it was often a straightjacket — when one party is not willing to "leave the table" (here meaning start a nuclear war), then it reduces their bargaining power to almost nothing. --24.147.86.187 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, possibly, but not definitely, what else contributed.martianlostinspace 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, contrary to what you seem to think, the USSR was one of the allies.

Communism was on the rise before WWII began, as was fascism. Democracy was an experiment that people felt wasn't too much of a success. So they were looking for alternatives. Some wanted the strong leaders back (sound familiar on the modern political scenes?). But they didn't want royalty back (they had finally gotten rid of those egocentrists). So fascism rose. But another alternative had also been making inroads for about half a century was communism. In Germany, people were almost forced (by peer pressure) to choose between those two alternatives. I suppose that they realised communism was too far out, so fascism won (and not only in Germany). But after the war, the atrocities were blamed on fascism, so that alternative was out the window. Communism hadn't gained much appeal, despite the good work of the communist resistance. People were also beginning to hear stories about bad goings-on in the USSR and they blamed that on communism (which it wasn't - it was state socialism and it's not even true that that necessarily means death camps and such, but I'm talking about public perception). So of the four alternatives (royalty, democracy, fascism and communism), democracy all of a sudden looked like the best bet. So WWII didn't so much help in the rise of communism, but in the revival of democracy. And in an odd sort of way it also caused it. DirkvdM 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Babij. You have chosen a great subject for your essay, and I could offer you a guide to some practical reading, if you wish. You should not really have too much trouble in finding sufficient material to support your argument. All I would really seek to do here is to give you some general guidance, and perhaps shift your perspective ever so slightly.

First, I think it more accurate to say that the Second World War, and its immediate aftermath, created the conditions for the spread rather than the rise of Communism. Soviet Russia itself was created out of the First World War, and may conceivably have remained the only Communist power but for World War Two. Second, do not concentrate overmuch on personalities. Stalin's leadership, though undeniably important, was not necessarily among the most descisive factors; and the contention that he was ready for war with Germany in 1941 is quite wrong. Stalin's biggest mistake was to trust Hitler, ironic, when one considers that he trusted no-one else. For most of the war, moreover, he was, like the western allies, far more interested in the defeat of Germany than the promotion of Communism; he even went so far as to abolish the Communist International in 1943. Also, his policy in the 1920s actually impeded the advance of Communism, particularly in China. where the Communist Party was urged into co-operation with the Nationalists, which led to its near destruction in 1927. The ultra-left Third Period which followed was even more disastrous, leading to a serious underestimation of the Fascist danger in Germany and indirectly to the destruction of the KPD, the strongest Communist Party in Europe at the time.

So, the decisive factor in the spread of Communism, in the first place, to eastern Europe was the success of Russian armies against Germany, which saw the imposition of a Soviet-style system in various countries, and the descent of the Iron Curtain across the Continent, for reasons of Russian security, as much as anything else. The two exceptions to this process by 'external imposition' were Yugoslavia and Albania, where Communist resistance and a war of national liberation became one and the same thing; and yes, martianlostinspace, you are right about Tito. But there again, if it had not been for the presence of Soviet armies Tito might conceviably have been defeated by nationalist forces, supported by the western allies, much as the Communist party was defeated in the Greek Civil War. Elsewhere in Europe, outwith the sphere of Soviet influence, Communist parties associated with the Resistance made considerable advances in post-war elections, particularly in France and Italy, though further progress was hampered when they reached a ceiling of support. They could not take power in the kind of coup that came in Czechoslovakia in 1948 because they did not control the state security apparatus.

In the world at large, the war severly weakened the old colonial powers, leading to various national uprisings with Communist support. That in Vietnam succeeded under the Communists because Ho Chi Minh was able to unite all shades of national opinion in the struggle against the French; that in Malaya failed because the Malayan Races Liberation Army was dominated by the Chinese, and always appeared more foreign than national. Communist forces in Indonesia were eventually crushed by the nationalists, supported and aided by the United States.

China is an unusual case. Since the early 1930s the Communists under the leadership of Mao Zedong, had been involved in a civil war with the Nationalists, a period which saw the legendary Long March and the formation in the north of the country of the Chinese Soviet Republic. Although the Nationalist and Communists were 'at truce' after the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, both sides were more than ready to renew the struggle in 1945. Yes, Mao got some help from Stalin, but he seemed more interested in advancing his own position, taking more in the way of resources from Manchuria than he ever gave to the Chinese. This is a hugely contentious issue, but there is a strong argument that the Chinese Communists could have been defeated, much as they were in Indonesia, if the United States had give sufficient support to Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. But they did not, and China was 'lost' in 1949. Further Communist attempts to advance in Asia were defeated in the Korean War, and in Europe by the Berlin Airlift.

So, this only leaves Cuba, where what was a peasant war, and understood to be a peasant war by the United States and others, only saw the creation of a Communist state after victory under the leadership of Fidel Castro. The Revolution, in other words, was not lead by the Cuban Communist Party, nor did it have a specifically Communist programme, at least to begin with. Once again Communism fruited on the tree of war. Clio the Muse 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'communism' fruited on the tree of former oppressors, which led to uprisings at a time when communism was in fashion. Maybe it's a shame for the ideology, but indeed, all examples we have of rule by a communist party are the result of war. Which leads to war-like leaders, which would be enough to explain some things about their rule. Btw, the only example of real communism (not state socialism) that I know of, the Kibbutzim in Israel were also formed in a sate of war. Which is ironic because real communism is based on the assumption that everyone will be nice to each other (how else will they willingly share everything?).

Clio, you make it sound like Castro joined in a spontaneous uprising, but his 'invasion' of Cuba started it all. Or do you mean to say that an uprising was already 'in the air'?

About Vietnam, an interesting thing there is that Ho Chi Minh at first asked help from the US and had even based his new constitution on that of the US. Only when he didn't get help there did he turn elsewhere and the big neighbouring country was an obvious choice. Ironically, when that happened, the US did all of a sudden get interested in Vietnam and even as a result started aiding a colonial force (France).

I wonder now if a different attitude by the US might have affected the way state socialism developed. In Europe, socialism killed the communist revolution. In the Netherlands, for example, a left-wing uprising shortly after the Russian revolution of 1917 gave the right-wing government such a fright that they started taking all sorts of left-wing measures, just to appease the rebels. Maybe if the US had helped Ho Chi Minh, they could have 'softened' him. Talking is always better than fighting, not only for the killing, but also because it is not very likely to resolve an issue - it just aggravates it. But now I digress. :) DirkvdM 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was making about Castro, badly expressed perhaps, was that he only declared himself to be a Communist after the victory over Fulgencio Batista, and even then not immediately. He was not understood to be so when he visited the United States in 1960, and met Vice-President Richard Nixon. Clio the Muse 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not getting back sooner as I am in the middle of my midyear exams. I am extremely grateful for all of the help you guys gave me and now I feel like I actually have something to go on rather than before when I felt pretty much alone on this. I'll look into Tito, Cuba and all those other things you guys mentioned. With any luck I'll have a good essay by the end of this term :). Thanks once again for saving me.--Babij 21:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh provincial government?

Does Bangladesh have a provincial government like Canada does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

Although the article Politics of Bangladesh mentions subdivisions, I can find no evidence of federalism in this article, or devolved provincial governments. I assume that such administrations would exist, but they may be little more than administrative units of the central government, and not so much legislative or executive bodies.martianlostinspace 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh municipal government

Why Bangladesh allow its federal gov't political party to participate in municipality election and be elected as mayor of the town or city? in Canada, they don't have any politicians from the federal gov't political parties participating in their municipality election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

Why not? If what you say is true, then Canada is rather unusual. In the UK we certainly have candidates from all the major political parties (and many minor ones, and independent candidates) standing in our local elections. -- Arwel (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what they mean is that they don't have people at the state level running for posts at the city, etc. level, not that the parties don't field candidates for them. I KNOW all the Federal Canadian parties have provincial versions, or maybe that's what they mean, that there's no difference, it's all one party? 68.39.174.238 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify about Canada: the major federal parties do have separate counterparts in different; thus we have a Liberal Party of Canada, a Liberal Party of Ontario, a Liberal Party of Alberta, and so on, all separate organizations that consider each other as friends. In a federal or provincial election each of the major parties at that level will nominate one candidate in each riding. Municipal elections, however, are typically non-partisan. There is no "Liberal Party of Toronto" and there is no Liberal candidate for Mayor of Toronto or for Ward 1 Councillor of Toronto. There is no law prohibiting parties from running candidates in municipal elections: in the 1990s some candidates for Toronto city council did advertise a party affiliation (I assume with the provincial party). But the parties have not pressed to get involved in municipal elections, that's all.

Now, back to Bangladesh? --Anonymous in Toronto, July 23, 00:51 (UTC).

Left-wing

Which political ideologies are considered as left-wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, if you type "left wing" into the search box and click "Go", you will see the article Left-wing politics. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Left-wing politics has good information which should answer your question. DuncanHill 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

right-wing

Which political ideologies are considered as right-wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.222 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia, if you type "right wing" into the search box and click "Go", you will see the article Right-wing politics. -- Kainaw^(what?) 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some question about ethnic divisions in Europe

Hello,

- I was reading Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938), and I was surprised to read that between the world wars, Slovaks were not the second largest group! This is maybe a dumb question, but wasn't the name Czechoslovakia kinda weird then? (It's more like a Czechogermania....)

- I see that politicians in Sudetenland had ties with the Nazi party in Germany. But didn't these Germans consider themselves "Austrians" instead of "Germans"? (They had been living under Austro-Hungarian rule)

- I read in a Wikipedia article that there are some Macedonian minorities in the western part of Bulgaria. But how? I read that the Macedonian language and the Bulgarian language are very similar, that Macedonians even used to refer to themselves als Bulgarians, and that there were people between the two world wars who wanted to unite Macedonia and Bulgaria. So what makes someone in Bulgaria feel "Macedonian"? Different accent? Different religion?

- The media often talk about the Albanians and Serbians in Kosovo, but there are also Croats, Bosniaks,... in Kosovo. Do they feel connected to one of the two parties? I heard that Albanians (christians, muslims,..) all tend to be united by their common language, my guess is that the Croats would feel tempted to side with the Serbians in that case?

- A comfortable majority of the people in Switzerland speaks German. I know that the Nazi party considered Germanspeakingpeople in Yugoslavia, Austrians, Belgium, Poland, Czechslovakia... "Germans", whose land should be part of the Reich....but I never hear anything about their plans with those Swiss Germanspeaking people?

Thank you,Evilbu 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of stuff, here, Evilbu! I think I can maybe give you some partial answers.

On the German question, there had never been an Austrian state as such, more a collection of nationalities owing loyalty to the Habsburg crown. When the Empire disappeared in 1918-19 there was a significant body of opinion in the newly created Republic of Austria, including the Social Democrats, wanting union with Germany. This was specifically forbidden by the Versailles settlement. The Germans in Czechoslovakia also had an ethnic rather than a state identity, and that was with the larger German commonwealth. Initially the Germans in the new state settled down to rule from Prague, and were to be found supporting a whole variety of political parties. This changed in the late 1930s, when the Sudeten German Party, under the leadership of Konrad Henlein and Karl Hermann Frank, switched its loyalty away from Czechoslovakia.

I cannot comment on the Macedonian language issue, but on the general political question you have raised you might wish to consult Treaty of San Stefano, Greater Bulgaria and the Balkan Wars. On Kosovo I have no sources of information on other minorities besides the Serbs. Are they statistically significant? I suspect not.

On the Swiss issue if you ever read Goebbels' Diaries you will find a reference to Hitler as the 'Butcher of the Swiss', which might give some insight the Nazis had in store for that country. Here Goebbels is alluding to Charlemagne, who, as a consequence of his war of conquest in northern Germany, was known as the 'Butcher of the Saxons.' Clio the Muse 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Hitler's plans for Switzerland, see also Switzerland during the World Wars#World War II and Operation Tannenbaum about the planned invasion of Switzerland, although both articles are pretty poor. My non-expert impression is that Hitler intended to invade Switzerland and annex at least the German-speaking part of it at some point. Luckily for Switzerland, it was never a high-priority issue. Sandstein 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Croats in Kosovo question, I'm going primarily on my experience with friends and relatives of various south-Slavic identities, and based on that, the Croats would never side with the Serbs (while the common belief is that the Serb-Croat split is based on religion, my gut tells me that the Serbs and Croats chose different sides of the Orthodox-Catholic divide because of their mutual antipathy, not the other way around). Donald Hosek 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first question, you might want to read the article on Pan-Germanism. After World War I, the Sudeten Germans expected to join with the new republic of Austria in a country to be called "German-Austria," made up of the German parts of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. That idea faded away when the victorious Allies awarded all of the Czech lands to Czechoslovakia. A simultaneous current of opinion after WWI called for the merger (or Anschluss) of the new Austrian Republic with Germany. This too was ruled out by the Allies, but Hitler took up the cause 20 years later. So most of the Sudeten Germans turned to Berlin, which annexed Austria shorty after the Munich treaty. It wasn't a matter of the Sudeten Germans favoring Germany over Austria -- it was a matter of them favoring a super-Germany that was gobbling up all the German-speaking lands except Switzerland. -- Mwalcoff 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff, I assume by Munich treaty you mean the Munich Agreement, which detached the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia? If so, you should note that this came in September 1938, whereas the Anschluss took place in March. Clio the Muse 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... a silly typo. -- Mwalcoff 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]